http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1347
Archaeology and the Old Testament
A man wearing a leather vest and a broad-rimmed hat wraps a ripped
piece of cloth around an old bone, sets it on fire, and uses it as a
torch to see his way through ancient tunnels filled with bones, rats,
bugs, and buried treasure. Close behind him lurks the dastardly villain,
ready to pounce on the treasure after the hero has done all the
planning and dangerous work. We have seen this scenario, or others
similar to it, time and again in movies like
Indiana Jones or
The Mummy.
And although we understand that Hollywood exaggerates and dramatizes
the situation, it still remains a fact that finding ancient artifacts
excites both young and old alike. Finding things left by people of the
past is exciting because a little window of their lives is opened to us.
When we find an arrowhead, we are reminded that Indians used bows and
arrows to hunt and fight. Discovering a piece of pottery tells us
something about the lives of ancient cultures. Every tiny artifact gives
the modern person a more complete view of life in the past.
Because of the intrinsic value of archaeology, many have turned to it
in order to try to answer certain questions about the past. One of the
questions most often asked is, “Did the things recorded in the Bible
really happen?” Truth be told, archaeology cannot always answer that
question. Nothing material remains from Elijah’s ascension into heaven,
and no physical artifacts exist to show that Christ actually walked on
water. Therefore, if we ask archaeology to “prove” that the entire Bible
is true or false, we are faced with the fact that archaeology can
neither prove nor disprove the Bible’s validity. However, even though it
cannot conclusively prove the Bible’s veracity in every instance,
archaeology can provide important pieces of the past that consistently
verify the Bible’s historical and factual accuracy. This month’s
Reason and Revelation
article is designed to bring to light a small fraction of the
significant archaeological finds that have been instrumental in
corroborating the biblical text of the Old Testament.
HEZEKIAH AND SENNACHERIB
When Hezekiah assumed the throne of Judah, he did so under extremely
distressing conditions. His father Ahaz had turned to the gods of
Damascus, cut into pieces the articles within the house of Jehovah, and
shut the doors of the temple of the Lord. In addition, he created high
places “in every single city” where he sacrificed, and offered incense
to other gods (2 Chronicles 28:22-27). The people of Judah followed
Ahaz, and as a result, the Bible records that “the Lord brought Judah
low because of Ahaz king of Israel, for he had encouraged moral decline
in Judah and had been continually unfaithful to the Lord” (2 Chronicles
28:19).
Upon this troubled throne, King Hezekiah began to rule at the youthful
age of just twenty-five. He reigned for twenty-nine years, and the
inspired text declares that he “did what was right in the sight of the
Lord, according to all that his father David had done” (2 Chronicles
29:2). Among other reforms, Hezekiah reopened the temple, reestablished
the observance of the Passover, and appointed the priests to receive
tithes and administer their proper duties in the temple. After
completing these reforms, Scripture states that “Sennacherib, king of
Assyria entered Judah; he encamped against the fortified cities,
thinking to win them over to himself ” (2 Chronicles 32:1).
It is here that we turn to the secular record of history to discover
that the powerful nation Assyria, under the reign of King Sargon II, had
subdued many regions in and around Palestine. Upon Sargon’s death,
revolt broke out within the Assyrian empire. Sennacherib, the new
Assyrian king, was determined to maintain a firm grasp on his vassal
states, which meant that he would be forced to invade the cities of
Judah if Hezekiah continued to defy Assyria’s might (Hoerth, 1998, pp.
341-352). Knowing that Sennacherib would not sit by idly and watch his
empire crumble, King Hezekiah began to make preparations for the
upcoming invasion. One of the preparations he made was to stop the water
from the springs that ran outside of Jerusalem, and to redirect the
water into the city by way of a tunnel. Second Kings 20:20 records the
construction of the tunnel with these words: “Now the rest of the acts
of Hezekiah—all his might, and how he made a pool and a tunnel and
brought water into the city—are they not written in the book of
chronicles of the kings of Judah?”
