One of the controversial things about pursuing ordination is that it really is a calling for folks who believe the Torah to be true. That gets harder and harder for some as we see fewer genuine believers and more intellectuals ordained. It’s also harder in the face of what is generally presented as “scientific fact” by unbelieving archaeologists and other scientists.
Listen to those who don’t believe for long, and there’s not much in the Torah they would claim is fictionalized. But archeology is not the type of science that can really, ultimately disprove anything; the only two conclusions archaeologists can legitimately reach are, 1) We have found evidence that supports the Biblical claims, or, 2) We have not yet found evidence in support of the Biblical claims.
Now, that’s a controversial statement. After all, folks like Israel Finklestein would argue that the lack of evidence constitutes a proof that something didn’t happen. For example, in his work, he claims that there was no city of Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon. But the basis for his claim is a lack of evidence, not strong dispositive evidence. It all comes down to an archaeological precept upon which their whole science is built … layering. But that’s a discussion for another time.
The point is, the problem with making “this never happened” statements in archeology is that quite often, someone will discover that they were looking in the wrong place, and once they look somewhere else, there is plenty of positive evidence and theories have to be completely rewritten and thrown out, while over the course of centuries, the Torah has remained both consistent and largely not disproven, only doubted for a while.
Recently, I discovered a book that is both solid from a scientific standpoint, as well as being a real faith-builder when it comes to the historicity of the Torah. That book is The Exodus Case by Dr. Lennart Moller. It’s a book I’ve studied and will continue to study for some time to come; the theories it presents are fascinating, though not without controversy. And the man is humble enough to admit his book presents a possible theory, not 100-percent guaranteed proof.
As I was making my way through the Torah portion this week, my mind turned back to the book. We’re going through the life of Yosef, the favored son of Yaakov, who, it is said, was sold into slavery in Egypt, rose to be second-in-command only to Pharoah himself, and saved his family from a great famine and likely annihiliation.
Moller’s theory is that Yosef had a real place in Egyptian history, and makes a solid case for him to be a rather famous figure: Imhotep. Now, at first blush, it’s a hard one to swallow. After all, Imhotep was a figure of vast importance in Egyptian history, and volumes have been written about him, all assuming he was Egyptian. That’s a lot of scholarship to fly in the face of.
But Moller lays out reams of intriguing parallels, including (but certainly not limited to):
1) Imhotep was a minister of the pharaoh of lower Egypt. That fits the role Yosef played.
2) Imhotep was “foremost under the king.” Yosef is said to be second only in power and authority to pharaoh.
3) Imhotep was believed to be a priest in Heliopolis; Yosef is said to have married the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis and it is not unlikely that he inherited that title through marriage.
4) Both were active during seven years of plenty and seven years of famine, and both were said to have predicted it according to the dreams of pharaoh.
5) Both die at the precise age of 110.
These are just five of at least 27 points of parallel outlined in Moller’s book. The whole proposition makes me want to study more deeply into the life of Imhotep, to see if such a theory could hold water alongside prior scholarship on the life of Imhotep.
One thing both Imhotep and Yosef were is builders. Yosef is known, at the very least, to have built storehouses for the grain collected during the time of plenty, in preparation for the time of famine. And Imhotep is known to have been a great builder, creating the first-ever cut-stone pyramid in Egyptian history.
While not going so far as to say that Yosef/Imhotep sat around Egypt offering up house painting ideas like the house painting pros at CertaPro, it is nevertheless an interesting parallel to draw on. With 27 or more points of parallel, it’s at least a theory worthy of serious consideration. Imagine what fun it would be to discover it’s true! Not only did Yosef exist, but he was a substantial and known figure in Egyptian history! Food for thought.
