Pseudoarchaeology Research Archive (PARA)
Cite as: Ross, Sara. 2007. Biblical Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology: In Pursuit of Exodus. PARA Research Paper A-06. http://pseudoarchaeology.org/a06-ross.html
Biblical Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology: In Pursuit of Exodus
May 21, 2007
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Biblical archaeology encompasses a wide variety
of often disparate approaches, methodologies, and agendas. Unfortunately, within this generally
reputable field are alarming instances of pseudoarchaeology where a biased
selection of evidence has occurred in order to reach preordained conclusions
usually in support of either the literal truth or historical accuracy of the
Bible. This faulty application of the
scientific method is readily observed in some of the biblical archaeology
dealing with the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from
Biblical archaeology focuses on the time,
places, material remains, and written documents from the
The marriage between science and religion in biblical archaeology can, as a result, prove to be problematic. While it would be incorrect to separate all biblical archaeologists into two disparate groups, there are two distinct sides to biblical archaeology; many scholars are found somewhere in the middle but can sometimes be at the extremes as well. These two approaches are often characterized as Minimalist versus Maximalist biblical archaeology (Scolnic 2005:189).
Minimalist biblical archaeologists, on the one hand, approach the archaeological record from a scientific perspective where the scientific method is rigorously applied in gathering evidence to test a hypothesis which can then be accepted for the time being or discarded. Objectivity is expected of scientifically rigorous archaeology where biases should ideally not influence the archaeologist and evidence should not be selected to fit a desired conclusion. The evidence provided by the archaeological record will form the basis of any conclusions drawn by Minimal biblical archaeologists, whether or not these conclusions support biblical accounts (Scolnic 2005:189).
On the other hand, Maximalist biblical archaeologists approach the archaeological record from a religious perspective where the assumption of literal truth or the historical accuracy of the Bible forms the basis for desired conclusions (Scolnic 2005:189). Evidence is carefully selected in order to affirm biblical accuracy and any lack of evidence or opposing evidence is attributed to faulty archaeology, such as inadequate dating methods or inaccurate site selection (Scolnic 2005:189). As a result, the ability of Maximalist biblical archaeologists to correctly apply the scientific method is compromised.
When archaeologists do not apply the scientific method properly, draw conclusions before evidence is collected, and ignore contrary evidence in favour of preordained conclusions, it is clear that mainstream archaeology is no longer being practiced and that the realms of pseudoarchaeology have been entered. Biblical pseudoarchaeology is an especially dangerous form of pseudoscience as it is practiced by many professional academics (Caiger 1946). Caiger warns that it has always been tempting for biblical archaeologists who seek to demonstrate biblical accuracy to:
…press the evidence unduly…; to embroider the less colourful discoveries so as to rouse popular interest; to overemphasize, when in doubt, that interpretation of the evidence which most suits [their] own pet theories; to indulge in wishful thinking as to what the monuments, inscriptions, and unburied treasures of the Biblical past really do substantiate. (1946:62)
It is certain that many archaeologists have particular theories they prefer but science is meant to control for the bias of the researcher in favour of truth. Religiously biased use of the archaeological record cannot be accepted into mainstream archaeology or science as it does not abide by the rules of science and objectivity (Hoerth 1998:13-30).
Unfortunately manipulation of the archaeological record by biblical archaeologists still finds its way into the popular consciousness of portions of the population who seek to validate similar theories and beliefs as espoused, and apparently proved, by these trained academics. The new ‘facts’ generated by biblical archaeology can then also be taught and reproduced by religious authorities. In such cases these unscientific theories often come to be considered as equal or as more reputable than other archaeological research that seeks scientifically to constantly refine itself and does not amplify or manipulate evidence (Hoerth 1998:13-30). Pseudoarchaeological biblical archaeology thus infiltrates what is generally known and believed about issues such as the Exodus and can push out unpopular but correct archaeological discoveries that may also disprove Biblical accuracy.
