Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion

by John W. Loftus

24

  Since the last decade of the twentieth century there is a growing consensus in

  modern scholarship that the major elements of the Exodus tale (the Israelites

  living in Egypt for 430 years, the exodus of this large group out of Egypt into

  Canaan, and the intervening forty years of wandering in the Sinai Peninsula) are

  also myths, not history25 Let us review the evidence. The existence of Moses,

  the main protagonist of the Exodus account, as a historical person is not proven

  either way, but certainly many elements are legendary. The story of Moses' birth,

  his escape from harm by being put in a papyrus basket and left to drift on the

  river before being discovered (Exodus 2:2-10) parallels closely the nativity story

  of the legendary Akkadian king Sargon, who was also placed inside a basket to

  escape dire circumstances and left to drift on the river before being rescued by

  someone. The general flow of cultural influence and the antiquity of the

  Akkadian legend make it seem likely that the Genesis account is based on the

  Akkadian legend.26

  Other details add to our doubt regarding the historicity of the story. We have at

  least three names for Moses' father-in-law-Reuel (Exodus 2:18), Jethro (Exodus

  3:1), and Hobab (Numbers 10:29; Judges 4:11).27 Even the name "Moses" itself

  was originally Egyptian, not Hebrew.28

  The date of the Exodus is also plagued with uncertainty According to 1 Kings

  6:1, the Exodus happened 480 years before Solomon built the temple. This

  places the event somewhere around 1495-1440 BCE. Yet the Israelites were

  forced to build the cities of Pithom and Ramses, according to Exodus 1:8-11.

  Now, there are only two possible pharaohs who might have had a role to play in

  the building of the city of Ramses, since a city with that name could not have

  been built by anyone else but by the pharaoh whose name it reflects, and both of

  them reigned too late for biblical chronology to be accurate. The first Egyptian

  pharaoh named Ramses came to power in 1320 BCE. This is a century too late to

  be harmonized with biblical chronology. There is evidence from Egyptian

  sources that a city called Pi-Ramses was built under a pharaoh named Ramses II,

  who reigned over Egypt from 1279-1213 BCE. But the story of Israelite slaves

  building Pi-Ramses could only have happened during his reign-more than two

  hundred years after the time calculated by the biblical chronology29 Any

  attempt to equate the Hyksos-a line of Semitic kings who ruled Egypt from the

  mid-seventeenth to the mid-sixteenth centuries BCE-with the Israelites fail, too.

  For the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt into Canaan by Pharaoh Amose

  around 1570 BCE, which is too early for any of the biblical chronology to work.

  It's simply more probable that the violent expulsion of the Hyksos became

  embedded in the folktales of the Canaanite people, which forms the basis for the

  oral tales that eventually became the Exodus narrative. But the main details of

  the Exodus (Moses, the forty-year trek in Sinai, and the locations the Israelites

  went through) must all be pieces of historical fiction.30

  Now, according to Exodus 12:40, the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years.

  Yet for all this time, there is simply no literary and archaeological evidence

  outside the Hebrew Bible that records the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt.31 A

  similar problem exists with the number of people claimed to have left Egypt.

  According to Exodus 12:37, there were six hundred thousand men, not counting

  the women and children, who left with Moses. We are also told this one-million-

  plus nation wandered for forty years in the wilderness in Sinai (Joshua 5:6).

  Surely more than a million people wandering around for forty years would have

  left some traces for archaeologists to find. Yet not a single piece of archeological

  evidence has been found. This is not for want of trying, either.32

  William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more

  conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the

  historicity of Exodus "dead."33 Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog, provides the

  current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: "The Israelites never

  were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is

  not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction-made in the seventh

  century [BCE]-of a history that never happened." 34

  The story of the conquest of Canaan told in the book of Joshua has suffered

  much the same fate as the Exodus-archaeological discoveries have shown that it

  simply did not happen the way the Bible describes. One of the most memorable

  stories in the Bible is that of the conquest of Jericho by Joshua and the Israelites

  (Joshua 6:1-2 1). We are told that on the seventh day of the siege, the Israelites

  shouted and the priests blew the trumpets, which brought the walls of Jericho

  tumbling down. Unfortunately, archaeological digs led by Kathleen Kenyon in

  the 1950s showed that in the period most likely for this event (1550 to 1200

  BCE), Jericho was either uninhabited or a small village with just a few huts.

