Archaeology has proved to be an invaluable tool in studying the reliability of the Bible as an historical document. The meaning of numerous passages of the Bible that had long puzzled commentators have become easily understood when archaeological discoveries have been focused upon them. In addition to illuminating the Bible, archaeology has confirmed countless passages that have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts. Unfortunately, the excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.
Critics have said that the accounts of Abraham are legendary, that the Mosaic legislation was formulated hundreds of years after the time of Moses, that such people as the Hittites were either legendary or insignificant, that the book of Judges was composed of “good stories” and not really historical accounts, and that various people ranging from Sargon to Sanballat were unhistorical.
Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges and countless others are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements that critics have set aside as untrustworthy.
Before the rise of the study of biblical archaeology, we had very little means for testing the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible was assumed to be true merely because it was accepted as God’s Word. However, as criticism of the Bible has increased over the last century or two, archaeology has provided a much needed tool for testing the Bible’s own trustworthiness in recounting events from the ancient past. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm, in clear outline or exact detail, historical statements in the Bible. Reformed Jewish scholar Nelson Glueck has affirmed that point when he stated:
L.H. Grollenberg , in his Atlas of the Bible, stated:
Thanks to the work of the archaeologist, the modern scholar is in closer contact with the actual world in which Israel had its roots…Today…many scholars feel a renewed confidence in the skillful narrators of chapters 12-50 of Genesis…the stories of the patriarchs must be based on historical memories. (2)
William F. Albright, well known as one of all time the great archaeologists, made the following comments regarding archaeology and the Bible:
.…archaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament. (3)
There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition. (4)
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. (5)
As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new material from the ancient Near East we shall see a steady rise in respect for the historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the Old and New Testament. (6)
Archaeological discoveries of the past generation in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine have gone far to establish the uniqueness of early Christianity as an historical phenomenon. (7)
Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated:
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. Archaeology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge. (8)
Kenyon has been shown to be correct as discovery after discovery has continued to verify the Bible in the decades since he made this statement. Millar Burrows of Yale also recognized the value of archaeology in confirming the authenticity of the Scriptures:
The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respect of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents. The confirmation is both general and specific. The fact that the record can be so often explained or illustrated by archaeological data shows that it fits into the framework of history as only a genuine product of ancient life could do. In addition to this general authentication, however, we find the record verified repeatedly at specific points. Names of places and persons turn up at the right places and in the right periods. (9)
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development.
On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.
Such evidence as archaeology has afforded thus far, especially by providing additional and older manuscripts of the books of the Bible, strengthens our confidence in the accuracy with which the text has been transmitted through the centuries. (10)
Joseph Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History comments that he once:
…thumbed through the book of Genesis and mentally noted that each of the fifty chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery—the same would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. (11)
The impact of archaeology on the New Testament is equally as dramatic as the Old Testament, though less of the New Testament is historical in nature since it covers a much smaller segment of time as compared to the Old Testament. However archaeology does verify the historical background of the events depicted.
F.F. Bruce comments on how archaeology has shown the New Testament was written very close to the time of the actual events: and on it's accuracy::
...for the most part the service which archaeology has rendered to New Testament studies is the filling in of the contemporary background, against which we can read the record with enhanced comprehension and appreciation. And this background is a first-century background. The New Testament just will not fit into a second century background. (12)
Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record. (13)
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid-nineteenth century. As a result, he believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D., long after the events that it records and therefore not reliable.
In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he was compelled to consider the Book of Acts. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. In this regard, he stated:
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it… It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; 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)
So it is clear that archaeology has been, and continues to be, a valuable source of external evidence which verifies the authenticity of both the Old and New Testaments. We must remember, however, that though archaeology has made invaluable contributions in our study of history and the Bible, it certainly can’t prove whether the Bible is the Word of God. If we dig in Israel and find ancient sites that are consistent with where the Bible said we’d find them, then that shows that its history and geography are accurate. However, it doesn’t confirm the theological message of the Old and New Testaments.
Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries. We will leave that topic to the next section, in which we will cover the literally hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. Prophecy will be the final evidence demonstrating God’s fingerprint on the Bible. The inerrant prophecy of the Bible will show that the Bible could not have come from fallible man, but only from an infallible God.
SPECIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS WILL BE LISTED BELOW (first for the Old Testament, then for the New), IF YOU ARE INTERESTED
Otherwise Click Here for the next page, Prophecy and the Bible
This list is very detailed but by no means exhaustive. If you are interested in a more detailed look at biblical archaeology, there are many books covering the subject in detail,...some listed in the Reference notes at the very bottom of this page..
The Composition of Genesis
The first phrase in the Hebrew text is bereshith (“In [the] beginning”), which is also the Hebrew title of the book (books in ancient times customarily were named after their first word or two). Genesis is Greek in origin and can be translated, depending on its context, as “birth,” “genealogy,” or “history of origin.” In both its Hebrew and Greek forms, then, the traditional title of Genesis appropriately describes its contents, since it is primarily a book of beginnings.
The basic outline of Genesis includes the Creation account, the fall of man, the great Flood, the spread of the nations after the Flood, the confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel, the patriarchal history beginning with the life of Abraham and his descendants, and the descent of God’s people into Egypt.
Chapters 1-37 reflect a great deal of what we know from other sources about ancient Mesopotamian life and culture. The author appears to locate Eden, humankind’s first home, in or near Mesopotamia. The tower of Babel was built there, Abram (Abraham) was born there, Isaac took a wife from there and Jacob lived there for 20 years. Although these patriarchs settled in Canaan, their original homeland was Mesopotamia. The latter part of chapter 37 through chapter 50 reflects Egyptian influence., as would be expected since it covers the period of the descent into Egypt.
Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the Old Testament. These books, also known as the Pentateuch (meaning “five-volume book”), include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There is strong internal as well as external evidence that Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. However, the precise circumstances of the composition of the Book of Genesis have been a matter of continual interest for Bible scholars. Since the Pentateuch is considered to be a unit, the approach of most conservative scholarship has been that Moses wrote Genesis also. However, nowhere does Scripture say that Moses actually wrote the narrative or the genealogies of Genesis.
If Moses did in fact write or compile the book of Genesis then he must have utilized earlier written documents. One of the arguments used by critics of the past in their attack on the historicity and integrity of Genesis was that the art of writing went back only to the time of David, about 1000 B.C. It is now known that they were not only wrong but very wrong. By the 1930’s our museums were rich with cuneiform writing on clay tablets dating back to 3500 B.C. A clear reference to writing is found in Genesis 5:1: “This is the written account of Adam’s history.” This suggests that the art of writing was known within the lifetime of Adam, which could make writing virtually as old as the human race.
To creationists, this is not surprising. It is obvious that at the time of their Creation, Adam and Eve knew how to speak. Yet, language is incredibly complex, and no one understands its origin. The ability to write is in the same magnitude of complexity as the ability to speak. Since God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak, it is reasonable to suggest that he created them with the ability to learn to write as well. (15)
As we will see, the answer to the question of how we come to have the book of Genesis is that Moses had to have had in his possession written accounts—written by the very people who had witnessed the events and had observed first hand the events contained in Genesis—except of course for the first time period of the earth’s physical formation.
In 1936, P.J. Wiseman wrote a book entitled New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, (edited and reissued by his son, Donald P. Wiseman as Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis. (16). His thesis is that there are internal clues in Genesis that reveal how it was written, who the actual authors of Genesis were (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and Joseph), that the authors, other than Joseph, probably wrote in cuneiform on clay tablets, and that Moses, utilizing these records, was the editor of Genesis rather than its author. The answers were so astonishingly simple that it is amazing that the solution was not discovered long before.
All scholars agree that the most significant and distinguishing phrase in Genesis is “these are the generations of ….” Commentators of all theological schools divide the book around that phrase, which is found eleven times in Genesis. The translators of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) regarded that phrase as being so significant that they gave the book its name after that term. Genesis in Greek is translated as “generations.” (17)
The heart of Wiseman’s contribution to the problem of the formulation of Genesis was his insight in identifying these phrases in Genesis with ancient Mesopotamian colophons. A colophon is a scribal device placed at the conclusion of a literary work written on a clay tablet giving, among other things, the title or description of the narrative, the date or occasion of the writing, and the name of the owner or writer of the tablet. Sometimes the owner would also be the writer. However, if a person was not able to write, he would hire a scribe to do the writing for him. The scribe would not include his own name, but the name of the one who had hired him, ie, the owner of the tablet.
Thus, it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the colophon at Genesis 5:1: “This is the written account of Adam’s ancestry.” Not only does the Hebrew word sepher mean “book” or “a complete writing,” but the presence of Adam’s name suggests that it was a written account owned or written by Adam, not just a written account about Adam. Genesis 2:4-5:1 gives evidence of being a firsthand eyewitness account of the experiences of Adam, possibly written by him on a clay tablet.
The internal evidence suggests that Genesis was written on a series of clay tablets as follows: (18)
It is significant that the last colophon is at Genesis 37:2a. From Genesis 1 to 11, the Mesopotamian setting and local color are very obvious. From Genesis 12 to 37:2a that influence persists. However, from Genesis 37:2b to the end, the setting and local color change dramatically. We are now in Egypt. This section has a strong Egyptian flavor and was probably written by Joseph on papyrus or leather; hence it is without colophons. (As stated above, colophons are only associated with clay tablets). (19)
Strengthening the arguments presented thus far is the fact that in every case the person named as the owner or writer of the tablet could have written the contents of that tablet from his own personal experience. It is also significant that in every case, the history recorded in the various tablets cease just prior to the death of the person named as the owner or writer of the tablet.
All of the tablets could have come to Moses in the way that family records were normally handed down. Nothing would have been more precious to the patriarchs than their family histories and genealogies. It is possible that there were many sets of these tablets and that each member of a patriarchal family owned a set. Of all of the personal items that Noah would have taken on the ark, the family histories would have been considered by him the most precious and most worthy of preservation.
Moses was certainly qualified to compile these records. Because of his education in the household of Pharoah, Moses had the finest scholarly training of that day. He would have known how to read the languages of the cuneiform tablets as well as Egyptian. Cuneiform writing was well-known in Egypt because of Egypt’s relationship with Mesopotamia.
Moses’ first task would have been to organize the book into a unified whole. By retaining the colophons, Moses clearly indicates the sources of his information. Just as a scholar documents his sources today with footnotes or endnotes, so Moses documented his sources of information by colophons. These colophon divisions, based on the different sources, constitute the framework of the Book of Genesis. Moses second task would have been translation, which as we have stated he would certainly have been qualified to do.
His third major task would be to bring place names up to date for the Israelites of his day. Some geographic names changed over time, and this updating is seen clearly in Genesis 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 17. This tablet, written in Abraham’s day, had in it many geographic names that had become obsolete in the over four hundred years between Abraham and Moses. It is indicative of Moses’ deep regard for the sacred text that he did not remove the old names but just added and explanatory note telling of the new names.
The implications of this evidence for the origin of Genesis are dramatic. Rather than Genesis having a late date, as is universally taught in non-evangelical circles, it implies that Genesis 1-11 is a transcript of the oldest series of written records in human history. As stated above, it is reasonable to expect that the first humans created by God would have had the same intelligence and language capabilities we have today, and that God would fully inform them as to their origin. (20)
This research also confirms the idea that the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts are the original accounts of these events and were not derived from the very different and polytheistic Babylonian accounts. (21) It also supports the fact that monotheism was the original religious belief and not a later evolutionary refinement from an earlier polytheism. (22)
This information and its implications are hard to ignore...yet that is exactly what secular writers and historians have done !
