Navigation: Index >> Previous >> Next

The previous lesson is devoted to showing that the text of the Scriptures has been safe-guarded in its preservation, translation, and transmission from its original completion until the present.  However, it would be ill-advised and naïve safe-guarded in its preservation, translation, and transmission from its original completion until the present.  However, it would be ill-advised and naïve to conclude that the present state of the Biblical text is free of all problems.  In fact, the constant challenge of restoring the text to its original form has been the burden of experts in the discipline of Textual Criticism (Cf. Lesson Nine).  The task has been so relentlessly pursued that we may rest confidently in knowing the Biblical text is now closer to the original autographs than ever before.

All of this is well-known.  A close look at annotated study Bibles illustrates the extensive effort that has gone into presenting a reliable text.  This helps to alleviate concern about the dependability of the Biblical text so far as its transmission and restoration are concerned.

However, there is another area of concern which merits our attention.  There are those who concede that the present text very closely follows the original manuscripts and substantially reflects their contents.  Their concern is not whether the text has been faithfully transmitted to us; rather, whether the content is true.  Were the ancients writing truth; or, were they primarily writing legends, fables, superstitions, primitive folklore, etc., etc.?  In other words, do those things we find in a Bible that contains the original content have any factual base?  Are they really true?  Such questions should be taken seriously, and answers to them should be given carefully.  It is very easy to pass error from one generation to another (E.g., there was a time when history books insisted that the earth was flat!).

One of the ways to address this problem is to start with that which can and has been verified.  To do this we must confine ourselves to a record of what is reported to have happened and then compare any evidence bearing on that event to see if it supports or confutes the record.  Since history is primarily written record of what has happened in the past, we may turn to historical records in the Bible in our investigation of its accuracy.  We are aided in this task by utilizing empirical evidence provided by the science of archaeology.

Earlier we stated that two aspects of the subject would be presented in order to make the following point: The Bible has not lost its trustworthiness in its transmission through the centuries.  The first aspect, presented in lesson nice, was textual.  We examined empirical evidence bearing on the writing, translating, and transmitting of the Scriptures.  Out of a veritable sea of resources, we chose manuscripts of major importance to show that the Biblical text, instead of deteriorating, was instead being preserved and restored during the first millennium of its history in the Christian era.

Therefore, as we proceed, we do so with confidence that we ­are using Bible texts that retain what was originally written.  Notwithstanding the problems inherent in the continuing challenge of perfecting the Biblical texts to the greatest extent new evidence will allow, the reader of the Bible today may rest assured that the original language texts upon which the Bible (translation) is based have been substantiated to a remarkable degree.

But does it necessarily follow that the trustworthiness of the text includes both its state and content?  In other words, does the Biblical text say now what it originally said; and, is what was originally said true?  This brings us to the second aspect of the "Verification of the Bible"—Archaeology.  The methodology will be similar to that used in our look at texts.  We will continue using textual materials to demonstrate that the present base texts have been conscientiously transmitted to us.  We will also be using archaeological evidence to show that the Bible does indeed accurately record historical events, many times in amazing detail.

Just as we chose major manuscripts from many to use as chief witnesses to accomplish our task in the previous lesson, we now choose outstanding archaeological discoveries from many to see what bearing they have on illustrating the historical accuracy of the Bible.  The reader will be aware, of course, that the work of field archaeologist themselves and by other scholars from related disciplines such as anthropology and paleography.  This evaluation process is often quite lengthy and sometimes leads to reassessment of the meaning and significance of archaeological discoveries.

In spite of the frustration this occasionally produces, it often results in a more accurate understanding and deeper insight into the available evidence.  Therefore, we have deliberately chosen archaeological discoveries that have stood up under scrutiny.  They serve our purpose well as we examine how archaeology has made many contributions in verifying the Bible, including the following ways:

(1) It provides a general background to the history of the Bible.

(2) It supplements the Bible accounts.

(3) It helps in understanding and translating difficult Bible passages

(For more information on these themes, see Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament; and J.A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology.)

It is axiomatic that what is recorded in the Bible did not happen in a vacuum.  The Bible unfolded within the context of history.  This means there should be some historical relationship between what happened in the Bible and what was going on in the world related to and contemporary with the Bible.  In other words, there should be some background for the stage upon which the events of the Bible occur.  Indeed, there is.  When this background comes to light, often it adds credibility to the Biblical record.  Some "background" examples follow.