  There was certainly no fortified wall that could have dramatically came tumbling

  down!35 The same negative results greet excavations at Al (Joshua 8:21-29),36

  Gibeon (Joshua 10:1-2),37 Lachish (10:32),38 and other cities.39 Indeed,

  according to archaeologists Bill Dever and Lawrence Stager, almost all of the

  roughly thirty cities Joshua was supposed to have conquered were either

  uninhabited at that time or destroyed by other means, or never even destroyed.40

  The story of the united kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon also

  seems to be unraveled by archaeology. According to the Bible, David's kingdom

  consisted of a united Israel and Judah along with other kingdoms he conquered-

  Syria and Hamath to the north; Moab, Ammon to the east; Philistine to the west;

  and Edom to the south (2 Samuel 8: 3-13; 10). Surely such a vast empire would

  have left immense archaeological evidence of its existence. The date normally

  ascribed to King David's reign is 1005-970 BCE. And although no one doubts

  the existence of King David,41 there is no archaeological evidence for his

  kingdom beyond his existence. As archae-ologistJohn Laughlin noted: "[T] here

  is little in the overall archaeological picture of the tenth century BC that can be

  connected with David."4' Whatever evidence there is points to the fact that the

  story about the grandeur of David's empire is a myth of a fictional golden age

  created by later writers. David's "vast" empire is a myth.43 If David was indeed

  king, he never ruled over the vast regions described in the Bible.44

  David's son Solomon has not fared much better. According to the Bible,

  Solomon, who was king around 970-931 BCE, ruled over an even larger empire

  than his father did. His vast kingdom supposedly spanned from the Euphrates

  River to the border of Egypt (1 Kings 4:21). Solomon's fame and influence

  spread far and wide (1 Kings 10:1). His diplomatic skills were proven by his

  securing alliances with other nations such as Egypt (1 Kings 3:1) and Tyre (1

  Kings 5). He was also known for his massive architectural projects, including the


  Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6) and the royal palace on Ophel (1 Kings 7). He

  also improved on the fortifications of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (1

  Kings 9:15). He also built forty thousand stalls of horses for his fourteen

  thousand chariots and twelve thousand horsemen (1 Kings 4:26).

  And yet, as in the case with his father David, modern archaeology simply

  finds no evidence for this empire or for any of his supposed architectural

  undertakings. Solomon's temple is described in detail in 1 Kings 6, yet despite

  the extensive archaeological digs in the city, in the words of archaeologist John

  Laughlin, "not a single piece of this building has been found."4' There is also no

  sign of any of the other grand architectural works that he supposedly built; his

  palace, or the fortifications atJerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.46

  The archeological evidence for the population, settlement patterns, and

  economic resources of Judah turns out to be the same for the time of Solomon as

  for the time of David. But as archaeologists Finkelstein and Silberman succinctly

  put it: "As far as we can see on the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah

  remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very

  marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no

  major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages and

  towns." 47

  Modern archaeology is no friend of the Bible.

  MYTHS, LEGENDS, AND FAIRY TALES IN THE BIBLE

  We are all familiar with stories of talking animals in Aesop's Fables-the hare and

  the tortoise and the fox who cried "sour grapes" are just two of the many

  endearing tales we treasure from our childhood. Aesop's fables came from

  around the sixth century BCE and are therefore near contemporaries of stories

  told in the Pentateuch.48 While we cannot say one directly influenced the other,

  we can safely say that telling tales like these is how ancient storytelling cultures

  conveyed moral lessons. In the Old Testament (OT), something evangelicals

  would like us to believe is a purely historical document, we find the same kinds

  of themes. Genesis 2 introduces us to a talking snake who urged Eve to partake

  of the forbidden fruit. In Numbers 22 we find the story of Balaam and his talking

  donkey.