 |
| Inside view of Hezekiah’s tunnel, displaying the thick
limestone through which workers had to dig. Credit: Todd Bolen
(www.BiblePlaces.com). |
The biblical text from 2 Chronicles 32:30 further substantiates the
tunnel construction with this comment: “This same Hezekiah also stopped
the water outlet of Upper Gihon, and brought the water by tunnel to the
west side of the City of David.” The tunnel—known today as “Hezekiah’s
tunnel”—stands as one of the paramount archaeological attestations to
the biblical text. Carved through solid limestone, the tunnel meanders
in an S-shape under the city of Jerusalem for a length of approximately
1,800 feet. In 1880, two boys swimming at the site discovered an
inscription (about 20 feet from the exit) that provided exacting details
regarding how the tunnel had been constructed:
...And this was the account of the breakthrough. While the laborers
were still working with their picks, each toward the other, and while
there were still three cubits to be broken through, the voice of each
was heard calling to the other, because there was a crack (or split or
overlap) in the rock from the south to the north. And at the moment of
the breakthrough, the laborers struck each toward the other, pick
against pick. Then water flowed from the spring to the pool for 1,200
cubits. And the height of the rock above the heads of the laborers was
100 cubits (Price, 1997, p. 267).
Of the inscription, John Laughlin wrote that it is “one of the most
important, as well as famous, inscriptions ever found in Judah” (2000,
p. 145). Incidentally, since the length of the tunnel was about 1,800
feet, and the inscription marked the tunnel at “1,200 cubits,”
archaeologists have a good indication that the cubit was about
one-and-a-half feet at the time of Hezekiah (Free and Vos, 1992, p.
182). Dug in order to keep a steady supply of water pumping into
Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s anticipated siege, Hezekiah’s tunnel
stands as a strong witness to the accuracy of the biblical historical
record of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.
 |
| The Siloam inscription commemorates the excavation of
Hezekiah’s Tunnel. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Turkey. Credit:
Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. |
In addition to Hezekiah’s tunnel, other amazingly detailed
archaeological evidence provides an outstanding record of some of the
events as they unfolded between Hezekiah and Sennacherib. Much of the
information we have comes from the well-known Taylor Prism. This
fascinating, six-sided clay artifact stands about 15 inches tall, and
was found in Nineveh in 1830 by British colonel R. Taylor. Thus, it is
known as the “Taylor Prism” (Price, pp. 272-273). The prism contains six
columns covered by over 500 lines of writing, and was purchased in the
winter of 1919-1920 by J.H. Breasted for the Oriental Institute in
Chicago (Hanson, 2002).
Part of the text on the Taylor Prism has Sennacherib’s account of what happened in his military tour of Judah.
As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to
46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small
villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of
well-stamped (earth)ramps, and battering-rams brought (thus) near (to
the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines,
breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people,
young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and
small cattle beyond counting, and considered (them) booty. Himself I
made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a
cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were
leaving his city’s gate (Pritchard, 1958a, p. 200).
At least two facts of monumental significance reside in Sennacherib’s
statement. First, Sennacherib’s attack on the outlying cities of Judah
finds a direct parallel in 2 Chronicles 32:1: “Sennacherib king of
Assyria came and entered Judah; he encamped against the fortified
cities....” The most noteworthy fortified city that the Assyrian despot
besieged and captured was the city of Lachish. Second, Sennacherib never
mentions that he captured Jerusalem.
Lachish Under Siege
 |
| Assyrians attack the Jewish fortified town of Lachish. Part
of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. British Museum,
London. Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. |
When we turn to the biblical account of Sennacherib’s Palestinian
invasion in 2 Kings 18, we learn that he had advanced against “all the
fortified cities of Judah” (vs. 14). At one of those cities, Lachish,
King Hezekiah sent tribute money in an attempt to assuage the Assyrian’s
wrath. The text states: “Then Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king
of Assyria at Lachish, saying, ‘I have done wrong; turn away from me;
whatever you impose on me I will pay’ ” (vs. 14). Of Lachish,
Sennacherib demanded 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, which
Hezekiah promptly paid. Not satisfied, however, the Assyrian ruler
“sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh from Lachish, with a
great army against Jerusalem, to King Hezekiah” (vs. 17) in an attempt
to frighten the denizens of Jerusalem into surrender. The effort failed,
“so the Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria warring
against Libnah, for he heard that he had departed from Lachish” (19:8).
From the biblical record, then, we discover very scant information about
the battle at Lachish—only that Sennacherib was there, laid siege to
the city (2 Chronicles 32:9), and moved on to Libnah upon the completion
of his siege.