Before considering the specific occurrences of pseudoarchaeology in the archaeology of Exodus, it is first helpful to understand why pseudoarchaeology is more widespread and accepted in biblical archaeology than in many other forms of archaeology. Rather than the marginalized status that much pseudoarchaeology has within archaeology, biblical pseudoarchaeology is alarmingly central in biblical issues such as Exodus. For example, in Andean archaeology, there is not a significant group of professional academics who seriously study alien astronaut theories as fact and regularly alter and manipulate the archaeological record in order to arrive at their desired conclusions. The proponents of such theories may even be quite popular but they do not enjoy the same credibility and support as biblical pseudoarchaeologists.
The temptations facing archaeologists outlined by Caiger outlined above appear to be strong enough to lure a very large number of biblical archaeologists (1946:62). This underlines the preoccupation among a significant portion of biblical archaeologists to substantiate claims to biblical accuracy. Such preoccupations are a result of the intimate relationship between these biblical archaeologists and conservative or fundamentalist Christianity. By no means is it correct to claim that Christianity in general endorses biblical pseudoarchaeology, but it is nevertheless accurate that many Christian denominations believe in the accuracy of the Bible. As a result, many Christians are quite invested in biblical archaeology as it is directly related to their faith. This creates a large basis of support for biblical pseudoarchaeologists who may belong or may at least be supported by such Christian denominations. For much the same reasons that Creationism continues to exist in the face of reason and modern science, so too does biblical pseudoarchaeology.
Feder suggests that religion is one of the six main causes of archaeological fraud (1990:11). Christianity can trace its roots back to antiquity and the Exodus account and, as a result, Feder explains that believers may experiment with archaeology in the attempt to prove the validity of their religious beliefs through use of the archaeological record (1990:11). However, Caiger has demonstrated that this tendency towards pseudoarchaeological reasoning is not just the domain of archaeological dabblers but also professional archaeologists (Caiger 1946). The notion of a small lie or factual adjustment does not seem to deter proponents of biblical accuracy who may often point to the greater good of Christianity in general to justify their actions (Feder 1990:11). It seems an inextricable aspect of human nature that when someone is utterly convinced of something, whether it is true or false, it is awfully difficult to change their mind. In much the same way, overwhelming evidence in opposition to biblical pseudoarchaeology does not seem to deter those who endorse it and practice it.
As mentioned previously, the central problem of Maximalist biblical archaeologists, or biblical pseudoarchaeologists, is their mistaken use of archaeology to confirm, prove, or authenticate the Bible. Hoerth traces this use of archaeology back to the nineteenth century when biblical archaeology was created to answer questions raised for Christian believers in light of Near Eastern discoveries (1998:19). At this early stage biblical critics were guilty of several incorrect conclusions that biblical archaeology was able to identify and correct (Hoerthe 1998:19). For example, when early archaeologists were not able to find evidence for the existence of the Hittites, they were a bit too quick to conclude that the Hittites could not have existed (Hoerthe 1998:19). When archaeologists did eventually find evidence for the existence of the Hittites, many conservative Christians began to grow increasingly suspicious of any academics that were critical of the total historicity of the Bible (Hoerthe 1998:19). Biblical archaeology, Maximalist biblical archaeology that is, had found its support amongst biblical literalists as it started to be seen as the champion of their cause.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, liberal scholars of the day who did not support biblical literalism, had been taught to exercise greater caution in developing critical statements and had begun to investigate the use of archaeology to illuminate the Bible as a useful textual source (Hoerthe 1998:19). Unfortunately this shift appears to have gone unnoticed by biblical literalists and conservative Christians, who continued to criticize the previous faults in analysis that biblical critics had demonstrated years before (Hoerthe 1998:19).
This negative view of archaeology that some Christians have has been further exacerbated by a common tendency to assume too much from pseudoarchaeology and archaeology in general (Hoerthe 1998:20). The notion that archaeology both confirms and authenticates the Bible, as originally promoted by books such as Halley’s Bible Handbook by Henry Halley (1965), is problematic as scientists should always be open to new evidence. However most of what Minimalist biblical archaeologists find is considered dubious at best by many Christian supporters of biblical accuracy and historicity. At the same time, any sort of evidence discovered by Maximal biblical archaeologists is embraced and added to the selective list of “facts” proving the accuracy of the Bible.
