Mr. Holding has again written a response to my article on the population of Hebrews at the exodus as described in the Bible. And, again, I was not alerted to its existence by its author but by a visitor to my site. I do not know when it appeared on Mr. Holding’s site so I don’t know how long it has gone unnoticed. But, I want to assure readers that if it has been there for quite some time my lack of response to it was due only to my unawareness of its existence. Below I will treat Mr. Holding’s reply to the attention it deserves.
The reply Mr. Holding penned was added to his and Mr. Hardaway’s original article on the population figures given in Exodus. He has satirically titled it, “Palmer on the Pyre” and begins by writing:
Palmer more recently offered these comments to the "Scythian challenge." After whinging off-topic (as above) about our not covering what we had no need to cover....
Again, I apologize to Mr. Holding if he thinks I’m complaining unnecessarily about details of his and Mr. Hardaway’s population studies. I just believe in uncovering every aspect of the topic and not merely creating a swirl of sorcerous sums and distracting dares that can be manipulated to support my own preconceived ideas. I think Mr. Holding is trying to hide behind the fact that neither he nor Brent Hardaway can come up with reasonable solutions or answers to the details I believe they should cover and so he calls such material “off-topic” or beyond the scope of their expertise. But, it is hardly Mr. Holding’s place to declare, as some sort of self-appointed despot, what is or is not to be considered off-topic.[1] Recall, what Mr. Holding terms “off-topic” are the many “archaeological issues” which completely sink his and Mr. Hardaway’s rather sparse and naïve mathematics regarding the population figures of the biblical exodus. If it were easy enough to refute this wealth of evidence, I doubt Mr. Holding or Mr. Hardaway would hesitate to cover what they feel they “had no need to cover.” It is not as though the internet generally, or Mr. Holding’s website in particular, has space limits. I think their reluctance to deal with this “off-topic” subject is based on their realization that the data show their position to be a false one.
Ignoring again the overwhelming and damaging “off-topic” archaeological issues, Mr. Holding tries to answer a few of my other points. In his last reply to my article, Mr. Holding had pointed me in the direction of something he called “the Scythia challenge.” Mr. Holding believes that any answers to this “challenge” will help skeptics answer their own questions regarding the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. Apparently, Mr. Holding and Mr. Hardaway see a parallel between the ancient Scythians and the Hebrews slaves of Goshen. In my reply to this “challenge,” I noted:
How could the Scythians, a nomadic people living thousands of years and thousands of miles from the enslaved Hebrews of Goshen, have something in common with the Israelite population? Were the Scythians held in bondage? Were they exiles in the Nile delta, captives of a foreign government that, from all accounts, detested them and sought to subjugate them?
To which Mr. Holding’s response began:
These comments show that I have given Palmer far too much credit for intelligence.
Mr. Holding’s complaint about someone’s level of intelligence is not only inappropriate and ill-mannered, but also rather ironic given that he cannot see the relevance of archaeological data to the Exodus population figure. It is also, dare I say, off-topic and beyond his expertise to judge another’s intelligence.
Being in bondage or living in the Nile does not in the least affect the critical and relevant issue of comparison for our subject matter, which is living nomadically and the effort of practical living while doing so.
I am literally astounded that Mr. Holding cannot see the relevance of my objection to his attempt to compare (superficially) the Scythians with the Hebrew slaves of Goshen. When were the Hebrews of Goshen “living nomadically” while under the brutal conditions of slavery? The relevance of my objection has obviously called into question the appropriateness of his “Scythian challenge” on the topic of the Exodus population figures, and his only response is to merely assert that my objections don’t matter and to mistakenly apply a nomadic people as a comparison for an enslaved people who likely rarely journeyed far from home, field or workplace.