From Sennacherib’s historical files, however, we get a much more
complete account of the events surrounding Lachish. The Assyrian monarch
considered his victory at Lachish of such import that he dedicated an
entire wall (nearly seventy linear feet) of his palace in Nineveh to
carved reliefs depicting the event (Hoerth, p. 350). In the mid-1840s,
renowned English archaeologist Henry Layard began extensive excavations
in the ruins of ancient Nineveh. He published his initial finds in an
1849 best-selling volume titled
Nineveh and Its Remains, and in three subsequent volumes:
The Monuments of Nineveh (1849),
Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Characters (1851), and
Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh
(1853) [see Moorey, 1991, pp. 7-12 for more about Layard’s work]. Since
Layard’s early discoveries, archaeologists have located and identified
thousands of artifacts from at least three different palaces. The
remains of ancient Nineveh are located in two mounds on opposite banks
of the Hawsar River. One of the mounds, known as Kouyunjik Tepe,
contained the remains of the palaces of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. The
other mound, Nebi Younis, held the relics of the palace of Sennacherib.
These palaces were built on raised platforms about 75 feet high (Negev
and Gibson, 2001, p. 369).
One of the most outstanding artifacts found among the ruins of Nineveh
was the wall relief depicting Sennacherib’s defeat of the city of
Lachish. Ephraim Stern offered an excellent description of the events
pictured in the relief:
The main scene shows the attack on the gate wall of Lachish. The
protruding city gate is presented in minute detail, with its
crenellations and its special reinforcement by a superstructure of
warriors’ shields. The battering rams were moved over specially
constructed ramps covered with wooden logs. They were “prefabricated,”
four-wheeled, turreted machines. The scene vividly shows frenzied
fighting of both attacker and defender in the final stage of battle
(2001, 2:5).
 |
| Assyrian warriors shown impaling Jewish prisoners. Part of a
relief from the palace of Sennacherib. British Museum, London. Credit:
Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. |
Stern also discussed the flaming firebrands that the defenders of
Lachish launched at their attackers, the long-handled, ladle-like
instruments used to dowse the front of the battering rams when they were
set on fire, slingmen, archers, and assault troops with spears. One of
the most striking features of the relief is the depiction of the
tortures inflicted on the inhabitants of the Lachish. Several prisoners
are pictured impaled on poles, while women and children from the city
are led past the victims (Stern, 2:5-6). The epigraph that accompanied
the relief read: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat
upon a
nimedu- throne and passed in review the booty (taken) from Lachish (
La-ki-su)” [Pritchard, 1958a, p. 201, parenthetical item in orig.].
Of further interest is the fact that archaeological digs at the city of
Lachish bear out the details of Sennacherib’s wall relief. Extensive
archaeological digs at Lachish from 1935 to 1938 by the British, and
again from 1973 to 1987 under Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin and
others, have revealed a treasure trove of artifacts, each of which fits
the events depicted by Sennacherib. Concerning the Assyrian siege of
Lachish, William Dever noted:
The evidence of it is all there: the enormous sloping siege ramp thrown
up against the city walls south of the gate; the double line of defense
walls, upslope and downslope; the iron-shod Assyrian battering rams
that breached the city wall at its highest point; the massive
destruction within the fallen city.... Virtually all the details of the
Assyrian reliefs have been confirmed by archaeology.... Also brought to
light by the excavators were the double city walls; the complex siege
ramp, embedded with hundreds of iron arrowheads and stone ballistae; the
counter-ramp inside the city; the destroyed gate, covered by up to 6
ft. of destruction debris; huge boulders from the city wall, burned
almost to lime and fallen far down the slope... (2001, pp. 168-169).
The Assyrian monarch’s siege of Lachish is documented by the biblical
text, and the destruction of the city is corroborated by the massive
carving dedicated to the event in Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, as
well as the actual artifacts found in stratum III at Lachish.