Genesis falls into two general parts: (1) chapters 1-11, which treat universal history and deal with Creation, the Fall, the Flood and the tower of Babel, and (2) chapters 12-50, the patriarchal period dealing with the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.
Because of the nature of the material in the early chapters of Genesis, several subjects lie beyond the limits of archaeology. (However, in the Appendix page on the Genesis Flood, we will see many natural findings that support the position of a young earth and that the global flood described in Genesis did actually occur. !!)
The Creation of the World and Its Inhabitants
According to the critical view of the Bible, Genesis 1 is ascribed to one writer and Genesis 2 to another. Genesis 2 supposedly represents a different and somewhat contradictory version of Creation. However, an examination of Genesis 1 and 2 shows that they are not two divergent accounts of Creation. Genesis 1 is the record of the creation of the universe, the world, and the inhabitants of the world. Genesis 2 simply gives further details. The two sections are not contradictory. The second supplements the first, and together they form an overall view of the broad sweep of Creation, along with the essential details. (23)
Those who wish to see the unity of the first two chapters of Genesis should read Genesis 1 and then skip to Genesis 3. They will notice that the preparation for Genesis 3 is lacking. Or if they begin with chapter 2, they will find that many essentials are missing, which are given only in Genesis 1. Any writer suggesting that there are inconsistencies in details between these two chapters is clearly misleading..
The Babylonian Creation Tablets
In the excavation of Ninevah in 1850-1854 multitudes of clay tablets were uncovered. Among these tablets was found the so-called Babylonian account of Creation. An examination shows some similarities between the Babylonian epic and the Genesis record of the creation of man. The differences, however, are even more pronounced than the similarities. Regarding the Babylonian Creation account, Professor of archaeology Joseph P. Free states:
If there is any connection between the Babylonian tablets and the true account of Creation given in the Bible, it is likely that the facts regarding Creation were handed down and diffused among many people and finally appeared in this variant form in Babylonia with the addition of many legendary and polytheistic features. Our examination shows that the Pan-Babylonian theory of origins is not borne out. (24)
The Fall of Man—The Temptation Seals
Genesis 3 describes the Fall of Man, when first Eve and then Adam disobeyed God by partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When God questioned them, Adam shifted blame to Eve, and Eve in turn stated the serpent deceived her.
During excavations at Tepe Gawra, a few miles north of Ninevah, a seal was found that depicted a man, a woman, and a serpent. Since it was found in the level antedating 3000 B.C., archaeologist G.A. Barton remarks, “It strongly suggests that the story of the temptation is very old.” (25)
In earlier excavations, made at Nineveh, another seal was found, now in the British Museum, showing a tree in the center, a man on the right, a woman on the left plucking fruit, and a serpent behind her standing erect. The significance of these seals lies in the fact that they may point back to the actual temptation in Eden.
The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)
The descendants of Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—are listed in Genesis 10, and the part of Shem’s line that culminated in Abraham is given at the end of Genesis 11. Bill Cooper, in his book After the Flood, took it upon himself to test the validity of the Table of Nations listed in Genesis 10 and 11. (26)
After spending twenty-five years on this project, the author was surprised to find the “astonishing degree to which Genesis, particularly the tenth and eleventh chapters, the Table of Nations, was to be vindicated.” The test that he devised was simple. If the names of the individual, families, peoples and tribes listed in the Table of Nations were genuine, then those same names should appear also in the records of other nations of the Middle East. Archaeology should also reveal that those same families and peoples listed in Genesis should be found in their correct ethnological, geographical and linguistic relationships.
The most important part of his test was that the documents and records consulted by Cooper had to date from before the time that any given European nation was converted to Christianity. That was because it is too often alleged by certain scholars that the early Christian church, particularly the monastic community, was given to forgery and intervention. Therefore only documents that pre-dated the coming of Christianity were considered by Cooper.
It was reasonable for Cooper to assume that a good number of the names would not appear. Either the records that once contained them had been lost or the diversity of language and dialect had rendered them unrecognizable. He therefore stated that he would have been content to have found just 40% of the list vindicated. Instead what he found at the time of writing his book was that the 99% of the names in the Table of Nations were vindicated!. No other ancient historical document of purely human authorship could be expected to yield such a level of corroboration as that.
The Tower of Babel
Genesis chapter 11 states that the whole world had one language and a common speech. It goes on to discuss the self-exaltation of humans and the desire to exalt their name by building a tower. They urged each other on by saying, “let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” (Gen. 11:4). This was contrary to God’s command after the Flood in Genesis 9:1, in which He said to “…be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
At the sites of many ancient cities in Mesopotamia stand the remains of towers, built in several stages or stories. In the Babylonian clay tablets they are referred to as ziggurats and represent a part of the religious structures of the ancient dwellers of Mesopotamia. Possibly these towers were modeled after the original tower of Babel. George Smith, the staff member of the British Museum who translated the Babylonian account of the Flood, published the translation of a fragment that tells of the destruction of one of these ziggurats:
The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded. (27)
This account may be a later reflection of what actually occurred when God came down at the time of the building of the tower of Babel and scattered the people abroad by confounding their language.
Before the building of the tower of Babel, “the whole world had one language and a common speech” (Gen 11:1). The evidence is compelling that all language on earth today originated from one original language. Max Mueller, a comparative philologist, declared concerning the common origin of speech:
We have examined all possible forms which language can assume, and we now ask, can we reconcile with these three distinct forms, the radical, the terminational, the inflectional, the admission of one common origin of human speech? I answer decidedly, Yes. (28)
Linguistic scholar Morris Swadesh stated:
The case for a single beginning seems fairly strong. (29)
Joseph S. Roucek observed:
Scholars speculate that most languages originated in one universal parent language. (30)
Joseph Free wrote:
While some secular scholars still favor polygenesis in the origin of language, the trend is toward monogenesis. I see no reason for doubting the biblical indication concerning the original unity of language, or the implication that humankind had speech from the beginning. No discovery, ancient or modern, has shown otherwise. (31)
The Time of Abraham
With the use of specific chronological reckoning using the Old Testament text, it can be determined that Abraham was born about 2166 B.C. and entered Canaan about 2091 B.C. Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees in southern Mesopotamia. Archaeological excavations at Ur from 1922-1934 showed that education was extensive in the days of Abraham. As a member of the upper class Abraham would most likely have been able to read and write. It is entirely reasonable to expect that Abraham passed on written accounts, and that Moses had some of those at hand when he wrote Genesis. Furthermore, as stated above, Moses himself was highly educated as a member of the court of Egypt and in later life presumably would have supervised whatever archives existed among the Hebrews at that time.
Abraham was called to go out from the midst of idolatry and paganism. The excavations further shed much light on the pagan religion that flourished there in the days of Abraham. The Genesis account declares that when famine came to Canaan, Abraham went down to Egypt. Archaeological discoveries show that people from the region of Palestine and Syria were coming to Egypt in the period of Abraham. Many aspects of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt are illuminated or confirmed by archaeological discoveries.
The Battle of the Four Kings Against the Five
Genesis 14 describes a military coalition of four kings from Mesopotamia going to the area of Sodom, where Lot had settled, to make war with five kings who lived near the Dead Sea. Lot is taken by the Mesopotamian kings and Abraham pursued these armies and rescued Lot. The story has been regarded as unhistorical by critics. However, archaeological discoveries have helped confirm the validity of Genesis 14. The names of the kings have been identified, and the routes of travel have also been identified.
An archaeological find that relates to Genesis 14 and biblical criticism in general is the discovery of the Ebla tablets, discovered in northern Syria. Ebla was at its height of power in 2300 B.C., and was destroyed in 2250 B.C. by Naram-Sin, grandson of Sargon the Great. Since 1974, 17,000 tablets have been unearthed from the era of the Ebla Kingdom.
Prior to this discovery, the victory of Abraham over the Mesopotamian kings has been described as fictitious and the five Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar) as legendary. Yet the Ebla archives refer to all five Cities of the Plain and on one table the cities are listed in the exact same sequence as Genesis 14. The tablets reflect the culture of the patriarchal period and depict that, before the catastrophe recorded in Genesis 14, the area was a flourishing region experiencing prosperity and success.
The Mari Tablets
Situated in the Middle Euphrates, Mari was one of the most important centers of the Northwest Semitic life of patriarchal times. In 1936 many thousands of cuneiform tablets dating mostly about 1700 B.C. were unearthed. Regarding these tablets, William F. Albright comments:
Now we can speak even more emphatically, and with a wealth of additional details. For example, the “city of Nahor” which plays a role next to Harran in the Patriarchal stories (Genesis 24:10) turns up frequently along with Harran in the Mari documents about 1700 B.C.) The name of a prince of Mari, Arriyuk, is evidently the same as the Arioch of Genesis 14. Also, “Benjamin” often appears as a tribal name of Mari. (32)
The Nuzi Tablets
S.H. Horn in his Christianity Today article, “Recent Illumination of the Old Testament,” introduced the Nuzi Tablets. What are some specific instances in which the Nuzi tablets help us to understand Genesis? Horn answers:
The discovery of a whole archive of legal and social texts at Nuzi, a small place in northeastern Iraq, has revealed that the social and legal background of the patriarchal age is reflected accurately and in great detail in the Old Testament patriarchal narratives. (33)
First, in the patriarchal stories we find several strange accounts of a barren wife who asked her husband to produce a child for her by her maid servant. Sarah did this, and later also Jacob’s two wives, Rachel and Leah. Today we know that this practice was not unusual during the patriarchal age. In no other period besides the patriarchal age do we find this strange custom. (34)
The Philistines
At the time described in Genesis 21 Abraham was living in the region of “the land of the Philistines” (Gen 21:32,34). Abraham’s having contact with the Philistines in his day is a problem because the Philistines as they are known to archaeologists and historians seem to have entered Palestine in the twelfth century B.C., 800 years later. This type of supposed contradiction is often used by critics to support their statements that the Bible has complicated problems and even direct contradictions in some cases.
To deal with this problem it is important to note that the Old Testament says the Philistines came from the island of Crete. If the Philistines of about 1200 B.C. came from Crete, they would have been part of the warlike maritime culture known as Mycenean or else of the Sea Peoples who were pushed out of the Aegean by the Mycenean Greeks.
However, these were not the only ancient people to come from Crete. Minoan Cretans were establishing trading colonies around the Mediterranean by about 2000 B.C., and evidence of their contact with Palestine and Egypt during this period is extensive. Moreover, the Philistines of Abraham’s day appear to have been peace-loving agricultural people, as were the Minoans. It should be further noted that the Hebrew word translated “Philistine” was used for all “Sea Peoples.” Further discoveries in the Mediterranean world may provide additional solutions to this issue.