Being in bondage as opposed to a free people indeed has relevance to the topic of the Exodus population. This is obviously a relevancy that Mr. Holding cannot see for he believes the Hebrews of Goshen lived a lifestyle similar to that of the nomadic Scythians. The Hebrews were not nomadic. They lived, apparently, in controlled camps overseen by taskmasters and were used as an oppressed labor force for building pharaonic cities (Ex. 1:11-14). They did not enjoy the luxury of touring where they wanted, holding vast amounts of territory for farming, hunting and gathering, trading with surrounding cultures and warring with neighbors. They were not following herds of animals for food, or having time to design elaborate battle gear adorned with gold or devise formidable weapons or fearsome battle tactics.[2] In fact, the living conditions imposed upon slaves is described in my original article, so I don’t think I need to get into details again here. But let me drive the main point home again so that, perhaps, even Mr. Holding will understand. While we cannot know the exact conditions under which the Hebrew slaves of Goshen lived if we are to take the biblical tale of the exodus seriously even for argument’s sake (due, of course, to an absolute silence regarding them in the ancient record-–both literary and material), we can reasonably speculate about their lives. We have no records of Hebrew slavery abolitionists, for example, detailing what deplorable conditions were like for the sons and daughters of Jacob; however the Bible does tell us enough from which we can infer what the conditions were like. The Bible tells us that taskmasters were set up over the Hebrews and that they were oppressed with forced labor (Ex. 1:11). Furthermore, the Bible says that the Egyptians “became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter” (Ex. 1:13-14). We also know that the Hebrew slaves were beaten, and not on rare occasion. The Bible tells us that Moses, on a random stroll one day, actually came across one of his countrymen being struck by an Egyptian taskmaster (Ex. 2:11). And, to make matters worse, the Egyptian pharaoh even more than once ordered the extermination of every newborn son of the Hebrews (Ex. 1:16, 22). Life, it can be argued, was horrible and harsh for the Hebrew slaves if we believe what the Bible tells us about their living conditions.
While we may not have detailed literature about the Hebrew’s living conditions from outside sources, the Bible paints a bleak picture. We do, however, have details regarding the conditions of slavery in the old American South. And, comparisons between conditions suffered here and those imposed upon the ancient Hebrews in Goshen are far more appropriate than a comparison between the free and nomadic Scythians and these same Hebrew slaves. According to one easily accessible website
(S)laves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14. As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age.
(S)lave mothers suffered high rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and deaths shortly after birth. Half of all slave infants weighed less than 5.5 pounds at birth, or what we would today consider to be severely underweight.
Conditions like these, and many others imposed by life in the ancient world, are detailed in my original article. These conditions stunted any potential growth of the Hebrew slave population in Goshen. And that is my point which Mr. Holding continues to miss. Now, if Mr. Holding or Mr. Hardaway can find refuting evidence for conditions of the Hebrew slaves being far less grim than that faced by Africans in the American south, then let them bring it forward. It may be, of course, that Mr. Holding will feel such data is “off-topic,” beyond their expertise and that my calling for it amounts to nothing more than whinging. If so, he will do nothing more than underscore his inability to locate such material to educate me and my fellow skeptics which, I believed, was the purpose of his apologetic site. Let me caution Mr. Holding or Mr. Hardaway should they endeavor to meet this challenge: Do not be fooled by data regarding native Egyptian slaves or indentured servants. The biblical text is clear: the Hebrews were feared by the Egyptians and were forced into slavery as a direct way to limit their numbers (Ex. 1:9-10). These were not conditions imposed on native Egyptian slaves and servants. Whatever Mr. Holding or Mr. Hardaway uncover regarding the ancient practice of slavery must align with the biblical tale if it’s to have any relevancy. Softening that tale will not suffice.
Focusing on my next point:
Mr. Holding wrote in response to my critique that I should consult this so-called “Scythian challenge” in his article as his answer. However, in that “challenge,” Mr. Holding flatly states, “We cannot parallel the population figures, since we have none,” so, as a response to my critique of his and Hardaway's Hebrew population figures, Mr. Holding suggests I consult his “Scythian challenge” which, by his own admission, cannot be used to "parallel the population figures."
