Clifford A. Wilson<\/b><\/p>\n
People often ask, \u201cDoes archaeology prove the Bible?\u201d In fact, many people are interested in archaeology only because they believe it \u201cproves the Bible\u201d. However, few scholars today would look on archaeology as merely the means of proving the Bible, worthy as that objective may be.<\/p>\n
Archaeology An Academic Discipline<\/b><\/p>\n
Archaeologists are professional men, very often with little or no interest in the Bible except as another history textbook. They are academics who excavate slowly, methodically, expertly. They write their reports often with no reference whatsoever to the Scriptures. Archaeology touches many cultures, and men all over the world are interested in their forebears whether or not they are associated with Biblical history.<\/p>\n
University and other grants to archaeologists are not available merely because of an interest in the Bible, and excavators no longer dig their trenches with a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.<\/p>\n
The author doing his part in digging up the past at Tel Gezer, Israel.<\/b><\/p>\n
Clifford Wilson is Professor of Old Testament and Archaeology at Columbia Bible College in Columbia, South Carolina. He was formerly Director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology. Dr. Wilson is well known as a radio speaker and lecturer on the subject of Biblical Archaeology and is the author of a number of books on Biblical archaeology and Bible backgrounds<\/i>.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1972) p. 4<\/p>\n
An excavation proceeds methodically, and then technical reports are published while the dust of thousands of years is again allowed to settle at the excavated site. Other scholars then study these reports and translate the recovered documents that were written on clay or papyrus or some other medium, and quite often they find that the recovered records have a remarkable relevance to the Scriptures, God\u2019s Word of Truth.<\/p>\n
It is indeed true that very often archaeology does<\/i> endorse particular Bible happenings. Some would say that in this way it \u201cproves the Bible\u201d, though such a statement should be taken with reservation since it is far too sweeping. There are many thousands of facts in the Bible which, of course, are not capable of verification, because the required evidence has long since been lost. However, it is remarkable that where true confirmation is<\/i> possible, the Bible withstands investigation in a way that is unique in all literature.<\/p>\n
This is not to say that viewpoints about the Bible have never changed because of archaeological findings. Indeed, quite often it has been necessary to look again to see just what the Bible is actually saying. Sometimes people have forgotten that this is an ancient Book and not a modern record, that its style is that of the East and not of the West. At times it must be interpreted in the symbolic and figurative style of the Jew of ancient times and not according to the scientific precision of our modern materialistic age. The Bible uses the language of phenomena – it refers to the sun \u201crising\u201d. In actual fact, scientifically speaking, it is the earth that rises. However, although the Bible is not a book of science, it is yet wonderfully true that wherever the Bible touches on science it is astonishingly accurate.<\/p>\n
Let us now look at some of the ways in which archaeology is of value to the Bible student.<\/p>\n
Archaeology Endorses Specific Incidents<\/b><\/p>\n
There are countless historical facts in the Bible which have been endorsed by archaeological research that serve to demonstrate the substantial historicity of this Book, the greatest historical textbook the world has ever known. Thus the Moabite Stone endorses the Moabite rebellion recorded at II Kings 3 and the Taylor Prism gives us further light on the Assyrian King Sennacherib\u2019s unsuccessful besieging of the city of Jerusalem in the days of Isaiah (Isaiah 36 and 37). The assassination of the same King Sennacherib by his sons, recorded at II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37, is endorsed by the records of Sennacherib\u2019s son Esarhaddon. The very date of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s capture of Jerusalem is recorded on tablets from Babylon and the fact of captive peoples being allowed to return to their own lands (Ezra 1) is endorsed by the Cyrus Cylinder. These are but a few of the many specific incidents in the Bible which have been confirmed by the records from archaeology.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1972) p. 5<\/p>\n
Helping In Bible Translation<\/b><\/p>\n
Then again, archaeology has thrown new light on the meanings of many seemingly difficult words and phrases. \u201cHanikim\u201d (trained servant) at Genesis 14:14 is used only once in the Bible, and was a headache to the translators of the King James version in the 17th century. They made an intelligent guess which archaeology had shown to be correct. We now know that the word means \u201cRetainers\u201d. It is used in Egyptian execration (cursing) texts against opposing Hittite princes and their retainers.<\/p>\n
Another word made clearer is Que. We learn in I Kings 10:28 that Solomon imported horses from Egypt and (according to the authorized version) \u201clinen yarn\u201d. This translation was a guess as the consonants could be translated to mean \u201cand linen yarn\u201d. (Early Hebrew had no vowel signs.) The words could have been correctly translated \u201cfrom Egypt and from Que\u201d,<\/i> but no place named Que was known. Subsequently this word was found to be an ancient name for Cilicia, famous for its white horses. Solomon was importing the best horses from Egypt and from Cilicia. As it turned out, linen yarn was a bad guess for the country Que, but that was not the Bible\u2019s fault. The Bible translators simply did not have all the information available to the original writers.<\/p>\n
The furious driver comes to a halt! Panel from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser showing Jehu prostrate before the Assyrian king. This is the only likeness of a king of Israel or Judah to be recovered from antiquity.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1972) p. 6<\/p>\n
New Knowledge Relating To Bible Incidents<\/b><\/p>\n
Another value of Biblical Archaeology is that it increases our knowledge of Bible characters and incidents. From the Bible we learn that Israel\u2019s King Omri built Samaria, replacing Tirzah as the northern capital. But the Bible dismisses Omri in a few verses, for his heart was not right before the Lord. (See I Kings 16:25, 26.) From the Moabite Stone we learn that so great a king was Omri (in terms of material greatness) that a century later Israel herself was called \u201cland (house) of Omri\u201d.<\/p>\n
Similarly, we have additional information about Jehu, the Biblical King who drove \u201cfuriously\u201d. From the Bible (II Kings 10) we learn of his early zeal when he had the followers of the false Canaanite religion destroyed. From the Black Oblisk of Shalmaneser we learn that he payed tribute to an Assyrian king. The ancient stone monument shows him kneeling before King Shalmaneser. We wonder if such an attitude of servility would have been depicted if Jehu had maintained his earlier enthusiasm for the things of the Lord. This is another illustration of how archaeology adds to our knowledge of Bible times.<\/p>\n
Old Testament Customs<\/b><\/p>\n
Archaeology has shown that Abraham\u2019s relations with Hagar were in accord with the practice of his time. Clay tablets describing similar incidents have been recovered from the ancient Mesopotamian city of Nuzi. They date to about the middle of the second millimium B.C. A barren wife was expected to arrange for her husband to have a child by a suitable slave girl. The slave girl\u2019s economic security was ensured, and their offspring became the legal heir unless the true wife later bore a child. All this fits beautifully into the Abraham story and reminds us that these patriarchal stories are historical records, not merely legends developed from camp-fire stories.<\/p>\n
A typical \u201cteraphim\u201d or household god, such as Rachel stole from her father.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1972) p. 7<\/p>\n
Another Nuzi tablet tells of a man selling his birthright for three sheep and we are reminded of Esau selling Jacob his rights as the firstborn. Such birthrights were important in patriarchal times.<\/p>\n
Perhaps one of the most interesting of these customs is seen in the story of Rachel stealing her father\u2019s clay gods – his \u201cteraphim\u201d. She and her sister Leah asked Jacob, \u201cIs there yet any portion or inheritance left for us in our father\u2019s house?\u201d (Genesis 31:14.) Then Rachel crept into her father\u2019s tent in his absence and stole his clay gods. From the Nuzi tablets we learn that such idols were not only worshipped, but they were also associated with inheritance rights, similar to title deeds. Rachel believed her father had cheated her of her inheritance rights and so she took the law into her own hands when she stole the teraphim.<\/p>\n
Pagan Gods And Titles – In Old And New Testaments<\/b><\/p>\n
Archaeology illustrates that the Bible correctly identifies gods of surrounding nations- gods such as the Canaanite god Baal and his consort Asherah (I Kings 18:19, where \u201cgroves\u201d should be translated \u201cAsherah\u201d), the Philistine deity Dagan (I Samuel 5:2), the Moabite god Chemosh and Milcom the Ammonite god (I Kings 11:33), and the association of Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury) (Acts 14:12). Moreover, titles are correctly used, often when such a usage would have been obsolete or different in another time setting. Even the Egyptian word \u201cPharaoh\u201d was originally a title meaning \u201cThe Great House\u201d. It is correctly used in the Bible without the Pharaoh\u2019s name in the days of Joseph. However, by the time of Solomon the practice had changed and the name of the particular king was used in association with the title of Pharoah. Thus the Bible correctly refers to Pharoahs Necho, Tirhaka, and Sheshonk (i.e., Shishak).<\/p>\n
There are a number of titles in the story of Joseph – \u201cchief butler\u201d, \u201cchief baker\u201d, and \u201coverseer\u201d. Even Joseph\u2019s new name Zaphnath Paaneah was a title, meaning \u201cHead of the Sacred College\u201d. In Genesis 45:8 Joseph told his brothers three of his titles – \u201cFather to Pharaoh\u201d, \u201cLord of his house\u201d, and \u201cRuler of all Egypt\u201d. Except for the first, these are all accurate translations of known Egyptian titles. They mean respectively that Joseph was the Pharaoh\u2019s personal advisor, that he was in charge of palace affairs, and that he was the administrator of the whole land of Egypt. The first title was known to the Egyptians as \u201cFather to the gods\u201d, but Joseph Hebraised it. He could not acknowledge a Pharaoh as god, and so he gave it a Hebrew slant and referred to himself as \u201cFather to Pharaoh\u201d. Here, as in so many other ways, Joseph honored the Lord. To him it would have been blasphemous to acknowledge any Egyptian ruler as a God.<\/p>\n
Other titles which are correctly used could be listed. They touch on various Bible times, including the New Testament. For example, Luke correctly refers to the magistrate at Philippi by a higher title than other magistrates used. Sir William Ramsay, a famous British archaeologist in the early years of this century, found an inscription where certain magistrates in one of the nearby provinces took to themselves a higher title than was usual. It was as though they called <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1972) p. 8<\/p>\n
themselves \u201cSenior Magistrates\u201d instead of \u201cMagistrates\u201d. Luke recorded things as they were, not as they seemingly should have been. The local color of the New Testament is remarkably accurate.<\/p>\n
So we see that archaeology does much more than \u201cprove the Bible\u201d. It gives us a deeper insight into God\u2019s Word and thus a better understanding of His plan of redemption for mankind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Clifford A. Wilson People often ask, \u201cDoes archaeology prove the Bible?\u201d In fact, many people are interested in archaeology only because they believe it \u201cproves the Bible\u201d. However, few scholars today would look on archaeology as merely the means of proving the Bible, worthy as that objective may be. Archaeology An Academic Discipline Archaeologists are … Continue reading “DOES
\nARCHAEOLOGY PROVE THE BIBLE?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}