The Patriarchal Period
Most current views place the patriarchal period within the years 2000-1500 B.C. The events of this period center on the lives and times of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The critical view of past years held that the patriarchal accounts were legendary and lacked historical basis. Archaeological discoveries of recent decades, however, have led to a change of opinion on the part of many liberal scholars. Renowned archaeologist William F. Albright acknowledged that the conclusion forced on us by recent archaeological discoveries is “that the saga of the patriarchs is essentially historical.” (35)
Joseph in Egypt
Joseph, the son of Jacob and great-grandson of Abraham, was brought to Egypt and sold as a slave to Potiphar, an officer of the pharaoh of Egypt. Joseph, through God’s help, was able to properly interpret the dreams of the pharaoh and as a result the pharaoh put Joseph in charge of his palace, an office we would call prime minister. Regarding the price paid for Joseph when he was sold as a slave, K.A. Kitchen states:
….the price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph in Genesis 37:28 is the correct average price for a slave in about the eighteenth century B.C.; earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (average, ten to fifteen shekels), and later they became steadily dearer. This is one more little detail true to its period in cultural history. (36)
In Genesis 42, Joseph’s family was forced to go to Egypt to find grain due to famine. This has been questioned by some critics. However, Millar Burrows points out:
Accounts of going down to Egypt in times of famine (Gen 12:10; 42:1,2) bring to mind Egyptian references to Asiatics who came to Egypt for this purpose. A picture of visiting Semites may be seen on the wall of a tomb at Beni Hasan which comes from a time not far from that of Abraham. (37)
Doubt has been cast on the possibility of the promotion of a Canaanite slave such as Joseph to such a high position. However, Egyptian archaeological discoveries tell of foreigners, including Canaanites, who achieved prominence in the course of Egyptian history:
A Canaanite, Meri-Ra, became armor bearer to Pharoah; another Canaanite, Ben-Mat-Ana, was appointed to the high position of interpreter; and a Semite, Yanhamu or Jauhamu, became deputy to Amenhotep III, with charge over the granaries of the delta, a responsibility similar to that of Joseph before and during the famine. When Pharaoh appointed Joseph prime minister, Joseph was given a ring and a gold chain or collar which is normal procedure for Egyptian office promotions. (38)
We are told in the in Genesis 50:25 that Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath to return his bones back to Israel. John Elder in his Prophets, Idols and Diggers made an interesting comment regarding Joseph’s tomb:
In the last verses of Genesis it is told how Joseph adjured his relatives to take his bones back to Canaan whenever God should restore them to their original home, and in Joshua 24:32 it is told how his body was indeed brought to Palestine and buried at Shechem. For centuries there was a tomb at Shechem referenced as the tomb of Joseph. A few years ago the tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of the kind worn by Egyptian officials. (39)
This makes perfect sense. It is not unreasonable to believe this was Joseph’s tomb. The book of Genesis ends with the death of Joseph.
The second book of the Bible is entitled Exodus. Exodus is a Latin word derived from Greek Exodos, the name given to the book by those who translated it into Greek. The word means exit or departure. Several statements in Exodus, as well as passages in the New Testament, indicate that Moses was the author. Exodus documents the oppression of the Israelites by the pharaoh of Egypt and their subsequent departure from Egypt toward the land God promised them. Thus, Exodus was not intended to exist separately, but was thought of as a continuation of a narrative that began in Genesis.
Exodus begins by telling us that Joseph and all his generation had died but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly in Egypt and became exceedingly numerous. Exodus 1:8 then states that a new king arose, “who did not know about Joseph.” Beginning with this pharaoh, and the pharaohs after him, burdensome tasks were put upon the Israelites. Exodus 1:11-14 state the people were required to build treasure cities and made their lives difficult with “hard labor in brick and mortar.”
Exodus 5 describes how Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh to ask him in God’s name to “let my people.go” Not only did Pharaoh say no but he gave an order to the foremen to no longer give the Israelites straw to make the bricks, making their jobs extremely difficult. These cities the Israelites were making the bricks for, specifically mentioned in Exodus, were found in 1883 by Swiss archaeologist Naville. Some of the bricks that he found there were actually made without straw !!
The Passover
Exodus 12 discusses the instructions for the Passover feast given to the Israelites by God. The critical view has held that the Passover was merely an adaptation of a Canaanite pagan feast. Archaeological discoveries, however, show the wide gulf between the Canaanite religious practices and the feasts revealed by God to the Israelites. The Ras Shamra tablets, found in 1929, have shown that every essential aspect of Canaanite religion is completely different from that of Israel.
Date of the Exodus
The Old Testament puts the date of the Exodus at about 1446 B.C. Because the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years after the Exodus before crossing the Jordan and beginning their conquest of Canaan, the conquest should be placed at about 1400 B.C.
The fall of Jericho was dated at about 1400 B.C. by John Garstang after his excavation at Jericho (1930-1936). The final report on Kathleen Kenyon’s work, which came out after her death, supported the fall of Jericho at about 1400 B.C. Archaeological discoveries since then have increasingly support the 1400 B.C. date for the conquest and a 1440 B.C. date for the Exodus.
Route of the Exodus
The route of the Exodus has been questioned by critics in the past. However, archaeological light has changed the views of these critics. Eygptologist Alan Gardiner, who long objected to the historicity of the route of the Exodus on topographical grounds, withdrew his objections. Albright stated:
With our present knowledge of the topography of the eastern Delta the account of the start of the Exodus given in Exodus 12:37 and 13:20 is perfectly sound topographically… (42)
M.G. Kyle stated that travelers who follow the coast of the Red Sea, along the line of the Exodus, need no other guidebook that the Bible. The whole topography corresponds to that mentioned in the biblical account. (41)
While the children of Israel were encamped before Mount Sinai, God revealed to Moses the ceremonial laws found in the book of Leviticus. The purpose of Leviticus was to furnish a guide book for the worship of the Lord and to give instructions to the priests as to the details of this worship.
The usual critical view holds that the code of Levitical laws was a late development, written down and codified about 500-450 B.C. However, the fact that the Ras Shamra Tablets, dating back to about 1400 B.C., record several laws similar to those of Leviticus, shows that the critic has no right to deny the possibility of such a code of sacrificial laws as early as the time of Moses.
The fourth book of the Pentateuch is called Numbers because it tells of the two numberings or censuses of the people. The contents of Numbers include directions for the arrangement of the tribes in the camp of Israel, directions for the service of the Levites in taking care of the tabernacle, the record of sending out spies, and the events of the forty years in the wilderness.
Robert Dick Wilson demonstrated the way the material in Numbers fits into the early period of the time of Moses (i.e. 1500-1400 B.C.), and not into the late period (c. 900-400), to which the critics assign the Pentateuch. Critics have lodged several complaints about the book of Numbers. However, “a reasonable analysis of the supposed difficulties and contradictions in Numbers shows no necessary improbability.” (42)
Deuteronomy is made up principally of four main addresses of Moses to the people of Israel as they were encamped on the plains of Moab a few miles east of the Jordan River, somewhat north of the north end of the Dead Sea. The word “Deuteronomy comes from two Greek words meaning “second law,” and the term is used in the sense of a repetition of the law previously given in the Pentateuch.
The critical view holds that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, but was composed much later than his day. There are several reasons why liberals date the book of Deuteronomy late, usually in the seventh century B.C., and thereby deny Mosaic authorship. One reason given is that the last chapter of Deuteronomy records the death of Moses (34:5). Critics point out that since a man cannot write of his own death, Moses could not be the author of the book. However, this point is easily answered. Because Joshua was his assistant, what would be more natural than for him, as the successor to Moses, to add a few words at the end, telling of the death of his predecessor?
Another critical theory has held that the social and moral level of the laws of Deuteronomy (as well as those of Exodus and Leviticus) were too advanced for the time of Moses and must be dated later in the history of Israel. Archaeological discoveries, however, have shown that these laws do not have to be dated late. The Code of Hammurabi, written during the eighteenth century B.C., was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.), and yet it contains some laws similar to those recorded by Moses. The Code of Hammurabi is actually late. Archaeologists have now traced the history of Mesopotamian law codes to the days of Abraham. In the light of this, the liberal has no right to say that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time and could not have been written by him. (43)
After the death of Moses, and at the close of the forty years of wandering in the desert, God commissioned Joshua to be the new leader of the people of Israel. With God’s guidance, he would lead the Israelites to the Promised Land. The earliest Jewish traditions (Talmud) claim that Joshua wrote his own book except for the final section about his funeral, much the way Joshua wrote the final paragraphs of Deuteronomy after Moses’ death.
The Hittites
In describing the extent of the Promised Land to Joshua, God referred to “the Hittite Country” (Josh. 1:4). This is one of almost fifty passages in the Bible that mentions the Hittites. Some scholars in the nineteenth century expressed doubt as to the existence or at least the importance of such an ancient people. Subsequent archaeological discoveries have changed this point of view. No longer is the existence of the Hittites questioned nor is their importance doubted. Today, one can earn a Ph.D. in Hittite studies at select universities in the United States and abroad.
The Walls of Jericho
God directed the Israelites to march around the walls of Jericho once each day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day (Josh. 6:3-4). They did so, and after the completion of the seventh circuit of the seventh day, the wall collapsed (v. 20). When Garstang excavated Jericho (1930-1936) he found what he identified as the very walls of the ancient city. Garstang summarized the evidence concerning the falling of the walls just as the Bible described it. He stated:
As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city. (44)
Garstang’s findings indicated that the city fell about 1400 B.C. This date also fits in with the biblical indication concerning the date of the Exodus, as we discussed above. On the basis of Garstang’s interpretation of the Jericho material and on the basis of biblical chronology, the date of the Exodus would have been about 1446 B.C.
Some scholars, however, felt that the Jericho evidence pointed to a later date than 1400 B.C. for the fall of the city. Garstang, responding to these contentions, observed that few of these opinions were based on first-hand knowledge of the results of his excavation at Jericho and that many were lacking in logical reasoning or were based on preconceptions concerning the date of the Exodus. He concluded that the date of 1400 B.C. was plainly indicated by the evidence, which the reader “may examine for himself.” (45)
Much of the debate over the dating of the fall of Jericho resulted from the excavations of Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958). She concluded that the city fell to Joshua somewhere between 1350 and 1325 B.C. Kenyon herself died before the results of her fieldwork were published. These came in three separate volumes which were released in 1981, 1982, and 1983. Bryant Wood’s independent assessment of this material concludes that Garstang was indeed right; Jericho fell about 1400 B.C. to the Israelites. (46)
Supportive evidence of the fall of Jericho as reported in the Old Testament comes from the Amarna Tablets. The Amarna Tablets comprise a group of letters written by the kings of various Palestinian and Syrian cities to the two kings of Egypt who lived about 1400 B.C. The tablets illuminate and confirm the picture the Bible gives of Palestine at that time. Several of the Amarna Tablets tell of the invasion by a group called the Habiru. Some scholars believe that the Habiru are to be identified with the Hebrews under Joshua. It is at least possible that the Amarna Tablets reflect the conquest from the standpoint of the native dwellers of Canaan. (47)
The book of Judges recounts the history of Israel during the three and one-half centuries following the conquest of Canaan and the settlement of the land. According to Garstang’s computation, the main part of the period of the judges falls between the oppression of Cushan (rendered Cushan-Rishathaim in Judges 3:8) in 1367 B.C. and the beginning of the reign of Saul about 1025 B.C., giving a span of 342 years. (48) The last part of this era, concerning Eli and Samuel, is described in the early chapters of 1 Samuel.
