Q&A: Archaeology
Archaeology
Question
Rabbi, hello. I’m 16 years old, studying in a yeshiva high school, and I’m a nice mitzvah-observant kid. I’ll try to explain my difficulty. Recently I wandered around the internet a bit and saw some articles and videos saying that the Exodus from Egypt never happened at all. There are of course other difficulties about the conquest of the land and so on, but I think that bothers me less.
There is no evidence at all that Israel was in Egypt / left it / defeated it / or did anything there. And the Egyptians are known as the people who documented the most! I asked the rabbi at my yeshiva about this, and he answered me with demagoguery.
I’d be happy if you could explain to me why archaeological finds aren’t necessary, or why they don’t have such a strong connection. Thanks,
Liran
Answer
Hello Liran, nice mitzvah-observant kid (I liked that definition).
One has to distinguish between saying that archaeology doesn’t matter and saying that facts don’t matter. It’s true that archaeology is limited, since we only know about what we have found. There is no way to know whether what we haven’t found doesn’t exist, or whether we simply haven’t found it. That depends on luck (what exactly was documented in the past, where exactly we dug, whether we deciphered and interpreted the findings correctly, etc.). But in principle it is not correct to ignore facts.
As for the Exodus from Egypt, I’m not sure there are no findings, and I’m even less sure that the fact that there is no testimony about it means it never happened. Not finding something does not necessarily mean much, as I explained. Beyond that, there are findings that do point in that direction, except that they are open to interpretation. In general, interpretation of archaeological findings depends on worldviews and assumptions (this is far from an exact science), especially in the Holy Land, where every person has a defined religious position that strongly affects how he relates to the findings. There are archaeologists and historians who will not accept any finding that supports the traditional position, no matter how strong it is. On the other hand, there are those who will accept support for tradition even where it is not necessary. In general, my understanding is that among archaeologists and historians abroad you can find far more supporters of the traditional position than in Israel.
All of these are general remarks. As for the specifics, I suggest that you ask people who are more expert in this than I am. I don’t deal with these topics precisely because my trust in these research tools is very limited, and therefore I don’t see them as very important. But there are people who do deal with all this and can explain to you the archaeological basis for the traditional position.
Send me an email and I can refer you. In the meantime, there is a fairly detailed discussion about this here on the site, here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94-2/
Discussion on Answer
That’s a common mistake. If there are no clear proofs, there is no basis for choice. It’s just a lottery. Choice exists only because there is evidence, and now the choice is whether to do what is true or to follow inclination.
Even the generation that left Egypt still had free choice, as described in the Torah again and again. Maybe they too didn’t have clear proofs of the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt…
There was a post here not long ago by someone who seemed to be an “expert” in the field, his name starts with M.
He dealt with this subject a lot and even wrote an article and published part of it here. You could talk with him.
As far as I know, some of those videos you saw are taken from the book of I. Finkelstein. His book is based on older data, not on the new discoveries and newer data that have come out.
Nowadays one hears a claim that has a very strong basis regarding the early settlement of the Jewish people, and it is quite likely that the Jewish people came from outside, across the Jordan, toward the conquest of the hill country. Some say the evidence even indicates that the early nation came from the direction of Egypt (because of the jewelry that was found, the forms of construction if I remember correctly, and so on).
As far as I know, a new association was recently established called the Yedaya Institute, which deals with a systematic and thorough clarification of questions of faith. Some of the people in the association work in archaeology professionally (for example Dr. Yitzhak Meitlis and others). True, they haven’t yet published articles for the public. But you can ask them through the “Contact Us” page; they answer very kindly in private. So I would warmly recommend speaking with them. Some of them there are really deeply knowledgeable about the topics you raised. http://www.yedahaya.com/צור-קשר
Also, I would suggest that you watch a video by Prof. Adam Zertal. He was considered one of the senior researchers in the country and passed away not long ago. In that video he presents the evidence for his approach, which argues for an external entry of the Jewish people into the land from the Jordan. And at the beginning of the video he presents the reception he got from certain researchers with interests of their own. So in any case, in my opinion it would be worthwhile for you to investigate with the Yedaya Institute.