Jerusalem Stands Strong
Of special interest in Sennacherib’s description of his Palestinian
conquest is the fact that he never mentioned seizing the city of
Jerusalem. On the Taylor Prism, we find the writings about his conquest
of 46 outlying cities, in addition to “walled forts” and “countless
small villages.” In fact, we even read that Hezekiah was shut up in
Jerusalem as a prisoner “like a bird in a cage.” It also is recorded
that Hezekiah sent more tribute to Sennacherib at the end of the
campaign (Pritchard, 1958a, pp. 200-201). What is
not recorded,
however, is any list of booty that was taken from the capital city of
Judah. Nor is an inventory of prisoners given in the text of the Taylor
Prism. Indeed, one would think that if the city of Lachish deserved so
much attention from the Assyrian dictator, then the capital city of
Judah would deserve even more.
What we find, however, is complete silence as to the capture of the
city. What happened to the vast, conquering army to cause it to buckle
at the very point of total victory? Hershel Shanks, author of
Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography,
wrote: “...although we don’t know for sure what broke the siege, we do
know that the Israelites managed to hold out” (1995, p. 84).
The biblical text, however, offers the answer to this historical
enigma. Due to Hezekiah’s faithfulness to the Lord, Jehovah offered His
divine assistance to the Judean King. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet
was sent to Hezekiah with a message of hope. Isaiah informed Hezekiah
that God would stop Sennacherib from entering the city, because Hezekiah
prayed to the Lord for assistance. In Isaiah 37:36, the text states:
“Then the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the
Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose
early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead. So Sennacherib
king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at
Nineveh.” Sennacherib could not boast of his victory over the city of
Jerusalem—
because there was no victory! The Lord had delivered
the city out of his hand. In addition, as Dever observed: “Finally,
Assyrian records note that Sennacherib did die subsequently at the hands
of assassins, his own sons...” (2001, p. 171). Luckenbill records the
actual inscription from Esarhaddon’s chronicles that describe the event:
In the month Nisanu, on a favorable day, complying with their exalted
command, I made my joyful entrance into the royal palace, an awesome
place, wherein abides the fate of kings. A firm determination fell upon
my brothers. They forsook the gods and turned to their deeds of violence
plotting evil. ...To gain the kingship they slew Sennacherib, their
father (Luckenbill, 1989, 2:200-201).
These events and artifacts surrounding Hezekiah, Sennacherib, Lachish,
and Jerusalem give us an amazing glimpse into the tumultuous
relationship between Judah and her neighbors. These facts also provide
an excellent example of how archaeology substantiates the biblical
account.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BULLAE
The ancient Israelites used several different media to record their
information. Among the most popular were scrolls of papyrus and leather.
When a scribe had completed writing his information on a scroll, he
often would roll the papyrus or leather into a cylinder shape and tie it
securely with a string. In order to seal the string even more securely,
and to denote the author or sender of the scroll, a bead of soft clay
(or soft wax or soft metal) was placed over the string of the scroll.
With some type of stamping device, the clay was pressed firmly to the
scroll, leaving an inscription in the clay (King and Stager, 2001, p.
307). These clay seals are known as bullae (the plural form of the word
bulla). Over the many years of archaeological excavations, hundreds of
these bullae have been discovered. The
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
provides an extensive list of bullae that have been unearthed: 50 in
Samaria during the 1930s; 17 at Lachish in 1966; 51 in Jerusalem in digs
conducted by Yigal Shiloh; 128 in 1962 found in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh
Cave and a large cache of 2,000 bullae found in 1998 at Tel Kadesh
(Negev and Gibson, 2001, pp. 93-94).
 |
| On the left, a bulla with Hebrew writing in a slightly oval
impression. On the right, a stamp seal with the name of the owner or
scribe. Credit: The Schøyen Collection MS 1912 and MS 5160/1. |
Most of the bullae that have been discovered are small, oval, clay
stamps that contain the name of the person responsible for the document
that was sealed (and occasionally the father of that person), the title
or office of the sealer, and/or a picture of an animal or some other
artistic rendering. One of the most interesting things about the bullae
that have been discovered is the fact that certain names found among the
clay seals correspond with biblical references. For instance, from 1978
to 1985, Yigal Shiloh did extensive digging in the city of Jerusalem.
In 1982, in a building in Area G of Jerusalem, he discovered a cache of
51 bullae. Because of these clay inscriptions, the building is known in
archaeological circles as the “House of Bullae.” This building was
burned during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.
