Tom Shipley
An expansion of the discussion of the discoveries found in El Amarna.
The Country of the Blind
The secular academic establishment is arrayed in resolute a priori opposition to any suggestion, or even any indirect hint, of corroboration of biblical history and biblical chronology even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (See Part 1 of this series.)
It cannot be stressed too often or too strongly that the research methodology and assumptions of the academic-scientific establishment are zealously (I don’t think it is exaggerating to say, fanatically) axiomatic and presuppositional, they are entirely assumption-laden. Their research methodology begins and ends by assuming the proposition of naturalistic materialism. It is tautological, that is to say, their reasoning is entirely circular.
Consider again this description by Richard Lewontin of the “apparatus of investigation and set of concepts” to which many in academia are committed:
We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. —“Billions and Billions of Demons,” Richard Lewontin, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997, The New York Review, p. 31, Jan. 9, 1997
We must not lose sight of the nature of this fundamental dynamic of investigation and set of concepts to which the secular academic establishment is committed, even in the fields of archaeology and history. It is directly relevant to how the El Amarna letters are understood, to wit:
Was the conquest of Canaan the outworking of mere human activity and ultimately just a blind evolutionary process?
Or was Yahweh, the Creator of the universe, actively assisting the Hebrews?
The Naturalists in academia have no interest in discovering if a supernatural reality is impinging upon the events of the material world, to say nothing of a supernatural God Who is absolutely sovereign over it. They are not about to allow a Divine foot in the door in their thinking.
What about the term “Habiru?”
Disputes about the linguistic association, or lack of association, of the word “Habiru” with the word “Hebrew” are a sidebar and are not necessary to establish the point that the “Habiru” or “Apiru” of the El Amarna letters are the Israelite invaders of the Bible.
It warrants strong emphasis that the chronology (i.e., the 1300s BC) matches the biblical chronology of the time of the Judges. This should be enough by itself for any reasonable person to conclude that in the El Amarna letters from the Canaanite officials to Amenhotep III and Akhenaten we have Canaanite reaction to the biblical conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Again, this case is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
The Historical Context of the Letters
In Parts 2–4 of this series, we looked separately and individually at 1) The Brooklyn Papyrus, 2) The Soleb Temple Yahweh inscription, and now 3) the El Amarna letters. Looking at these artifacts and historical records separately creates a certain inherent handicap to our grasp of this subject matter because of the tunnel vision this atomization causes. These artifacts don’t exist in isolation. They exist in a sequential chronological order and a subject matter relation to one another. It is the holistic picture that reveals the true juggernaut force of the message that these artifacts convey. The whole is greater than the parts.
Each of these artifacts alone by itself creates a strong presumption of the accuracy and reliability of the scriptural testimony. These artifacts testify that
- Israel was in Egypt (the Brooklyn Papyrus),
- they were in existence as nomads as a distinct people group hundreds of years before the secular scholars acknowledge (the Soleb Temple Yahweh inscription), and
- after they were in Egypt, they wound up in Canaan at war with the Canaanites in the late 15th century BC and 14th century BC (the El Amarna letters). In other words, at some point, there was a transition from Egypt to Canaan. There was an exodus.
We not only have the situation that each of these artifacts attests to, but we also have the historical sequence that corresponds to the biblical record. If the Soleb Yahweh inscription came from, let’s say 1900 BC for example, and therefore previous to the Brooklyn Papyrus, this would create a nonsensical picture as far as correlating Egyptian and biblical history. Or if the El Amarna letters came from, let’s say 1800 BC for example, we would have the “Habiru” who invaded Canaan and who later became the nation of Israel preceding their residence in Egypt and their existence as nomads. Again, a nonsensical picture as far as correlating Egyptian and biblical history.
So we need to ask why do these historical artifacts develop in their biblically correct timeframes? These hypothetical readjustments of the sequence of these artifacts demonstrate how compelling a case is made for the historical accuracy and reliability of Scripture that these artifacts present to us. Being in the correct biblical historical sequence is of no trivial consequence here. A cumulative case is a strong one.
