Does Methodological Naturalism Nullify Evidence for Christianity?

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersExistence of GodFaith and Reaso

Skeptics of the Bible sometimes suggest that the claims of Christianity (e.g., the creation of the Universe, the resurrection of Jesus) cannot be supported by any facts from the historical record or by any scientific data, because these disciplines operate on the basis of methodological naturalism.1 Allegedly, any scholarly discipline that is methodologically naturalistic can provide no support for a claim that a miracle occurred. Is this the case?

Defining Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the practice of seeking only natural causes of scientific phenomena.2 Admittedly, some disciplines typically are defined by the quest to provide and understand explanations in terms of natural regularities. In this regard they are religiously neutral. And, in certain circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that 
“[w]ithin science, we should adopt methodological naturalism, according to which answers to questions are sought within nature, within the contingent created order. For example, in describing how two charged electrodes separate hydrogen and oxygen gas when placed in water, the ‘God hypothesis’ is both unnecessary and out of place.”3

The degree to which methodological naturalism is used varies from field to field and from one practitioner to another. Many scientists allow the possibility of supernatural explanations and even operate professionally as theists or “Creation scientists.” And, many historians publicly support the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. But insofar as miracles are not currently observed, many natural scientists in their professional capacity do not engage with the possibility that there is a supernatural realm.4 Similarly, many historians operate in the context of professional standards that restrict them from reaching conclusions that any supernatural event is a fact of history.

That said, the religiously neutral data of the natural sciences can be marshaled to support premises in an argument that leads to a theological conclusion, such as the historical event of a miracle. Consider some examples:

• Natural science has provided rich evidence to support the premise that the Universe began to exist, to the degree that the beginning of the Universe is taken as a datum by practically all concerned.5 The premise that the Universe began to exist supplies a step in an argument to the conclusion that God exists.6
• The behavior of electrodes is not a directly theological question, but why there are electrodes, oxygen, or water, or any matter or energy at all, is a question that introduces a supernatural explanation.
• The statement, “Dead bodies do not rise naturally from the dead,” is confirmed by natural science,  and also is a necessary premise (even if taken for granted and left implicit) in any argument for the resurrection of Jesus as a miraculous event.7

Whatever the professional standards of any academic discipline may be, each person still is faced with the question of whether it is reasonable to believe the supernatural claims of Christianity. What a historian or scientist is allowed to publish or discuss in a professional society is one thing; what he believes on the basis of the evidence provided by his discipline is another.

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Metaphysical Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that metaphysical naturalism (sometimes called philosophical or ontological naturalism) is true. Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nature, meaning “physical reality” or “spatiotemporal reality,” is all that exists (thus God, angels, demons, heaven, hell, and human spirits do not exist).8 For example, the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman cited methodological naturalism in the current practice of history as evidence that historical data cannot support Jesus’ resurrection in any way.9 The claim that metaphysical naturalism is true begs the question: What evidence is there that naturalism is true? In the discipline of philosophy, for example, the non-existence of God is not merely assumed prima facie, but rather the question of God’s existence has been one of the major topics of philosophy ever since Socrates.10 (Thankfully, the last 60 years or so have seen a blossoming of theism in many philosophy departments.)11 

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Epistemological Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that epistemological naturalism is true. Epistemological naturalism (or “scientism”) is the view that science is the only source of knowledge. As an example of epistemological naturalism, consider the words of Jerry A. Coyne, the biologist from the University of Chicago who has published widely in support of organic evolution:

[T]ruth is simply what is: what exists in reality and can be verified by rational and independent observers. It is true that DNA is a double helix, that the continents move, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is not true, at least in the dictionary sense, that somebody had a revelation from God. The scientific claims can be corroborated by anyone with the right tools, while a revelation, though perhaps reflecting someone’s real perception, says nothing about reality, for unless that revelation has empirical content, it cannot be verified.12

Yet it is easy to see that epistemological naturalism is incorrect, for at least two reasons:13

First, because epistemological naturalism is self-refuting: The claim that science is the only source of knowledge is itself non-scientific, unverifiable by observation. Second, because epistemological naturalism is overly restrictive. It would lead to the abandonment of vast tracts of knowledge, including science itself. For science is based on non-scientific—but entirely reasonable—presuppositions: We believe in the reality of the past, the external world, and the laws of logic, but there is no observational “proof” for the reality of these things. As John C. Lennox observed, scientism leads people to think that “scientific” means the same as “rational,” but clearly such an equation is false!14 Finally, it should be noted that even the epistemological naturalist should believe in God, because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a Creator and Designer of the Universe.

