For Sunday, Sept. 14, 2014
14th Sunday After Pentecost
The Wikipedia article on the Exodus begins, “The Exodus is the charter myth of Israel.” That phrase, ‘charter myth’, marks a fault line running through our culture. Did it happen or didn’t it? For someone operating out of a secular worldview, it couldn’t possibly have happened. For someone operating out of a Christian worldview (at least in its classical sense) it had to have happened. The biblical writers clearly thought that it did.
Is the Exodus account (and the use of ‘account’ seems a better choice to reflect Wikipedia’s value of ‘neutral point of view’ than ‘charter myth’) historical or merely mythology? It’s worth considering the case presented in the Wikipedia article regarding the historicity of the event.
The first point the article makes concerns numbers and logistics. The biblical accounts (and note there are multiple sources here, Exodus and Leviticus) claim there were 600,000 men involved. With women and children included, this would represent a total number of approximately 2 million people. Wow, that’s twice the size of metro Milwaukee. Marching 10 abreast this would form a line 150 miles long. That is supposed to be considered implausible. I however cannot imagine a group of that size deciding to march 10 abreast. It would make much more sense to march 100 abreast, in which case the line would be 15 miles long. That becomes very plausible, like the long line of motorcycles that rumble through our city every five years for the Milwaukee Rally 5-year anniversaries.
The second point the article makes is that 100 years of recent archaeological research hasn’t turned up any archaeological evidence. This is an argument from silence and therefore unpersuasive. To form a persuasive case contrary evidence would need to be provided.
The third point the article makes concerns alleged anachronisms. Place names mentioned in an alleged 2nd millennium B.C. account date instead from the 1st millennium B.C. But how strong is this evidence? I’m not going to take the time to chase down the source cited but the burden of proof is on the one trying to undermine the historicity of the account in front of us.
The article’s fourth point is that the supposed chronology seems more religious than historical. The problem here is that the supposed 4,000 year chronology of world history is supposed by the interrogator as against being supposed by the Bible itself. Taking this supposition away there is no point left to make.
For those that find the above considerations persuasive the most plausible conclusion is that the Exodus account is indeed historical. The wider biblical story is that God worked to save a particular nation, Israel, not so that he could favor them over other nations, but to set the stage for an Israelite to come who would save every nation on earth. This is a great story, and it’s true, and in its truth we can rejoice and be confident of both blessing in the present and future glory.
It is not my calling to contest the current Wikipedia article but it may well be the calling of some of my readers and I urge them to take up the challenge. We ought not let the secular bias evident here stand unchallenged. We too easily and often capitulate to the naturalistic worldview from which this kind of thinking stems without even realizing it. When we do take a stand it becomes evident that the secular case is often built upon pillars of sand that will crumble upon first touch with considered reality.