  We find parallels in myths, legends, and religious fairy tales that were

  contemporaneous with the authors of the canonical Bible in every stage of its

  development. Here I can only devote space to one such myth concerning the

  similarities in the stories of the virgin birth, found in Matthew and Luke, with

  those found in GrecoRoman culture.

  First, let's look at the birth stories of clearly mythical gods of the

  Mediterranean world. Many of the popular deities were born of virgins. For

  example, in the Greek myth, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae, by Zeus who

  took the form of a shower of gold to impregnate her. Phoenician mythology

  claimed Adonis to be born of the virgin Myrrh. Parthenogenesis was also the

  explanation for the birth of the Phrygian deity Attis from his mother Cybele.49

  Similarly, even in stories told about historical figures we find common themes.

  Great men must have their greatness injected into their DNA from the time they

  were conceived. Thus the idea of conception by gods, either virginally or via

  some form of unusual intercourse was a common element in the stories told

  about them. Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) was conceived when his

  mother-to-be dreamed of a bolt of lightning-a symbol of Zeus-entering her

  womb. The Roman emperor Augustus Caesar (63 BCE-14 CE) was conceived

  when Apollo, in the form of a snake, had intercourse with Augustus's mother,

  who was sleeping in the temple. Apollo was also implicated in the conception of

  the Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 427 BCE-ca. 347 BCE) and the Greek

  mathematician Pythagoras (sixth century BCE).50 It is not just Zeus or Apollo

  that did all the impregnating in the ancient world. In the Roman legend of

  Romulus and Remus, we are told they were conceived when Mars, the god of

  war, impregnated their mother, Rhea Silvea, the vestal virgin.51

  So it should not come as a surprise that the early Christians came up with

  similar stories aboutJesus. He was born of a virgin mother, Mary, who was

  impregnated by an act of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35).

  Evangelicals protest that the stories about those other gods and GrecoRoman

  heroes are mere myths and legends, whereas the story of Jesus' conception and

  birth is grounded in world history. In the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke,

  we find references to historical figures, such as King Herod the Great (ca. 79-4

  BC) and the Roman governor of Syria, Qiiirinius (ca. 51 BCE-21 CE). Herod

  tried to have Jesus murdered by ordering the killing of all male infants aged two

  and below, while the reason we're told Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem

  from Nazareth was due to the census conducted by Qpirinius.

  These figures do not just form a backdrop to the stories but were integral to

  the plot. Yet, rather ironically, it's these very figures that when laid bare show us

  how the nativity stories are merely ancient fairy tales historicized. The story of

  Herod's involvement in the nativity is told in chapter 2 of Matthew. There we

  read that after Jesus was born, "wise men from the east" (Matthew 2:2) came to

  Jerusalem to look for the newborn "king of the Jews." They had seen a star in the

  east that led them to Judea. Their enquiries reached the ears of Herod. He was

  worried about this possible threat to his throne and summoned the chief priests

  and the teachers of the law to inquire from them where the Messiah would be

  born. They told him Bethlehem was the ordained place for his birth since it was

  prophesied in the OT (Micah 5:2). Herod then told the wise men to look for the

  newborn and to inform him of the baby's whereabouts on the pretext that he, too,

  would want to worship the new "king of the Jews." The star then led the wise

  men to Bethlehem until it "stood over where the young child was" (Matthew

  2:9). Upon seeing the babyJesus, the wise men gave him gifts of gold, incense,

  and myrrh and worshipped him. Then they went back to their own country by

  another route, having been warned by an angel in a dream not to go back to

  Herod. Then an angel appeared to Joseph, again in a dream, telling him to take

  his family to Egypt for fear of King Herod, which he did. So Herod, realizing the

  wise men had outwitted him, had given orders to slaughter all the baby boys less

  than two years of age in and around Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). After Herod

  died, Joseph took his family from Egypt back to Judea. But when he heard that

  Archelaus was reigning in his father's stead, they went to live in Nazareth of

  Galilee instead.