Unfortunately, the intense heat of the fires burned all the leather and
papyrus scrolls. Yet, even though it destroyed the scrolls, the same
fire baked the clay bullae hard and preserved them for posterity (King
and Stager, p. 307).
One interesting bulla, and probably the most famous, is connected to
the scribe of Jeremiah—Baruch*. Hershel Shanks, the editor of
Biblical Archaeology Review,
gave a detailed account of a landmark cache of over 250 bullae. In
October 1975, the first four bullae were purchased by an antiquities
dealer in east Jerusalem. The dealer took these bullae to Nahman Avigad,
a leading Israeli expert on ancient seals at Hebrew University. More
and more bullae came across Avigad’s desk that fit with the others. On
more than one occasion, a fragment from one collection would fit with a
corresponding fragment from another dealer’s collection. Ultimately,
Yoav Sasson, a Jerusalem collector, came to acquire about 200 of the
bullae, and Reuben Hecht obtained 49 pieces (Shanks, 1987, pp. 58-65).
The names on two of these bullae have captivated the archaeological
world for several decades now. On one of the bulla, the name “Berekhyahu
son of Neriyahu the scribe,” is clearly impressed. Shanks wrote
concerning this inscription: “The common suffix -
yahu in ancient
Hebrew names, especially in Judah, is a form of Yahweh. Baruch means
“the blessed.” Berekhyahu means “blessed of Yahweh.” An equivalent form
to -
yahu is -
yah, traditionally rendered as “-iah” in our
English translations. Neriah is actually Neri-yah or Neriyahu. Eighty of
the 132 names represented in the hoard (many names appear more than
once on the 250 bullae) include the theophoric element -
yahu
(1987, p. 61). Shanks (along with the general consensus of
archaeological scholars) concluded that the bulla belonged to Baruch,
the scribe of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 36:4, the text reads: “Then Jeremiah
called Baruch the son of Neriah....” The name on the bulla corresponds
well with the name in Jeremiah. Concerning the bulla, Hoerth wrote:
“This lump of clay...used to close a papyrus document, was sealed by
none other than ‘Baruch son of Neriah’ (Jer. 36:4). Baruch’s name here
carries a suffix abbreviation for God, indicating that his full name
meant ‘blessed of God’ ” (1998, p. 364).
To multiply the evidence that this inscription was indeed the Baruch of
Jeremiah fame, another of the inscriptions from a bulla in the cache
documented the title “Yerahme’el, son of the king.” This name
corresponds to King Jehoiakim’s son “who was sent on the unsuccessful
mission to arrest Baruch and Jeremiah” (Shanks, 1987, p. 61). Indeed,
the biblical text so states: “And the king commanded Jerahmeel the
king’s son...to seize Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet, but
the Lord hid them” (Jeremiah 36:26). In commenting on the bulla, Amihai
Mazar, who is among the most noted of archaeologists, stated in regard
to Jerahmeel the king’s son: “We presume [he] was Jehoiakim’s son sent
to arrest Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:26)” [1992, pp. 519-520]. [As a side
note, the Hebrew letter
yod is represented by Y and J, which
often are used interchangeably in the English transliteration of Hebrew
names—a fact that can be seen easily in the Hebrew name for God, which
is written variously as Yahweh or Jehovah.] Another bulla in the hoard
contained the title “Elishama, servant of the king.” And in Jeremiah
36:12, the text mentioned a certain “Elishama the scribe.” While
professor Avigad thinks it would be a dubious connection, since he
believes the biblical text would not drop the title “servant of the
king” (because of its prestige), Shanks commented: “I would not reject
the identification so easily” (1987, p. 62).
One of the names inscribed on a bulla was the Hebrew name “Gemaryahu
[Gemariah] the son of Shaphan.” Price noted: “This name, which appears a
few times in the book of Jeremiah, was the name of the scribe who
served in the court of King Jehoiakim” (1998, p. 235). Jeremiah 36:10
records that Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, read from the words of the
prophet “in the chamber of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe....”
It also is interesting to note that Gemariah was a scribe, which would
have put him in precisely the position to produce bullae. Also among the
collection from the “House of Bullae” was a bulla that was sealed with
the name “Azaryahu son of Hilqiyahu”—a name that easily corresponds with
Azariah son of Hilkiah found in 1 Chronicles 9:10-11 (Laughlin, 2000,
p. 153).
