One of the occupational hazards of being both an Egyptologist and a Bible scholar is that one is frequently confronted with fringe theories.\u00a0 And typically I don’t feel the need to pay those views a lot of attention.\u00a0 Yet, some views have been affirmed by otherwise respectable scholars that are not so good.\u00a0 Thomas S. McCall (a ThD in Semitic languages and Old Testament) published an article<\/a> affirming the work of David Rohl who claimed that the tomb of Joseph had been discovered.\u00a0 But is this good or bad biblical scholarship?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n McCall in his article endorses a view of chronology held by Rohl.\u00a0 Both believe that the Exodus occurred around 1450 BC, a date consistent with the “early Exodus” perspective. Unfortunately, McCall is not alone in his support of Rohl.\u00a0 Many Christian ministries have endorsed<\/a> Rohl’s views.<\/p>\n For most Egyptologists, a 1450 BC date would place the Exodus during the reign of Thutmosis III (mid New Kingdom)<\/span><\/span><\/span>.\u00a0 However, McCall and Rohl have a divergent view of chronology.\u00a0\u00a0 Rohl believes that the Exodus occurred<\/span><\/span><\/span> instead during the reign of Dudimose (a king that reigned 2 years at the end of the Middle Kingdom).\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This “new chronology” blithely ignores all the synchronistic evidence.\u00a0 And there is a lot of evidence that precludes Rohl’s chronology from serious consideration (e.g. the Amarna letters).\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Rohl is definitely outside of the mainstream of modern archaeology and scholarship. <\/p>\n But what about the so-called tomb of Joseph?\u00a0 Regrettably, all that remains are fragments of a single statue.\u00a0 These fragments suggest part of a Semitic hair style and a varicolored tunic.\u00a0 From the account of Joseph having a varicolored tunic (Gen 37:3) and this being the tomb of an important Semite, McCall and Rohl conclude that this must be the tomb of Joseph.<\/p>\n I think that there are problems with how McCall and Rohl arrived at this conclusion.\u00a0 First is the problem of Joseph’s varicolored tunic.\u00a0 Joseph had<\/em> a varicolored tunic that was a gift from Jacob.\u00a0 But his brothers took Joseph’s tunic and they covered it in goat’s blood to prove to their father that Joseph was dead (Gen 37:23, 31-32).\u00a0 Nothing in the biblical text suggests that Joseph obtained another varicolored tunic.<\/p>\n The other issue is that many Semites had varicolored tunics.\u00a0 For example, from tomb 3 at Beni Hasan, a painting portrays an Asiatic\u00a0wearing a varicolored tunic while he tends an ibex (see featured picture).\u00a0 This is a problem since the location of Rohl’s so-called tomb of Joseph was at Avaris<\/a>, a predominantly Semite culture.\u00a0 Many people could have had varicolored tunics, and thus a varicolored tunic would not have been an identifying symbol.<\/p>\n How can we know that this is the tomb of Joseph versus any other Hyksos or Asiatic official?\u00a0 We can’t.\u00a0 The evidence is simply insufficient to determine one way or the other.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So why does McCall accept Rohl’s chronology?\u00a0 Because what Rohl says fits with a chronology that McCall expects from the Bible.\u00a0 The problem here is confirmation bias.<\/p>\n Biblical studies is by no means alone in having confirmation bias.\u00a0 But when bible scholars seek to take an apologetic approach to their research, the desire to prove what they already think is true often becomes a driving imperative.\u00a0 This often leads them down wrong paths by ignoring contradictory evidence in the pursuit of evidence that supports their position.<\/p>\n Now, I think that there is evidence that supports various aspects of the biblical texts.\u00a0 However, making the purpose of our scholarship the finding (or manufacture) of evidence does more harm than good.\u00a0 As responsible scholars, we must carefully weigh the evidence both for and against whatever hypothesis we may hold, and then go with the evidence.\u00a0 This way we can learn about biblical texts in ways that may not have even occurred to us.<\/p>\n I honestly think that starting with specific dates and looking for evidence that fits is really poor scholarship. What if your chronology is wrong?\u00a0 What if we are reading the biblical texts in a way that is different from what the ancient writer intended?\u00a0 What if by some chance you find the real Joseph?\u00a0 In McCall\u2019s case, his acceptance of Rohl’s defective chronology is almost certainly wrong.<\/p>\n McCall and Rohl are looking to find Joseph, and that is what both find in spite of the evidence.\u00a0 While I believe that Joseph was a real person, I just don’t think that either Rohl’s chronology or his evidence is sound.\u00a0 This is why confirmation bias is such a terrible thing.\u00a0 Confirmation bias blinds us to any hard truths or bad scholarship that might be before us.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the occupational hazards of being both an Egyptologist and a Bible scholar is that one is frequently confronted with fringe theories.\u00a0 And typically I don’t feel the need to pay those views a lot of attention.\u00a0 Yet, some views have been affirmed by otherwise respectable scholars that are not so good.\u00a0 Thomas S.…<\/p>\nDavid Rohl and his “New Chronology”<\/h3>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
The Tomb of Joseph?<\/h3>\n
Scholarship Gone Bad<\/h3>\n