  Now we know Herod was the sort of fellow who could have gone around

  killing babies. We know from theJewish historianJosephus (37-100 CE) that,

  among other things, he murdered his wife, had his brother-in-law and three of his

  sons executed, and had the Jewish high priest Aristobolus III and forty-five

  members of the Jewish religious council (the Sanhedrin) killed for su
pporting

  the Hasmoneans. The most dramatic point in Matthew's nativity story was when

  Herod was said to have ordered the slaughtering of all the male children "in

  Bethlehem and all the surrounding countryside" (Matthew 2:16). Herein lies a

  major problem: there is no other account of this massive slaughter in any other

  source-neither in the rest of the NT nor in any other secular records. Josephus's

  account of Herod and his exploits spanned four books in his ,newish Antiquities

  (books 14-17). From his description of Herod, it is quite obvious that Joseph-Lis

  hated him. He laid out in detail the crimes committed by Herod, many of which

  were of a lesser kind than the slaughter of the children. Yet nowhere in

  Josephus's work do we find any mention of this massacre. This silence speaks

  volumes, for he should have been in a position to know, and he would have had

  every reason to tell the story if he had known about it. But he said nothing. Most

  scholars have correctly interpreted this to mean that the incident never happened

  and was just an invention of Matthew''

  As an aside, it is also interesting to consider this story from the framework of

  the problem of evil. Note that God intervened by revealing to the wise men in a

  dream not to go back to Jerusalem so Herod would not know exactly where the

  baby Jesus was to kill him. It was because of not knowing this that Herod had all

  the male babies below two years of age in Beth lehem slaughtered. It was also

  revealed to Joseph in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt to avoid

  this massacre. As the critical nineteenth-century historical scholar David Strauss

  (1808-1874) pointed out, if God wanted to avoid the massacre of the innocents,

  he could easily have intervened supernaturally at the beginning by making the

  wise men avoid Jerusalem altogether and head on to Bethlehem directly. That

  way Herod would never have heard of the birth of the Messiah.53

  There are other reasons to doubt the historicity of Matthew's account. As

  many scholars have noted, Matthew's account of this section-including the flight

  from Egypt and slaughter of male children-parallels the story of Moses found in

  Exodus. In Exodus 1:22 we're told that the pharaoh ordered that every male baby

  born shall be killed by being thrown into the river. That Moses' flight from Egypt

  is so obviously in Matthew's mind when he wrote this account can also be seen

  from the fact that he used a passage from Hosea (11:1-2), which actually referred

  to the original Exodus, as a prophetic passage about the return to Judea of

  Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. The Exodus story was the source that provided

  Matthew with the base material with which to construct the story54 The author

  of Matthew would not have considered this method unusual, since it is a

  wellknown Jewish exegetical method known as aggadic midrash. This involves

  recasting older stories into newer ones and thereby reading "deeper" meanings

  into old text. This can be seen even in the OT where Moses' parting of the Red

  Sea (Exodus 14:2-31) is recast as the story of Joshua parting the River Jordan

  (Joshua 3:14-17). Likewise, the historical connection between Herod and Jesus

  is an invention of the Gospel of Matthew.

  According to the Gospel of Luke, and in contradiction to Matthew, it was the

  census called by Qpirinius that compelled Joseph and the pregnant Mary to

  travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1), rather than (as in Matthew) the

  other way around (and for a different reason: fear of Herod's successor,

  Archelaus). The census is undoubtedly a historical event. But unfortunately, the

  problems begin to pile up the moment we consider the whole story in more

  detail.55

  • According to Luke 2:3-4, Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was a