Archaeological discoveries have confirmed one item after another in the book of Judges, showing its accuracy and validity. One example is the indication in Judges 1:21 that at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, they did not drive out the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The fact that Israel did not take Jerusalem is confirmed by the Amarna Tablets, which show that the king of Jerusalem remained loyal to the pharaoh of Egypt. (49)
According to the Bible, Bethel was destroyed during the early period of the Judges (1:23-25). Excavations there showed that the town was completely destroyed during that period. The Bible indicates, on the other hand, that during this same period Bethshan, Megiddo, and Gezer were thriving towns (1:27, 29), but not subject to the Israelites. Results of the excavations at these sites prove the correctness of the Bible. (50)
Critics charge that many of the stories in the book of Judges were written hundreds of years after the events in question. If that were true then how would the writers of such stories have known that the places they mentioned really existed in the days of the judges? Excavations at the sites referred to in Judges such as Hazor (4:2), Debir (1:11) and Bethel (1:22), have shown these places to have been in existence and to have suffered destruction during the thirteenth century B.C.
Judges 9:45-46 describes the attack of the town of Shechem by Abimelech. During this raid Abimelech and his men gathered wood and set fire to the “stronghold of the temple of El-Berith.” Archaeological confirmation of such a burning was found in 1926 in the excavations by the German archaeologist Sellin. He found a building from this period that he identified with the “House of Berith” which had been destroyed by fire about 1150 B.C. The event therefore falls within the period of the judges in which Abimelech lived. This correlation between the destruction recorded in Judges 9 and archaeological investigation was confirmed by the Drew-McCormick excavation at Shechem (1956-1966). (51)
Samson
God raised up Samson to deal with the Philistines (Judges 13-16). The Bible clearly shows that the Philistines not only existed but also exercised extensive power at this time. As mentioned above, critics have doubted much of the biblical indications concerning the Philistines. Archaeology has given factual evidence concerning the power of the Philistines. With every passing year we experience an increase in our knowledge of the Philistines during the days of the judges. There is no longer any doubt about the significance of this ancient people.
The Burning of Gilbeah
Judges chapter 20 describes the battle between the Benjamites and the rest of the nation of Israel, which resulted in the defeat of the Benjamites and the burning of Gilbeah. The historicity of this event has often been doubted. Confirmation of the burning of the town, however, was found in Albright’s excavation of that site. (52)
The two books each of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were originally a single volume called in Hebrew tradition simply “Kings.” 1 and 2 Samuel are named after the person God used to establish monarchy in Israel. Samuel not only anointed both Saul and David, Israel’s first two kings, but he also gave definition to the new order of God’s rule over Israel. Samuel is called a judge and also a prophet (1 Sam 3:20), and as such he is sometimes characterized as the last of the judges and the first of the prophets.
1 and 2 Kings is arranged in a manner that provides a sequel to the history found in 1 & 2 Samuel—a history of kingship regulated by covenant. In general, 1 & 2 Kings describes the history of the kings of Israel and Judah in the light of God’s covenant.
Chronicles deals with the whole history of Israel, from the genealogies starting with Adam through the Exile to Babylon and the Restoration from Captivity. Therefore the stories of the books of Samuel and Kings are recounted in the books of Chronicles. This explains why we will reference events discussed below to both Chronicles and either Samuel or Kings.
Archaeological light on Dagon
The first book of Samuel deals with the judgeship of Samuel and the reign of Saul, the first king of Israel. The second book of Samuel deals primarily with the kingship of Saul’s successor, David.
1 Samuel 4 describes the battle between the Philistines and the Israelites during which the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines. The Philistines “carried the ark into Dagon’s temple and set it beside Dagon.” Archaeology has confirmed the name of a god Dagon. A temple of Dagon has been found at Ugarit (the ancient name of Ras Shamra), as well as two steles, which are ancient upright stone slabs bearing markings, erected to the same god. The Ras Shamra tablets also mention Dagon.
The Death of Saul
We are told in 1 Samuel 31 that Saul fell on his own sword in order to avoid capture by the Philistines. The Philistines found his body and took his armor to the temple of Ashtoroth, and his body was fastened to the wall of Beth Shan (v.10). The University of Pennsylvania expedition at Beth Shan (1921-1933) unearthed a temple the excavators identified with the temple of Ashtaroth, in which Saul’s armor had been placed. The excavations at Beth Shan, where Saul’s body was placed, showed that the city was destroyed between 1050 and 1000 B.C., the appropriate period of David and Saul.
As indicated in 1 Chronicles 10:10, there was a second temple at Beth Shan, namely, the house of Dagon. It was there according to v. 10 that Saul’s head was placed. Excavations revealed a temple to the south of the house of Ashtaroth, which Rowe identified with this second temple mentioned in the Bible. He asserted, in conclusion, that the Chronicles reference indicates two temples at Beth Shan during the Philistine regime, and the excavations have certainly “proved that such was the case.” (53)
The Conquest of Jerusalem by David
The conquest of Jerusalem is described briefly in 2 Samuel 5:6-9 and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8. We learn from these verses that the Jebusites felt Jerusalem was impregnable. David offered the captaincy of the armed forces to the one who would lead a successful attack, which David said would require using the water shaft (2Sam 5:8 NIV). Joab was first to do this and earned this reward (1 Chron. 11:6). Kathleen Kenyon, in her 1961-1967 excavation at Jebusite Jerusalem concluded that David’s men did indeed capture the city in this way when they made it the capital of Israel about 1000 B.C.
Jerusalem in those days was in a position of great natural strength, because it was surrounded on three sides by deep valleys. But the water supply of the city was poor; the population was entirely dependent on a spring that lay outside the city on the eastern slope of the hill. So that they could obtain water without having to go down to where the spring was located, the Jebusites had constructed an elaborate system of tunnels through the rock. This water system, constructed more than three thousand years ago, is still in existence and can be examined by any tourist. Some good climbers have even climbed the shaft in modern times, emulating Joab’s achievement.
The Bible indicates that David’s empire included Damascus and the area of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3,6; 1 Chron. 18:3,6). Critical scholars have excluded Damascus from the empire of David and have located Zobah east of the Sea of Galilee. Archaeological discoveries, however, have shed much light on the Assyrian provincial organization and have demonstrated conclusively that Zobah lay north of Damascus and not south of it. Thus the biblical indication that David’s empire extended up to the north of Damascus is confirmed by these archaeological discoveries.
Solomon becomes King
In 1 Kings 2 David made his son Solomon his successor as King. The greatness of Solomon’s empire is definitely indicated in 1 Kings 4:21 and 2 Chronicles 9:26.
Because of the great empires of Assyria on the Euphrates and Egypt on the Nile, it might seem unlikely that such a kingdom as Solomon’s could have existed at that time. Archaeological discoveries show us, however, that precisely during the period 1100-900, when the kingdom of Israel was being built up, that the Egyptian and Assyrian kingdoms were weak and in a period of decline. The Hittite Empire of Asia Minor had come to an end, and the glory of the Myceneans had disappeared in Greece.
The Phoenicians
The Bible refers to the Phoenicians and their king, Hiram, and indicates they were a people of some importance (1 Kings 5:8-9,18; 9:27). In the early twentieth century, critics denied the validity of such references to important Phoenician activity as early as this period. Archaeological inscriptions dating back to the ninth century B.C., however, reveal early Phoenician activity in the Mediterranean, as implied in the biblical references to Solomon’s relations with the Phoenicians. Albright comments on the significance of these inscriptions:
Once more we find that the radical criticism of the past half century must be corrected drastically… Incidentally the Biblical account of Solomon’s reign is again proved to be historically reasonable. (54)
Archaeological Light on Solomon’s Temple
Although no remains of the temple have been found, archaeology has brought light upon the type of construction described in the Bible. The record of 1 Kings 7:12 tells us that Solomon’s palaces were constructed of “three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams.” Archaeological light on this type of construction was found in the University of Chicago excavation at Megiddo. There the remains of a large building with construction similar to the courts of Solomon were found.
Solomon’s Stables
The Bible indicates that Solomon had whole cities to be used to stable his horses (1 Kings 9:19). Yet such features of the glorious reign of Solomon were once thought to be late legendary additions to Scripture. However, the University of Chicago excavation at Megiddo identified two stable compounds capable of housing 450 horses and dated them to the time of Solomon.
The Queen of Sheba visits Solomon
When the Queen of Sheba heard of Solomon’s fame, she came to visit him at Jerusalem, bringing with her a great caravan that included camels bearing gold, spices, and precious stones (1 Kings 10:1-2). Doubts have been expressed in past years concerning the early use of the camel. Archaeological discoveries, however, show that the effective domestication of the camel came at least as early as the period 1200-1000 B.C.
Sheba is located in southern Arabia. Some scholars have also dismissed the biblical record stating that no such Sheba existed at that early time. Again, archaeology has validated the Bible by producing historical inscriptions of several Assyrian kings showing that the people of Sheba were purveyors of the South-Arabian trade. This is a parallel to the Queen of Sheba’s activity of bringing precious gifts of the south to Solomon. In this connection Professor James A. Montgomery, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the University of Pennsylvania, observed that the biblical setting is “quite correct.” (55)
Shishak’s Invasion of Jerusalem
In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Sheshonk I (spelled “Shishak” in the Bible) came from Egypt to Palestine and took treasures from the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25). Archaeological confirmation of the campaign of Shishak is found in his inscription on the wall of the great temple of Karnak in Egypt.
Omri, the Sixth King of Israel
For six years, (from 885-880 B.C.), Omri co-ruled the northern kingdom of Israel with Tibni. Omri gained sole rule over Israel (880-874, B.C.; 1 Kings 16:21-22, 24). He established the capital at Samaria (v. 24). Excavations by Harvard University confirmed this when they found a large palace identified as that of Omri. Thus the biblical indication that Samaria was founded by Omri is confirmed.
Ahab’s Ivory House
The biblical summary of Ahab’s life refers to “the palace he built and inlaid with ivory” (1 Kings 22:39). Excavations in Samaria have found Ahab’s palace. The walls were made from high-quality limestone which would have given the appearance of an ivory palace as it glistened in the Palestinian sun. Numerous ivory decorations were also found, in the form of plaques and panels for decorating furniture and wall paneling. (56)
The Moabite Rebellion
2 Kings 3:4-27 discusses the rebellion of Moab, led by their king Mesha, which had been subjugated by the northern kingdom of Israel. Confirmation of this event was found on a large stone monument discovered at Dibon (ancient Moab; present-day Jordan). This stone is known as the Moabite Stone. The inscription on the stone confirms the fact of Mesha’s rebellion and also the fact that he had been subject to Israel. Also, a fragment bearing the same inscription as that of the Moabite Stone was discovered during excavations at Dibon by the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1950-1955). (57)
Hazael the Userper
Ben-Hadad, the Syrian king, came to a sudden end when Hazael suffocated him with a cloth and usurped the throne (2 Kings 8:15). Archaeological confirmation of the fact that Hazael succeeded Ben-Hadad and gained the throne but was not of royal blood or in the royal line of succession was found in an inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (860-825 B.C.), which reads, “Hazael, son of nobody, seized the throne.” Further confirmation was found on some ivory decorations discovered in northwestern Mesopotamia. (58)
Jehu
The kings of Judah and Israel, Ahaziah and Jehoram respectively, were slain by Jehu in 841 B.C. Confirmation of the reign of Jehu (841-814 B.C.) was found on a monument called the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, which was found in the middle of the nineteenth century. One of the panels shows Jehu or his envoy bowing down before King Shalmaneser III and the inscription reads “Tribute of Jehu, son of Omri” (59)
Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III
After 750 B.C., the kings of Assyria pushed down into Syria and Canaan from time to time and came in direct contact with the kings of Israel and Judah. Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) exacted tribute from the northern kingdom, Israel. It is noted in 2 Kings 15:19 that the Assyrian king was named Pul. Because of this some scholars have argued in the past that Tiglath-Pileser III and Pul were two different individuals. But archaeology has shed light on this issue. Inscriptions have shown that when Tiglath-Pileser III annexed Babylonia to the Assyrian empire, he went through the ceremony used for assuming kingship of Babylonia. In doing so he permitted the Babylonians to use a separate name for him, Pul, so that they would feel they had a king of their own.