Conclusion

Methodological naturalism is a practical reality in our world today, but it should not be taken to imply that the disciplines operating on this basis provide no usable data for developing apologetical arguments. And, methodological naturalism does not imply the truth of metaphysical naturalism or epistemological naturalism. Each position must be judged on its own merits, based on the evidence.

Endnotes

1 Cf. S. Joshua Swamidass (2021), “Why Methodological Naturalism?,” https://peacefulscience.org/articles/methodological-naturalism/.

2 Alvin Plaintinga (1997), “Methodological Naturalism?,” Origins and Design, 18[1]:18; Lok-Chi Chan (2021), “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Mind, 1:222.

3 J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (2003), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 358.

4 On the definition of miracles and their cessation, see David L. Lipe (2022), “Miracles in the Church,” Equipping the Saints (Searcy, AR: Stewart), pp. 336-344.

5 Alexander Vilenkin (2007), Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang), p. 176.

6 E.g., Jeff Miller (2016), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-cosmological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-5300/.

7 Cf. William Lane Craig and James Crossley (2007), “Was Jesus Bodily Raised from the Dead?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/was-jesus-bodily-raised-from-the-dead-debate.

8 Chan, “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism.”

9 Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig (2006), “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman.

10 Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett), note the dialogues Euthyphro; Apology; Republic.

11 William Wood (2021), “Philosophy and Christian Theology,” Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/.

12 Jerry A. Coyne (2015),Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (New York: Penguin), p. 29.

13 These are adapted from William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg (2013), “Is Faith in God Reasonable?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-faith-in-god-reasonable.

14 John C. Lennox (2019), Can Science Explain Everything? (Oxford: The Good Book), p. 23.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

The Silencing of God (#2): Dr David Miller Video 55 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/the-silencing-of-god-2-political-documents-video-3681/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided and enjoy.

 WHY PEOPLE LIVED SO LONG IN GENESIS

From the very first pages of Scripture, the ages of Adam’s world rise like towering monuments of truth. Adam reaches 930 years in Genesis 5:5. Methuselah stands at 969 in Genesis 5:27. Noah steps into the Flood at 600 in Genesis 7:6. Critics scoff, but the Bible does not tremble. These lifespans fit perfectly within the world God originally called very good.

In the beginning, humanity walked with bodies unscarred by the genetic decay we see today. God formed Adam and Eve with flawless genetic information, untouched by the avalanche of mutations that now burdens every generation. Modern geneticists describe this downward slide as genetic entropy. Scripture told us long ago that mankind is wearing out. But in those first generations after creation, the damage was minimal. Their bodies resisted aging, resisted disease, and resisted the slow corruption that now clings to us.

Genesis 1:6 to 7 describes waters above the expanse. Many creation scientists believe this represents a pre Flood vapor canopy or at least a radically different atmosphere that shielded the earth. Such a world would have blocked harmful radiation that now strikes our DNA and accelerates death. Combined with a stable climate and ideal living conditions, early humanity lived in an environment designed for strength, vitality, and remarkable longevity.

History supports this pattern. Ancient records like the Sumerian King List speak of rulers living hundreds of years before a great flood, then a sharp decline afterward. The details may differ, but the storyline is the same. Long lives before the catastrophe. Shorter lives after. Even the echoes of pagan cultures cannot silence the biblical pattern.

After the Flood, the world changed. The climate hardened. The protective environment collapsed. Genetic damage accelerated through population bottlenecks. Lifespans plunged from the 400s in Noah’s sons, to the 200s in their descendants, to 175 in the days of Abraham. Exactly what we would expect in a world now groaning under the curse.

The long lives in Genesis are not myth. They are history. They match the Bible. They harmonize with genetics. They align with ancient testimony. They fit the world we see wearing down around us every single day. Humanity began in strength. Sin brought decay. And Scripture has recorded the truth with perfect accuracy from the very beginning.

The long lives recorded in Genesis are not a myth—they are consistent with a biblical understanding of genetics, climate, and history. A perfect creation, minimal genetic damage, and a sheltered early Earth environment provide a clear explanation for the incredible ages of the pre-Flood patriarchs. Even secular science acknowledges that DNA is slowly breaking down and that environmental factors shorten lifespans. Genesis simply records what the first humans experienced: a world that began perfect, where people lived for centuries, but has been steadily wearing down ever since.

Accept All of God’s Word Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/accept-all-of-gods-word/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Can You Be Saved Like the Thief on the Cross? Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/can-you-be-saved-like-the-thief-on-the-cross/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue and Evolution’s Timetable Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-evolutions-timetable/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Why Seven Days?

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionInspiration of the BibleFactual AccuracyFactual Accuracy

Have you ever wondered why, all over the world, in civilization after civilization, we find people scheduling their lives based on a seven-day week? The origins of other units of time are easy to understand. For instance, a year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. A day is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation on its axis. A month is the approximate time between new moons. And seasons are determined based on an equinox or solstice. But no celestial, lunar, or planetary movement or system accounts for our seven-day week.

A brief look back into history shows that the seven-day week has prevailed as the paramount routine for humanity in general as far back as historical records can go. Although some societies and cultures did use weeks other than the seven-day week, it still has stubbornly maintained its preeminence. Today, the seven-day week is universally accepted, even though the French attempted a ten-day week during the French Revolution in 1791, and the Soviet Union, as late as the early 1900s, attempted a five-day week—to no avail.

Where did the seven-day week originate? The most plausible explanation comes from the book of Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis explains that God created the entire Universe is six, literal twenty-four hour days. The beginning of chapter two states, “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (2:2).

Exodus 20:8-11 gives an explanation as to why God framed His creative activity according to a seven-day week. This passage teaches us that God worked six days and rested the seventh day in order to provide a pattern for the Jewish workweek. Because God worked six days and rested on the seventh day, the Jews were instructed to do the same.

In truth, an all-powerful God could have created the Universe in seven seconds, seven years, seven decades, or seven million years. God’s week of seven days, however, was given purposefully to man as a pattern to follow. This pattern has prevailed for several thousand years. The Sun, Moon, and stars were given “for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14), but not for the week. The week was instituted specifically by God, based on His creative activity. The seven-day week is yet another testimony to the truthfulness and accuracy of the Genesis account of Creation

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Biblical Consistency and the Believer’s Treatment of False Teachers

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesDoctrinal MattersInspiration of the BibleBible InterpretationDifficult PassagesFactual Accura

If Christians are to be kind and loving to everyone (Luke 10:29-37), some question why 2 John 10-11 teaches, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (‘the doctrine of Christ’—vs. 9), do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”1 Also, why did Paul instruct Timothy to “shun profane and idle babblings” (2 Timothy 2:16; 1 Timothy 6:20-21)? Are Christians to shun those with whom we disagree, and even go so far as not to greet them or allow them into our homes?

First, Scripture, indeed, repeatedly calls for Christians to love everyone—whether family, friends, fellow Christians, or enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; 22:36-40; Romans 12:9-21). We are to “[r]epay no one evil for evil” (Romans 12:17), but strive to “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave” us (Ephesians 4:32). But Christian kindness and love are not antithetical to such things as, for example, punishing rule breakers. A father who loves his son, and would even die for him, will promptly discipline him for unruly conduct (Proverbs 13:24; Ephesians 6:4). A school principal may genuinely love and care for every student under his oversight, but he may occasionally have to expel a disorderly child from the school for at least two reasons: (1) so that the hundreds of other students who want to get an education can safely and successfully do so, and (2) in hopes that such drastic measures will cause the unruly child to awaken to his senses before it is too late (and he does something far worse as a teenager or as an adult). An uninformed outsider, who sees a father disciplining his son or a school principal punishing a student, may initially think less of these adults and wonder how they could call themselves Christians. The logical, more informed bystander, however, will quickly size up the situation and easily see the consistency in loving, disciplinary actions.

In the epistle of 2 John, the apostle expressed his concern for the eternal destiny of Christians, saying, “Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward” (vs. 8, NASB). John was alarmed because deceptive false teachers who denied the incarnation of Jesus were a serious threat to the salvation of Christians. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7). These false teachers (known as Gnostics) alleged that Christ could not have been incarnated because the flesh is inherently sinful. And, since the flesh is supposedly intrinsically evil, Gnostics taught that Christians did not need to resist fleshly temptations. Just “do whatever feels good” and know that such wicked actions are only physical and not spiritual. Allegedly, the soul could still be pure, even if the individuals themselves participated in wicked activity.2

The apostle John (who had “seen” and “handled” the actual body of Christ—1 John 1:1-4; i.e., Jesus did come in the flesh) repeatedly condemned the central teachings of certain Gnostics who were confusing and misleading first-century Christians.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin (1 John 3:4-9).

False doctrine was a real and present danger in the first-century church, just as it is today. Christians were (and are) to be on “guard” because “some have strayed concerning the faith”—profane and idle babblers and teachers of contradictory doctrines of “what is falsely called knowledge” (Greek gnosis; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; cf. 2 Timothy 2:15-26). Denying the physical life, death, burial, and resurrection of the body of Christ was heresy, and thus John and others warned the early church of such deception. What’s more, claiming that “all unrighteousness is not sin,” was to directly contradict the Law of Christ. In truth, “the works of the flesh are evident,” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19,21). John wrote: “[a]ll unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 3:10; 5:17).“Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,” because 

Christians are commanded to withdraw fellowship (lovingly, faithfully, and sorrowfully) from brethren who rebel against the teachings of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Such actions by Christians and churches are taken for at least two reasons: (1) to keep the church and the Christian families that comprise her from being harmed spiritually by the defiantly unfaithful (whose very tolerated presence would have even more damaging effects than an incessantly disruptive student in a school room; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6-7); and (2) in hopes of causing the wayward child of God to come to his senses (being “ashamed” of his sinful conduct; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5)—repenting of sin and being restored to the family of God.

Similarly, in 2 John 10-11, the apostle of the Lord instructed hospitable Christians to recognize the seriousness of greeting and housing deceptive false teachers. [NOTE: “The greeting was ‘Chairo!’ literally, goodspeed or God speed. This greeting was more than mere formality; it was an approval of the course being pursued by the one thus greeting, and included a desire for success in the effort attempted.”3] First-century roaming teachers and preachers “depended on the generosity of the members of the church” for their housing and hospitality.4 John the apostle, however, wanted the church to understand the serious threat that these dangerous false teachers posed to the precious bride of Christ. Doctrinal error is not something to “play with,” especially when such error involves the foundation of the Church (the life of Christ—2 John 7) and the denial of sin (the very thing that results in eternal death for the impenitent—Romans 6:23; Luke 13:3,5). By refusing to house and bid God-speed to deceptive teachers, the ungodly efforts of these misleading “messengers” would be greatly diminished. In time, they might choose to (or have to) stop their sowing of error altogether because of lack of opportunities, assistance, and encouragement. Such a result combined with genuine repentance would be the very thing for which Christians hope and pray.

Anyone who can see the reasonable and loving consistency of parents telling their children to “be nice to everyone,” but “don’t listen to these dangerous people” (showing them pictures of known child molesters), should be able to see the consistency of God’s message concerning Christian love and hospitality, and the way Christians react to false teachers who espouse damnable error. Children who shun dangerous sexual predators are protecting their own innocence, as well as keeping themselves and their families from a moment (or a lifetime) of grief. What’s more, the avoided, dangerous strangers are not given the opportunity to continue in their sins. Thus, the children’s obedient avoidance of them could be of great help to the sinful strangers in the highest way possible—if they awaken to their spiritual senses.

Christians are actually fulfilling the Law of Christ to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:2,10) even as we identify and refuse to embrace and fellowship false teachers. We are “doing good” to the “household of faith” by helping keep her pure and unaffected by cancer-spreading deceptive teachers (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Allowing error to spread would be tantamount to “rejoic[ing] in iniquity,” which is unloving (1 Corinthians 13:6). What’s more, the false teachers themselves are in no way encouraged to continue down the road of deceit. Rather, it is the hope and prayer of Christians that false teachers would become convicted of the error of their ways and repent before the Master Teacher (Luke 2:47; John 7:46) returns and judges them eternally for their doctrinal deceit (2 Peter 2).

[NOTE: Near the conclusion of his excellent commentary on 2 John, Guy N. Woods made an appropriate observation that both Christians and critics of 2 John 10-11 should consider: “John does not here forbid hospitality to strangers, or, for that matter, to false teachers when, in so doing, false teaching is neither encouraged nor done. Were we to find a teacher known to be an advocate of false doctrine suffering, it would be our duty to minister to his need, provided that in so doing we did not abet or encourage him in the propagation of false doctrine…. What is forbidden is the reception of such teachers in such fashion as to supply them with an opportunity to teach their tenets, to maintain an association with them when such would involve us in the danger of accepting their doctrines…. The test is, Does one become a partaker by the action contemplated? If yes, our duty is clear; we must neither receive them nor give them greeting; if No, the principle here taught is not applicable.”5]

Endnotes

1 Cf. Steve Wells (2015), “Should Believers Discuss Their Faith with Nonbelievers?,” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/discuss.html.

2 For more information, see “Gnosticism” (1982), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:484-490.

3 Guy N. Woods (1979), New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 349, italics in orig.

4 I. Howard Marshall (1978), The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 74, emp. added.

5 Woods, pp. 349-350, emp. added.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Rediscovered Tomb of Thutmose II Sharpens the Historical Backdrop of Moses’ Oppression in Egypt

Jonathan Moore, D.P.M., Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeology

LUXOR, Egypt — Archaeologists working in the stark cliffs west of Luxor have identified the original tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a rare discovery that refines the historical setting of Israel’s oppression as described in the book of Exodus.1 Announced in early 2025, the identification marks the first newly verified royal tomb from Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty in more than a century.2 Though the body of Thutmose II has been known since its 19th-century recovery from the DB320 royal cache, his original burial site remained lost. Its rediscovery now anchors, with greater archaeological clarity, the very dynasty that governed Egypt during the formative years of Moses’ life according to the High Chronology.3

The tomb was confirmed through fragments of inscribed alabaster vessels bearing Thutmose II’s cartouche, along with star-decorated ceiling plaster characteristic of early New Kingdom royal burials.4 Portions of the Amduat, a funerary text reserved exclusively for kings, were also identified within the chamber.5 Although largely empty, the absence of grave goods does not represent looting but deliberate relocation. Ancient flooding compromised the burial soon after interment, prompting priests to transfer the king’s mummy and treasures to a safer location—eventually DB320—centuries before modern intrusion.6 Excavation director Piers Litherland noted that “the burial was taken out in its entirety,” providing a rare example of ancient preservation rather than destruction.

The significance of this rediscovery lies not merely in identifying a missing royal tomb but in clarifying the political and chronological framework of the Thutmosid family. When the Eighteenth Dynasty is understood through the High Chronology, a striking synchronism emerges between the biblical narrative and Egyptian history. Moses’ birth at approximately 1526 BC (Exodus 7:7) corresponds approximately to the accession year of Thutmose I, a king whose demographic concerns and state-directed expansion fit the text’s description of increasing Hebrew population pressure. Thutmose I therefore stands as the most historically plausible candidate for the pharaoh who ordered the killing of Hebrew male infants (Exodus 1:15-22), a decree arising from the same anxieties reflected in early New Kingdom administration.

However, the pharaoh “who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) is best correlated with Ahmose I, founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose expulsion of the Hyksos and national reforms reset Egypt’s cultural memory regarding Semitic populations.7 The transition from Hyksos to Ahmosid rule introduced new attitudes toward Asiatic groups, providing a natural historical fit for the biblical assertion that a king arose with no regard for Joseph’s prior contributions. Under Amenhotep I, this shift deepened as the state’s reliance on conscripted Asiatic labor increased—mirroring the intensification of Hebrew servitude described in Exodus 1:11-14.8 Against this backdrop, the episode of Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives summoned by the crown, aligns organically with the early years of Thutmose I, whose policies reflect a decisive move toward state intervention in population control.