Mr. Holding responds:
Of course what Palmer evades here is that the specific challenge was in terms of specific archaeological considerations, not the population figures.
This reply is another astounding example of a mental disconnect. Mr. Holding had specifically stated that he cannot comment on the “archaeological issues” (i.e., “archaeological considerations”) regarding the Hebrew exodus because those issues are “off-topic” and beyond his expertise. He then offers the “Scythia challenge” as a response to that archaeological data. So, my objection still stands, if only slightly altered:
In response to my critique Mr. Holding wrote that I should consult this so-called “Scythian challenge” in his article as his answer. However, Mr. Holding has flatly stated, “this essay does not go off subject and out of expertise [and does not] address the archaeological issues.” So, as a response to my critique of his and Hardaway's Hebrew population figures, Mr. Holding suggests I consult his “Scythian challenge” for archaeological parallels to the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt which he says are “off-topic and out of [his] expertise.”
Simply put, if Mr. Holding’s argument is devoid of any archaeological data regarding the Hebrew exodus, how can he then go and parallel that exodus with the Scythians? It’s a good thing I never credited Mr. Holding with any intelligence at all. It saved me the disappointment of discovering he has none.[3]
Mr. Holding next notes my following point:
It is, however, a clever non sequitur because it does not follow that if the Scythians were successful at something that the Hebrew slaves of Goshen would have been successful at something similar too.
Mr. Holding objects:
It is in fact not a "non sequitur" but a devasting [sic] rejoinder to those who claim that the Hebrews doing X activity was somehow impossible. In short, it puts the burden on the likes of Palmer to explain why the Hebrews could not manage while the Scythians did.
It is not only a non sequitur when Mr. Holding implies that if the Scythians were successful at something that the Hebrew slaves of Goshen would have been successful at something similar too but also a colossal cop-out. Mr. Holding obviously misunderstands who holds the burden of proof. It is not up to the likes of me to demonstrate that the Hebrews could not do something that the Scythians did. It is up to the likes of Mr. Holding to demonstrate that the Hebrews did do something in parallel fashion with the Scythians if he is claiming “what’s good for the Scythians is good for the Hebrews.” In other words, the burden is not the skeptic’s to research Scythian history and then uncritically allow the apologist to draw parallels between the Scythians and the ancient Hebrews of Goshen. Such a burden belongs to the apologist not only to tease out the details of Scythian history but then--if they’d offered such a claim--to demonstrate how the Scythians can be paralleled with the Hebrews toiling in bondage in Egypt as described in the Bible. Regardless, I think I pointed out quite clearly why the attempted parallel between the Hebrews and the Scythians is inappropriate. I noted that the Scythians were under vastly different living conditions than those imposed upon the Hebrews by the Egyptians according to the biblical account. Mr. Holding’s only reply was to question my intelligence and try to sidestep the issue. He has yet to make any connection between the living conditions of the Scythians and the Hebrews so that we can know that the parallel is a valid one. So far, he has merely asserted that the parallel exists with no supporting evidence.
However, it may simply be that Mr. Holding is confused. If he is, it is a mark of his lack of attention to the subject being discussed (if not indicative generally of his lack of intelligence). It may be that Mr. Holding’s “Scythian challenge” is meant to answer objections to the Hebrews’ 40 year sojourn in the Sinai wilderness following the exodus.[4] This may be why he is so insistent that parallels be made between the nomadic Sycthians and the Hebrew wanderers. The Hebrews wandering in the desert were indeed “nomadic” in the broad sense of the term, in thin similarity with the horse-riding Sycthians. And while the parallels between the Scythians and the wandering Hebrews are marginal at best, they do not apply to this present study which focuses on the explosion of the Hebrew population while held in Egyptian bondage. But, I cannot assume Mr. Holding possesses this level of attention-deficiency and must believe in good faith that he has been following this conversation all along and that, remarkable as it may seem, he really maintains the Hebrews of Goshen (and not of the Sinai desert) can be compared to the Scythians.