We have then, among this phenomenal cache of bullae (which dates to the
time of the events in the book of Jeremiah), two names and titles that
correspond almost identically to Baruch, the son of Neriah, plus
Jerahmeel, the son of Jehoiakim, and a third, Elishama, whose name
appears in Jeremiah 36. What, then, does this prove? While it is the
case that several men in ancient Israel could be named Baruch or
Jerahmeel, it becomes almost absurd to suggest that these bullae just
happen “coincidentally” to correspond so well to the biblical text. Such
evidence points overwhelming to the accuracy of the biblical text and
its historical verifiability. At the very least, such finds demonstrate
these biblical names to be authentic for the time period. [As an added
note of interest on the Baruch bulla, Shanks wrote a follow-up article
in
Biblical Archaeological Review in 1996, in which he discussed
another bulla with Baruch’s title on it that also contains a
fingerprint—possibly of the scribe himself. This bulla is in the private
collection of a well-known collector named Shlomo Maussaieff (Shanks,
1996, pp. 36-38).]
THE MOABITE STONE
Another important archaeological find verifying the historicity of the
biblical account is known as the Moabite Stone. It is true that writing
about a rock that was discovered almost 150 years ago certainly would
not fit in a current “in the news” section. In fact, so much has been
written about this stone since 1868 that very few new articles
pertaining to it have come to light. But the real truth of the matter is
that, even though it was discovered more than a century ago, many
people do not even know it exists, and thus need to be reminded of its
importance.
The
find is known as the Moabite Stone, or the Mesha Inscription, since it
was written by Mesha, King of Moab. A missionary named F.A. Klein first
discovered the stone in August of 1868 (Edersheim, n.d., p. 109). When
he initially saw the black basalt stone, it measured approximately 3.5
feet high and 2 feet wide. Upon learning of Klein’s adventure, a French
scholar by the name of Clermont-Ganneau located the antiquated piece of
rock, and copied eight lines from the stone. He then had an impression
(known as a “squeeze”) made of the writing on its surface. A squeeze is
made by placing a soggy piece of paper over the inscription, which then
retains the form of the inscription when it dries (Pritchard, 1958b, p.
105). From that point, the details surrounding the stone are not quite
as clear. Apparently (for reasons unknown), the Arabs who were in
possession of the stone decided to shatter it. [Some have suggested that
they thought the stone was a religious talisman of some sort, or that
they could get more money selling the stone in pieces. However, LeMaire
claims that these reasons are “apocryphal,” and suggests that the Arabs
broke it because they hated the Ottomans, who were attempting to
purchase the stone (1994, p. 34).] By heating it in fire and then
pouring cold water on it, they succeeded in breaking the stone into
several pieces. The pieces ended up being scattered, but eventually
about two-thirds of the original stone ended up being relocated, and
currently reside at the Louvre in Paris (Jacobs and McCurdy, 2002).
The written inscription on the stone provides a piece of outstanding
evidence that verifies the Bible’s accuracy. Mesha, had the stone cut in
c. 850 B.C. to relate his numerous conquests and
his reacquisition of certain territories that were controlled by
Israel. In the over 30-line text (composed of approximately 260 words),
Mesha mentioned that Omri was the king of Israel who had oppressed Moab,
but then Mesha says he “saw his desire upon” Omri’s son and upon “his
house.” Mesha wrote:
I (am) Mesha, son of Chemosh-[...], king of Moab, the Dibonite—my
father (had) reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my
father,—(who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh [...] because
he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my
adversaries. As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years
(lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed
him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke (thus),
but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath
perished forever (Pritchard, 1958a, p. 209).
The Mesha stele cites Omri as the king of Israel, just as 1 Kings
16:21-28 indicates. Furthermore, it mentions Ahab, Omri’s son, in close
connection with the Moabites, as does 2 Kings 3:4-6. In addition, both
the stele and 2 Kings 3:4-6 list Mesha as King of Moab. Later in the
inscription, the stele further names the Israelite tribe of Gad, and the
Israelite God, Yahweh. While the references to the Israelite kings are
quite notable in and of themselves, Pritchard has pointed out that this
reference to Yahweh is one of the few that have been found outside of
Palestine proper (1958b, p. 106).
