Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

> 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.

On a certain basis, this is the exact point.  Anyone proposing a certain
theory must first provide some positive evidence that suggests it is true.
The Bible cannot itself be taken as evidence.  Only if you a priori assume
the Bible to be true, is it "evidence," and if you assumed it to be true,
what's the whole issue with evidence anyway?  If you do not assume it
to be true -- for example, if you start with the view that it may be all true
word for word, but not necessarily -- then it can no longer be taken as
evidence.  Rather, you need external evidence.  Furthermore, with no
reasons or evidence to support your theory, your theory cannot be
falsified, making it rather unscientific.  By delineating what you expect
to find, you take the second step towards making a scientific theory,
the first step being stating the hypothesis itself.  Thus, "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence," but in the absence of any
expectations, we have no scientific theory, and in the absence of
positive evidence external to the Bible, we have no proposition on the
table.

Let us then delineate something that could remain:
A large pile of quail bones.  How many is "large"?  Well, there were
600,000 men.  The quail would come for 30 days (Num 11:20), but
only for 2 days is collection actually said to have taken place (Num
11:32), three times of collection in all (day, night, day).  Collection
was at 10 pieces a person (at a minimum), so taken together that
is 600,000 * 10 * 3 = 18 million units of quail.  So how about a
large pile of bones belonging to 18 million quail.

It is also specific enough so that even if we don't find any specific
reason to link this huge pile of quail bones to the Israelites, most
people would probably see a relationship.

Anyway, no such pile is known, and until we find such a pile, or
other positive evidence, we have no proposition on the table.

Textually, we could suggest something else: If the Pentateuch was
written after the 10th century, we would expect to find mention of
iron tools.  Prior to this, we would expect copper tools to
predominate.  We thus find such verses as Num 35:16, Deut 27:5,
or Deut 28:48, which mention ONLY iron tools, to be specifically out
of place.  The iron chariots of Jos 17:16-18 also have very little to do
with the 15th or 14th centuries.  Of course, you can doubt it, you can
try to falsify it, but it shows you what happens once we have a
specific proposition on the table: it becomes scientific and open to
discussion and alternative explanations.

In fact, if you want to examine the proposition that "The Pentateuch
was written in the 15th century by a man called Moses," you should
also be ready to examine the proposition that "The Pentateuch was
not written in the 15th century or was not written by a man or the
man was not called Moses."  Furthermore, when actually dealing with
hypotheses, you would also be much more open to variant hypotheses,
since you may want to modify your original hypothesis as time goes
on.  For example, you find a piece of evidence that has negative
implications for your original hypothesis (this is actually good, since
it means you are really considering those pieces of evidence that
may falsify your hypothesis), but you realize, being partial to your
hypothesis, that a slight restatement could deal with this evidence
and also withstand all the evidence that you have collected thus far.
Unless you are ready to examine variant hypotheses, you are not
taking a scientific approach.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also means
you have no sound proposition to begin with (by definition: sound
means it rests on solid evidence).

Yitzhak Sapir