Sure, many historical events, that we know of rely on one source only. Two different sources are pretty much a confirmation of an event, but I don´t think that we can reasonably expect any more written sources about nomads over three thousand years ago. I have heard something similar from Hoffmeier contra Finkelstein, that the account presented was way too detailed in terms of geography of ancient cities as well as even mentioning the names of some local forts and their relative location, to be a merely fancyful but ultimately fictional origin story.
1 Like
Thanks, Dominik. Sure…and as someone who grew up backpacking, I know that if you have to go a long distance on foot, you tend to travel light. I have talked to people in my area of the world whose ancestors were present for a rather notable regional fire — and they still have stories they pass down to their kids about their great-grandparents’ experiences of it. This is not a 3,000-year-old fire, of course. But still a subject of local interest…and one the families tell to their children because of the impression that the actual event made upon them. How much more an escape (or deliverance) from slavery???
. While doing family history (partly to see what “historical research” is like, I discovered – coincidentally – that a really distant family story was also known by 20th cousins (or maybe 21st cousins — after awhile, who’s counting?). Not a 3,000-year-old tale accompanied by seas parting, pillars of fire, clay tablets with commands from on high for annual observances or the like — yet remembered and repeated…Just amazing to me that something like that continued to be told. (along with a few things less likely to be accurate!!)
Anyway, I think the story of the Exodus – like many other biblical tales – is something that probably will have enough validation for some, never enough for others. But thanks for the thoughts…
1 Like
Alexandru
I think perhaps the most significant part of your initial question is “ … HOW can we know that for sure?” So many of the discussions on this forum seem up against the challenges of Epistemology: (How do we know what we know, and what are the reasons we trust what we trust to help us think we know what we think we know?).
Appropriate extensions of your questions might be: What should be admitted as evidence of historical events and persons? What criteria should we use to evaluate different type of evidence? And perhaps most importantly: What are our presuppositions (or even prejudices) that will no doubt influence our conclusions? The different ways that assorted types of scholars answer these methodological questions determine to a large extent conclusions they make concerning the historicity of particular biblical events or persons. There is even controversy about how to define concept of history itself.
In telling “history” (no less than in the experiments of the natural sciences), conclusions about the explanatory power of a particular hypothesis, or theory or “truth claim” are based on the observation and evaluation evidence. However unlike the natural sciences it is simply not possible to conduct “repeatable experiments”. There is no experiment that can be done in the present to “prove” that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or that Socrates, Lao –Tzu, Jesus or Moses ever existed in the past. And it seems a bit of a fad lately to challenge the very of existence of such historical figures.
On the other hand perhaps by combining the raw data in various fresh ways and by weighing differently the significance of various interrelated factors it may be possible to gain a better understanding (guess?) of what might have happened.
In the absence of repeatable experiments all that historians & archeologists etc. can do is evaluate and re-evaluate artifacts (including texts like the bible ) that appear relevant with hopes of discerning/declaring where any particular claim for historicity fits within the range of possibilities from >unlikely?-to-possible?-to-plausible?-to-probable?-to-most likely?<. Where any claim fits along that continuum is apt to vary from historian to historian depending on their particular method of evaluating the significance of the different types of data. Historians seem to be continually moving things up and down that scale.
Baruch Halpern, speaking to the University of California San Diego Conference on “Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination” (which brought together more than 40 of the world’s leading archaeologists, Biblical scholars, Egyptologists, historians and geo-scientists.) said:
“Even on workaday subjects responsible scholars can have bizarre opinions, that is the history of our field.” If scholars say this about themselves it should be a clue to us non-professionals that we ought to take much scholarly opinion with a couple grains of salt.
(there are 40 some lectures from that conference on line: www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/out-of-egypt-israels-exodus-between-text-and-memory-history-and-imagination/ If you watch even a few of these videos you will soon observe how much divergence there is among professional scholars not only about which explanations are most valid but about HOW to assess and adjudicate the different types of evidence and the increasingly numerous and diverse theories about the past.
As Robin noted above “…the story of the Exodus – like many other biblical tales – is something that probably will have enough validation for some, never enough for others.”
2 Books I found particular helpful
-
On the (developing demise? of) the JEPD+ (Documentary Hypothesis) I found “From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch” by T. Desmond Alexander helpful and
-
On the general challenge of historicity and the Bible I highly recommend “The Art of Biblical History” by V. Philips Long.
Comment on a deeper question implied in your initial post about how important the concept of history (esp. OT history) is to Christian theology, spirituality, and discipleship will have to wait for another opportunity
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.