One of the linchpins to the claim that the Bible is a false account of ancient history is that there is supposedly no evidence in Egypt regarding the major events in the Book of Exodus.
The way this flawed conclusion was arrived at is almost comical.
Information drawn from this lecture by Miles R Jones:
So the main idea is basically this:
- Mainstream historians place the accounts of the Exodus with the rule of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses,
- There is no evidence of an Exodus-type event during the reign of Ramesses, ...
- Therefore the Exodus did not happen.
Firstly, this thinking is based on this passage from the book of Exodus:
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. - Exodus 1:8-11
This is an anachronism. A good example provided is when a person might say "Around 50 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the English Channel to invade Britain." .... There was no England in 50 BC, and therefore no "English Channel" to speak of, but the speaker is simply using more current terminology so everyone understands what body of water is being referenced.
So the Bible is simply referring to an Egyptian treasure city that, at the time of writing the Exodus, had become known as belonging to the Pharaoh Ramesses. That does not mean that it would have been called by that name at the actual time of the Exodus.
But historians are happy to connect Exodus with Ramesses, because it gives them their desired conclusion of disproving the Exodus. That should surprise no one.
Secondly is the mistaken identification of the Egyptian king Shoshenq as the Biblical king Shishak.
So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made. - 2 Chronicles 12:9 (also mentioned in 1 Kings 14:25)
Though Egypt was indeed launching later military campaigns into Canaan/Israel, there is no evidence that Shishak is the same Egyptian king as Shoshenq, other than the names sound similar. (In reality, they were two different kings of Egypt, separated by over a century, that launched two different military campaigns into Canaan/Israel.)
So then, researchers commit to the false equation of the Egyptian king Shoshenq with the Biblical mention of Shishak. By using conventional Egyptian dating of Shoshenq and counting back in the list of Egyptian kings, this in turn reinforces the connection back to Ramesses, where researchers want to place the accounts of the Exodus.
Unsurprisingly, mainstream history/archeology is quite happy to place the Exodus at the time of Ramesses, because there is no evidence of an Exodus at this period. They are not interested in considering other times in Egypt's history where there is evidence of an Exodus-style event. (see the Ipuwer Papyrus for an example)
Got that? The biblical accounts of the Exodus must only reference a point in Egypt's history where there is *no* evidence for it. This is the basic thinking of mainstream history & archaeology. And, sadly, it should surprise no one....
So... then this flawed Exodus-Ramesses fixture is used as a springboard to debunk other accounts in the Bible. For example, since there is no evidence of a large-scale military conquest in Canaan around this time, (claimed by the Bible to follow 40 years after the Exodus from Egypt) therefore events like the destruction of Jericho in the Book of Joshua must all be a myth as well! This is the basic quality of our academic institutions' treatment of Biblical history.
So, when you hear claims that the Old Testament has been "debunked"... this is usually the quality of research they are drawing from. Every time you read in Wikipedia that "most scholars agree biblical account X has no historical basis"... this is the quality of research it is usually based on.
The way this flawed conclusion was arrived at is almost comical.
Information drawn from this lecture by Miles R Jones:
So the main idea is basically this:
- Mainstream historians place the accounts of the Exodus with the rule of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses,
- There is no evidence of an Exodus-type event during the reign of Ramesses, ...
- Therefore the Exodus did not happen.
Firstly, this thinking is based on this passage from the book of Exodus:
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. - Exodus 1:8-11
This is an anachronism. A good example provided is when a person might say "Around 50 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the English Channel to invade Britain." .... There was no England in 50 BC, and therefore no "English Channel" to speak of, but the speaker is simply using more current terminology so everyone understands what body of water is being referenced.
So the Bible is simply referring to an Egyptian treasure city that, at the time of writing the Exodus, had become known as belonging to the Pharaoh Ramesses. That does not mean that it would have been called by that name at the actual time of the Exodus.
But historians are happy to connect Exodus with Ramesses, because it gives them their desired conclusion of disproving the Exodus. That should surprise no one.
Secondly is the mistaken identification of the Egyptian king Shoshenq as the Biblical king Shishak.
So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made. - 2 Chronicles 12:9 (also mentioned in 1 Kings 14:25)
Though Egypt was indeed launching later military campaigns into Canaan/Israel, there is no evidence that Shishak is the same Egyptian king as Shoshenq, other than the names sound similar. (In reality, they were two different kings of Egypt, separated by over a century, that launched two different military campaigns into Canaan/Israel.)
So then, researchers commit to the false equation of the Egyptian king Shoshenq with the Biblical mention of Shishak. By using conventional Egyptian dating of Shoshenq and counting back in the list of Egyptian kings, this in turn reinforces the connection back to Ramesses, where researchers want to place the accounts of the Exodus.
Unsurprisingly, mainstream history/archeology is quite happy to place the Exodus at the time of Ramesses, because there is no evidence of an Exodus at this period. They are not interested in considering other times in Egypt's history where there is evidence of an Exodus-style event. (see the Ipuwer Papyrus for an example)
Got that? The biblical accounts of the Exodus must only reference a point in Egypt's history where there is *no* evidence for it. This is the basic thinking of mainstream history & archaeology. And, sadly, it should surprise no one....
So... then this flawed Exodus-Ramesses fixture is used as a springboard to debunk other accounts in the Bible. For example, since there is no evidence of a large-scale military conquest in Canaan around this time, (claimed by the Bible to follow 40 years after the Exodus from Egypt) therefore events like the destruction of Jericho in the Book of Joshua must all be a myth as well! This is the basic quality of our academic institutions' treatment of Biblical history.
So, when you hear claims that the Old Testament has been "debunked"... this is usually the quality of research they are drawing from. Every time you read in Wikipedia that "most scholars agree biblical account X has no historical basis"... this is the quality of research it is usually based on.