A reader of Mr. Till’s Skeptical Review sent me an email alerting me to a response penned by J.P. Holding and Brent Hardaway in an attempt to counter points made in my article, Playing The Numbers Game.

While Holding and Hardaway do not link back to my piece on the Skeptical Review, they nonetheless did attempt to answer some of the points brought up in my critique. In the opening of Holding and Hardaway’s original article there has been inserted a parenthetical note addressed to me regarding their essay. Mr. Holding writes,

Nothing Mr. Holding (“JPH”) references from his “Exodus page” deals specifically with the archaeological data addressed in my original critique.[1] In none of the articles following his link is there mention of early Hebrew family or housing sizes, life expectancies or factors limiting population growth in the ancient world. If Mr. Holding believes I was engaging in “shameful polemical tactics” I must apologize since that was not my intent. I’m not sure why questioning Holding and Hardaway’s lack of archaeological data to support their assertion that skeptical objections to the Hebrew population explosion in Goshen during their captivity are unreasonable is a shameful polemical tactic and that calling for such data would be to take their study “off subject” and “out of expertise,” [2] however. I also offer my apologies if Mr. Holding finds my curiosity over their lack of archaeological data related to their assertion that “skeptical objections to the growth of the Israelite population are simply unreasonable” “obnoxious.” Perhaps I should have been more sensitive to Mr. Holding’s awareness that such archaeological data is wholly missing to support his and Mr. Hardaway’s assertions.

Turning my attention to the same page with Holding and Hardaway’s bizarre population mathematics scheme, I found what I must assume is the reference to Mr. Holding’s “Scythia challenge” under the subheading, “Life in Scythia.” Following the heading of this section of his article Mr. Holding writes,

I found it curious that Mr. Holding would believe the Scythians could somehow provide “practical parallels” to the Hebrew horde described in the biblical Exodus. This also echoes Holding and Hardaway’s claim in the original article that the purpose of their study was to “examine some common objections to the practical historicity” of the exodus but then they failed to consider the archaeological data which makes such a study “practical” or useful in the first place! 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? This lack of parallels makes the Scythians less than “practical” for comparisons with the Hebrew population.

Recall that my critique dealt directly with the population figures of the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus as defended in Holding and Hardaway’s article. In response to my critique Mr. Holding wrote that I should consult this so-called “Scythian challenge” in his article as his answer. However, in that “challenge,” Mr. Holding flatly states,

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.” I cannot understand why Mr. Holding would reference me to this portion of his article if it could not be related to the study I was critiquing. The reference, therefore, remains a mystery.

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. (e.g., Mr. Holding mentions how Scythians bathe and then draws a parallel to Hebrew bathing.) How do we know anything about the nomadic Scythians who inhabited the Russian steppes of c. 1000 BCE? Through archaeology, of course. For example,

While Mr. Holding is offended that I noted his and Mr. Hardaway’s lack of archaeological data to back up their assertion that “skeptical objections to the growth of the Israelite population [were] simply unreasonable,” the fact that there are no such similar studies from any relevant university department regarding the Hebrew presence in the Egyptian Nile delta noted in their article makes Mr. Holding’s direction to take the “Scythian challenge” curious at best and a deceitful distraction at worst. Directing me to this “challenge” is like directing an inquirer to the truth or falsity of dragons to the study of brachiosaur anatomy. Or, assuming that because Christopher Columbus “discovered” the Americas by sailing ships across the Atlantic that the Native American tribes of the United States northeast did the same and that this explains their presence in the area of modern New England.

Mr. Holding concludes his section on the Scythians,

Well, since Mr. Holding admits he doesn’t know how the Scythians populated their area as a subjugated and despised people held in bondage by a foreign government, it is not possible to answer “How did Israel grow its population in c. 1447 BCE from a mere few dozen people to a massive population of nearly 3 million in just over 400 years?” if “we cannot parallel the population figures” of the Hebrews with the Scythians by answering the question, “How did the Scythians grow its population in c. 1447 BCE from a mere few dozen people to a massive population of nearly 3 million in just over 400 years?” (You may need to re-read that rather awkward sentence again as it is as confusing as Mr. Holding’s “Scythian challenge.”) 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. Mr. Holding’s “Scythian challenge” presented no such thing, and instead was a cleverly disguised attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptical inquirer. Mr. Holding realizes he doesn’t have any data to support the Hebrew population explosion or the assertion that skeptical objections to the population claims of the Bible are unreasonable so he wishes to shift attention away from this deficit and make the skeptic do homework on an unrelated subject.

Having not been challenged by Mr. Holding’s Scythian distraction, I turn now to the specific responses Mr. Holding indicated Brent Hardaway made to the items he selectively sifted out of my critique.