The king of Syria (Rezin) and the king of Israel (Pekah 740-732 B.C.) tried to make an allegiance with Ahaz, king of the southern kingdom, Judah (735-715 B.C.) in order to go against Tiglath-Pileser III. When Ahaz refused, Rezin and Pekah prepared to punish him. Ahaz sought help from Tiglath-Pileser III, seeking to gain favor by paying him a huge sum. Tiglath-Pileser III attacked Damascus and severely beat the Syrians. The archaeological records of Tiglath-Pileser III tell of this attack on Damascus. (60)
Assyrian king Sennacherib
Sennacherib (704-681 B.C.) invaded the southern kingdom of Judah in 701 B.C. This prompted Hezekiah, king of Judah (715-686 B.C.) to pay him tribute (2 Kings 18:14). This was verified archaeologically by the inscriptions of Sennacherib.
When Sennacherib’s army came up against Jerusalem, God spoke through the prophet Isaiah and promised to defend the city (2 Kings 19-32-34; Isa. 37:35). The Bible states that the angel of the Lord put to death 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. So Sennacherib broke camp and withdrew (2 Kings 19:35-36; Isa. 37:36). This may seem beyond the realm of historical possibility, however, confirmation of the fact that Sennacherib did not take Jerusalem is found in an inscription on a prism called the Taylor Cylinder as well as on the Oriental Institute Cylinder.
In the inscription, Sennacherib says that he made other Palestinian cities yield, but fails to mention the capture of Jerusalem and its king. Instead, regarding Hezekiah, he says “As for himself, like a bird in a cage is his royal city Jerusalem, I shut (him) up.” Obviously, since Sennacherib did not capture Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Bible, he made as good of a story as he could out of the siege. (61)
The Bible states that Sennacherib finally met his death at the hands of his own sons (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). An inscription has been discovered in which Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.), Sennacherib’s son and successor, tells of this very event. (62)
Hezekiah’s Conduit
The Bible tells us of the pool and the conduit that Hezekiah made to bring water into the city (2 Kings 20:20) from the spring of Gihon (2 Chron. 32:30). This tunnel may be seen today at Jerusalem still connecting the spring of Gihon with the pool that Hezekiah made at the south end of the city, within the wall.
Jehoiachin’s capture by Nebuchadnezzar
The Bible states that Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar after the Babylonian king laid siege to Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:10-12). This occurred in 597 B.C. After thirty seven years of captivity Jehoiachin was released from prison and given a daily allowance of food for the rest of his life (2 Kings 27-30). Confirmation of this aspect of Jehoiachin’s life was found on a clay tablet from Babylon that listed payment of rations to captives around Babylon. The tablet lists Youkin (Yokin), king of Judah, which is equivalent to Jehoiachin, as the recipient of these rations.
The Fall of Jerusalem
After taking Jehoiachin off the throne of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah (597-586 B.C.) his successor. Zedekiah later rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, prompting the Babylonian king to invade and lay siege to Judah. Finally, on July 18, 586 B.C., Jerusalem finally fell to the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:1-4). A great number of the people were exiled to Babylon. Only the poor of the land were left as farmers for the country of Judah (2 Kings 25:11). No one disputes these historical facts.
The Lachish Letters
Jeremiah 34:6,7, reads as follows:
Then Jeremiah the prophet told all this to Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem, while the army of the king of Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and the other cities of Judah, that were still holding out--Lachish and Azekah. These were the only fortified cities left in Judah. (NIV)
Israel had been in a futile rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. Judah was not united in this revolt. Jeremiah preached submission while the Jewish leaders could only speak of resistance, and resist they did, though they were soundly defeated by the power of Nebuchadnezzar. In the final days of the rebellion, the last vestiges of Hebrew independence were embodied in a pair of outposts, Lachish and Azekiah, 35 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
In an excavation of the site called Tell ed-Duweir, now identified with the biblical town of Lachish, a group of eighteen military messages were discovered in 1935. They have been named the Lachish Letters and were written in the time of the prophet Jeremiah. These letters give a graphic picture of what it was like to be in such a situation and add greatly to our knowledge of Old Testament background.
In the days of Jeremiah when the Babylonian army was taking one town after another in Judah (589-586 B.C.), the Bible states that the two cities of Lachish and Azekah had not yet fallen (Jer. 34:7). Striking confirmation of this fact is furnished by Lachish letter No. 4, written by an officer at a military outpost to his superior officer. This letter not only shows how Nebuchadnezzar’s army was tightening its net around the land of Judah, but also evidences the close relationship between Lachish and Azekah, which are similarly linked in the book of Jeremiah.
Regarding the Lachish letters, archaeologists Haupert, Albright and Elder state, respectively:
"we have had no archaeological discovery up to recent years that has had a more direct connection to the Bible than the Lachish letters. They provide us with a virtual supplement to Jeremiah.” (63)
In the course of this sketch it will have become increasingly evident to the attentive reader that the language of the Lachish documents is perfect classical Hebrew. The divergences from biblical usage are much fewer and less significant than supposed by Torczner. In these letters we find ourselves in exactly the age of Jeremiah, with social and political conditions agreeing perfectly with the picture drawn in the book that bears his name.
Starkey has contributed a useful sketch of the discovery, explaining the archaeological situation in which the Ostraca were found and fixing their date just before the final destruction of Lachish at the end of Zedekiah’s reign. The facts are so clear that Torczner has surrendered his objections to this date, which is now accepted by all students. (64)
The nearby city fortress of Lachish provides clear proof that it had been twice burned over a short of time, coinciding with the two captures of Jerusalem. In Lachish the imprint of a clay seal was found, its back still shows the fibers of the papyrus to which it had been attached. It reads: “The property of Gedaliah who is over the house.” We meet this distinguished individual in 2 Kings 25:22, where we are told: “And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah….ruler.” (65)
The Three Deportations
Bible scholars have usually held that there were a total of three deportations of the people of Judah, who were taken from Palestine to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 605, 597, and 586 B.C. Some critics have doubted the fact of a deportation in 605 B.C. since the only reference to it is in Daniel 1:1. However, tablets discovered known as the Babylonian Chronicle confirm this deportation. There has been no further doubt as to the historicity of this event.
The first deportation, then, was in 605 B.C. and included Daniel among those who were deported (Dan. 1:1-3, 6). The second deportation occurred in 597 and included Ezekiel among the captives. Ezekiel was carried away to Babylonia with the deportation that included king Jehoiachin in the year 597 B.C. The third deportation took place in 586, when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and burned the city and the temple (2 Kings 25:9-10).
Date of Composition of the Book of Daniel
As mentioned above, Daniel was one of the captives deported by Nebuchadnezzar in the invasion of 605 B.C.. He lived in Babylon for nearly three quarters of a century. He noted the extensive building activity by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon (Dan. 4:30). Archaeological excavations in Babylon have produced inscriptions confirming Nebuchadnezzar’s great building activities.
Many critical scholars hold that the book of Daniel was not written in the time of Daniel (sixth century B.C.) but that it was composed some four hundred years later, about 168-165 B.C. (66) We will see in the next page on Prophecy that Daniel’s prophecies were so accurate that scholars felt it must have been written after the events the prophecies were describing had occurred.
This critical view, however, makes it difficult to explain how the supposed late writer of the book of Daniel knew that the glories of Babylon were due to Nebuchadnezzar’s building activity. The historical accuracy of the author regarding Babylonian history makes it difficult to believe the book of Daniel was written some four hundred years after its historical setting. As Raven asserts, Daniel’s accurate representation of history in Babylon shows that it must have been written there. (67)
It is remarkable that in all the details of the book no historical error has ever been proven. (68) Joseph D. Wilson, in his book Did Daniel Write Daniel? provides us with two quotes regarding Daniel’s authorship of the book bearing his name:
I am certain, after much examination, that the writer of the Book of Daniel shows a most intimate personal acquaintance with the palace of Nebuchadnezzar and the affairs of the Babylonian Court and Empire, and that the book was written during the exile. (69)
The more I read and reread [Daniel], the more I am struck with the truth of the tableaux of the Babylonian Court traced in the first six chapters. Whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing these with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the Courts themselves. (70)
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there were found eight fragments of the book of Daniel (71) The fragments have been dated to the first or second century B.C. A manuscript of Daniel dating to the second century B.C. brings into question the supposed late date of its composition. (72) Gleason Archer has discussed at length the critical questions concerning the date of Daniel’s composition, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. When looking to the the linguistic nature of the writings he concluded:
In the light of this newly discovered linguistic evidence, therefore, it would seem impossible to maintain any longer a second-century date for the book of Daniel. (73)
In the centuries after the Babylonian captivity the Jews lived under Persian, then Greek rule. Considering the implications of this Wilson concludes:
No Jew whose people had been living for centuries under Persian and Grecian rule could relate with such unconscious simplicity the actual condition of affairs in Babylon 370 years before his own time. (74)
I believe it is clear to any unbiased reader who studies the evidence that the book of Daniel was composed by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. It becomes obvious that critics, who enter with the preconceived bias against the supernatural, simply cannot believe that Daniel could have prophesied future events so accurately. They therefore assume a later date of composition and do not feel the need to justify their point of view. However, there is much evidence proving that Daniel was in fact written by the prophet Daniel in the 6th century B.C.
Nabonidus and Belshazzar
Secular sources have indicated that Nabonidus (556-539 B.C.) was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, the Bible (Dan. 5:30) indicates that Belshazzar was the last ruler calling into question the accuracy of the Bible. However, archaeological discoveries have shown that the Bible is correct. In the middle of the nineteenth century a great number of clay tablets were excavated in the region that was ancient Babylonia. One of the tablets proved to be a contract containing an oath taken in the name of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. (75) This tablet indicated that Belshazzar was actually a co-ruler with his father, Nabonidus.
Subsequent excavations have revealed the reason for this contract and co-rulership. Nabonidus spent a great deal of his time during the latter part of his reign in Arabia and was therefore absent from Babylonia. An inscription was found which reads, “He entrusted the kingship to him,” indicating the bestowal of royal authority on Belshazzar. (76)
Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (612-539 B.C.), was ruling with his son, Belshazzar, when Cyrus of Persia swept across western Asia and captured Babylon in the year 539. The empire that Cyrus established lasted for some two hundred years, until Alexander the Great conquered it in 331 B.C. One of Cyrus’ early acts after taking Babylon was to permit the Jews to return to Palestine after their seventy-year captivity. Archaeological confirmation of this event was found in the nineteenth century on the Cyrus Cylinder. This cylinder tells of Cyrus’ taking the city of Babylon without violence and, later, of returning people to their former dwellings. We will see in next page on Prophecy that this event was foretold by the prophet Isaiah over 160 years before it happened and over 100 years before Cyrus was even born !!