My next observation is quoted:
How do we know anything about the nomadic Scythians who inhabited the Russian steppes of c. 1000 BCE? Through archaeology, of course.
And Mr. Holding replies:
"Of course," and Palmer then proceeds to haul out an irrelevant example of a royal tomb of the Scythians, and the Hebrews had no such royalty.
It’s amusing to read Mr. Holding complain about my attempt to research the archaeological data related to the Scythians to see if they could be compared to the Hebrews of Goshen when the duty was actually his when he decided to issue his “Scythian challenge.” Shouldn’t Mr. Holding have done the necessary research into the lives of the Scythians before he issued his “challenge” and presented these people as a parallel for the Hebrew slaves? Shouldn’t he see if his Scythians could stand in for the Hebrews and then draw those corresponding parallels between these peoples so that there is no question, no skepticism about the relevancy of his “challenge” or to the historical accuracy of the biblical tale? He hardly has room to complain when a skeptic does his homework for him and he doesn't like the results.
What’s additionally humorous is to see Mr. Holding completely refute his own “challenge.” The Scythians had enough wealth and freedom to enjoy various degrees of social structures and the luxury of royal tombs. These are pleasures even Mr. Holding admits the Hebrews did not have (“the Hebrews had no such royalty”). So maybe now he’s beginning to see the irrelevancy of his “Scythian challenge” in regard to the Hebrew exodus. If not, let me see if I can help him finally see the folly of his “challenge.” Here is what we know, even at a cursory glace, about the Scythians[5]:
And here, by contrast, are the “parallels” with the Hebrews:
Additionally, there is no claim that I can uncover that the Scythians grew to a population size of nearly 3 million within a 400-year time span, all the while confined to a relatively small region of their territory while being enslaved by a hostile foreign government. So, again, I’d like Mr. Holding to give us the parallels he thinks exist between the Scythians and the Hebrews of Goshen as far as a study in population figures goes. I simply cannot seem to find any of any relevance to the current discussion.
If we’re going to use Mr. Holding’s logic of “tell me how the Scythians did it and that will be your answer for how the Hebrews of Goshen did it,” then it would follow that if you can tell me how the Minoans “did it,” for example, that will answer questions of how the Atlantians “did it.” This is irrelevant nonsense.[6]Mr. Holding goes on to note:
The issue here has been the life of the everyday Hebrew, and how allegedly impossible it was for them to live, and why we are not knee-deep in artifacts from the Exodus. By this argument, we ought to be chest-deep in artifacts from everyday Scythians; but the best Palmer can do is haul out specially-preserved items in tombs from persons who had no social parallel among the Hebrews.
Well, at least Mr. Holding is admitting to one nonparallel between the Scythians and the Hebrews. I suppose that’s a start. There was no social parallel between the Scythians and the Hebrews. But, it’s the fact that the Scythians were able to have the luxury to construct such a tomb that seems lost on Mr. Holding. What does that tell us about Scythian society that we can infer from the biblical (and the nonexistent archaeological) account of the exodus that the Hebrew slaves did not share? If the issue is the life of the everyday Hebrew, and this life is supposed to parallel that of the everyday Scythian, then I expect the everyday Scythian was held in oppressive bondage by a hostile, foreign government in a relatively small portion of the Scythian’s territory and that this foreign authority actively worked to keep their population numbers down (along with all the other natural factors present in the ancient world that held population numbers in check generally). Is that what Mr. Holding is trying to argue? I think Mr. Holding has lost sight of my original argument. Remember, I’m not specifically arguing here about the lack of archaeological artifacts left behind by the Hebrews. I’m arguing the restrictions of the ancient world as revealed by archaeology that make impossible the fantastic number of the Hebrew population at the time of the exodus. Indeed, we are chest-deep in the archaeological artifacts that reveal these restrictions. These restrictions would have applied to the Scythians as well as to the ancient Hebrews, but the ancient Hebrews would have had additional restrictive conditions to the growth of their population if we are going to take the biblical tale with any amount of seriousness. These are restrictions Mr. Holding is yet to even acknowledge, much less deal with.