The rediscovery of Thutmose II’s tomb also enriches our understanding of the broader royal household connected to Moses’ upbringing. Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I and wife of Thutmose II, emerges as the most compelling historical counterpart to the unnamed “daughter of Pharaoh” who rescued Moses from the Nile (Exodus 2:5-10). Her later rise to kingship, administrative skill, and well-attested independence align closely with the biblical portrayal of a royal woman acting beyond conventional expectation. Her involvement in Thutmose II’s burial is archaeologically verified through fragments inscribed with her name found within the tomb itself,9 reinforcing the family continuity that frames Moses’ childhood.

The linguistic dimension further strengthens the synchronism. Royal Egyptian names of this period frequently incorporate the element ms / mss, meaning “born of,” as in Ahmose (“born of Iah”) and Thutmose (“born of Thoth”). Moses’ name, Mosheh, preserves this Egyptian root even as Exodus 2:10 offers a Hebrew wordplay (“drawn out”), reflecting a bilingual adaptation consistent with a Hebrew child raised in an Egyptian court. Unlike the later Ramesside name Ra-ms-sw (“Ra bore him”), which belongs to a distinct grammatical evolution,10 Moses’ name aligns precisely with the naming conventions of the early Thutmosid era—the very context reflected in the rediscovered tomb.

The excavation of Thutmose II’s burial site thus contributes significantly to the historical scaffolding surrounding the opening chapters of Exodus. It reinforces the chronological sequence Ahmose I → Amenhotep I → Thutmose I → Thutmose II → Hatshepsut → Thutmose III as a tangible, datable framework in which the biblical narrative is set. These rulers are not literary abstractions but historical figures whose construction projects, demographic policies, and burial traditions remain accessible to archaeology. Their anxieties over foreign laborers, reflected both in Egyptian administrative patterns and in Exodus 1, emerge from the same political tensions now better understood through material evidence.

Far from challenging the biblical account, the rediscovery of this tomb strengthens its historical plausibility. The dynasty that oppressed the Hebrews was real, its members identifiable, its tombs discoverable, and its policies consonant with the pressures described in Scripture. This discovery therefore provides additional archaeological context for reconstructing the historical environment of early Exodus traditions, situating the narrative within a clearly definable dynastic sequence in the Eighteenth Dynasty.

[Dr. Jonathan Moore—Field Archaeologist with the Shiloh Excavation, Israel; Adjunct Faculty at Freed-Hardeman University; and Founder of Seeing His World, a missions-based educational nonprofit dedicated to providing academically grounded yet spiritually transformative guided experiences throughout the Bible lands (www.seeinghisworld.com).]

Endnotes

1 Sarah C. Roff (2025), “Last Missing Tomb from Egypt’s 18th Dynasty Found in Remote Desert Cliffs,” National Geographic, February 12, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/egypt-tomb-ancient-king-thutmose-ii-discovered.

2 Adam Taylor (2025), “Pharaoh’s Tomb Unearthed Near Luxor, First Major Find Since Tutankhamun,” The Washington Post, February 20.

3 That is, the early date for the Exodus—15th century B.C. For a thorough discussion of this topic, see my other articles apologeticspress.org, including https://apologeticspress.org/date-of-the-exodus-does-it-matter-part-1/, https://apologeticspress.org/date-of-the-exodus-does-it-matter-part-2/, https://apologeticspress.org/when-and-where-was-israels-sojourn-in-egypt-part-1/, https://apologeticspress.org/when-and-where-was-israels-sojourn-in-egypt-the-long-and-short-of-it-part-2/, etc.

4 Laura Geggel (2025), “Archaeologists Discover Tomb of Thutmose II, First Pharaoh’s Burial Found in Egypt in 100 Years,” LiveScience, February 26, https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/ancient-egyptians/archaeologists-discover-tomb-of-thutmose-ii-1st-ancient-egyptian-burial-of-a-pharaoh-to-be-found-in-100-years

5 Nikhil Swaminathan (2025), “Long-Lost Tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II Identified in Western Wadis,” Archaeology Magazine, February, https://archaeology.org/news/2025/02/20/tomb-of-thutmose-ii-discovered-in-egypt/

6 Laura Geggel.

7 James K. Hoffmeier (1997), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University).

8 Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

9 Laura Geggel.

10 Donald B. Redford (1985), “The Name of Moses,” Journal of Egyptian History, 72:101-115.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.