Archaeology
Rabbi Shalom Rabbi. I am 16 years old, studying in a high school yeshiva and a good observant of mitzvot. I will try to explain my difficulty. Recently I was wandering around the Internet and saw some articles and videos that say that the Exodus from Egypt did not happen and was not created. There are of course other difficulties in the conquest of the land, etc. I think that this bothers me less.
There is no evidence that Israel was in Egypt/left it/defeated it/or did anything there. And the Egyptians are known as the people who document the most! I asked the yeshiva rabbi about it and he answered me with demagogy.
I would be happy if you could clarify for me why archaeological findings are not necessary or do not have such a strong connection. Thank you,
Liran
Hello Liran, the lovely Mitzvah keeper (I liked the definition).
We need to distinguish between the statement that archaeology doesn’t matter and the statement that facts don’t matter. It’s true that archaeology is limited, because we only know what we’ve found. There’s no way to know whether what we haven’t found doesn’t exist or whether we just didn’t find it. It depends on luck (what exactly was documented in the past, where exactly did we dig, whether we deciphered and interpreted the findings correctly, etc.). But in principle, it’s wrong to ignore facts.
Regarding the Exodus from Egypt, I am not sure that there are no findings, and even less sure that the fact that there is no evidence for it means that it did not exist. The fact that they did not find it does not necessarily mean anything, as I explained. Beyond that, there are findings that do indicate this, but they are subject to interpretation. In general, the interpretation of archaeological findings depends on worldviews and basic assumptions (it is far from an exact science), and especially in the Holy Land, where every person has a defined religious position that greatly influences their attitude towards the findings. There are archaeologists and historians who will not accept any finding that supports the traditional position, no matter how strong it may be. On the other hand, there are those who will actually accept support for tradition even where it is not necessary. In general, I understood that among archaeologists and historians abroad you will find many more supporters of the traditional position than in Israel.
These are all general comments. As for the substance of things, I suggest you ask people who are more knowledgeable about this than I am. I don’t deal with these issues precisely because my confidence in these research tools is very limited and therefore I don’t see them as very important. But there are those who deal with all this and will be able to explain to you the archaeological basis for the traditional position.
Send me an email and I can direct you. In the meantime, there is a pretty detailed discussion on the subject here on the site, here:
I wonder if free choice would have remained for man if there had been clear evidence of the miracles of the Exodus.
This is a common mistake. If there is no clear evidence, there is no basis for choice. It is just a lottery. The choice is only because there is evidence, and now there is a choice whether to do the truth or follow the instinct.
The generation that left Egypt also had free choice, as described in the Torah time and time again. Perhaps they too did not have clear evidence of the miracles of the Exodus.
There was a message here recently from someone who seems to be an ”expert” in the field, his name is M,
He has dealt with this subject extensively and even wrote an article and published his part here. You can talk to him.
As far as I know, some of these videos you saw are taken from Y’ Finkelstein's book. His book is based on old data from the discoveries and new data that have come out.
Nowadays, there is a claim that has a very strong basis regarding the ancient settlement (of the Yiddaiah people) and it is likely that the Yiddaiah people arrived outside, across the Jordan towards the conquest of the mountain. Some say that the evidence even indicates that the ancient nation arrived from Egypt (following the jewelry found, the forms of construction, I think, and more. ).
As I know, a new association called the “Yedaiah Institute” was recently established, which deals with systematic and thorough clarification of questions of faith. Some of the association's members are engaged in the field of archaeology as their profession (for example, Dr. Yitzhak Maitlis and others.) Although they have not yet published articles for the public. But you can ask them on the "Contact" page, they answer very politely and very privately. So I would highly recommend that you talk to them, some of them there are really knowledgeable about the issues you raised. http://www.yedahaya.com/contact
I would also suggest that you watch a video by Prof. Adam Zertal. He is considered one of the most senior researchers in Israel and passed away not long ago. In the video, he presents the evidence for his method, which claims that an external people entered the country from Jordan. And at the beginning of the video, he presents the reference he received from certain researchers with vested interests. So in any case, in my opinion, it is appropriate for you to inquire at the Yedia Institute.
L’ Hahabib – Hello,
Please see the posts: ‘Verification of the Exodus – The Torah as a Historical Document’; ‘Verification of the Exodus – in General History’; ‘The Egyptian Background Described in the Torah’, ‘Joseph in Egypt and the Enslavement – Historical Echoes’. And last but not least – ”Testimonies from the Time of the Exodus’.., where archaeological findings are also presented that are consistent with the story of the Exodus. – On the ‘Ratio – Faith Science Research’
Best regards, Schutz Levinger
It is also worth reading the article by a lovable secularist, jurist Prof. Daniel Friedman, ‘And you remembered that you were a slave in the land of Egypt’, which emphasizes the uniqueness of biblical historiography, which is the only one in the ancient world that also recounts facts that do not glorify its heroes. Only the Bible is willing to tell about the people's undignified origin from slaves and to tell about the failures of its heroes.
On the problematic nature of drawing conclusions from archaeological finds in Egypt, both due to the paucity of material and due to problems in dating – see the posts: ‘Do we really know everything about Egypt?’ and ‘Egyptian dating’, also on the ‘Ratio’ website The above.
Best regards, Shatz Levinger
A significant portion of M's article is included in the discussion on the "dating of the Exodus" on this site!
Best regards, Shchel
I will remain in error. As far as I am concerned, God appears in historical revelation (a loud voice and not a single word, as Rashi explains in both excuses) and I do not need empirical proof. One could say that empirical proof is equivalent to its fulfillment, as Maimonides claims in the doctrine of negative adjectives.