Mr. Holding next comments:
Palmer's appeal to a royal Scyhtian [sic] tomb is itself a deceitful distraction, as is his red herring directing the reader to some alleged point of issue with respect to bondage to a foreign government. He may as well have complained that my parallel was of no use because the Scyhtians [sic] never wore blue.
If the Hebrews are said to have worn blue and it was this color that caused them untold hardship and thus would have stunted their population growth, then I would indeed have complained if Mr. Holding’s “Scythia challenge” did not include this relevant detail. All I have asked of Mr. Holding is for him to draw clearly for us the parallels he believes exist between the Scythians and the Hebrew slaves of Goshen, noting that he needs to compare living conditions, mortality rates, life expectancies, etc. These are all very relevant, but Mr. Holding would rather call this material “off-topic” and beyond his expertise. And, yet, he still believes he has made some sort of case for the astounding population figures of the exodus by appealing to this irrelevant “challenge.” If anything is beyond Mr. Holding's expertise, it's his attempt to construct an apologetic to explain the outlandish population figures for the Hebrews of Goshen given in the books of Exodus and Numbers by supporting silly mathematical formulas and advocating irrelevant comparisons between historical and mythical populations.
If anyone is being deceitful with distractions, it is Mr. Holding. He has yet to substantiate his argument paralleling the Scythians with the Hebrews, so evading doing so is nothing other than a red herring directing his readers away from the fact that he has absolutely nothing to support his exodus population figures other than magical mathematics. And these fanciful figures he and Mr. Hardaway have conjured are demonstrated to be false by the cold, harsh realities of ancient life as revealed by the archaeological data as detailed in my original essay.
Finally, in reply to my last article, Mr. Holding quotes me:
Mr. Holding's “Scythian challenge” is a bear with no teeth since, as Mr. Holding admits, the population parallel between the Scythians and the Hebrews simply doesn't exist.
He briefly replies:
It would not, actually, anyway, since it is likely that there were far MORE Scythians than there were Hebrews during the Exodus!
I’m really unclear as to what Mr. Holding means with this bellow. Is he saying there was a time in which the population of the Scythians was beyond 3 million? Or, is he merely noting that if we take the entire existence of the Scythians “who inhabited the arid steppes of what is now Russia and environs from about 1000 BC into medieval times” that they numbered “far MORE” than the number of “Hebrews during the Exodus”? For the former, he’ll need to provide the data and then, again, parallel the conditions, and for the latter I fail to see any relevancy.
The bear is actually eating Palmer, since the logic of he [sic] and his fellow critics would demand that we be chest-deep in artifacts and bones from everyday Scythians (not just their specially-preserved rulers).
Mr. Holding continues to miss the point, and it’s getting harder for me to believe he’s doing so unintentionally. Does he really not understand the irrelevancy of his “Scythian challenge” as it relates to the Hebrews of Goshen? It is not up to me or any other skeptic to answer how the Scythians accomplished anything so that the likes of Mr. Holding can hoot, “And that’s how the Hebrews did it, too!” It is Mr. Holding’s burden to evidence the existence of a population of nearly 3 million Hebrews stuffed into the eastern region of the ancient Nile delta without appealing to sleight-of-hand solutions which do not take into account the realities of ancient life and the restrictions those realities placed upon population growth. If Mr. Holding is arguing that the Scythians can “stand in,” archaeologically, for the ancient Hebrews, then the burden is his to draw the parallels between the two cultures to demonstrate their relevancy to each other. So far, I don’t see any effort on his part to do so.
