I recently talked with Ben, the Amateur Exegete, on his YouTube channel across two videos. An explicit discussion of theology is generally outside of the boundaries I set for my own website, but Ben and I use our recorded discussions as a place to be more relaxed. We do try to keep the dialogue on-topic, working from brief notes each of us prepares ahead of time, but the casual pace of the conversation leads to us glossing over or altogether skipping certain points we anticipate bringing up.
In the recent pair of videos, Ben and I had an open-ended conversation about the exodus and the ripple effect its non-historicity has across biblical literature, both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Ben and I agreed that the lack of a historical exodus—or, at least, a historical event anywhere close to the exodus portrayed in the Bible—has enormous implications for the reliability of deriving a functional theology from these texts. (Our caveat, mentioned only briefly near the start of the conversation, was that we were only discussing the problem in relation to historically dominant forms of Christianity, in which the traditional Christian Bible is one of the primary sources upon which Christian theology is based.)
In particular, I sloppily pointed to the idea that the exodus functions is a ‘foundation myth’ for the religious expression we see across the Bible. However, I argue, the exodus only accomplishes this function if it is historical. Many Christians today follow a ‘progressive’ approach to their theology, allowing them to accept that the exodus was not historical while still maintaining their theological convictions about Jesus as the Messiah. Yet, because the foundation myth for their theology is not historical, my perspective is that any religion built on a non-existent foundation necessarily risks collapsing.
The dominant interpretation of the Bible throughout Christianity is that it is a collection of texts which harmonize on a theological level and altogether lead toward the identification of Jesus as the Messiah. Yet, without the exodus, this messianic identity becomes abstract and context-less. This concept of a ‘messiah’ rests entirely on the biblical ‘narrative’ which came before it. Without an exodus, the story loses the invasion of Canaan, the provision of judges, the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, and the unity of the twelve tribes. We asked a series of question: if there was no exodus, where did the Torah's laws come from, and why should anyone be obligated to obey them? If there is no such obligation, why do the prophets repeatedly assign blame for the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah to failure to obey God’s laws? If the prophets were in error here, why should they be trusted when their messages are merged together to create expectation for a Messiah who will rescue Israel? And, on the broadest level, what is the basis for saying a universal creator god should be identified with the Israelites’ patron god, Yhwh?
That is a broad summary of our conversation, but I wanted to jot down some of the thoughts from my notes which we skipped past. These are similar such questions, not intended to be fully answered through our casual dialogue, but for any viewer/reader to think over for themselves.
Without the exodus, there was not a delivery of the Torah’s law code from God to the Israelites. Likewise, the events which transpired shortly after the exodus are not historical either, including the event described in Numbers 21.4–9. According to this episode, God sent venomous snakes to bite many of the Israelites as a punishment for complaining. As a remedy for the repentant, God had Moses craft a magical relic, a ‘bronze serpent’ which, when looked upon, would prevent someone from dying from a snakebite. According to 2 Kings 18.4, this relic still existed centuries later, and had become an object of worship. This inappropriate use of the relic led to the Judean king Ahaz destroying it. But, since neither the law (including the prohibition on worshipping any being other than Yhwh) nor the relic came from the exodus, on what grounds can worship of the relic be challenged as illegitimate?
In a similar vein, we have the ark of the covenant, a ritual box made at God’s command during the exodus. Its existence is mandated by the law code. In fact, the ark contained twin tablets of stone made by God and Moses, with God’s covenant and laws inscribed on it. When the ark was being transported to Jerusalem, it nearly fell to the ground in a misstep, but when a man touched the ark to prevent it from being damaged, God instantly killed the man. Within the theology of the Bible, this is because the man was ritually impure, and thus forbidden from touching a holy relic used in the worship of God. Later, when the ark made it to Jerusalem, David danced in celebration; his wife Michal is ridiculed in popular memory for criticizing his behavior. Without an exodus, the ark’s origins seem to be more mundane, the sort of relic used by many ‘pagan’ religious groups from the region. In which case, how could God killing someone just for touching it be justified? Likewise, is the ridicule Michal has received appropriate, since her husband would have been celebrating an object which held no intrinsic value or purpose?
This continues right up to the temple itself. According to the Bible, it was built in Jerusalem as a consequence of the exodus. A selection of laws and a series of events led to it being constructed by David’s son. When the temple was destroyed, a second one was built in its place out of obedience to the Torah’s laws. Its operation, its priesthood, and its sacrifices were all followed according to the law. Were the people free to have not done these things? Would thd universal God who decided to accept Yhwh as his identity be displeased if the temple had ceased operation, and, if so, how would he be justified, since the laws commanding its operation had not come from him?
These are not deep observations, but in my experience they are not addressed directly or sufficiently enough by the ‘progressive’-type Christians mentioned above.