The Bible says very little about Ur.  This city is specifically mentioned four times in the Old Testament, always with the descriptive phrase, "Ur of the Chaldeans" (Genesis 11:29, 11; 15:7; Nehemiah 9:7).  These references speak of God's instructions to Abram (Abraham) to leave Ur and go where he would be directed (Canaan).  The full saga of Abraham is well known.  But what about Ur?  Was Un an historical place?  If so, what was it like?  What did Abraham leave when he left Ur?  Where was Ur located?  These questions cannot be answered from the biblical text.  However, archaeology supplies the answers.  We now have rich background information about Abraham's native city.

The ancient site of Ur was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley from 1922-1934 under the auspices of the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania . The site is located in old Southern Babylonia about 150 miles southeast of Babylon and about ten miles west of the Euphrates River .  From this ancient site it is about 100 miles south to the present Persian Gulf shoreline.

Excavations indicate Ur was an important Sumerian city.  Civilization was far advanced as illustrated by discoveries of highly developed writing, historical and religious records, high math, an organized school system, elaborate art, and a sophisticated culture.  A great tower about seventy feet high, surrounded by living quarters for the priesthood and storage rooms to house the offerings, was located in the center of the city.

The Babylonian word zigguratu meant "temple tower."  In Babylonian cities it was the center piece for the worship of various Mesopotamian gods.  The ziggurate at Ur was about 200' long, 150' wide, and 70' high (E. M. Blaiklock).

Much pomp and ceremony must have been involved in the worship of the moon god Nanna.  Belief in an after life was made evident by the provisions found stored in the royal tombs.

We can appreciate better the fact that Abraham made two great pilgrimages. One was geographical—from Sumer to Canaan; the other was spiritual—from the idolatrous city of Ur to friendship with the one true and living God (2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23).

Ur means "light."  This seems appropriate since the city ­inhabited for about 3,500 years.  During its periods of highest achievements, Ur developed one of the most advanced civilizations of the ancient world.

The next example has to do with the Hebrews and their experiences while in Egypt. Interestingly enough, there is only one verse in the Bible devoted to the period between the death of Joseph and the time of Hebrew captivity.  "But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty; so that the land was filled with them'' (Exodus 1:7).

So far as archaeology in Egypt is concerned, the only time the name "Israel" appears in inscription is on a large black granite stele erected by Merneptah, the son of Ramses II, in about 1230-1220 B.C. in his mortuary temple at Thebes . The stele speaks of Merneptah's military successes in Palestine and gives a list of his conquests, including the statement, "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not."  The stele was discovered by Flinders Petrie and published by him in 1897.  It is now located in Cairo, Egypt.  (The entire text may be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, James B. Pritchard, ed.)  Although this is evidence that the Israelites were in the promised land at that time, it does not address the Egyptian captivity question.  Therefore, to what may we turn for background information that will provide credibility for the Biblical account of the long Israelite stay in Egypt?  Two different areas provide ample testimony.

First, we note that place names are significant indicators of relationships between geographical areas and the people who settle and live in those areas.  Dr. James E. Priest, provided a wonderful example:

When my wife and I lived on the East Coast, we seized every opportunity to travel along the Eastern Seaboard from Virginia to Maine .  We were enthralled by the beauty and history of that part of our nation.

However, perhaps the most revealing and intriguing discovery we made was the significance of place names we encountered along the way.  They revealed background.  As Americans who speak English as our first language, we were particularly captivated by the implications of English place names.  A few of them are Williamsburg and Jamestown in Virginia, Baltimore in Maryland, New York City in New York, New London in Connecticut, Plymouth in Massachusetts, and Manchester in New Hampshire.

Considering the implications of the above, Dr. Priest continued:

Williamsburg and Jamestown conjured up thoughts of English royalty.  Baltimore recalled the Barons Baltimore of English prominence.  Maryland echoed English royalty.  New York was a name with an ancestral psyche deeply imbedded in Britain (House of York, Dukes of York, City of York , Yorkshire County ).  New London was self-explanatory.  Plymouth was a strategic city in Devonshire , England for well over one half millennium.  Manchester was grounded in the illustrious Dukes of Manchester and the importance of the city of Manchester through the centuries.

All of these names are so interlaced with our history that they give us a profile of our past.  The same is true with place names we find in the Bible that reflect an Egyptian interface with the Israelites.  Just as the English place names we have mentioned will not allow us to deny our connection with Britain , the place names we now note will not allow us to deny the historic­ connections the Israelites had with the Egyptians.