Quoting me, Mr. Hardaway writes,

In response, Mr. Hardaway claims,

The argument is not that Jacob's family was typical and "un-unique", just possible.

“Possible” in one generation, or even two to three, is one matter. But, as Holding and Hardaway need for their original scenario, this “possibility” needs to extend for 430 years. As I noted in my article,

It would seem in response, Mr. Hardaway has forgotten what was written in his and Mr. Holding’s original article!

Besides, something that is merely “possible” is not something that is at all likely. For instance, a former member of Mr. Till’s discussion list once estimated the death of millions following the SARs scare of April 2003. This writer predicted,

CNN reported this afternoon that there are about 4300 cases of SARS reported, and that the rate of increase is about 30% per week.

I've calculated the number of infected persons as a function of week number, assuming the growth in the number of victims is exponential, with a constant decimal growth rate of 0.30. Here are the results:

Week Zero: 4,300

Week One: 5,804

Week Five: 19,271

Week Ten: 86,368

Week Fifteen: 387,074

Week Twenty: 1.73 million

Week Thirty: 34.8 million

Week Forty: 700 million

And, while it was of course “possible” that 700 million people could have died of SARs by early 2004, such a scenario clearly did not happen. The disaster didn’t happen, of course, because of very real factors considered into the mere mathematical magic of adding figures at some exponential rate. While Holding and Hardaway’s calculations are of course “possible,” the point of my critique was to demonstrate that their assertion, “skeptical objections to the growth of the Israelite population are simply unreasonable,” was as untenable as “skeptical objections to the growth of SARs cases through 2003 are simply unreasonable” when very real limiting factors are considered among the fanciful mathematical calculations. This was the objective of my critique which was clearly lost upon Holding and Hardaway in their response to my article.

Mr. Holding chimes in partway into Mr. Hardaway’s response and goes further to insist,

The point that is missed, of course, is that all such anecdotal evidence that Mr. Holding musters to buttress his position has little to no relevancy to the subject at hand. In order to equate French Canadians of 1660 or Russian Jews of 1825 to Hebrew slaves of 1447 BCE, more than mere population growths need to be compared. Of course, such a comparison is not done and Mr. Holding hopes that merely making mention of these other populations is enough to satisfy his readers who are not linked back to my article which details all the factors stacked against the rapid growth of the Hebrew population. These are factors Mr. Holding obviously does not want his readers to be aware of, hence the lack of a link. Telling, in addition, is the fact that Mr. Holding’s source also doesn’t believe these comparisons should be made and at least Mr. Holding is honest enough to report this lack of confidence.

Consulting Mr. Holding’s source, Nahum M. Sarna’s Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, pp.96-102, Sarna states that in order to calculate the population growth of the Exodus Hebrews one would need to consider other statistics including infant mortality rates, longevity and "many other factors…which are wholly unobtainable." Of course, that isn’t exactly true as my extensive critique detailed. However, other notes by Sarna are missing from Mr. Holding’s meager response. Sarna soberly points out,

This echoes, of course, my own estimations as given at the end of my article dealing with the mathematical slight-of-hand show given by Holding and Hardaway.

Sarna goes on further to reflect my findings noting the ratio of the population of Hebrews to the estimated total population of Egypt at the time of the Exodus; a reflection that Mr. Holding does not discuss in his selective quote above. Sarna writes,

Sarna observes that other places in the world have seen high ratio of slaves to non-slaves but none of them constituted a majority. In 1998, the Detriot-Ann Arbor metropolitan area had an estimated population of 5.4 million (Here). If nearly 60% of the Detroit-Ann Arbor metro area got up and began a trek through the American Midwest, the area would be devastated and someone would take notice! The archaeological record is absolutely silent about such an exodus and perhaps this is why Mr. Holding finds it "obnoxious" that I noted he and Mr. Hardaway didn’t mention this lack of evidence in their article.

Sarna also noticed a population limiting factor that I noted in my original critique. He observes,

For all these objections Sarna is unable to find a reasonable solution with which they can be overcome. When the extraordinary population figure of nearly 3 million Hebrews is placed against all the data arguing against its historicity, Sarna even admits that others have resorted to a reinterpretation of the biblical story -–reinterpretations I deal with in the latter half of my own article but which are not offered by Holding and Hardaway in their literal interpretation of the ancient text and belief that these figures are not unreasonable. Sarna, in the end, disagrees that a literal population of nearly 3 million Hebrews participated in the biblical Exodus.