To dear L. — hello,
Please look at the posts: “Verification of the Exodus from Egypt — the Torah as a Historical Document”; “Verification of the Exodus from Egypt — in General History”; “The Egyptian Background Described in the Torah”; “Joseph in Egypt and the Bondage — Historical Echoes.” And last but not least — “Testimonies from the Time of the Exodus from Egypt”…, where archaeological findings are also brought that are consistent with the story of the Exodus from Egypt — on the website “Ratio — Faith, Science, Research.”
Best regards,
S.Z. Levinger
It is also worth looking at an article by a nice secular fellow, the jurist Prof. Daniel Friedman, “And You Shall Remember That You Were a Slave in the Land of Egypt,” which points to the uniqueness of biblical historiography, the only one in the ancient world that also tells facts that do not glorify its heroes. Only the Bible is willing to tell of the nation’s dishonorable origin from slaves and to tell of the failures of its heroes.
On the problematic nature of drawing conclusions from the archaeological findings in Egypt, both because of the scarcity of the material and because of dating problems, see the posts: “Do We Really Know Everything About Egypt?” and “Egyptian Dating,” also on the above-mentioned “Ratio” site.
Best regards,
S.Z. Levinger
A substantial part of M’s article is brought in the discussion on “Dating the Exodus from Egypt” on this site!
Best regards,
The above-mentioned S.Z.L.
I’ll remain with my mistake. As far as I’m concerned, God appears in historical revelation (“a great voice and it did not cease,” as Rashi explains in his two interpretations), and I do not need empirical proof. One could say that empirical proof is equivalent to giving Him concrete form, as Maimonides argues in the doctrine of negative attributes.
By the way, the Rabbi himself argued in several answers that God stopped intervening in reality in order to leave room for man’s free choice. And that claim is not so far from what I’m saying.
With God’s help, the 39th day of the Omer, 5778
Y.D., hello,
The strongest proof is the testimony of the witnesses who saw and transmitted it to their children, and their children to their children. How can one implant a story that never happened in the heart of a people that is opinionated and critical, and that for that very reason was politically divided through almost its entire history, and later scattered and dispersed?
How can all the factions be unified into believing a fabricated story — and a story that proposes a dishonorable origin of a nation of slaves? And on the strength of this origin to impose upon that nation the burden of 613 commandments? After all, any reasonable person in antiquity would revolt against attributing his family line to the seed of slaves. And from here there is conclusive proof of the truth of the story.
Best regards,
S.Z. Levinger
And see in the posts I mentioned above (on the site “Ratio — Research, Science, and Faith”) that traces of the events of the Exodus from Egypt are preserved also in the archaeological and historical findings. Although by their very nature these events concern slaves on the farthest margins of Egyptian society, and are embarrassing to Egyptian historians, traces and mentions have nevertheless been found.
I don’t agree, S.Z.L. Tradition is not proof of anything. Tradition can only be a platform for revelation, but it cannot prove it. Revelation has to persuade here and now or not persuade at all — either by logical proofs in Rabbi Michi’s approach, or by an intuitive faith in the truth of the tradition.
(And see the story “The Wise Man and the Simpleton” by Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, which explains the matter well.)
Indeed, there is a difference in the telling of the Exodus from Egypt between the wise son and the simple son. In the telling to the simple son, they emphasize the events of the past: “With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt…” (Exodus 13:14-15).
By contrast, in the telling to the wise son, not only the events of the past are emphasized, but also the future purpose of the Exodus from Egypt: “And He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land that He swore to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, to preserve us alive, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 6:23-25).
The Exodus from Egypt, in the understanding of the wise son, is not just an event that happened in the past, but paving the way for every generation to free itself from the physical and spiritual bondage to the ‘Pharaoh and Egypt’ of every generation, and to accept upon ourselves the kingship of God, both out of awe and out of a connection of love and vitality — “for our good all our lives, to preserve us alive, as it is this day.”
