Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:16:37 +0100

Dear Bill,

I note that when you speak about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," you say that in *many cases* this does not hold, but you avoid any all-proposition. You are perfectly correct. And let us now state the problem in scientific terms.

Hypothesis 1: A herd of elephants ran through the field irrigated by rain last night. Prediction: We expect to find footprints of the elephants in the mud.

Hypothesis 2: A group of 600,000 men and their families stayed in Sinai some time between the 11th and 15th centuries B.C.E. Prediction: We expect to find ...

Yes, what do we expect to find? Taking into account that this is said to have happened more than 3,000 years ago, and the account says that the group did not build houses and cities, what will we expect to find? Perhaps this is a situation where "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? If it is not, we should be able to point to definite things that we would expect to find.

A related question is this: Do we have any knowledge at all regarding Sinai from the time between the 11th and the 15th century? Which finds have been made? Have traces of other occupants been found, or was Sinai void of any people during these centuries?

The mentioned example is an archaeological one. Some days ago I focused upon the text of the Pentateuch and formed the hypothesis: "The Pentateuch was written in the 15th century by a man called Moses." To doubt that something that is written in the Pentatauch really happened is a psychological matter that is based on logic, or faith, or philosophy etc. By forming this hypothesis I tried to put the matter regarding the writing of the Pentatauch into a scientific setting. The hypothesis predicts that we will not find anachronisms in the text, and i discussed some possibilities. Then I asked the list members to mention other predictions that could be tested. But no one responded. So, I try again with a question based on the hypothesis: Which sides/characteristics/matters in the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch forbid a 15th century writing?

If we cannot point to anything, a rejection of a 15th century writing is only based on logic, faith, philosophy etc, and it is not based on scientific evidence.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Karl wrote:

I think Moses wrote Exodus about 1440 BC telling the true story of the
exodus. This is what is indicated when cross referencing other
verses in the Bible. But a Naturalist will come along and say that it
is
impossible for the story to be true, because of all the claims of the
supernatural acting into history.

I expect you know better but this isn't why people think the account is
not historically accurate. A principle often quoted on this list is
``absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'', but the reality is,
in many cases, exactly that. I give you an example. Not far from where I
work is a large playing field, the ground is always soft there. Either
it rains or it is irrigated. Suppose someone says that a herd of
elephants ran through the fields last night. Laying to one side whether
this is reasonable thing to claim, if I go to the playing fields and
there are no elephant footprints then this is evidence of absence, i.e.
that no elephants ran through there last night. It is this problem which
plagues the Exodus account and has prompted a few discussions of the
meaning of eleph, usually translated thousand, in these accounts.
According to the accounts there were 600,000+ men not counting women or
children who lived for 40 years in the Sinai region. Even if we grant
supernatural feeding and so on so that there is no question about what
did they eat or drink, there is still no evidence of such large number
of people occupying the Sinai region at that time. So even allowing
supernatural intervention does not solve the problem. Its not a case of
supernaturalist against naturalists, it's a case of whether you allow
outside evidence to inform your understanding of the texts. I see
nothing in either the Christian or Jewish religious traditions which
bars adherents from examining the evidence and allowing that evidence to
influence their understanding of the texts.


Bill Rea, Ph.D. ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone +64-3-364-2331, Fax +64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page