Another interesting note is actually what Mr. Holding leaves out of his quote from Sarna’s text. Regarding the example of the population growth of the 19^th Century Russian Jews, Mr. Holding lets his readers see that Sarna mentioned the starting population figure of these peoples, their ending population figure and the years spanning their growth. However, what Mr. Holding doesn’t provide his readers (by not quoting from Sarna’s book directly but by selectively paraphrasing Sarna’s findings) is the growth rate percentage for this population. Sarna wrote,

Another analogy is provided by the example of 19^th century Russian Jewry. Between 1825 and 1900 the Jewish community, which was a “closed population,” increased from 1.6 million to 5.175 million, an annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. (p. 96, emphasis mine)

If the same growth rate that Mr. Holding failed to mention in his quote of Sarna is applied to the “initial” population of Hebrews who entered Egypt, the reason Mr. Holding neglected to include this rate in his quote is made clear. Recall that Holding & Hardaway assumed an initial population figure of 70. Applying the Russian Jewry growth rate of 1.8% we turn out an ending population figure at the end of 430 years of 150,190.

70*1.018^430 = 150,190

Furthermore, we cannot even assume that this fantastical rate sustained itself for the entire 430 years. We can only assume that it may apply to the same 75 years that it occurred in the Russian Jewry population. If the Russian Jewry population had continued to expand at the same 1.8% rate the world would not be big enough to accommodate them, far less the rest of us alongside them!

So, while Mr. Holding tries to salvage his and Mr. Hardaway’s essay from my critique, a further examination of even their attempted supports reveals that little can be done to rescue their ideas from the cold light of reason and attention to historical details.

Continuing, Mr. Hardaway quotes me again,

In response, Mr. Hardaway writes,

It would appear that Mr. Hardaway cannot recall his and Mr. Holding’s original calculations, even within the context of their own article. Here is what they originally proposed:

In this scenario, Mr. Mast and his wife (the “2” above) had 11 children plus 11 marriages. This gave an ending population figure for that generation of 24 (2+11+11=24). In my original article I noted,

What is implied in this scenario if Mr. and Mrs. Mast do not bear any further children? We must remove them then from the “starting population” (making 22 instead of 24; something Holding and Hardaway do not do) and then figure out how many children per family is implied. 22 x 4.5 = 99, not 108 as is the tally in Holding and Hardaway’s original calculation reproduced above. Then we can add Mr. and Mrs. Mast back into the figure (99) to arrive at our final total: 101. Of course, this contradicts Holding and Hardaway’s final calculations.

If, as Mr. Hardaway asserts above, there were 10 children per family, minus the original Mr. and Mrs. Mast, that means there would have been 22 people in the starting population for generation 2, equating to 11 families. If each family had 10 children, that would mean the population grew in the second generation by 110 children (11 families, each having 10 children would mean 110 children + the original 11 couples [22 males and females] + the original Mr. and Mrs. Mast whom Mr. Hardaway now claims did not bear any further children = 134). Whatever Mr. Hardaway is trying to propose, it doesn’t work with his and Mr. Holding’s original scenario.

What does work is what I noted earlier: that Holding and Hardaway’s calculations do indeed include the original Mr. and Mrs. Mast having children in the second (and third) generations. As noted above, Holding and Hardaway propose 4.5 children per person in a generation. It was already established that generation 2 contained 24 persons (the original Mr. and Mrs. Mast [2] plus their 11 children and their 11 spouses [22]; or 24 total persons). If you calculate 4.5 children per person with this figure, you arrive at the originally proposed population of generation 2 total of 132 people. 24 x 4.5 =108 + 24 = 132.

The only way to keep the tally from their original formula is to assign Mr. and Mrs. Mast the same 4.5 child as is assigned to the rest of the starting population. That way the final figure Holding and Haradway offer in their original article is maintained. For Mr. Hardaway to claim that the original couples are not continuing to have children in successive generations belies the fact that he has lost track of his and Mr. Holding’s own calculations.

Mr. Hardaway continues to respond by stating,

Yes, 2 per person and 4 per family which of necessity in the calculations includes the original parents and grandparents. I’m surprised Mr. Hardaway does not notice this.

Mr. Hardaway continues to quote me selectively, taking entire passages out of context and without their supportive data:

To which Mr. Hardaway briefly responds,

That, obviously, was not my point. In fact, my point was quite the opposite. I highly doubt that many biblical characters at the time lived extraordinarily long lives and from my data relating to ancient lifespans my conclusions ring true. If Mr. Hardaway wants to assert that “many bibilical [sic] characters at the time lived extraordinarly [sic] long lives” it is his burden to provide the necessary data to confirm that assertion. Needless to say, such positive data was missing not only in his and Mr. Holding’s original article but in their rebuttal to my critique as well. I suppose assuming they would provide this data in the second go-round was “obnoxious” on my part and simply a polemical tactic to derail their apologetic and get them out of their fields of expertise which, at this point, seems only to lie in producing fanciful and sterile mathematical calculations in order to get a rousing cheer from their already convinced choir of like-minded believers. Such “expertise” certainly does not extend to convincing skeptics that their objections over the exploding population figure of the Exodus Hebrews are “unreasonable.”