The Return from Babylon
After the decree of Cyrus to set the people free, among those who led the people back to Palestine from Babylon were Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:11) and Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2) in 538-537 B.C. Archaeological light has been found on the names of these two leaders. It is now known that the names of Zerubbabel and his uncle, Sheshbazzar, were good Babylonian names. (77) This lends further credibility to the biblical accounts.
The Ezra memoirs may be dated around 440 B.C. and the Nehemiah memoirs at 430 B.C. Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the book of Esther, cover the last century of Old Testament Jewish history, roughly 538-433 B.C.
Ezra follows on from Chronicles, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the people being taken into exile in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (587 B.C.). Ezra and Nehemiah describe the three-stage return to Palestine from Babylon: the main party who returned with Zerubbabel (538-7 B.C. see above), the party that returned with Ezra 80 years later (458 B.C.) and Nehemiah’s party in 445 B.C. The historical information in Ezra and Nehemiah covers the reigns of five Persian kings.
Confirmation of the time of Nehemiah’s return
Nehemiah was given permission to return to Jerusalem by king Artaxerxes I in 445 B.C. to direct the rebuilding of the temple walls because they had fallen into a broken-down condition over the past 90 years. Some scholars have tried to place the return of Ezra and Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.). However, confirmation concerning the time of Nehemiah’s return is found in the Elephantine Papyri* which show that it was in the reign of Artaxerxes I.
*Artaxerxes I was succeeded by one of his sons who came to the throne as Darius II, also known as Darius Nothus (423-405 B.C.). At this time Egypt was a part of the Persian Empire. When the Persian ruler of Egypt, Arsames, left the land temporarily to make a report to Darius II in the year 411, native Egyptians attacked the Jewish colony on the island of Elephantine. The Jewish temple was destroyed. Three years later in 408 B.C., these Jews wrote to Bigvai, the Persian governor in Jerusalem, to enlist his aid in persuading the chief Persian authorities to give them permission to rebuild their temple. These very letters were found in 1900 A.D. on the island of Elephantine and are known as the Elephantine Papyri .
Confirmation of Sanballat and Tobiah
Nehemiah wrote that Sanballat and Tobiah “the Ammonite” were disturbed that Nehemiah was coming to promote the welfare of the Israelites (Nehemiah 2:10). The Elephantine Papyri mention Sanballat, who was governor of Samaria, confirming Nehemiah’s reference. (78)
Archaeological light on Tobiah was found in the Zeno papyri which were written in the third century B.C. (79) One of the documents mentions a Tobias, Governor of Ammon in the region of Palestine. This was undoubtedly a descendant of Tobiah the Ammonite. (80) The tombs of the Tobiah family have been found not far from present day Amman. The name Tobiah can be clearly seen in archaic Aramaic which Albright believed dated back to 400 B.C., the time of Tobiah I. (81)
Confirmation of the presence of the Drachma in Nehemiah
Nehemiah lists the names and numbers of Israelite families that returned from the exile, and listed the contributions of the heads of the families to be used for the rebuilding efforts (Neh. 7:6-72). Gifts of various amounts of drachmas are recorded. Some scholars have doubted the validity of this reference to the drachma, a Greek coin, on the basis of a preconceived idea that Greek coinage had not spread abroad until after the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). This would be over a century too late for the time of Nehemiah. Because of this some scholars date the composition of the book of Nehemiah much later than the time Nehemiah actually lived, perhaps around 250 B.C.
Archaeology has solved this problem and confirmed the dating of the book of Nehemiah. Excavations several miles south of Jerusalem, in Ben Zur, found six drachma coins in the Persian level (c. 530-330 B.C.), proving that the drachma was known in Palestine in the time of Nehemiah. The combination of this finding, and the Elephantine papyri as mentioned above, have prompted W.F. Albright to state that "the late dating of Nehemiah, Ezra and Chronicles has been disproved. "(82)
THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD
The book of Malachi is the final book of the Old Testament and fits into the time of Nehemiah. On various bases, Gleason Archer concludes that the date of Malachi was about 435 B.C. (83) With the writing of Nehemiah and Malachi, the Old Testament books come to an end, shortly before 400 B.C. The period between the completion of the Old Testament period and the writing of the New Testament books is often called the “Four Hundred Silent Years.” Persia (539-331 B.C.) and Greece (331 and after) were the great powers during this time.
After the death of Alexander, a struggle followed among his generals for control of different parts of the empire. Africa came under the control of Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s cleverest Macedonian leaders. His successors formed the Ptolemaic line. Palestine ultimately fell to Ptolemy as part of his domain and remained under the Ptolemies from 301-198 B.C. The Ptolemies seem to have been quite moderate in their treatment of the Jews. They encouraged a large colony of Jews to settle in Alexandria, Egypt, where they soon forgot their native tongue and required a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. This translation, produced during the period of about 250-150 B.C., is called the Septuagint.
As we have found to be true with the Old Testament, the credibility of the New Testament is greatly enhanced by the findings of archaeology. We can start with Luke. The physician and historian Luke authored both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, which together constitute about one-quarter of the entire New Testament. Professor of New Testament archaeology John McRay states that the general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke was very accurate as a historian. (84)
Luke has been established to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake. (85) If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, on what logical basis may we assume he was inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well. (86) Matters, for example, like the resurrection of Jesus, the most influential evidence of his deity, which Luke says was firmly established by “many convincing proofs”(Acts 1:3).
There are several instances in which scholars initially thought Luke was wrong in a particular reference, only to have later discoveries confirm that he was correct in what he wrote. Concerning Luke’s ability as a historian, Sir William Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that:
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. (87)
Regarding the Book of Acts, A.N. Sherwin- White and Norman Geisler write, respectively:
For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (88)
As for the critical theories which were spawned in the early 1800s but still persist today, they are left without substantiation. (89)
John’s gospel has also been considered suspect at times because he talked about locations that couldn’t be verified. That conclusion, however, has been turned upside down in recent years., as several discoveries have shown John to be very accurate. (90)
Other scholars have attacked the gospel of Mark, but when everything is put into the appropriate context there is no problem with Mark’s account. When asked if he had ever encountered an archaeological finding that blatantly contradicted a New Testament reference, McRay states:
Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible. On the contrary, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong. (91)
If the Gospels are to be considered credible, it is important to note when they were actually composed. If they were composed a great deal of time after the actual events then one could assume that legend and exaggeration may have crept into the stories. But if the stories were recorded soon after the actual events, then witnesses, especially those antagonistic to believers, would still have been around to contradict what was written.
As discussed earlier in the section on the reliability of the New Testament, the formative period has been designated as that period of time between the crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels. Critics have assumed that the New Testament Scriptures were not written until late in the second century A.D. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
In 1955, Dr. William F. Albright, recognized as one of the world’s outstanding biblical archaeologists, wrote:
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. (92)
Eight years later he stated in an interview that the completion date for all the books in the New Testament was “probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75. (93)
Dr. John A. T. Robinson, lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge, has been for years one of England’s more distinguished critics. Robinson accepted the consensus typified by German criticism that the New Testament was written many years after the time of Christ, at the end of the first century. But, as “little more than a theological joke,” he decided to investigate the arguments on the late dating of all the New Testament books, a field largely dormant since the turn of the century.
The results stunned him. He said that owing to scholarly “sloth,” the “tyranny of unexamined assumptions” and “almost willful blindness” by previous authors, much of the past reasoning was untenable. He concluded that the New Testament is the work of the apostles themselves or of contemporaries who worked with them and that all the New Testament books, including John, had to have been written before A.D. 64. Robinson challenged his colleagues to try to prove him wrong. (94)
With the arrival of Robinson’s Redating the New Testament (1976), the date has been pushed back to as early as circa A.D. 40 for a possible first draft of Matthew. Most scholars, who do not presuppose an antisupernatural bias, date the synoptic Gospels generally in the 60’s, some a little earlier. There is, then, strong evidence that the formative period was no more than seventeen to twenty years in length, possibly as little as seven to ten years for an Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew. This was spoken of by early second century church leader Papias.
This conclusion is corroborated by several pieces of converging evidence. First, it is evident that the Book of Acts was written in approximately A.D. 62. It does not mention the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an event which would have been impossible to omit since Jerusalem is central to much of Acts. Nothing is mentioned of Nero’s persecution of A.D. 64. The book ends with Paul in Rome under the confinement of Nero.
Acts also does not mention the martyrdoms of three central figures of the book: James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 64). Why aren’t their deaths mentioned when Acts does record the deaths of Stephen and James, the brother of John? The answer can only be that the book was composed before these events occurred.
If the book of Acts was written by Luke in A.D. 62, then the Gospel of Luke must be dated earlier, probably in the late 50s. The early church fathers affirm that Matthew wrote his account first. Many modern critics say Mark wrote his first. In either case almost everyone agrees that they both wrote before Luke, which puts their dates of composition no later than the late 50s. This is less than 30 years after Jesus’ death! Certainly critics of Christianity who were obviously still alive at the time of this composition would have been around to dispute these accounts. This is a period which, Albright writes, is:
….too slight to permit any appreciable corruption of the essential center and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus. (95)
In light of these facts the credibility of the New Testament is hard to question. Over the next several pages we will cite specific examples of archaeological finds as they relate to the New Testament. We will start by discussing some of the historically known rulers during this era, and their references in the New Testament.
Herod The Great (37 B.C.-4 A.D.)
Julius Caesar, as head of the Roman State, was assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C. In the days that Jesus walked the earth, Mark Antony, who ruled after Caesar’s death, made Herod the Great king of the Jews in 37 B.C. Herod held the position of an allied king, with local autonomy but subject to Rome in foreign affairs, until his death in 4 B.C.
Archaeology has shed a great deal of light on Herod and on his extensive building activities in Palestine during his reign. Herod’s palace has been found in Jerusalem. Herod’s penchant for building new edifices prompted him to make plans to rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. This is the same building that had been reconstructed some five hundred years earlier when the Jews returned from the Babylonian Captivity (discussed above in the section on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).
The main part of the temple, begun in 20 B.C., was completed within eighteen months, but the final touches were still being added in the days of the ministry of Christ. It was for this reason that the Jews, speaking to Christ, could say that it had taken forty-six years to build the temple (John 2:20). It was not completely finished until A.D. 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the legions of Titus when Jerusalem was taken in A.D. 70.
After the Six Day War in 1967, Israeli archaeologists were free to explore the Temple Mount. Some of the more significant finds included: the Herodian Western Wall, often called the Wailing Wall; an enormous arch which was the end of a monumental staircase that led up from the Tyropoeon Valley; part of Jerusalem’s main street during the Herodian period; the Hulda Gates which were along the southern wall, as well as the massive stone stairways that approach these gates; and numerous ritual immersion baths, known as mikvehs.
Herod Archelaus (4 B.C.- A.D. 6)
Herod Archelaus was the oldest son of Herod the Great. Upon the death of his father, he came to rule over Judea and Samaria. He ruled with an iron fist and was so disliked that he was deposed by the Roman Government and banished to Gaul. At this time Judea was placed under the rule of a Roman procurator (see section below on Pontius Pilate).