While biblical literalists and pseudoarchaeology supporters in general are known to have alternative beliefs pertaining to what science has conclusively demonstrated, they are generally very critical of archaeologists who are thought not to give adequate consideration to these unscientific theories. Scolnic demonstrates this view in his accusations against scholars and archaeologists who are critical of the accuracy of Exodus (2005:90). Scolnic explains that these archaeologists will often purposefully make identifications to make the Bible appear false (2005:90). He goes so far as to criticize and discount the ‘claims’ of Donald Redford, leading Egyptologist and critic of the historicity of the Bible, by simply accusing him of having a “biblical or religious axe to grind” (2005:90). This demonstrates much of the irony that is involved in the Exodus debate as well as between archaeologists and pseudoarchaeologists in general. Biblical archaeologists who base their work on rigorous use of the scientific method are often accused of being unreceptive to the possibilities of alternate theories relating to Exodus, predominantly pseudoarchaeological ones. However, the same criticism can be turned on biblical pseudoarchaeologists and their supporters as they themselves are choosing to ignore scientific evidence in favour of their theories.
The debate as to the accuracy of the
Exodus account can often inspire even harsher criticism from the biblical
pseudoarchaeological field. When
religious beliefs are countered, sentiments tend to run high. Scolnic, for example, accuses Minimalist
biblical archaeologists of denying the enslavement of Israelites in the same
way that present day anti-Semitic rhetoric vilifies
The background and debate between
Minimalist and Maximalist biblical archaeology has been explored and, as a
result, it is now possible to effectively evaluate what archaeological evidence
exists for the Exodus. However,
archaeological research relating to Exodus is both complex and well-documented
and, due to spatial restrictions, it is impossible to encompass all the work
that has been done in this area. For
excellent and in depth material on this topic, please refer to William
Steibing’s 1989 publication Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives and Israel
Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman’s 2001 publication The Bible Unearthed:
Archaeology’s new Vision of Ancient
The Exodus account is interesting to analyze for accuracy as there are many aspects that might be probable if not accurate. At the same time, however, there are also gaping errors in the narratives that make it impossible for the Exodus account to be historically accurate. As a result, reconstruction of the past in this case is best accomplished by using the Bible as a textual guideline for what may have occurred while placing greater emphasis on the actual archaeological evidence available (Callaway 1985:72). There certainly may be numerous kernels of truth to be gleaned from the scriptures but the greatest problem with the Exodus story is in its extremely vague account of history (Finkelstein 2001:65). As a result it is very difficult to even decide on a single period of time when it might have taken place (Finkelstein 2001:64). Biblical archaeologists are working hard to determine what truths exist in the Exodus story and much has been discovered that is of interest to those who have based their faith on the Bible. Those who insist on the historical accuracy of the Bible and ignore these finds are discounting valuable evidence that can be used to reconstruct the past.
Chronology is a main area that has motivated
Maximalist biblical archaeologists to begin selecting and manipulating evidence
to fit their preordained conclusions in order to verify what they believe must
be true to confirm the accuracy of biblical sources that for them must be
accurate to validate their faith. The
clues provided by the Bible for the date of the Exodus do not match up and, as
a result, require a fair amount of pseudoarchaeological work to create a
chronology that fits with non-biblical sources. For example, I Kings 6:1 mentions that the construction of
Solomon’s Temple occurred in the fourth year of his reign and took place 480
years after the Exodus. When this is
compared to regnal dates from Egyptian and Assyrian sources, the date for the
Exodus would appear to be around 1440 B.C.E. (Finkelstein 2001:56). However the Bible also mentions in Exodus
1:11 that one of the particular forced labour projects involving the Israelites
was the construction of the city of
There are many other suggested dates for the Exodus but what is important to note is that at least one of the chronological clues from the Bible is wrong and if the historical accuracy of the Bible is to be proved, evidence must be adjusted accordingly. As a result, it appears that a much better strategy would be to draw possibly useful information from the Bible in order to reconstruct the past instead of attempting to force chronological accuracy which is not present. It is apparent that while the Bible may recount true aspects of Israelite history and sites in the region, the events of the Exodus simply do not correspond with the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered. Maximalist biblical archaeologists consider archaeology to be at fault in failing to find the correct evidence (Scolnic 2005:189). However if rigid biblical accuracy is avoided, much may be learned about evidence that does exist for the history of the Israelites and the Bible.
