Exodus in archaeology
Peace to the esteemed Rabbi. Doesn’t the Rabbi find it troubling that no archaeological-historical basis has been found for the Exodus from Egypt, while given the magnitude of the event, it would have been appropriate to find many echoes of it in various fields of science, as is found in events from that period?
It doesn’t really bother me, as I’m not sure how much archaeological evidence there needs to be (historical evidence perhaps more so). It should be remembered that it is not certain that the biblical description is factual. It is certainly possible that the events were less dramatic than described in Scripture.
But it’s better to ask people who are knowledgeable in archaeology or history (not my fields). I know there are claims about evidence (like the Ipobar Papyrus, etc.), but as mentioned, I’m not knowledgeable in this.
There is an interesting article about the history of the Exodus on the Mida website:
http://mida.org.il/2015/04/02/%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/
I am not a rabbi. But I know Egyptian history well (as a hobby) so I will answer briefly. The problem is not with the findings or the evidence but with the interpretation given to them.
First, regarding extra-biblical evidence –
There are significant periods in Egyptian history (such as the Hyksos) from which almost no material findings remain and the Egyptians tried to hide them, but we assume their existence with high probability due to a simple reason – Later history books document their existence based on ancient material that was lost. The Israeli story of the creation of Egypt is in a similar situation, all later history books of Egypt (such as Manton's Egyptology) document its existence (albeit in a different version). So why are they not trusted? Later.
Regarding dry archaeological findings –
Although ‘we did not see’ It is not evidence and we can only be satisfied with what I mentioned above, but the statement that there are no findings at all for the biblical story is not accurate, there are such and such findings but they are not unambiguously significant. For example, there is documentation of Asian slaves in Egypt during the New Kingdom who were close to the government in the past, there are findings about the entry of elements and conquest from the east in the country at the beginning of the Iron Age, about the construction of Para-Atum and Para-Ramesses, about the anger of the Egyptians against the Israelites during the 19th dynasty (of the son of Ramses II) over slaves in the eastern Delta region and so on and so forth.
If everything is well and good then why is the story not agreed upon? Simply, researchers interpret the findings and evidence in different ways. The field of archaeology in the Land of Israel is full of politics and pre-made interpretations of the findings. Thus the Afiru/Abiru become a tribe that wandered throughout the Middle East and not the Israelites, thus the evidence of Joshua's conquests becomes an event of tribal migration throughout the land and the Egyptian documentation becomes unreliable (although in other areas its principles are accepted), the altar of Zertal becomes a Canaanite altar, etc. The short list I have provided here makes it clear, in my opinion, that the problem is not the findings but the pure interpretation. It must be said, indeed there is no agreed documentation of natural disasters in Egypt during this period (to my knowledge) or of the parting of the Red Sea or the massive escape of slaves (there is documentation of small groups), but it is not clear what archaeological findings we would like to find from these events (chariots at sea and a decrease in the amount of construction?) or what is the Egyptian interest in documenting them in contrast to many events that they chose to sweep under the carpet (Hyksos and more).
Following arguments such as those I have presented, additional claims such as evidence showing the deep familiarity of the writer of the Torah with the unique reality in Egypt during the New Kingdom and the strength of the ethos in the people of Israel (appears in the 2 kingdoms and in all the “documents” that, according to scholars, make up the Torah), many scholars accept that there is some historical basis for the ethos of slavery, but they disagree about its size (600,000) and its compatibility with the story of the Torah. Among these scholars can be found such as Professors Mazar, Zertel, Konohol, Dr. Maitlis, and others, each with their own level of acceptance.
See more in Rabbi Bezek's book Ad Yad Hez, on Wikipedia about the findings of the Shonham and the interpretations given to them and here:
http://mida.org.il/2015/04/02/מי-מפחד-מהטנך-האמ-חיתה-יציאת-מצרים/
(I have deliberately chosen to ignore all sorts of findings that are brought by the organizations of reversion to Judaism, such as the Papyrus Ipver and the Wilkosewski studies, since their certain attribution to the relevant period is considered by most researchers to be pseudoscience or not sufficiently based and I do not know how to show the opposite. Otherwise, they would also be discussed to strengthen the points).
There is a similar question with more content on the same subject. See link:
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/
Check out a good summary lecture on the subject here:
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