As noted, the Scythians were nomads. Their territory stretched from the Danube, over the northern crest of the Black Sea, to the steppes of the Ukraine. The Scythians occupied their territory from around 1000 BCE to the second century CE; a total of about 1200 years. They are attested to by ancient literary sources (like Herodotus) and by archaeological discoveries. The same data cannot be applied to the ancient Hebrews of Goshen. The Hebrews supposedly were slaves, held in captivity in an area of the Nile delta called “Goshen,” not allowed to roam freely to make their living. The Hebrew “Land of Goshen” would have been a fraction of the territory roamed by the nomadic Scythians who raided, warred and traded with their neighbors, activities the Hebrews could not have done as slaves. The Scythians had a stratified society complete with a royalty sufficiently wealthy enough to leave behind burial mounds with golden treasures and hundreds upon hundreds of sacrificial horses. The Hebrews are said to have occupied Goshen for roughly 400 years. They were oppressed, treated harshly and beaten by taskmasters and their sons were marked for murder. The only testament we have to their existence in Goshen, especially at the numbers claimed, is inside the Bible alone. Outside the Hebrew text, the ancient record is silent about them.
It is Mr. Holding’s logic that is misplaced. If the Hebrews were as populous as his miracle math strains to calculate, then indeed we should have some sort of archaeological evidence for their existence, seeing as they were not a nomadic people but a subjugated population held in a relatively small region of the Nile delta for centuries. After all, doesn’t Mr. Holding want to compare the Hebrews with the Scythians? And didn’t the Scythians leave behind material evidence of their existence while the Hebrews did not? Again, his “challenge” fails.
But, beyond that--which is the heart of my argument--Mr. Holding’s and Mr. Hardaway’s magical mathematics is overwhelmed and crushed by the realities facing ancient populations, especially those held in oppressive bondage. These same restrictions applied to the Scythians as they did to the Hebrews of Goshen, but we can add a healthy measure of additional hardships to the Hebrews as they were held as hated captives by a hostile government actively working to suppress their numbers. Neither Mr. Holding nor Mr. Hardaway has been able to demonstrate how their fantasy figures can account for these harsh details revealed to us by archaeology. It isn’t so much what is lacking in the archaeological record, but what is actually revealed there. And my original article, left unscathed by Mr. Holding’s latest offering, makes abundantly clear what the archaeological record says about ancient populations. What the record says is enough to reveal the smoke and mirrors used by Mr. Holding and Mr. Hardaway to rescue the ridiculous population figures of the exodus from skeptical rejection.
Now, I suspect, Mr. Holding has been sufficiently stung by my analysis of his nebulous numbers, although he is loathe to admit it, because at the conclusion of his article he has amended it with something called “the ‘elep solution.” Whenever an apologist is backed into a corner by the plain reading of the biblical text, one of his or her favorite refuges is to disappear behind cryptic Hebrew words, defining them in a way that supports a preconceived conclusion (i.e., the Bible is inerrant), confident that since no one speaks this ancient language any longer, the definition offered is as good as anyone else’s. It’s a safe bet that no one will call them on their “solution.”
Mr. Holding’s “‘elep solution” has the potential to be a case in point. Apparently, however, he is not aware that I took care of this “solution” later in my exodus population article back nearly 5 years ago to which he is replying. Mr. Holding begins consideration of this “solution”:
And now at reader suggestion, we take an initial look at a proposed solution to the Exodus numbers matter which simply reduces the totals and resolves all of the objections with one fell swoop.
It would seem one of Mr. Holding’s “readers” recognized the trouble Mr. Hardaway’s calculations has made for the duo and offered Mr. Holding a lifeline in the form of the “‘elep solution.” This reader obviously sees the deficiencies in Mr. Holding and Mr. Hardaway’s magical mathematics, recognizes that my own analysis of the fantastic figures is devastating to this sleight-of-hand solution, and ached to rescue Mr. Holding from his embarrassing predicament.