Most biblical archaeologists, scholars, and
historians agree that an exodus took place and that biblical accounts are not
entirely fictional (Stiebing 1989:197-198).
They have acknowledged that kernels of truth do exist but that actual
evidence for an exodus points towards one that was on a much smaller scale than
indicated by the Bible (Stiebing 1989:197-198). The Merneptah Stele or “Israel Stele” is the only non-biblical
and reliable source that indicates that an entity called
Insofar as the actual Exodus is concerned, many
scholars consider the accounts to be at least loosely based on an event that
occurred early in Israelite history (Stiebing 1989:197-198). First of all, it is not at odds with history
for groups to flee to
While the magnitude of the biblical Exodus is problematic, the notion of a much smaller scale exodus is more plausible. The Bible itself indicates in Exodus 1:15 that there were only two midwives required for the births of Hebrew children which would indicate that they were a much smaller group than the 600,000 estimated in Exodus 12:37-38 (Stiebing 1989:198). In addition the Bible states in Exodus 17:8-13 that the Israelites required divine aid in order to overcome a seminomadic tribe which could not have been very large (Stiebing 1989:197). This further supports the notion of a much smaller group of Israelites than the Bible indicates.
These among other indications have lead
scholars to suggest that the Israelite exodus from
While there are numerous other possible scenarios for Exodus, this example is meant to highlight the utility of biblical narratives in illuminating the past when combined with scientifically rigorous archaeology. Such a source of important textual information should not be discounted. However it is also important to avoid the pitfalls of pseudoarchaeology that arise when the Bible is taken as historically and literally accurate. Hoerthe suggests that biblical archaeology’s greatest value is its potential in increasing understanding of the cultural and material setting surrounding Exodus and other biblical accounts (1998:21). Whether the Bible is believed to be accurate or not, scientifically rigorous archaeology does not need to be seen as an enemy but should instead be seen as a possible tool in illuminating scripture and using the Bible to aid in reconstruction of a feasible past. The Bible is a document of faith and does not need to be an accurate historical record of the past to be considered valid by those who choose to follow it as a religious text (Sarna 1986:7).
1983 The Holy Bible, New King James
Caiger, Stephen L.
1946 Archaeological Fact and Fancy. The Biblical Archaeologist 9(3):62-67.
Callaway, Joseph A.
1985 Response to The Israelite Settlement
Archaeological Excavations. In Biblical Archaeology Today:
Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
Feder, Kenneth L.
1990 Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology.
2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s
New Vision of Ancient
Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
Halley, Henry H.
1965 Halley’s Bible Handbook.
Hoerth, Alfred J
1998 Archaeology and the Old Testament.
Hoffmeier, James K. and Alan Millard.
2004 Preface. In The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing
Methodologies and Assumptions. The Proceedings of a Symposium, August
12-14, 2001, at Trinity International University, edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan
Millard, pp. x-xii.
Humphreys, Colin J.
2002 The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary
Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories.
1985 The Israelite Settlement in
In Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings
of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
1985 The Israelite Settlement in
Excavations. In Biblical Archaeology Today:
Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
Sarna, Nahum M.
1986 Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of
Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin
2005 If the Egyptians Drowned in the Red
Sea Where are the Pharoah’s Chariots: Exploring the Historical Dimension of the
Bible, Studies in Judaism.
Stiebing, Jr., William H.
1989 Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives.