Exodus: The challenge of our generation?
On this blog I've discussed a couple of times the Exodus and archeology (see here and here). Recently, I have been thinking to myself that perhaps the lack of hard evidence means something. True, there's a loose collection of findings (such as the Ipuwer Papyrus or the Book of Gates (see here)) that many Bible-believers hold to be evidence of the Exodus, but since they have all been dismissed by academic scholars in a manner that has lulled the world into a belief that there is zero evidence for the Exodus, it is difficult to consider them hard evidence. Not impossible, just difficult.
Which led me to think that perhaps there's a reason for us not having found hard evidence for the Exodus, i.e., something that will completely knock the socks off of academia, and that is that the Exodus stands as a challenge to our generation: Will you believe or will you deny? Look at it this way: Although we have not yet found evidence for portions of the Tanach, it is no longer (compared to Wellhausen ימ"ש's time) (too) crazy to believe that those events took place. We have evidence for the existence of the House of David, we know about the mighty Canaanite chariot-fighters, we know that the culture reflected in the Nevi'im, Ketuvim and some parts of the Torah was grounded in reality, we found evidence of the cultic destruction of Chizkiyahu, we know the Babylonians destroyed the Temple, we know the Assyrians exiled Shomron, and so forth. But on the Exodus? Zilch. Yes, some terminology found in the Torah resembles Egyptian culture - but does that necessarily reflect intimate knowledge with the culture? "Eh," say the scholars, "A giant nahhhhhh..."
A good example for this is from the midrash on the death of Haran, brother of Avraham (Beresheet Rabbah 38:13):
"Now Haran was standing there undecided. "If Avraham is victorious, I will say that I am of Avraham’s belief, while if Nimrod is victorious, I will say that I am on Nimrod’s side," he thought. When Avraham descended into the fiery furnace and was saved, Nimrod asked him, "Of whose belief are you?" "Of Abraham’s," he replied. Thereupon he seized him and cast him into the fire; his innards were scorched and he died in the presence of his father. Hence it is written, "And Haran died in the presence of his father Terach."
Haran's problem was that he was only willing to risk his life for Judaism when he saw a miracle. He didn't grasp that giving yourself up for a cause only truly works when you believe in the cause no matter what. Avraham didn't know that he was going to be saved. He gave himself up because he believed that the true way was through belief in Hashem and was willing to die for that. Haran gave himself up because he though he would be saved, not because he truly, sincerely believed in the cause.
Likewise, us Average Joes need to make up our minds: In this age in which large parts of Tanach have been proven via archeological evidence - are we willing to also believe in the parts of Tanach that have zero (or next-to-zero) evidence? Are we willing to fight for them as well, or will we discard them as a used rag?
Food for thought for all of us.
Happy Pesach!
Comments
Post a Comment