Apparently, Mr. Holding has failed to realize, however, what this solution ultimately means. If he chooses to fall into the safety net that this “reader” is offering, it would also render Mr. Holding and Mr. Hardaway’s magical mathematics article obsolete in “one fell swoop,” not just “all of the [skeptical] objections” the calculations and the mysterious “Scythian challenge” try to answer. It would also call into question why Mr. Holding has been defending these calculations so rigorously to date. If Mr. Holding and Mr. Hardaway are willing to jettison this idea in favor of the interpretation of a single Hebrew word, what does it mean for their original argument and all the energy they expended to defend it? What happens when their dependence on an interpretation of ‘eleph is shown to be inadequate? Will they defend it until a “reader” suggests another solution they find satisfactory? Such is the unenviable position of the religious apologist.
The answer in sum: The word translated "thousand" ('elep) ought rather be read as, "family units". [sic] Thus for example, as Sarna relates [Sarn.EE, 99], Reuben's "46,500 grown males" would be read as "forty six units". [sic]
We will investigate several sources over the next few months to see how this theory bears out. Sarna suggests an insuperable difficulty in that the solution cannot explain the 22,273 firsborn [sic] sons of Numbers 3:34, or the 22,000 Levites of 3:39. We will see if any other proponents answer this objection.
Indeed, Mr. Holding will investigate to see if he can construct another thinly-evidenced argument to rescue him from his conjured calculations but, in the end, if this investigation fails to bear fruit, he will continue to defend his and Mr. Hardaway’s enchanted equations (even though, at the moment, he seems eager to try to find a way out of the predicament he’s in). If the investigation is sufficient, however, the calculators get tossed as does the “Scythian challenge” in favor of a Grand Rapids, Michigan-published Hebrew lexicon.[7] Suddenly defending the astounding number of exodus participants won’t be necessary. There just weren’t that many slaves to make a fuss about!
Barring the success of the “‘eleph solution,” and having found the facts of archaeology overwhelming for his magical mathematics, the only refuge for the apologist finally to take would be to retreat into the realm of miracles. The only thing left to claim would be that, in the face of every condition unfavorable to a Hebrew population explosion in Egypt, God stepped in and created a miracle. Then, this mysterious deity wiped away the evidence of his tinkering soon after he retreated back to the clouds. The foundation of many an apologetic is one truly built upon shifting sand.
Notes:
1. I’m puzzled by what Mr. Holding considers to be within or outside his expertise. Since Mr. Holding apparently assisted (and continues to assist) with and hosted Mr. Hardaway’s population calculations for the Hebrew horde of Goshen, I must assume Mr. Holding’s expertise is in the field of population statistics or other form of relevant mathematics. However, it is public knowledge that he merely holds a degree in Library Science and that he may be currently pursuing a degree from a Christian institute in some form of religious apologetics. How this qualifies him to concoct and defend magical population figures but not to research and evaluate archaeological data regarding the ancient world is a mystery to me.
2. For details regarding the Scythians, readers can consult the following works:
The Scythians by E.V. Cernen
Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians: Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe by Peter Wells
3. While of course I do not seriously consider Mr. Holding as wholly deficient in intelligence, and have merely decided to join him in some playful ribbing, it remains that he has chosen an impossible position as his profession: apologetics. While it takes a fair amount of intelligence to survive in our educational system, and Mr. Holding is said to possess a degree in Library Sciences, my personal opinion is that it requires very little to engage in apologetics. What it takes instead is undisciplined creativity, selective reasoning, a great deal of unsupported belief and unjustified faith. These are traits I don’t feel are very valuable. But, that’s my opinion and is certainly one not shared by Mr. Holding, other apologists, or their faithful readers. I am certain that, in their opinion, skeptics like me are the ones lacking in brains. And thus, the world goes 'round.
4. See, for example, the following articles by Farrell Till:
Population and the Size of the Hebrew CampsSacrifices and the Size of the Hebrew Camps
What About the Meal Offerings?