Best regards,
S.Z. Levinger
Hello S.Z. Levinger, I sent them a question under one of the articles you mentioned. Thanks 🙂
And thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I’ll still watch the video of Prof. Adam Zertal.
A methodological discussion can be found by the interested reader in the article by Rabbi Ze’ev Sultanovich, “The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as a Historical Source,” on the Yeshiva website.
The problem of lack of archaeological findings weighs not only on the presence of the Jewish people in Egypt, but on entire periods in Egyptian and Babylonian history for which there is no documentation on the ground. A solution was proposed by the researchers Daniel Moshe Levy and Yosef Rothstein. Through critical analysis of the chronicles of Manetho, on which the accepted dating is based, Levy and Rothstein concluded that different chronicles were edited together for Manetho, and therefore some of the “dynasties” are duplications of other dynasties. Their method was summarized in their article “The Bible versus Archaeology — Tradition versus Science” (on the Da’at website) and in their book Bible versus Archaeology. (A summary of the method appears in David Kleiner’s article, “The Exodus from Egypt in Light of Archaeology,” on the Hidabroot website.)
For a response to other arguments of Bible-deniers, see the articles of Prof. Yoel Elitzur, “Fashions in the Study of the History of Israel,” and Aryeh Bornstein, “Have the Paths of Archaeology and the Sources of the Hebrew Bible Parted Ways?” — both on the Da’at website of Herzog College.
Best regards,
S.Z. Levinger
Y.D.,
If you want to remain in error, who am I to stop you. You can also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell or Aladdin’s genie, since as is well known none of these require empirical or any other evidence. There is of course not the slightest connection to the doctrine of negative attributes (which itself is very problematic, of course). A proof for the existence of God is not a description of Him and does not require a description of Him.
I also never claimed anywhere that He stopped intervening in order to enable us to choose. I do not know why He stopped intervening, but I raised a possible hypothesis that He wants to let us conduct ourselves in the world on our own (and not in order to choose whether to believe in Him). It is as far from your words as east is from west.
Long live the small difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell or Aladdin’s genie were not revealed. The Master of the Universe, by contrast, was revealed through the Torah and through Israel. You’ll say: but that doesn’t mean there is someone behind those revelations. I’ll answer: by the same token there is no one behind the screen name Michi. But just as I assume that you stand behind the screen name Michi, I assume that the Master of the Universe stands behind the Torah and behind Israel. As I wrote, it’s a kind of intuitive faith that I received from my parents (and here S.Z.L., this is not a proof but a phenomenology of revelation — revelation is received in tradition from one’s parents). Luckily for me, Rabbi Michael Abraham once confirmed to me that this too is called faith, so I am still within the community of believing Israel.
In my view, Maimonides’ doctrine of negative attributes is meant to point to God’s freedom. You cannot grasp Him through any attribute, and therefore you cannot manipulate Him in one way or another. As a result, God’s will is moral, because it is not influenced by any external constraint. I agree that existence is not a description of Him, but there still remains the feeling (for me at least) as if I have some hold on Him, and that is the source of my discomfort. It also seems to me that the remark is problematic because it can be interpreted as conceiving of God as a concept, as someone suggested here, or as some extract of religious life while you are an atheist. That is not my intention, and I am of course not claiming that.
Just as the Rabbi raised the hypothesis about intervention nowadays, I too raise it historically regarding the Exodus from Egypt. I do not have a good technical answer to the question of the Exodus from Egypt any more than the people here on the site do. So I do not see what is worse about my suggestion than the Rabbi’s suggestion to explain why God does not reveal Himself here in the world nowadays.
Now I’m really confused already (or you’re the one who got confused). If He was revealed, then that is empirical evidence of His existence. The question is whether He was in fact revealed or not, and that is certainly something open to discussion.
Hello Rabbi Michi, you said you could refer me to the traditional position as against the archaeological one — what’s the email?
I wonder whether human beings would still have free choice if there were clear proofs of the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt.