Archeologists - Jewish Exodus From Egypt Never Happened

(Cartoon image of Jewish slaves in Egypt is from ReligiousCriticism.com.)

I saw part of a cable TV program the other night where scientists were bending over backward to try and explain the "miracles" of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. It was, at best, an exercise in silliness. These people were putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't they first establish that the exodus actually happened?

The truth, although many don't want to believe it, is that it is unlikely that large numbers of Jews ever lived in Egypt, Jews were never slaves in Egypt, and the exodus never happened. Why do I say that? Because there is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence that any of those three things are true (and there should be at least some evidence if those things actually happened).

This is from a 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times:

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

Dever's view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but "no one would do that today," he says. The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible--often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups--has given way to more objective professionals aiming to piece together the reality of ancient lifestyles.

But the modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public. In 1999, an Israeli archeologist, Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, set off a furor in Israel by writing in a popular magazine that stories of the patriarchs were myths and that neither the Exodus nor Joshua's conquests ever occurred. In the hottest controversy today, Herzog also argued that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, described as grand and glorious in the Bible, was at best a small tribal kingdom.

And this is from a 2012 article in the Jewish newspaper Haaretz:

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

It is hard to believe that 600,000 families (which would mean about two million people) crossed the entire Sinai without leaving one shard of pottery (the archeologist's best friend) with Hebrew writing on it. It is remarkable that Egyptian records make no mention of the sudden migration of what would have been nearly a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any of the expected effects of such an exodus; such as economic downturn or labor shortages. Furthermore, there is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at that time. No rapid departure from traditional pottery has been seen, no record or story of a surge in population.

Public Wants Military Aid To Egypt Cut-Off

The chart above was made with information from a recent Rasmussen Poll (conducted on August 15th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 likely voters -- with a 3 point margin of error).

Yesterday, I posted that I thought the United States should cut off all the military aid they send to Egypt -- since that aid is being used to suppress and kill Egyptian citizens. Continuing to send that military aid just makes the United States an accomplice in that suppression and those killings.

Now it looks like I am not alone in that view. A new Rasmussen Poll shows that a majority of Americans (54%) also think the military aid should be stopped, while another 27% aren't sure about whether it should be stopped or continued. Only 18% think the aid should be continued. And even if you subtract the entire poll margin of error of 3 points, it still leaves a majority wanting the military aid stopped.

It's time for the U.S. government to take action, and that action should be to immediately stop giving military aid to the dictatorship in Egypt -- at least until that country settles it political problems, and we can determine whether they deserve to have that aid resumed.

It's Time To Stop The Military Aid

(The cartoon above is by Kevin Siers in The Charlotte Observer.)

A few weeks ago, the Obama administration ignored the will of the American people and decided to take sides in the Syrian Civil War. They put America on the side of those fighting to overthrow the Syrian government by starting to send them military equipment. This was done in spite of the fact that the United States really has no friends in that conflict. The government is a bloody dictatorship, and the opposition is composed mostly of moslem fundamentalists (who would not be a U.S. ally if able to gain power).

Now it seems that we are doing the same in Egypt. We are taking sides in a conflict where neither of the opposing forces are our friends (or "friends" that we should want to be associated with anyway). We continue to send military aid to the military dictatorship of that country -- even though that government has used that aid to kill hundreds of their own citizens recently. And the other side is not much better. While in power, the Muslim Brotherhood made it clear they were not an ally of the United States.

If we have any friends in Egypt, they have been marginalized by both sides of this conflict. Like in Syria, neither side is a real friend. We do not need to be seen supporting the bloody military dictatorship, or the muslim fundamentalists opposing them.

President Obama has cancelled a joint military operation with the Egyptian government, but that is not enough. We need to make it clear that the United States does not support the continuing violence in that country -- and the best way to do that would be to stop all military aid to Egypt. Food and medical aid would be OK, but the military aid must be stopped. The Egyptian government's use of that military aid against their own citizens makes the U.S. culpable in the slaughter -- and gives the impression that we support the actions of that government.

It is time to cut off military aid to Egypt -- and while we're at it, we should do the same in Syria. Progressives and conservatives can debate the value of military aid to any country, but we should be able to agree that it makes no sense to give that kind of aid to those who are not our friends.

Egyptian Democracy Was Just An Illusion

There is sad news coming out of Egypt. It seems that the Egyptian military, led by General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi (pictured above), has pulled off a military coup -- kicking out the duly-elected President (Mohammed Morsi) and suspending the Constitution. Even sadder is the fact that many Egyptians, including leaders of the opposition parties and those who had been demonstrating against Morsi, are celebrating his removal by the military as though it was a good thing.