We are told in the Bible that the Israelites settled in the land of Goshen (Genesis 46:26ff.).  Although the name is not found outside the Bible; in the Biblical account it is identified with the Eastern Delta of the Nile .  It is called "the best of the land" (Genesis 45:10, 18; 47:11, 27).  Semitic place names found in this Delta region dating from the New Kingdom period in Egypt (ca. 1552-1070 B.C.) indicate a long Semitic occupation before­ that time (William Foxwell Albright).  Some of these mentioned in the Bible are Succoth ("booths," Exodus 12:37), Migdol ("fortified city," Exodus 14:2).

As mentioned above, place names of longstanding give a profile of the past.  Just as Our English past is reflected in place names along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States , so the Semitic place names in the general northeastern Delta region of the Nile River establish a presence of Semites in Egypt's past.  Since the New Kingdom era in Egypt includes the latter period of Hebrew slavery, it is safe to conclude that the foreign influence there, illustrated by these place names, was not merely Semitic in general, but strongly Israelite.

But why would the Egyptians, who feared and hated their foreign slaves, have retained such names after the slaves were gone?  After hundreds of years, the historic significance of names is often lost as they are assimilated into a changing culture.  Who in the U.S.A. thinks of Yorkshire, England when New York is mentioned?  Who thinks of the English Dukes of Manchester when Manchester, New Hampshire, is referred to?  The significance of names may be lost, but the presence of the names in the literature is evidence from the past.  Yes, the Israelites were in Egypt.   The biblical story of their presence there is not fiction.  It is history with rich background from outside the Bible that lends authenticity to the Bible record.

A discussion of personal names may be added to what has been said about place names.  Although personal names are treated more casually in modern times than in antiquity, it is still true that one can often distinguish the ethnic orientation or nationality of a person by the name he or she has. For example: Smith has English roots, Garibaldi is Italian.  Clemenceau is French.  Rommel is German, etc.  This is obvious.  It is also interesting to find that "foreign" names do not, as a rule, intrude in family genealogies.  It would be surprising to find a child named Abu listed in an English family tree.  It would also be unusual to discover that French parents had named their infant daughter Indira.  Abu and Indira are fine names; the former being Arabic and the latter Indian.  However; if such names were found in English or French family genealogies it would likely reflect an unusual set of historical events leading up to the name selections.  This brings us to the point.

In the Bible we find there were Levites who gave their children Egyptian personal names.  A few examples will suffice.  In Exodus 6:24 we find that Assir was one of the sons of Korah.  Assir means "prisoner."  1 and 2 Chronicles are the last two books of the Hebrew Bible.  In 1 Chronicles we find among the priesthood one whose name is Pashhur (1 Chronicles 9:10-13).  In contrast to Assir, Pashhur means "free."  After the Egyptian captivity, we find that Eli had two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who were priests serving at the tabernacle while it was at Shiloh , (1 Samuel 1:3). Their names mean "strong" and "oracle," respectively.  In Genesis 46:11 we find one of the sons of Levi was named Merari; that is, "bitter."  All of these names whose meanings are given are Egyptian.  It would be difficult to explain why Israelite parents would give their children Egyptian names if they had never been associated with Egypt or Egyptians.  The overpowering logical conclusion is that the Israelites were in Egypt .

The name Moses falls into a special category because of the unusual circumstances of his birth and subsequent rescue from the Nile River by the daughter of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:1-10).  She realized the infant was a Hebrew.  Not knowing his name, she apparently merely described him by use of the Egyptian MS = "child."  This Egyptian noun appears often in the names of Pharaohs who were thought to be offspring of the gods.  E.g., Thutmoses III (child of Thoth) was among those kings who ruled Egypt during Israel's captivity.

The infant was placed in the care of his mother, Jochebed, who returned him to Pharaoh's daughter after he was weaned.  "… and he became her son; and she named him Moses (Heb. Mosheh), for she said, ‘Because I drew him out of the water" (Exodus 2:10b).  The Hebrew word for "draw out" is "mashah."  There is no etymological connection between the Egyptian word M(o)s(e) = "child" and the Hebrew word m(a)sh(a)h = "draw out."  However, there is a play on words, a pun, that provides the child his Hebrew name—Moses.  This episode cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of the Israelites in Egypt .

The next archaeological discovery we note that provides insight into Bible backgrounds comes from the New Testament.  In fact, it has to do with the language of the New Testament.  We have already mentioned this topic (Cf. Lessons Five and Eight).  Now we point out that the language of the New Testament has always presented special challenges.  It did not readily fit into a specific category.  Several factors contributed to this.  Those who worked with the text itself usually did so with certain assumptions.  Some scholars thought it was an altogether different form of Greek from its Classical ancestor.  Others saw the N.T. text as non-classical Greek that had been vulgarized by incompetent scribes, and there were those who looked upon the N.T. text as a special vehicle written in "Holy Ghost" language.

Reasons for these differing assumptions are easy to find.  Although in Greek, the Greek of the N.T. cannot be equated with the Classical Greek of earlier centuries.  They are not literary equivalents.  Yet, the N.T. is in Greek; and, in certain books, such as Hebrews and Luke, one often finds evidence of "classical elegance."  It is also the case that the Jewish writers of the N.T. were not writing in their primary language (Hebrew/Aramaic).  Therefore, their Greek contains many Aramaisms which are not to be perceived as incompetent corruptions.  Finally, the "Holy Ghost" view was likely assumed by default, since no other explanation seemed satisfactory.

This scenario changed dramatically at about the turn of the 20th Century.  Flinders Petrie excavated at the Egyptian Fayyum (Henry O. Thompson).  He found many papyrus manuscripts stored in sarcophagi (coffins).  From I897 to 1900 A.D., B. P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt worked further south at Oxyrhynchus over 100 miles south of Cairo and a few miles west of the Nile River.   When they dug up a sacred crocodile cemetery they found the animals had been filled with papyrus manuscript scrolls before burial.

These finds, along with others, brought linguistic scholars to a better understanding of the language of the New Testament.  Most of there writings were penned sometime during thy first millennium A.D. and covered a wide variety of subjects.  Many contain Biblical texts, Gustav Adolf Deissmann took a leading role in establishing that the language of the New Testament was not the result of ignorant men trying to mimic Classical Greek.  Neither was it a unique "holy" language.  Rather, the New Testament Greek was the same type of Greek found in the Oxyrhynchus documents dating through the era of writing and canonization of the New Testament.  This tremendous discovery solved the riddle of New Testament Greek.  It was not extraordinary at all.  In fact, it was Koine ("common") Greek.

How fitting that the message for the ages is couched in the language of ordinary people!  This background material has done much to enrich our knowledge of, and appreciation for, the New Testament.  In addition, the Koine Greek of the papyri often yields greater insights into specific New Testament words.  For examples: In 2 Corinthians 1:22 (KJV) we are assured that "(God) hath sealed us, and given the earnest (arrabon) of the Spirit in our hearts."  After the Oxyrynchus papyri were unearthed, we now find the translation of arrabon rendered in the NASB as follows: "(God) also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge."  In the NIV the translators chose the papyri meaning of the term as "down-payment," and the reading became "He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

Again, in Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) "Now faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  Influenced by the Koine texts of Oxyrhynchus, the NASP translation became "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  Finally, the NIV translation, based upon further insights from the Oxyrhynchus Koine Greek papyri meaning of hypostasis as "title-deed," became "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."  (Emphasis added in the above verses). 

We have been examining how biblical archaeology often provides a general background for the history found in the Bible.  We saw how excavations at the ancient city of Ur opened our eyes as never before to the world of Abram (Abraham) and the background from which he came.  We found the Hebrew place names in Egypt and Egyptian personal names worn by the Israelites gave credence to the historical presence of the Israelites in Egypt as the Bible describes.  We saw how the discovery and study of the Koine Greek papyri of Oxyrhynchus , Egypt , helped solve the mystery of the perplexing Greek of the New Testament, and, in may instances, gave us an enriched text.  Yes, archaeology does provide backgrounds to the Bible which testify to its historical accuracy.

Biblical archaeology also supplements Bible history in a remarkable way.  Background information such as Abraham's Ur and the Israelites' Egyptian personal names provides an historical context for the biblical account.  Supplemental information giving additional facts not found in the Bible adds assurance to the historical account that is found in the Scripture.  The following examples illustrate the important role Biblical archaeology has in this regard.  The Empire of Assyria (Assur) is mentioned in the Bible well over one hundred times, beginning in Genesis 2:14 and continuing until Zechariah 10:10-11.  Assur is also translated about two dozen times as "Assyrian" when referring to citizens of Assyria.  Obviously, the history of Assyria and the Assyrians has a prominent place in the Bible.  Indeed, Assyrian kings are mentioned in the Bible, along with some their exploits.  For examples: Tiglath Pileser III (745-727 B.C.), called "Pul" in the Bible (1 Chronicles 5:26), was paid tribute money by Menahem, king of Israel , to keep from being destroyed (2 Kings 15:19, 20) (James B. Prichard).  Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.) became king in Assyria after the death of Pul, his father.  It was during the reign of Shalmaneser V that Ahaz, king of Judah , appealed to him for protection against Syria (2 Kings 16:6ff.).

Like the above, several other Assyrian kings are named in the Bible more than once (E.g., Sennacherib [2 Kings 18:13; Isaiah 37:37], and Esarhaddon [2 Kings 19:37; Ezra 4:2].  However, one is mentioned by name only once in Scripture. He is the focal point of our survey.  Isaiah wrote, "In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it…" (Isaiah 20:1, emphasis added).  King Sargon was a puzzle to Bible historians until about 150 years ago.  Some scholars had questioned the accuracy of Isaiah's statement on the grounds that an Assyrian king powerful enough to send armies to capture foreign cities would not merely be mentioned in passing.  The name "Sargon" was doubted in the Bible and absent from all available extra-biblical literature.  That is, until 1842.  That year Paul Emile Botta, a French diplomat assigned to Mosul, dug at Khorsabad, about twelve miles northwest of ancient Nineveh.  This site proved to be the great capital city of Sargon II where his ornate palace was found.  Aiding Botta in the work of copying inscriptions and making drawings during 1844 was the French scholar E. Flandin. In the 20th century the work was resumed by Edward Chiera and the Oriental Institute of Chicago from 1929 to 1935.

An amazing picture unfolded.  In addition to an array of buildings, there were sculptures, inscriptions, bas-reliefs, clay tablets, city walls with scenes of Assyrian life depicted, lists of kings and other historical information such as military campaigns, etc.  The evidence portrayed the historical presence of one of the most powerful and prominent kings in the long saga of Assyrian royalty.  It turned out that Sargon II and his predecessor, Shalmaneser V, were kings in Assyria during the fateful closing days and tragic end of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Now it came about in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel , that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it.  And at the end of three years they captured it; in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel , Samaria was captured.  Then the king of Assyria carried Israel away into exile to Assyria, and put them in Halah and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, because they did not obey the voice of the Lord their God … (2 Kings 18:9-12b).

Although Shalmaneser V was king of Assyria when Samaria fell, it is thought that he died shortly thereafter and Sargon II completed the deportation of the Israelites (Cf. Jack P. Lewis, Archaeological Backgrounds to Bible People).  At any rate, Sargon took generous credit for this final blow to the Northern Kingdom .  Lewis provides one of Sargon's inscriptions:

I besieged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na), led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it.  I formed from among them a contingent of 50 chariots and made remaining (inhabitants) assume their (social) positions.  I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.

Archaeology has made valuable contributions to biblical studies; but seldom has archaeology more convincingly and completely supplemented historical accounts found in the Scriptures as in the case of many Assyrian kings.  This included Sargon II, mighty king of Assyria from 722-705 B.C.

As history shows, even kingdoms of powerful stature rise and fill.  Assyria was one such kingdom.  The Babylonian and Mede coalition successfully overthrew the Assyrians in a battle at Nineveh in 612 B.C.  Although the Assyrians regrouped and fought again at Haran in 609 B.C., they were again defeated (John Bright), though the Egyptians under Pharaoh Neco came to their aid (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).  Finally, in 605 B.C., the remaining Egyptian forces entrenched at Carchemish were forced to flee (Cf. Jeremiah 46:1-12) by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar and given a severe blow at Hamath.

Then the Babylonians marched into Palestine and took Judah.   The reigning king, Jehoiakim, was allowed to remain on the throne as a puppet king.  After his death, Jehoiachin, his son, came to the throne for about three months. But in 598 B.C. King Nebuchadnezzar removed him and deported him to Babylon, the capitol of the new Babylonian kingdom, along with the royal family and great numbers of the Judeans.  Amazing extra-biblical corroboration of this event is reflected in the "Babylonian Chronicle" found in ancient Babylon (A collection of inscribed clay tablets giving concise accounts of major internal events in Babylonia during the time of Assyrian rule).

It reads as follows:

In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hattiland and encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king.  He appointed there a king of his choice, received its heavy tribute and sent them to Babylon (Cf. J.A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology, where he relates this Babylonian Chronicle account to Biblical history in 2 Kings 24:12-16).

Extensive archaeological work has been done at the ancient capital of Babylon for oven 200 years by many individuals and teams (Charles F. Pfeiffer).  It is scarcely possible to imagine the extent and importance of the discoveries.  The following inscription, also dating from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned as a companion to the above quotation to illustrate the detailed way archaeological finds often verify the history of the Bible.  The one just noted shows that Jehoiachin, along with the royal family and many others, was deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar.  The following is even more surprising.  These tablets were excavated at Babylon by Robert Koldeway and his German team during their work from 1899 to 1914.  They date about 592 B.C.  They are documents (ration lists?) showing deliveries of oil to war prisoners and others who were dependent upon royal largess.

The king of Judah and his five sons are among those recipients.