Another Problem with the Quails
5. I continue to remain mystified by Mr. Holding’s belief in the significance of his “Scythian challenge” as it relates to the population figures of the Hebrews as recounted in the biblical books of Exodus and Numbers. While the Hebrews of Goshen are only attested to in their religious writings, writings woven with bits of history, myth and legend, the Scythians are a well-documented culture known through various channels of history. I would like to reproduce a portion of a small article on the Scythians, just to underscore this point and to show the irrelevancy of Mr. Holding’s obsession with his delight over his “Scythian challenge” and how that somehow offers an argument for the outlandish population figures of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt.
From eighth to the second century BCE, the Scythians represented the most terrifying military power in Asia, defeating large armies and dominating substantial parts of what is now Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the Eurasian plains. These warring nomads were well-known throughout the continent for their fierce bravery and innovative battlefield tactics. Yet because the Scythians had no written language, most of what is known about them comes from the fifth century BCE recordings of the Greek historian Herodotus. It is only through modern-day archaeological finds that Herodotus’s seemingly unbelievable claims of Scythian war practices are finally being verified (Encyclopedia of Warrior Peoples and Fighting Groups, Paul Davis and Allen Hamilton, Eds. 2nd ed. Millerton, NY: Grey House Publishing, 2006. 683 pp. emphasis mine).
This goes back to a point I made in my original reply to Mr. Holding’s “Scythian challenge.” I had said that what we know about the Scythians comes from archaeology. There are remains that confirm the stories told about these people from the writings of Herodotus and other ancient sources. We have none of that confirming evidence (either material or written) regarding the Hebrews of Goshen. The Hebrew slaves are ghosts on the landscape of archaeology. They left nothing behind and no one mentions them in their writings. This is the hurdle the likes of Mr. Holding must clear if they are going to issue “challenges” comparing the mysterious Hebrews of Goshen with any other archaeologically attested tribes anywhere else in the world. It’s not enough to simply declare, “Tell me how X did something and that will answer how my mythical Y did it.” If we use that logic, then we can argue because horses gallop and birds fly, that explains how Pegasus could have gotten around.
6. Mr. Holding tried to use a similar line of logic when arguing for the historicity of the biblical account of Jericho by comparing it with Troy. It failed just as miserably there as it is doing here. See my article: The Walls of Jericho. Funnily enough, Mr. Holding did not feel the "archeological issues" were off-topic or beyond his expertise when he treated the issue of the biblical Jericho.
7. Grand Rapids, Michigan is home to very conservative Christian publishing houses, the most well-known being Zondervan. Books published by these companies rarely are objective in their treatment of biblical subjects. Zondervan’s website proudly proclaims: “Zondervan is a mission-driven and value-based company. Our organizational culture is uniquely centered on biblical principles.” Baker Publishing Group is another prominent Christian book publisher. Its website announces, “The mission of Baker Publishing Group is to publish writings that promote historic Christianity, irenically express the concerns of evangelicalism, and reflect the diversity of this movement. Its books are well conceived, competently written, and handsomely produced. They furnish resources to all--from individuals to families, from laypeople to pastors, from collegians to seminarians--who seek to live for the Lord and worship him.” Kregel Publishing is another Grand Rapids-based Christian publisher popular with evangelicals. Its website boasts, “Sensing a growing need for solidly evangelical works, Kregel Publications began in 1949 to supply resources to meet the spiritual needs of evangelical readers as well as the professional needs of pastors, missionaries, teachers, and Christian leaders.” Contrast this “biblical” focus with the vision expressed by Oxford University Press, for example: “publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.” Or consider Hendrickson Publishers, printers of The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, copies of which I carry in my personal reference library. Its website states, “Through our academic publishing program, we seek to meet the publication needs of the religious studies academic community worldwide....” Just pointing out that sometimes it matters from where one draws one’s research.