Another important feature of the Moabite stone is the fact that it
“gave the solution to a question that had gone unanswered for
centuries.” The biblical record chronicles the Moabite subjugation under
King David and King Solomon, and how the Moabites broke free at the
beginning of the divided kingdom. However, the Bible also mentions (2
Kings 3:4) that Ahab was receiving tribute from Moab. As Alfred Hoerth
has remarked: “Nowhere does the Bible state how or when Moab was
reclaimed, for Ahab to be receiving such tribute. The Moabite Stone
provides that information, telling, as it does, of Omri’s conquest from
the Moabite point of view” (1998, p. 310).
From the end of the quoted portion of the Mesha Inscription (“while
Israel hath perished forever”), it is obvious that Mesha exaggerated the
efficacy of his conquest—a common practice among ancient kings.
Pritchard noted that historians agree that “the Moabite chroniclers
tended generally, and quite understandably, to ignore their own losses
and setbacks” (1958b, p. 106). Free and Vos document the works of John
D. Davies and S.L. Caiger, which offer a harmonization of the Moabite
text with the biblical record. Davies, formerly of the Princeton
University Seminary, accurately observed: “Mesha is in no wise
contradicting, but only unintentionally supplementing the Hebrew
account” (as quoted in Free and Vos, 1992, p. 161).
As a further point of interest, French scholar André LeMaire, in an extensive article in
Biblical Archaeology Review, “identified the reading of the name
David
in a formerly unreadable line, ‘House of D...,’ on the Mesha Stele (or
Moabite Stone)” [Price, 1997, p. 171; see also LeMaire, 1994, pp.
30-37]. Whether or not this identification is accurate, has yet to be
verified by scholarly consensus. Even liberal scholars Finkelstein and
Silberman, however, acknowledged LaMaire’s identification, along with
the Tel Dan inscription documenting the House of David, and concluded:
“Thus, the house of David was known throughout the region; this clearly
validates the biblical description of a figure named David becoming the
founder of the dynasty of Judahite kings in Jerusalem” (2001, p. 129).
Taken as a whole, the Moabite stone remains one of the most impressive
pieces of evidence verifying the historical accuracy of the Old
Testament. And, although this find has been around almost 150 years, it
“still speaks” to us today (Hebrews 11:4).
THE CYRUS CYLINDER
Cyrus, King of the Medo-Persian Empire, is among the most important
foreign rulers of the Israelite nation. In fact, many Old Testament
prophecies revolve around this monarch. The prophet Isaiah documented
that the Babylonian Empire would fall to the Medes and the Persians
(Isaiah 13; 21:1-10). Not only did Isaiah detail the particular empire
to which the Babylonians would fall, but he also called Cyrus by name
(Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-5). Amazingly, Isaiah’s prophecy was made roughly
150 years before Cyrus was born (Isaiah prophesied in about 700 B.C.; Cyrus took the city of Babylon in 539 B.C.).
To add to Cyrus’ significance, Isaiah predicted that Cyrus would act as
the Lord’s “shepherd.” In fact, Isaiah recorded these words of the Lord
concerning Cyrus: “And he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to
Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Your foundation
shall be laid’ ” (Isaiah 44:28).
In 1879, Hormoz Rasam found a small clay cylinder (about nine inches
long, and now residing in the British Museum) in the ancient city of
Babylon. Upon the clay cylinder, King Cyrus had inscribed, among other
things, his victory over the city of Babylon and his policy toward the
nations he had captured, as well as his policy toward their various gods
and religions. Price recorded a translation of a segment of the
cuneiform text found on the cylinder:
...I returned to [these] sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris,
the sanctuaries of which have been in ruins for a long time, the images
which [used] to live therein and established for them permanent
sanctuaries. I [also] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and
returned [to them] their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the
command of Marduk the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom
Nabonidus has brought into Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods,
unharmed, in their [former] chapels, the places which made them happy.
May all the gods who I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily
Bel and Nebo for long life for me and may they recommend me...to Marduk,
my lord, may they say thus: Cyrus, the king who worships you and
Cambyses, his son, [...] all of them I settled in a peaceful place (pp.
251-252).