Mr. Hardaway continues his response,

Here, Mr. Hardaway has stepped off the scientific platform of providing evidence for such assertions and has instead resorted to the circular argumentation of appealing to the biblical data in order to prove the biblical data true. No doubt the Bible asserts that a divine being caused the nation of Israel to grow while in bondage. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not that biblical claim is reasonable or feasible in the face of the historical data from the time. As I provided ample evidence in my article, the historical data does not support the Bible’s assertion and so Mr. Hardaway’s appeal to it here (again) is just as worthless as it was the first time around.

Mr. Hardaway adds,

Again, a circular argumentation that leads one nowhere when the original claim was that the incredible growth of the Hebrew nation under bondage was something that does not stretch skeptical credulity. As my article abundantly demonstrated, the claim indeed stretched the imagination and broke nearly all statistical data we have on population growths in the ancient world.

I am further selectively quoted,

Mr. Hardaway comments:

Another assertion here, without any supporting data, that a number of Hebrew families would have been large enough to compensate for the lack of children in other, less fortunate, families. My article details the average small family during the period in question and listed the conditions for large families. Such conditions did not exist, in any relevant capacity, in the Hebrew population under servitude. The fact that Mr. Hardaway merely asserts this position without substantiating it leaves little for me to which to respond.

A final quote from me is given,

Mr. Hardaway comments,

On the contrary, I don’t think my mention of miscarriages was irrelevant in the slightest. Holding and Hardaway’s figures calculate a certain percentage growth for the Hebrew population. What they assume is a certain number of births per couple. My insistence on considering miscarriages was to show that their rather inflated percentage needs to be tempered by a number of factors up to, and including, the reality of miscarriages. I admit, and concede, that their final figures would necessarily include only live births, but the reality of miscarriages needs to be acknowledged as a real temperance to the growth rate they have proposed. And, of course, there are a number of other factors involved in curtailing the rather runaway growth rate Holding and Hardaway advocate but none of the rest were included in this rather sparse rebuttal to my lengthy critique. In selectively quoting from my article, Mr. Hardaway failed to deny that birthmother mortality rates would have cut into the number of children born in successive generations. Neither he nor Mr. Holding acknowledged in their reply the very real and very tragic truth of high infant mortality rates. While they readily point out that their figures factored in “live births” they completely ignored the population growth tempering reality that a great number of these “live births” found the child dead within the first few years of life. They also did not consider such things as birth defects and infertility rates. Just as they did in their original article, Holding and Hardaway ignore a great wealth of data which severely curtails their rather antiseptic mathematical calculations in this response to my critique; even with that data staring them squarely in the face.

Including Mr. Holding’s parenthetical note at the head of their article referring to the Scythians, the entirety of his and Mr. Hardaway’s “rebuttal” takes up less than two pages including quotes from my article. My critique when referencing Holding and Hardaway’s study, by contrast, spans eighteen pages of detailed analysis, quotes from experts in the field, review of statistical figures and historical data. Much of my article was ignored by Holding and Hardaway and their response to what they did feel capable was of such little substance and quality that it did nothing to rescue their argument from my critique nor to persuade skeptics that their credulity toward the huge population figure implied by the biblical text is in any way “unreasonable.” I do appreciate, however, the rather meager attempt as it showed my work at least came to their attention and they deemed it worthy enough of some response. I only hope that those with a more sensible approach will read the entirety of my article and note the failure of Holding and Hardaway’s attempt to prove the rationality of the Bible’s Exodus figures.

NOTES

1. Although I did find some interesting material which I will examine in future articles to be published on The Skeptical Review. Return to text

2. From what I can gather, Mr. Holding’s “expertise” is in library sciences. I am unaware of Mr. Hardaway’s field of expertise. My field certainly is not in ancient demographics but I was able to gather relevant data, and speak to such experts to build my case. Asking this of Holding and Hardaway is hardly requesting them to research material “out of expertise.” If it were, then the entirety of Mr. Holding’s site is “out of expertise” since he has no professional training in theology, history, social sciences, ancient languages, etc. And if Mr. Hardaway has no professional training in something other than accounting, for example, his contribution to the article regarding the ancient population explosion of the Hebrew slaves was misplaced as well. The entirety of their original article was “out of expertise” if this were the case. I obviously disagree and think that if the information is available and relevant, and if the data can be shown to be reasonably accurate, it should have a bearing on one’s argument, regardless of areas of “expertise.” Return to Text

SOURCES

Sarna, Nahum (1986) Exploring Exodus . Schocken Books.
 

---

within All text Title Keywords Descriptions File name   using All words Any words Exact phrase