06: Arhaeology and the Bible

Archaeology and the Bible The science of archaeology has proven to be a very valuable tool in better understanding, confirming and illustrating the Bible. Before about 1800 very little was known about the events, background, and setting of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Therefore, it was nearly impossible to externally confirm the reliability of the Biblical record. You simply believed it or you didn’t! As a result, it was very difficult to answer the critics’ attacks on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Fortunately, in recent years archaeology has given us tremendous insight into the culture and lifestyles of ancient peoples. In addition our knowledge of ancient history, particularly relating to the Bible, has been greatly increased. This new information has served time and time again as an evidence of the reliability of the Bible. Quoting Nelson Gleuck, one of the greatest authorities in Biblical archaeology, "As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." [1] Archeological Evidences for the Reliability of the Old Testament

First let’s consider the following expert testimonies. William F. Albright, widely recognized in his day as the greatest authority on Biblical archaeology, wrote:

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. [2] The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. [3] Merrill Unger writes:

Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds. [4] Sir Frederic Kenyon says:

It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. [5]

Regarding background information. Sometimes the value of archaeology is not in confirming a specific historic event but in confirming the setting and context of events portrayed in the Bible. The great value of archaeology has been to show, over and over again, that the geography, technology, political and military movements, cultures, religious practices, social institutions, languages, customs, and other aspects of everyday life of Israel and other nations of antiquity were exactly as described in the Bible. [6] Examples of this include:

* The "Black Stele" -At one time, one of the "assured results of higher criticism" was that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses because writing was not yet in existence in Moses’ day. The critics assured us that the first 5 books of the Bible were put together centuries later by a group of editors and were subsequently attributed to Moses (The Documentary Hypothesis). However, in 1901 the "black stele" was found which contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi’s Code. The significant aspect of this find was that it was pre-Mosaic by at least three centuries. [7] Therefore, it proved that both writing and law codes were around centuries before Moses! Another archaeological find that confirms the existence of writing centuries before the time of Moses is the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in the 1960’s. The Ebla kingdom was actually in existence approximately 1000 years before Moses (reaching its height around 2300 B.C.) [8]

* The Nuzi Tablets -This group of around 4000 cuneiform tablets, written in Akkadian, were discovered in the ancient city of Nuzi in modern Iraq. They have been dated at around 1500-1400 B.C. which means that they probably originated sometime during the patriarchal period of the Bible. These tablets have long fascinated Bible scholars because many of the customs and situations found there greatly resemble customs and situations found in the Bible. For example, one Nuzi text recording the adoption of Sennima, the son of Zike, by his father-in-law, Surihi-ilu, has many similarities with the events in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. [9] In this text, Sennima is to become Surihi-ilu’s heir if the latter dies without a son. This resembles the case of Abraham’s servant Eliezer as recorded in Genesis 15. The text also states that if Surihi-ilu’s daughter, Kelimninu, was childless then she was to find another wife for Sennima. Otherwise Sennima was not to take another wife. This has great similarities to Genesis 16, where Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham as a wife in order that she might bear Abraham children in Sarah’s place. We also read that Rachel and Leah both gave their handmaids to Jacob for the purpose of bearing children in their place. Other Nuzi documents mention the legality of death-bed blessings, birthrights of the first-born, the possibility of selling birthrights, and many other items which help to confirm and illustrate the biblical record in Genesis.

Regarding historical people, places and events. In addition to providing helpful insight into background information of the Old Testament, archaeology has often confirmed the Old Testament record by providing secular testimony to Biblical people, places or events. For instance, consider the following examples. The identity of Belshazzar -For years many historians denied the historical character of Belshazzar who is referred to as the king of Babylon in Daniel 5. Historians could find no record of such a king. Nabonidus was known to be the king on the throne at the time of the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon. However, in 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson found an inscription, while excavating at ancient Ur, which stated that Nabonidus associated with him on his throne his eldest son, "Bel-shar-usur", and allowed him the royal title. [10] Furthermore, it was well known that Nabonidus was often out of the city of Babylon, spending most of his time in the city of Tema, Arabia. In fact, he was not in Babylon when it was taken by the Persians for he lived some time afterwards. This confirms the Biblical record very nicely. In Daniel 5:29, it is significant to note that Daniel is promised the "third" place in the kingdom which implies that Belshazzar was only the second in authority. Thus, what was once thought to be an obvious inaccuracy has turned out to be an evidence of reliability. The Hittites-For years historians said the Bible was in error because they could find no traces of the "Hittite" civilization mentioned in the Bible (over 60 references in the Old Testament). Today, however, we have abundant archaeological evidence for an advanced Hittite civilization that once vied with Assyria and Egypt for power in the ancient world. The discovery of the Hittite civilization is a perfect example of the danger of pronouncing the Bible in error before all the facts are in!