The policy, often hailed as Cyrus’ declaration of human rights,
coincides with the biblical account of the ruler’s actions, in which
Cyrus decreed that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt, and that
all the exiled Israelites who wished to join in the venture had his
permission and blessing to do so (Ezra 1:1-11). The little
nine-inch-long clay cylinder stands as impressive testimony—along with
several other archaeological finds—to the historical accuracy of the
biblical text.
CONCLUSION
The archaeological evidence presented in this article that confirms
biblical history is, in truth, only a tiny fraction of the evidence that
could be amassed along these lines. In fact, volumes of hundreds of
pages each have been produced on such matters, and with every new find
comes additional information that will fill archaeology texts for
decades to come. The more we uncover the past, the more we discover the
truth that the Bible is the most trustworthy, historically accurate
document ever produced. As the poet John Greenleaf Whittier once wrote:
We search the world for truth; we cull the good, the pure, the
beautiful, from all the old flower fields of the soul; and, weary
seekers of the best, we come back laden from our quest, to find that all
the sages said is in the Book our mothers read.
Addendum
* After subsequent research, information on the Baruch bullae points
strongly toward the conclusion that the two seals with Baruch's name on
them are not authentic. While this conclusion is disputed, the strength
of these findings is such that we at Apologetics Press no longer
recommend using these bullae as evidence of the Bible's historical
accuracy. That said, there is still an overwhelming amount of
archaeological evidence in support of the Bible that combines to make an
irrefutable case that the Bible is inspired.
REFERENCES
Dever, William (2001),
What did the Bible Writers Know and When did They Know It? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Edersheim, Albert (no date),
The Bible History—Old Testament, Book VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Silberman (2001),
The Bible Unearthed (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992),
Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Hanson, K.C. (2002),
Sennacherib Prism,
[On-line], URL: http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/sennprism1.html.
Hoerth, Alfred J. (1998),
Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jacobs, Joseph and J. Frederick McCurdy (2002), “Moabite Stone,”
Jewish Encyclopedia.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=680&letter=M.
King, Philip J. and Lawrence E. Stager (2001),
Life in Biblical Israel (in the
Library of Ancient Israel series), ed. Douglas A. Knight (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
Laughlin, John C.H. (2000),
Archaeology and the Bible (New York: Routledge).
LeMaire, André (1994), “House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[3]:30-37, May/June.
Luckenbill, Daniel D. (1989),
Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (London: Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd.).
Mazar, Amihai (1992),
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday).
Moorey, P.R.S. (1991),
A Century of Biblical Archaeology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
Negev, Avraham and Shimon Gibson (2001),
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum).
Price, Randall (1997),
The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, OR: Harvest House).
Pritchard, James B., ed. (1958a),
The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Pritchard, James B. (1958b),
Archaeology and the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Shanks, Hershel (1987), “Jeremiah’s Scribe and Confidant Speaks from a Hoard of Clay Bullae,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[5]:58-65, September/October.
Shanks, Hershel (1995),
Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography (New York: Random House).
Shanks, Hershel (1996), “Fingerprint of Jeremiah’s Scribe,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 22[2]:36-38, March/April.
Stern, Ephraim (2001),
Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) (New York: Doubleday).
Following
the account of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem to anoint David as the
future king of Israel, the book of 1 Samuel indicates that David became
the harp player and armor bearer for King Saul (16:14-23). Subsequent to
this information, the reader is told of David’s magnificent triumph
over Goliath (1 Samuel 17), which then is followed by an “interrogation”
by King Saul, who asked David, “Whose son are you, young man?” (17:58).
A general reading through the text of 1 Samuel 16-17 has led some Bible
believers to question why Saul (it seems) knew David, then did not know
David, and then got to know him again. Skeptics, likewise, have
inquired about the consistency of this story (see Morgan, 2003; Wells,
2001; “Inerrancy,” n.d.). Paul Tobin, in an article titled “Internal
Contradictions in the Bible,” summed up the skeptic’s argument by
stating that 1 Samuel 16 “clearly shows that David…was known to Saul.
Yet a little later, after David’s fight with Goliath, Saul is made to
enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I
Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is,
when he should have known this all along” (2000). Allegedly, the Bible’s
portrayal of Saul’s ignorance of David after Goliath’s death is proof of the Bible writers’ imperfection when penning the Scriptures.
If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God (and there is, see