Herod Antipas (4B.C.- A.D. 39)
When Herod the Great died in 4 B.C., his son Herod Antipas was assigned rulership over Galilee and Perea. Antipas had married a daughter of the king of Arabia, King Aretas of the Nabataeans, but he sent her back to her father and lived instead with Herodias, his brother’s wife. It was this illicit union that John the Baptist rebuked, and for his rebuke John ultimately lost his life (Mark 6:16-18). It was to Herod Antipas that Christ was sent by Pilate during the trial, because Christ came from Galilee, the place of Herod Antipas’ jurisdiction (Luke 23:6-12).
Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 40-44)
Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great and nephew of Herod Antipas, received Antipas’ territory when Antipas was banished in 39. He endeavored to be tactful with the Jews, taking sides against the Christians and even killing James the apostle with the sword (Acts 12:1-3).
Herod Agrippa II (A.D. 44-70)
Herod Agrippa II succeeded his father after his death, though he was not given complete rule immediately due to his young age. He is mentioned in the New Testament in connection with the apostle Paul, who appeared before him (Acts 25:13, 26:1).
Pontius Pilate
As mentioned above, Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great’s oldest son, was deposed from his office as ruler of Judea in A.D. 6. Judea was then put under a Roman provincial ruler who held the title of “procurator,” and was directly responsible to the emperor. Pontius Pilate was the fifth of these procurators to rule over Judea and was the one who sentenced Christ to the cross (Matt. 27:2, 11). The Roman historian Josephus tells us that Pilate held this office for ten years, a tenure that probably lasted from A.D. 26-36. (96)
Pilate’s Inscription
Tiberius was the emperor who appointed Pilate to his post Judea, and Pilate reciprocated in part by dedicating a small temple to the worship of the emperor in Caesarea. An inscription mentioning this dedication and naming both Pilate and Tiberius came to light in the theater of Caesarea during an Italian excavation there in 1961. (97) This was the first time that archaeological evidence of an inscriptional nature attesting to the existence of Pontius Pilate has been found.
One of the popular misconceptions about Jesus is that there is no mention of Him in any ancient sources outside of the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous references to Him as a historical figure who died at the hand of Pontius Pilate. Some even noted that He was reported to have risen from the dead, and was worshiped as a god by all who followed Him. These various historical sources show widespread agreement about the basic details of Jesus’ life, especially His death and its causes, with some consideration given to the belief that he rose from the dead.
Some of those main sources of information come from Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, and Josephus. I will highlight these sources below.
Tacitus
Tacitus was a Roman historian (A.D. 60-120). In one of his works, Annals, Tacitus recorded what is probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament. In AD 115 he explicitly states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in AD 64. It reads:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome….Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. (98)
This is an important testimony by an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based an a historical figure—Jesus—who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And it’s significant that Tacitus reported that an ’immense multitude’ held so strongly to their beliefs that they were willing to die rather than recant.
Pliny the Younger
Another Roman, Pliny the Younger (c. 62-113), was governor in Asia Minor and was faced with the issue of how to treat Christians, who were by then an illegal sect. His reference was very important in that it was written to Trajan probably about AD 111, asking for advice on the subject. It attests to the innocent lives of the Christians and the rapid spread of Christianity. It also talks about the worship of Jesus as God, that Christians maintained high ethical standards, and that they were not easily swayed from their beliefs. (99)
Lucian of Samosata
Another witness to the person of Christ is the Greek writer Lucian of Samosata (c. 125-190), who published a satire on Christians in about 170 A.D. entitled The Passing of Peregrinus. In it he described Christ as the originator of the cult of Christianity and mentioned that he was “crucified in Palestine” for having originated this cult. (100)
Josephus
An especially important first-century Jewish historian was Josephus, Born in A.D. 37. He had surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian during the Jewish-Roman War, which took place from A.D. 66-74, even though many of his colleagues committed suicide rather than give up. He then became a defender of the Romans. He wrote most of his works toward the end of the first century A.D.
Josephus wrote a lengthy section about Jesus in his Antiquities (A.D. 93)., though this section is hotly disputed. Today there’s a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic although there may be some interpolations, meaning early Christian copyists likely inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have written. The passage is written below with the three interpolated sections italicized and underlined:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." (101)
According to well know biblical scholar Edwin Yamauchi, this passage in Josephus written about Jesus, likely did not originally have those three points underlined above. But even so, Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders. Yamauchi considered these references by Josephus to be highly significant and reliable, especially since his accounts of the Jewish War have proved to be very accurate. (102)
Josephus also referred to James, the brother of Jesus. In The Antiquities he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus—who is also mentioned in the New Testament—in order to have James killed. Critics who argue about the longer passage mentioned above, tend to ignore this unembellished statement that is certainly authentic and may be accepted as a bona fide witness to Jesus. (103)
Josephus also confirmed the existence and martyrdom of John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus. In his work Antiquities Josephus writes:
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. (104)
The Jewish Talmud
The writings of the Talmud, the collection of ancient rabbinic writings on Jewish law and tradition that constitute the basis of religious authority in Orthodox Judaism, contain important references to Jesus. The most significant text is Sanhedrin 43a:
On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour let hem come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! (Babylonian Talmud).
Of course this is written from the Jewish point of view which denies that Jesus was the Messiah. New Testament details confirmed by this passage include the fact and the time of the crucifixion, as well as the intent of the Jewish religious leaders to kill Jesus.
The Day the Earth Went Dark
The Gospel writers claim that the earth went dark during part of the time that Jesus hung of the cross. If darkness had fallen over the earth as was written, wouldn’t there be at least some mention of this extraordinary event outside the Bible?
Dr. Gary Habermas has written about a historian named Thallus who in AD 52 wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Although Thallus’s work has been lost, it was quoted by Julius Africanus in about AD 221. It made reference to the darkness that the gospels had written about! In this passage Julius Africanus wrote:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me."(125)
Africanus then argues that it couldn’t have been an eclipse, because an eclipse could not have taken place during a full moon, as was the case during the Jewish Passover season. Backing this up is scholar Paul Maier, who says in his 1968 book Pontius Pilate:
This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian…it was a “cosmic” or “world event.” Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD, reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 AD) there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea. (126)
So this is extremely powerful evidence confirming the biblical account of details relating to the crucifixion of Jesus. The date and time are pretty much exact. Although some tried to give it a natural explanation calling it an eclipse, that could not have been the case due to the full moon that is always present during the Jewish Passover.
In addition to these many extra-biblical sources, there were of course numerous works of the church fathers of the first and second centuries that speak in great detail of the reality of the Christ. And the New Testament, now fully accepted and recognized to be a first-century document, must be accepted as a reliable witness to Jesus’ historicity.
During the nineteenth century, scholars assumed that many words in the New Testament were peculiar to the Bible and were not found in the ordinary language of the first century A.D. Some even suggested that New Testament writers invented words in order to convey certain ideas. However, archaeologists discovered thousands of papyrus documents in Egypt during the later years of the nineteenth century which shed a whole new light on these issues. Among the findings were letters, wills, receipts, tax records and the like, which were dated to New Testament times.
The significance of these documents is that these records of everyday life were written in the same type of Greek that was used in the New Testament. (105) The significance of this discovery is that dozens of words once thought peculiar to the New Testament are now known to have been good everyday words in the first century A.D., known to and used by all people of the Greek-speaking world. The find demonstrated that some words thought to be invented were in standard use and also enhanced the understanding of the meaning of other words.
By the way, these findings were made public to the scholarly world in 1895. You may have noticed that many of the references that I have used on this page are dated from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. That doesn’t mean the references are outdated, but simply means that this knowledge has been out there for a very long time. Critics are quick to point out what they believe to be errors but when these passages are vindicated, they are slow to acknowledge it or they do not acknowledge it at all. Interestingly, we found the same situation on earlier pages when we discussed the theory of evolution.
Below we will discuss a few examples of passages in the Bible which were previously thought to be incorrect, as well as words or phrases which were originally thought to be in error, but were later vindicated by archaeological discoveries. We will follow that with a chart listing the major archaeological finds that verify the passages of the New Testament.
Confirmation of Luke’s Reference to the Census at the Time of Christ’s Birth
Luke 2:1-3 states:
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). And everyone went to his own town to register. (NIV)
Earlier historians believed that Luke had made almost as many mistakes as could possibly be made in these few lines, for it was thought that he was in error with regards to:
(1) the existence of such an imperial census,
(2) Quirinius’ being governor at the time, and
(3) everyone’s having to go to his ancestral home.
Archaeological discoveries, however, have confirmed and illuminated all these statements of Luke.
First, regarding the existence of such a census, the discovery of a number of papyrus documents relating to census taking shows that a census was made every fourteen years, and these documents point back to a census taken 9-6 B.C., the approximate time of Christ’s birth. (106)
Second, references seemed to show that Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6, which would be too late for Christ’s birth. However, an inscription was found in Rome indicating Quirinius had been governor twice. A later finding in Asia Minor likewise indicated two governorships for Quirinius. Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman has found a coin with the name Quirinius on it which places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod in 4 B.C. Thus there is no contradiction in Luke
Third, regarding everyone’s return to their ancestral home, an edict made in A.D. 104 by the governor of Egypt, which was under Roman rule just as Palestine was, showed that at the time of the census people were to return to their ancestral homes. (107) Another papyrus, this one from AD 48, indicates that the entire family was involved in the census. So Luke was fully vindicated.
Archaeological Evidence for the Existence of Nazareth
Many Christians are unaware that skeptics had been asserting for a long time that Nazareth never existed during the time when the New Testament says Jesus spent his childhood there. However, in 1962, during excavations at Caesarea, the last two fragments of a three fragment inscription were found. It is known as the Nazareth inscription since it is the first known inscription citing the name “Nazareth.” It provides incontestable evidence of the existence of the town of Nazareth in the first century A.D.
Evidence of Crucifixion during the time of Jesus
In June of 1968, the remains of some thirty-five Jews were found in an ancient Jewish burial site in Jerusalem. Upon investigation, archaeologist Vasilius Tzaferis found that these Jews had probably died about AD 70 in the Jewish uprising against Rome. The most important discovery at this site was the skeleton of a man named Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol. He was a victim of crucifixion. Still piercing his feet was a large nail about seven inches long that had been driven sideways through his heel bones. Nails had also been driven between the radius and ulna bones in the lower arm.
Additionally, Yohanan’s lower leg bones were broken. This is quite consistent with the dreaded Roman crucifragium spoken of in John 19:31-32 as being normal procedure for crucifixion victims. Death was hastened because the victim was not able to push himself up on the cross in order to breathe, which brought death in a comparatively short period of time. All of the details found confirmed the New Testament description of crucifixion. (108)
Archaeological Light Concerning Sergius Paulus in The Book of Acts
When the apostle Paul and his companions arrived at Paphos, they met the ruler of the area, the proconsul named Sergius Paulus. In 1912 Ramsay found a block of stone at Antioch with the inscription: “To Lucius Sergius Paullus, the younger, one of the four commissioners in charge of the Roman streets…” (109) Another inscription told of a woman named Sergia Paulla. According to Ramsay, these two people probably were the son and daughter of the Sergius Paulus who was proconsul of Cyprus in the days of Paul. Concerning the spelling of Paulus, Ramsay said:
The spelling of the Latin name is always “Paullus” but the Greeks always spelled it with one “l,” Paulos. This rule is almost universal. Thus even in orthography Luke’s accuracy is confirmed. (110)
Luke indicates that the title of Sergius Paulus was that of proconsul (Acts 13:7). Archaeological discoveries show that this was the correct designation of the title of the ruler of Cyprus in the time that Paul was there. Cyprian coins that have been found confirm this. (111)
Archaeological Confirmation of Acts 14:6
When Luke, in the book of Acts, describes Paul’s departure from Iconium, he says, they fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:6). This implies that Lystra and Derbe were in the territory of Lycaonia and that Iconium was not. Roman writers such as Cicero, however, indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia, and on the basis of such evidence, many critical scholars have held that the book of Acts was not written by Luke but was an untrustworthy work written much later.