By the way, the Rabbi himself claimed in several responsa that God stopped intervening in reality to make room for man's free choice. And this claim is not so far from what I said.
On the occasion of Tel Omer,
His Excellency,
The strongest evidence is the testimony of the witnesses who saw and passed it on to their sons and their sons to their sons. How can one implant a story that was not in the heart of a people of conscience and criticism, which, among other things, was politically divided and then scattered and divided almost throughout its history?
How can one unite all the factions to believe in a fabricated story, and another story that suggests an honorable origin of a people of slaves? And by virtue of this origin, impose on that people the burden of thirteen commandments? After all, any reasonable person in ancient times would rebel against the descent of his family from the seed of slaves. Hence, conclusive proof of the truth of the story.
Best regards, Sch”Löwinger
And see in the posts I mentioned above (on the website ‘Ratio – Science and Faith Research’), that even in the archaeological and historical findings, traces of the events of the Exodus from Egypt are preserved. Although by the very nature of the events, they concern slaves on the margins of Egyptian society, and embarrass the Egyptian historians – nevertheless, traces and references have been found.
I don't agree with Ch”l. Tradition is not proof of anything. Tradition can only be a platform for revelation but it cannot prove it. Revelation must convince here and now or not convince at all, either by logical proofs according to the way of Rabbi Michi or by intuitive faith in the righteousness of tradition.
(And see the wise and innocent story of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov which explains the matter well).
Indeed, there is a difference in the story of the Exodus between the sage and the prophet. The prophet's story emphasizes past events: "With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. But when Pharaoh was determined to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 13:14-15).
In contrast, the story of the sage emphasizes not only past events, but also the future purpose of the Exodus: "And he brought us out from there 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 all the days of our lives, as it is today" (Deuteronomy 6:23-25).
The Exodus from Egypt, in the understanding of the sage, is not just an event that happened in the past, but rather the paving of the way for each and every generation to be freed from physical and spiritual slavery, to Pharaoh and Egypt, in every generation, and to receive the kingdom of God upon us, both out of fear and out of a connection of love and life. It is good for us all our lives to live as we do today.
With best wishes, Sh”t Levinger
Hello Shatz Levinger, I sent them a question under one of the articles you mentioned. Thanks (:
And thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I will watch Prof. Adam Zertal's video again.
A methodological discussion can be found in Rabbi Zeev Sultanovich's article, "The Bible as a Historical Source," on the Yeshiva website.
The problem of the lack of archaeological finds lies not only in the presence of the Jewish people in Egypt, but also in entire periods in Egyptian and Babylonian history that have no documentation in the field. Researchers Daniel Moshe Levy and Yosef Rothstein offered a solution. By critically analyzing the Manthon Chronicles, on which the accepted dating is based, Levy and Rothstein concluded that different chronicles were compiled for Manthon 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 ‘Daat’ website) and in their book ‘Bible versus Archaeology’. (The essence of the method, in David Kleiner's article, ‘Exodus from Egypt in the Light of Archaeology’, on the ‘Dialogue’ website)
For a response to other arguments of Bible deniers, see the articles by Prof. ’ Yoel Elitzur, On Fashions in the Study of Israel's History’, and by Aryeh Bornstein, ‘Have the Paths of Archaeology and Biblical Sources Parted?’ both on the ‘Daat’ website of ‘Herzog College’.
Best regards, Shatz Levinger
Y”D,
If you want to remain in error, who am I to stop you? You can also believe in the Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell or Aladdin's genie, because as we know, none of these require empirical or other evidence. There is absolutely no connection to the theory of negative adjectives, of course (which itself is very problematic, of course). Proof of God's existence is not a description of Him and does not need a description of Him.
Nor did I claim anywhere that He stopped intervening to allow us to choose. I don't know why He stopped intervening, but I raised a possible hypothesis that He wants to let us navigate the world alone (and not to choose whether to believe in Him). As far from your words as the East is from the West.
Long live the small difference. The Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell or the genie from Aladdin were not revealed. On the other hand, the Lord of the Universe was revealed through the Torah and through Israel. You will say: But that does not mean that there is someone behind these revelations. I will answer: To the same extent, there is no one behind the Nik Mikhi. But just as I assume that His Majesty stands behind the Nik Mikhi, I assume that the Lord of the Universe stands behind the Torah and behind Israel. As I wrote, a kind of intuitive faith that I received from my parents (and here, this is not proof but a phenomenology of revelation - revelation is traditionally received from parents). Fortunately, Rabbi Michael Avraham confirmed to me at the time that this is also called faith, and therefore I am still among the believers of Israel.
To my mind, the Maimonides' doctrine of negative adjectives comes to indicate the freedom of God. You cannot grasp it by any title and therefore you cannot manipulate it in one way or another. As a result, God's will is moral because it is not influenced by external constraints. I agree that existence is not a description of it, but the feeling (at least mine) remains as if I have a grip on it, hence my reluctance. I also think that the comment is problematic because it can be interpreted as a perception of God as a concept, as someone suggested here, or as some kind of summary for maintaining a religious life while you are an atheist. This is not my intention and I of course do not claim it.
Just as the rabbi raised the hypothesis about intervention today, I also raise it historically about the Exodus. I do not have a better technical answer to the question of the Exodus than the guys here on the site are raising. Therefore, I do not see what is wrong with my proposal any more than the rabbi's proposal to explain why God does not reveal himself here in the world today.
Now I'm really confused (or you are). If it was discovered, then that's empirical evidence for its existence. The question is whether it was actually discovered or not, and that's certainly debatable.
Hello Rabbi Michi, you said you could refer me to the traditional position versus the archaeological one, what is the email?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