It isn't, because it means that a democracy never really existed in Egypt. When a government exists only because the country's military allows it to exist, that is not a democracy. It is a form of military autocratic rule (however benign it might be). It is not unusual for a leader in a democracy to be unpopular, because sometimes they must take actions that many people don't like (but that the leader believes is necessary).

There are ways to deal with the unpopularity of a leader in a democracy. You can oppose his/her actions in the legislative body, or you can oppose those actions in a court of law. You can even seek to impeach that leader if his/her actions are egregious enough. And finally, you can vote the leader out of office in the next scheduled election. But the one thing that cannot happen in a democracy is the removal of a leader by the military, because that action kills the democracy. After all, if the military can remove a leader you don't like, then they also can remove a leader you do like -- which is why all Egyptians should be mourning today, not celebrating.

Obviously, the Egyptian "democracy" was nothing more than an illusion.

The Fight Against Autocracy And Theocracy

Since the modern idea of democracy was born a few thousand years ago in Greece, there has been a struggle to keep it alive in a world that seems to love autocracy and theocracy. There are those who might be offended at my equating theocracy with autocracy, but the fact is that religion has been both a reason for establishing an autocracy and a tool for an autocracy to remain in power. Democracy simply cannot exist in any nation that decrees one religion is true and all others are false, because a democracy is more than rule by the majority. A true democracy demands respect for the rights of the minority.

During the celebrated "Arab Spring", one of the countries that successfully threw off the yoke of autocratic rule was Egypt. With the election of a new president by the people and an attempt to write a new constitution, it was hoped that democracy stood a chance of coming to that country in a real form. Those hopes have now been dimmed -- for a couple of reasons. First, because the constitution being written now is almost sure to be the vehicle for installation of a theocracy (which is nothing more than a religious autocracy). And second, because the elected president, a member of the same majority group writing the constitution, has given himself enormous new powers in a new decree -- powers that mean nothing he does can be overturned by the courts or any other organization.

President Morsy claims he is assuming these new autocratic powers to protect the "revolution" that happened in Egypt, and that nation is still on the road to democracy. Frankly that is now hard to believe. All autocrats have claimed that they are just protecting their nation and have assumed dictatorial powers for the good of the people. Even such brutal dictators as Stalin and Hitler made these claims. And it is also true that once the have assumed autocratic powers, dictators rarely give up those powers. And even if Morsy does finally bend to the will of the people and follow the dictates of a new constitution, if that constitution is simply an extension of the islamic religion (which it almost surely will be) can it really be called democratic?

Frankly, it now looks like the desire for a true democracy is Egypt has been thwarted. It has been subverted by the desire of a religious group to impose their will on all the country's citizens, and one man's desire to be the instrument of installing the new theocracy. Maybe this is the way it had to turn out. A real democracy cannot exist in a theocratic state, and until most Egyptians understand that there will not be a democracy in that country.

I know there will be many in this country, especially right-wingers, who will be saying "I told you so". But many of them don't really have the right to point a finger at Egypt, because they are trying to do the same thing in this country. The only difference is that they wish to replace our democracy with a christian theocracy instead of an islamic theocracy -- and personally, I don't see that as any better.

No theocracy, regardless of what religion it is established on, can also be a democracy (because it denies the rights of those who follow a different religion, or no religion at all). Fundamentalists will disagree, but a true democracy can only exist in a secular state that guarantees the fundamental right of religious freedom (which includes the right to be free from religion). And the funny thing is that all theocrats will agree with this when it is not their own religion that is dominant, but quickly disagree when their own religion is dominant.

We all need to understand that democracy is not the right to impose your religious views on your fellow citizens. A democracy requires that all religious views be respected and protected, and that none be elevated above all the others. Our forefathers understood this, and gave us an enduring secular constitution. And because they understood there would always be theocrats trying to destroy our democracy, they gave us the First Amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. We would be exceedingly foolish to replace that constitution with a Bible (or any other religious book).

Public Didn't Like Willard's Mideast Remarks

The time since the party conventions has not been good for Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). He got no bounce from his own convention, and had to watch as the president got a very nice bounce in the polls from the Democratic Convention. That would have been bad enough, but then Willard had to shoot himself in the foot by trying to make it look like he knew something about foreign policy.

When the embassies of this country were attacked in the Mideast (especially in Egypt and Libya, where Americans were killed), Willard was quick to jump in and try to score some political points from the tragedy by blaming the riots on President Obama. And he did this at a time when Americans should have been standing behind the president. Many people found Willard's attempt to score political points off the death of American officials to not only be inappropriate, but unpatriotic.

This is verified by a survey done between September 13th and 16th by the Pew Research Center. Only 26% of all Americans approved of Romney's remarks on the Mideast turmoil (which is even less than the number of Americans who self-identify as Republicans). In fact, as the chart above shows, all demographic groups disapproved of Willard's remarks except one -- Republicans, and even there only 58% approved. This was truly a gaffe that hurt the Romney campaign.

About the only good thing about this affair for Romney is that it was pushed off the media front pages after only a few days. Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, the story that pushed it out of the media's glare was another shot to the foot by Willard -- the video of his disdain for half of the American people. Willard seems to be just stumbling form one disaster to another right now.

Egyptian PM Asks For The Impossible

The gentleman in the picture above is Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil. He has a tough job ahead of him -- to keep the peace in a divided country while trying to establish a workable democracy. I recognize that, and I hope he is successful in that task. But he has an unrealistic view of the United States, and what President Obama has to power to do here.

You have surely heard about the ridiculous, offensive, and poorly-made video posted on YouTube. It purports to be the truth about the prophet Mohammed, founder of the muslim religion. But it really is nothing more than naked and ugly bigotry. And it has been used as a reason for muslim riots in several Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Libya (where four Americans, including our ambassador, were killed).

To his credit, PM Qandil has said that regardless of the provocation, violent demonstrations are unacceptable. He is right about that. Insults (and the ridiculous film was insulting) are offensive, and never any fun to see or hear -- but they are also not a justification for violence, especially violence resulting in fatalities.

In a recent interview with BBC's Arabic News, PM Qandil said it is "unacceptable to insult our Prophet". He has the right to that opinion, but he went further and seems to be asking the United States (and other Western countries) to curb free speech. He called on them to:

 "take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people, one-and-a-half billion people and their beliefs, does not happen and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well in the Western media."

I understand his feelings. But he is asking the impossible -- at least I hope it is impossible. In the United States, we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech. Our Founding Fathers knew that free speech can be offensive at times -- sometimes very offensive. But they determined that free speech is a necessary requirement for a democracy, and they were right. And maintaining a free and open democratic society is much more important than not ever being offended by what someone else has to say, write, or film.

In short, being offended on occasion is just the price of democracy -- and if you are never offended, then you don't live in a democracy. I personally don't like what the racists, misogynists, homophobes, and other bigots in this country have to say. I find it very offensive. But I defend their right to say those offensive things because I want to live in a free and democratic society. And I also recognize that I have the right to blast those people for those bigoted views with my own words, and I try to do that often.

Mr. Qandil has the right to be offended by religious bigotry in this country, and he has the right to speak out against it. And his people have the right to peacefully demonstrate against that hateful bigotry. What they should not have the right to do is commit violent acts -- or ask any other country to curb (or eliminate) their right of free (and sometimes offensive) speech.

Perhaps the most reasonable statement about this whole mess has come from the Grand Mufti Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheik, the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia. He said:

"Muslims should not be dragged by wrath and anger to shift from legitimate to forbidden action and by this, they will, unknowingly, fulfil some aims of the film."

Egypt - No Democracy Yet

The demonstrations in Egypt have accomplished their first goal. Their dictatorial president, Hosni Mubarak, is no longer in power. And his hand-picked vice-president is also gone. But it looks to me like a lot of people have jumped the gun on just what has been accomplished so far in that country. A lot of the headlines on blogs and in some media outlets have proclaimed "freedom" or "democracy" has been won for the Egyptian people.

These people must not be reading the same news accounts that I have. Freedom and democracy may well come to that country, but it is not their yet. They are now being ruled by a military council (which is a nice way to say military dictatorship), and that military council has suspended the constitution (which means there are currently no rights for citizens except those the military wishes to grant). That doesn't sound like democracy or freedom to me.

It is true that the military council says it will rule only for six months and then there will be elections, but this leaves some questions unanswered. What kind of elections? Will the constitution be reinstated, or will a new one be written (and who will write that - the military)? Just how "free" will those elections be? Will only certain candidates be allowed to run?

I'd like to think that the military council will live up to its word and institute a real democracy with free elections, but we've seen the military in other countries make promises that weren't kept (Burma is a prime example). And if the military doesn't keep it promises and the demonstrations resume, it could be a lot bloodier than it was to oust Mubarak (who didn't have control of the military).

I'm not saying that democracy won't come to Egypt. I sincerely hope it will. But its not there yet, and until it is, its not yet a time to celebrate. All we can do is cross our fingers and watch what happens in the next few months.

Egypt Must Be Allowed Self-Determination

Since the 25th of January, the country of Egypt has been in turmoil. There have been massive daily demonstrations demanding that President Mubarak step down and a change in government be instituted in the country. What that government will finally be like is anybody's guess at this point (or even if the anti-Mubarak movement will succeed).

In this country there has been much comment on what the United States government should do to influence what happens in Egypt. Many on the right would like to see the U.S. step in and support "our friend" Mubarak (being afraid the protestors will institute an Iranian type theistic government). While many on the left want the U.S. to actively support the "democracy" movement of the demonstrators.

Frankly, I think both sides are wrong. The Egyptians must be allowed to determine their own fate without any interference from the United States or any other country. No one knows what will happen. Maybe Egypt will wind up with a muslim theocracy opposing U.S. interests, and maybe they will develop a western-style democracy. It does not matter, since it is no business of anyone except the Egyptians.

Here in the United States, we would be offended for any other nation to try and tell us what kind of government we should have. That is something for Americans to decide. We must give Egypt that same right of self-determination. It is just the right thing to do.

Too often in the past our government has tried to interfere in the internal matters of other countries, and that interference has almost always proved to be disastrous for both us and the other country. It is my fervent hope that we don't repeat that mistake in Egypt.

U.S. Should Stay Out Of Arab Problems

The Arab world is currently in a state of turmoil. A few days ago, the people of Tunisia tossed out their tyrant -- and his cronies who stepped in to take over for him. It's still unknown how that situation will finally shake out. Now the unrest has spread to Egypt, where demonstrators are demanding President Mubarak's removal from power.

Egypt's unrest has been going for nearly a week now and there have been more than 70 deaths. So far, the demonstrations show no sign of letting up -- in fact, they seem to be growing stronger. Mubarak has withdrawn the hated security police from the streets now and replaced them with the army (which is more respected by the people) in an effort to calm things down. So far, it has not worked. The demonstrations continue and the curfew the government imposed continues to be ignored by the demonstrators.

So far, the army has shown restraint. They are trying to protect Egypt's landmarks and treasures, but have not tried to control the demonstrators or shoot at them. It looks like the army may be trying to stay neutral in the conflict (even though a few members of the army have actually sided with the demonstrators).

For his part, Mubarak is doing his best to hold on to power. It looks like he may have given up his hope of letting his son assume power when he dies. He has dismissed his cabinet and appointed his former intelligence chief to be his vice-president (who would presumably now be the heir apparent to power). He has also promised unspecified reforms.

If Mubarak thought those pitiful moves would calm the people, he was sadly mistaken. The demonstrators have not been pacified, and there is no reason they should be. Why should they trade one tyrant for another, and the feeble promise of future changes? Frankly, it looks like Mubarak's tyrannical rule has come to an end.

Anything could still happen in Tunisia and Egypt. They could be on the road to democracy, or they could be headed for another dictatorship (either a theistic or military one). It's too early to tell. But one thing is very certain. The United States should back off and let the people of those countries determine their own fates. And if the unrest spreads to other Arab countries (like Algeria, Yemen, Jordan or Saudi Arabia), we should stay out of the internal workings of those countries also.

The United States has a past policy of trying to interfere in other countries and trying to dictate to them what kind of government they should have. This has never worked out well, and Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect recent examples of that. Usually we just create a lot of bad feelings and insure we have another enemy rather than a possible friend.

Take Iran for example. Years ago they had a thriving democracy. But it was a leftist democracy that wouldn't let American corporations take advantage of them, so our CIA overthrew their democratic government and installed the Shah -- a pro-Western tyrant. This led directly to his overthrow years later, which resulted in the current theistic autocracy there and insured they would consider the U.S. to be an enemy.

Will the coming governments of Tunisia and Egypt (and maybe some other Arab countries) be our friend or our enemy? I don't know (and neither does anyone else). But there is a much greater chance of them being a friend if we stay out of their business. And it has the further advantage of being the right thing to do. Wouldn't it be nice to do the right thing for once instead of the corporate thing?

Muslims Act To Protect Christians

There is a lot of talk in this country, especially from the right-wing, about how muslims are the enemy of christianity and of this country.   It isn't true, and that was proven in Egypt in the last few days.

Around the new year there were some terrorist strikes against Egypt's christian community, and at least 21 christians were killed in an attack on a church.   Christians demonstrated and it looked for a while like the situation could grow into a religious war.   But then thousands of moderate muslims stepped forward.

These muslims surrounded christian churches -- not to attack them, but to defend them.   They used their own bodies as shields so the christians could attend their religious services without being attacked again by radicals.   The human shields included the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, some film and music celebrities, and thousands of ordinary muslims.

As an atheist, I don't particularly like any of the world's religions.   However, I have to admire people of faith that are willing to put their own lives on the line for countrymen of a different faith.   That's just class behavior, and should be emulated by people of all faithhs (and those of no religion) everywhere.   This would be a whole lot better world if their were more people like those brave Egyptian muslims.

The muslim-haters in America could learn a lot from these people.