Sargon-In Isaiah 20:1 we read of Sargon II of Assyria. There he is referred to as "the king of Assyria". Before modern archaeology, this single Biblical reference was the only place his name was mentioned in any ancient literature. This fact influenced many critics to conclude that the Bible was in error on this point, and that there was no Sargon, king of Assyria, as recorded in Isaiah. The critics were proven wrong, however, when Paul Emil Botta discovered the remains of Sargon’s palace in 1843. In addition, discoveries made at Sargon’s palace helped to verify and supplement the Biblical account of the fall of Samaria. From the account recorded in II Kings 17, it seems that Shalmaneser was the king who captured Samaria. In actuality, it was Shalmaneser who laid siege to Samaria. However, from inscriptions discovered on the walls of Sargon’s palace it seems likely that Shalmaneser died before or shortly after completing the conquest, and it was Sargon, his successor, who took credit for capturing the city. While this information supplements the Biblical account, other information found there simply verifies it. One example is a quote from Sargon which states, "The town I rebuilt better than it was before and settled therein people from countries which I myself had conquered." [11] This agrees nicely with 2 Kings 17:24, which actually lists the nations from which Sargon brought people to settle Samaria. The Amarna Tablets-The Tell el-Amarna Tablets were found in 1886 in el-Amarna, an ancient capital of Egypt (Akhetaten). They date from the fourteenth Century B.C. and are from officials of Palestine and Syria who were upset because of the attacking Habiru (or ’Apiru). These tablets describe a disorganized turmoil among the states there and contain requests for Egyptian assistance and troops. These letters seem to portray precisely the situation in Palestine resulting from the Israelite invasion under Joshua (especially since the dates of the tablets correspond with conservative dates for the exodus and conquest of Canaan). Many scholars, including the famous William F. Albright, [12] equate the term Habiru with the Biblical term Hebrew which was first used of Abraham in Genesis 14:13.

Jericho-The excavation of the ancient city of Jericho has also served to confirm the reliability of the Biblical record. The walls of the city which dated from around Joshua’s time (the city had been rebuilt several times so there were many different "walls") showed evidence of violent destruction as depicted in Joshua 6. Most significantly they had fallen outward down the slope of the mound. This is significant because city walls normally fall inwards, not outwards. As one archaeologist working at the cite stated, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamor up and over their ruins into the city." [13]

These are just a handful of the archaeological finds confirming the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures. Whole books could be and actually have been written on the subject.

Archaeological and Secular Evidence for the Reliability of the New Testament

First let’s consider the following quotes from Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists in history. In his life he did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Entering into this work he was an unbeliever who was thoroughly convinced that the book of Acts was the product of the 2nd Century (a theory taught in the German schools of higher criticism). As a matter of fact, one of his goals was to prove that the history given by Luke was inaccurate. However, his beliefs were drastically changed as his archaeological finds proved that the book of Acts was accurate to the minutest detail. As a result Sir William Ramsay became a Christian. He writes:

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations [14]

Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [15] More evidences pointing to the reliability of the New Testament include:

Secular testimonies to New Testament persons. Among several other examples which could be cited, we have these secular witnesses to the existence of Christ.

Josephus was a Jewish historian and a contemporary of Christ. His works are full of references to New Testament characters such as the Herods, the Roman emperors, the high priestly families of Annas and Caiaphas, the Pharisees, the Saducees, etc.. Especially interesting is the following passage.

...so he assembled the sanhedrin judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others... (Antiquities XX 9:1) In an even more explicit but disputed passage he states:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities XVIII 3:3) The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55? - after 117) wrote concerning Nero:

Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also (Annals XV .44). [16]

Archaeological testimony to New Testament people, places, and events. Several examples could also be given under this heading, but three of the more interesting are: In the 19th century, Acts 14:6 was consistently presented as an example of a historical error in the book of Acts. The reason for this is that the verse portrays Paul and Barnabas as entering the province of Lycaonia when they came to Lystra and Derbe. The problem with this was that Iconium, the city they had fled from, was also in Lycaonia. However, this is one of the passages Sir William Ramsay checked for the historical accuracy of Acts. His archaeological finds showed that Iconium was made a part of Phrygia only during A.D. 37-72, both before and after this it was part of Lycaonia. [17] Thus we find that Luke’s statement was written in the one and only period of history that it would be accurate! At one time, Luke was thought to be totally inaccurate regarding details surrounding the birth of Christ in Luke 2:1-3. The critics once argued that there was no census, Quirinius was governor of Syria at a later date and that citizens did not have to return to their homelands. However, archaeology has shown that the Romans did hold censuses every 14 years. Furthermore, it is now known that Quirinius was likely governor of Syria twice, once around 6 A.D., but the other around 7 B.C., which would correspond to the time of the census of Luke 2. Finally, a papyrus was found in Egypt which gives directions for a Roman census and orders all people away from home to return in preparation of the coming census. [18] In 1962, two Italian archaeologists dug up a Latin inscription in the town of Caesarea. It read "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans." [19]

Conclusions: We can conclude that the external test of archaeology/ancient history has shown the Bible to be completely reliable and accurate. Not once has an archaeological discovery contradicted a Biblical reference! Once again, this demonstrates the incredible reliability of the Bible.