A monument found in 1910 in Asia Minor, however, showed that Iconium was considered to be a Phrygian city and not a Lycaonian city. Later discoveries further confirmed that the Iconians had distinguished themselves as being citizens of a Phrygian city. Luke’s accuracy was once again confirmed.
Archaeological Confirmation of Luke’s Reference to a “District” (Acts 16:12)
When Paul and his companions came to Philippi, Luke refers to it as being in “that district of Macedonia.” He uses the Greek word merisfor the word translated “district.” F.J..A. Hort, a well-known New Testament scholar, believed that Luke was wrong in this usage, and asserted, “Merisnever denotes simply a region, province, or any geographical division: when used of land, as of anything else, it means a portion or share.” (112)
Archaeological excavations in the Fayum in Egypt, however, have shown that the colonists there, many of whom came from Macedonia where Philippi was located, used this very word meris to describe the divisions of the district. All scholars now agree that this word meris was used by Luke in a legitimate sense that is particularly associated with Macedonia. (113) Archaeology again showed the accuracy of Luke.
Archaeological Confirmation of the word “Politarch”
After Paul and Silas left Philippi they went on to the city of Thessalonica (Acts 17:1). Luke’s use of the word “politarch” for the rulers of Thessalonica was once thought to be an inaccuracy. However, the discovery of seventeen inscriptions at Salonika (modern name of Thessalonica) containing this term shows the accuracy of this usage.
Gallio, proconsul of Achaea
This designation of Gallio as proconsul of Achaea in Acts 18:12-17 was at one point thought to be impossible. But an inscription at Delphi notes this exact title for the man, and it dates him to the time Paul was in Corinth (A.D. 51). (114)
Luke’s Use of the Praetors
Luke was considered not technically correct in referring to the Philippian rulers as praetors. According to critics, two duumvirs would have ruled the town. However, as usual, Luke was right. Findings have shown that the title of praetor was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony as a “courtesy title.” (115)
The Gospel of John
The Gospel account most criticized as being least reflective of the true historical Jesus has been the Gospel of John. Critics have often charged that the Gospel and Epistles of John draw heavily on Greek thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, shed a different light on this issue. Allegro states:
It is a fact that the Qumran library has profoundly affected the study of the Johannine writings and many long-held conceptions have had to be radically revised. No longer can John be regarded as the most Hellenistic of the evangelists; his “gnosticism” and the whole framework of his thought is seen now to spring directly from a Jewish sectarianism rooted in Palestinian soil, and his material recognized as founded in the earliest layers of gospel tradition. (116)
Thus, scholars were forced to recognize that John’s imagery arose out of Jewish, not Greek (Hellenistic) or Gnostic roots. On this point Myers and Strange conclude:
….an unprejudiced reading of the Gospel of John seems to suggest that it is in fact based on historical and geographical tradition, though not one that simply repeats information from the synoptics. In other words, this Gospel, as well as Matthew, Mark and Luke, firmly anchors its tradition in the land, not in an ideal, heavenly Israel. (117)
LIST OF SPECIFIC FINDS RELATED TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
We have mentioned above many passages in the Bible which were previously questioned as to their accuracy. All of these questions have been answered as more information has been found and our understanding has increased. There are innumerable archaeological finds that verify or enhance our understanding of the New Testament.
Rather than go into detail on the major finds, I have included the chart which contains the major archaeological findings related to the New Testament. (118) The locations of the finds are listed as well as the related scripture in the New Testament. As mentioned above, archaeology has time and again verified the accounts written in the Bible. There are no other religious books with such flawless attestation as the Bible.
SITE OR ARTIFACT LOCATION RELATING SCRIPTURE
Caiaphas ossuary Jerusalem Mt 26:3
Herod's temple Jerusalem Lk1:9
Herod's winter palace Jericho Mt2:4
The Herodium (possible site of Herod's tomb) Bethlehem Mt2:19
Masada Near western shore of Dead Sea Cf.Lk21:20
Early synagogue Capernaum Mk1:21
Pool of Siloam Jerusalem Jn 9:7
Pool of Bethesda Jerusalem Jn5:2
Pilate inscription Caesarea Lk3:1
Inscription: Gentile entrance of temple sanctuary Jerusalem Ac 21:27-29
Skeletal remains of crucified man Jerusalem Lk 23:33
Peter's house Capernaum Mt 8:14
Jacob's well Nablus Jn 4:5-6
Derbe inscription Kerti Huyiik Ac 14:20
Sergius Paulus inscription Kythraia, Cyprus Ac 13:6-7
Zeus altar (Satan's throne?) Pergamum Rev 2:1.3.
Fourth-century B.C. walls Assos Ac 20:1 3-14
Artemis temple and altar Ephesus Ac 19:27-28
Ephesian theater Ephesus Ac 19:29
Silversmith shops Ephesus Ac 19:24
Artemis statues Ephesus Ac 19:35
Erastus inscription Corinth Ro 16:23
Synagogue inscription Corinth Ac 18:4
Meat market inscription Corinth 1 Co 10:25
Cult dining rooms (Asklepius&Demeter temples) Corinth 1 Co 8:10
Court (bema) Corinth Ac 18:12
Marketplace (bema) Philippi Ac 16:19
Starting gate for races Isthmia 1 Co 9:24,26
Gallic inscription Delphi Ac 18:12
Egnatian Way Neapolis (Kavalla), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica . Ac 16:1 1-1 2; 17:1
Politarch inscription Thessalonica Ac 17:6
Tomb of Augustus Rome Lk2:1
Mamertine Prison Rome 2Ti 1:1 6-1 7; 2:9; 4:6-8
Appian Way Puteoli to Rome Ac 28:1 3-1 6
Golden House of Nero Rome Cf.Ac25:10; 1Pe2:13
Arch of Titus Rome Cf.Lk 19:43-44; 2 1:6,20
ARCHAEOLOGY AND OTHER RELIGIONS
As we have seen, archaeology has repeatedly affirmed the Old and New Testament’s accuracy and has provided important corroboration for its reliability. This is in stark contrast with how archaeology has proved to be devastating to other religions.
Islam
Lets look at Islam. Is there archaeological evidence that supports the text and Muhammad as its prophet? The fact is, there is not much archaeological data that corroborates the Qur'an. I won't go into too much detail here but will make a couple of points.
First, the Qibla, which is the direction of prayer. According to the Qur'an, this was canonized toward Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca. Archaeology has show that mosques which were built much later than 624 A.D. have Qiblas that do not face toward Mecca. Some Muslims may argue that early Muslims may knot have known the direction of Mecca. However, this does not hold water, as these were desert traders who had to know how to follow the stars. Also, these mosques found in Egypt and Iraq were built in civilized urban areas amongst sophisticated people who were certainly well adept at finding directions.
Second, Mecca itself poses questions. According to the Qur'an, Mecca was the first sanctuary appointed for mankind. The problem here rests on the fact that there are no known references to the city before the creation of Islam. Crone and Cook maintain the earliest substantiated reference to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, which is a source dating from early in the reign of the caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 A.D. Therefore, the earliest corroborative evidence we have for the existence of Mecca is fully 100 years after the date when Islamic tradition and the Qur’an place it. Certainly, if it was so important a city, someone, somewhere would have mentioned it.
Even more troubling historically is the claim by Muslims that Mecca was not only an ancient and great city, but it was also the center of the trading routes for Arabia in the seventh century and before. It is this belief which is the easiest to examine, since we have ample documentation from that part of the world with which to check out its veracity.
According to extensive research by Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle-East, these claims by Muslims are quite wrong, as Mecca simply was not on any major trading routes. The reason for this, he contends, is that, “Mecca is tucked away at the edge of the peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads between a north-south route and an east-west one.” (119) This is corroborated by further research carried out by Groom, who contend that Mecca simply could not have been on the trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural route along the western ridge. In fact, they maintain the trade route must have bypassed Mecca by some one-hundred miles (120)
The real problem with Mecca, however, is that there simply was no international trade taking place in Arabia, let alone in Mecca in the centuries immediately prior to Muhammad’s birth. Greek trade between India and the Mediterranean was entirely maritime after the first century A.D. There were other problems as well. Greco-Roman trade with India collapsed by the third century A.D., so that by Muhammad’s time there was not only no overland route, but no Roman market to which the trade was destined. There is even some confusion within Islamic tradition as to where exactly Mecca was initially situated. According to research carried out by J.van Ess, in both the first and second civil wars, there are accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca. Yet Mecca is south-west of Medina, and Iraq is north-east. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today. (121).
Third, consider the Qur'an itself. It seems evident that the Qur’an underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the prophet’s death. We have now uncovered coins with supposed Qur’anic writings on them which date from 685 A.D. Also, the Dome of the Rock, built in 691 A.D., has inscriptions that are immediately recognizable as Koranic. Yet, the quotations from the Qur’an on both the coins and the Dome of the Rock differ in details from that which we find in the Qur’an today. If these inscriptions had been derived from the Qur’an, with the variants which they contain, then how could the Qur’an have been canonized prior to this time (late seventh century)? One can only conclude that there must have been an evolution in the transmission of the Qur’an through the years.
Crone and Cook in their research go on to maintain that it was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the “Qur’an” (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Qur’an) could have been compiled as Muhammad’s scripture. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others “according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation.” A reasonable conclusion is that it was during this period that the Qur’an began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Qur’an which we now know.
One last thing to note here is the complete absence of any reference to Muhammad in any Arab religious inscription dated before 691 A.D.. long after his death in 632 A.D. This indicates that long after his death he was elevated to the position of universal prophet. If you are interested in more detail you can refer to "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" by Crone and Cook. (122)
Mormonism
Let's now take a look at Mormonism. Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, claimed that his Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book upon the earth,” (123) archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate any of its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. As John Ankerberg and John Weldon wrote:
…In other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person, place, nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of Mormon inscriptions…nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found. (124)
I don't see the need here to look into every other religion from an archaeological standpoint. Suffice to say, none has anywhere near the verifiable evidence of authenticity as the Bible. We have listed many archaeological finds that confirm what is written in the Bible and verify the historicity of the Bible. There are literally hundreds of other findings that we did not cover here.
On the last page, Reliability of the Bible, we saw that the Bible we possess is extremely reliable, more so than any other book of antiquity. On this page we have seen that archaeology has verified innumerable passages and stories in the Bible, and that archaeology has never proven even one properly understood passage of the Bible to be incorrect.
However, these issues do not prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, as it claims to be.. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological findings. But there is a way to show that the hand of God is really behind the writers of the Bible. That is by examining fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Does the Bible contain prophecies that can be show to have been fulfilled at a later date? If so, are there just a few prophecies that may have been lucky guesses? And are there prophecies that have ever been proven to be incorrect? That is the subject of the next page, Prophecy and the Bible...
Copyright © 2025 Clearing the Path - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy