Stones & Scrolls

Does Archaeology Support the Claims of the Bible?

We acknowledge a God who heads up history, and as Christians believe, has even entered into history itself. To see stones which touch this story is to draw more deeply of the reality of Him who was and is and is to come.

RANDALL PRICE, The Stones Cry Out

I will never forget standing in the musty hallways of the immense tombs in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor, Egypt. Brightly colored hieroglyphics surrounded me, showcasing the talent of Egyptian artists from Old Testament times. Later that day the Egyptian government announced that in that same valley a hidden chamber had been discovered containing what some archaeologists believed might be bodies of the sons of Pharaoh who were killed during the Egyptian plagues.

Prophecy Experience Archaeology Resurrection Logic

   If I ever had considered archaeology a dull subject, all

Page 88

such impression disappeared after the trip Erik and I took to the Middle East. To stand in the Garden of Gethsemane, to touch a wall of the temple in which Jesus and his disciples had worshiped, to see an ancient Egyptian monument that chronicles a battle with the Israelites — all this made the Bible come alive like never before. And reading about the latest archaeological finds was more like piecing together an intriguing mystery than studying a stale history book — a mystery that could bring me closer to answering my questions about the reliability of the Bible.

   What Bible-related archaeological findings are you familiar with? What effect have these had on your faith?

Archaeology and the Bible

   Increasing knowledge and opportunity for travel in the early 1800s opened the door to a rich new field of study that focused on unearthing the artifacts of lost civilization and piecing together the stories they had to tell. These discoveries have clarified, corrected and enlarged our knowledge of human history in ways previously unimagined. Because of this, archaeology offers the person examining the truthfulness of the Bible a rare opportunity to peer into the distant past and compare what is seen with the biblical record.

Cutting Through the Confusion

Yet even if I no longer saw archaeology as boring, I sometimes still found it confusing. For I often stumbled onto both sweeping statement by skeptics decrying the historical inaccuracies of the Bible and triumphant pronouncements by theologians touting archaeology as one of the "proofs" of the Bible's trustworthiness. My doubts often rose and fell with these archaeological proclamations. Did archaeology really support the claims of the Bible, or did it refute them? And how could equally respected scholars hold such wildly divergent views?

   However, as I began examining archaeology more closely, I made some observations that helped dispel some of my confusion.

Page 89

1. The kinds of questions archaeology can address. Some say archaeology "proves" the Bible, but actually archaeology can only address certain types of biblical questions. For instance, archaeology can address the question whether Jericho's walls collapsed, but it cannot prove this was the result of divine intervention. It can address the question whether the Gospels accurately portray first-century Palestine, but it does not easily lend itself to substantiating that Jesus miraculously fed the five thousand. Of course if archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible regarding questions it can address, this lends weight to biblical reliability in other areas as well.

2. The fragmentary nature of archaeological evidence. Archaeological evidence is limited to the information that can be collected from the extremely small percentage of artifacts that have survived the centuries and have been discovered. As archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi writes, "It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is one fraction of a second fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the possible evidence."¹ Because of this, archaeologists often can piece together only a partial picture, and sometimes they assume the picture is complete when in fact a vital piece is still missing.

3. The subjectivity of conclusions based on archaeological data. Human interpretation plays a key role in archaeology, and this can't help but be affected by an archaeologist's presuppositions. If an archaeologist begins with the assumption that the Bible is not historically accurate, that person may too quickly dismiss the biblical account. Likewise,an archaeologist who believes in the Bible's accuracy may jump to unwarranted conclusions when an artifact is discovered that has the potential for supporting the Bible. And unlike in other sciences, the conclusions of archaeologists cannot be tested. "Physics and chemistry," Norm Geisler and Ron Brooks explain, "can do all kinds of experiments to recreate the processes they study.... Archaeologists cannot. They have only the evidence left from the one and only time that that civilization lived.²

4. The tentativeness of archaeological conclusions. Archaeology is a rapidly changing field. As one museum curator remarked, "Absolute truth in archaeology lasts about 20 years!"³ Because more archaeological discoveries are being unearthed every day, the archaeological picture is constantly changing, and sometimes long-held conclusions must give way in the face

Page 90

of new evidence. Because of this, it is wise to keep the whole picture in mind and not jump too quickly between views based solely on one archaeological construct.

   Think of a specific Bible story. What parts of this story could archaeology hope to substantiate, and what parts would be outside its realm?

The Bible and Historical Theories

Understanding these things about archaeology did much to provide me with a frame of reference from which to approach the subject. With these observations in mind I began systematically sorting through some of the archaeological evidence, and as I did, I became increasingly impressed with the archaeological testimony for the Bible's trustworthiness. Despite some outstanding questions, I found that overall archaeology has progressively affirmed the historical and geographical details of the Bible and undermined many of the specific claims of Bible skeptics.

Has archaeology found nothing to invalidate the claims of the Bible? Nothing. In every single case where the two overlap, the results have been that some biblical claims have been proved, some rendered probable, and none simply disproved by archaeology. PETER KREEFT AND RONALD K. TACELLI4

   Before the days of modern archaeology, it was increasingly common among scholars to regard the Bible as simply a collection of legends divorced from any historical fact, instead of a real historical record of God's interaction with humankind. Many critics confidently cited then-current historical theories as their basis. But as archaeological information has accumulated, it repeatedly has overturned many of the historical theories and substantiated the biblical record.

   As archaeologist W.F. Albright explains in The Archaeology of Palestine:

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

Page 91

   Even in several books this size it would be impossible to detail every archaeological finding that is relevant to the Bible, but I have included in this chapter a brief  summary of some archaeology findings that shed light on the authenticity of the Old and New Testament.

   Do you find it significant that archaeology has increasingly substantiated historical and geographical details of the Bible and overturned many criticisms against it? Why or why not?

   How might this affect the faith a person has in the Bible? How might it affect the faith a person has in current historical theories disagreeing with the Bible?

Examples of Old Testament Discoveries

The world of the patriarchs. The Bible claims that a significant civilization called the Hittites were inhabitants of Canaan when Abraham arrived there. But many early critics doubted that the Hittites ever existed, because no mention of them outside the Bible had ever been found. That was until an archaeological excavation in 1876 unearthed five temples, a fortified citadel and numerous monuments belonging to this lost civilization.⁶

   Critics also have dismissed other biblical accounts of the patriarchs, claiming these stories are inventions of nationalistic Jews around 600 B.C. But countless archaeological finds that substantiated the existence of many places and civilizations mentioned in the patriarchal narratives have confirmed that the cultural practices these narratives depict reflect accurately the time in which the Bible claims they occurred and only that time. It is difficult to explain how story tellers in 600 B.C. would have been able to correctly reflect these details from over a thousand years earlier.

   The Jericho conquest. One of the most controversial issues in biblical archaeology is whether the archaeological record supports the biblical account of the conquest of Jericho and other Canaanite cities. In the 1930s John Garstang excavated the site of ancient Jericho and declared that the archaeological findings unanimously supported the biblical record. Evidence shows that the wall of Jericho had in fact fallen outward and that the city had been destroyed by fire around 1400 B.C. just as Joshua 6 maintains.

   However, in 1950 Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Jericho and declared

Page 92

that her findings demonstrated  that Jericho's destruction occurred in 1550 B.C., far too early to be attributed to the Israelites. Other Canaanite cities showed evidence of massive destruction from 1250 to 1150, too late for the biblical chronology.

   But recently Bryant Wood, another archaeologist, has challenged Kenyon's revised dating of the Jericho destruction. Kenyon's dating was based on her failure to find examples of a certain kind of imported pottery that she thought should have been present if the original dating was correct. Wood challenges this by showing the presence of other kinds of pottery that support the original 1400 B.C. date. And a radiocarbon test was conducted on a piece of charcoal from the final destruction debris, and it yielded a date of 1410 B.C. (plus or minus forty years).⁷

   It is interesting to look at all the other details from Jericho that match the biblical record:⁸

The walls of the city collapsed at the time the city was destroyed (Josh 6:20).

The city was destroyed at the spring harvest time, as can be seen by the quantity of grain that was there (Josh 2:6; 3:15; 5:10).

The siege of the city was short, since the grain had  not been consumed (Josh 6:15, 20).

- The conquerors burned the city (Josh 6:24).

The grain was not plundered as would have been expected from conquerors (Josh 6:17-18).

   It has also been argued that the biblical account of the conquest is inaccurate given that evidence of massive destruction exists in other Canaanite cities from around 1200 B.C., too late for the biblical account. But this interpretation overlooks several factors, such as the following:

The Bible readily admits that many Canaanite cities were left unconquered in the time of Joshua (Josh 13:1).

The Bible names only three cities, including Jericho, that the Israelites destroyed in a way that would leave evidence of the destruction, so we should not necessarily expect to find evidence of widespread destruction from 1400 B.C. (Josh 6:24; 8:28; 11:11-13).

Page 93

Both the biblical record and other archaeological evidence suggest that around 1200 there were several other invading groups, besides the Israelites, who could have been responsible for the destruction of these other cities. In fact, this is the very situation the Bible suggests in the time of the judges, which would align with this chronology.

   Hezekiah's reform and victory. The story of Hezekiah is found in 2 Kings 18 — 20 and 2 Chronicles 29 — 32. Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz, one of Judah's worst kings. Ahaz worshiped idols and even practiced human sacrifice. But when Hezekiah inherited his father's throne, he determined to rid his country of pagan worship and return to the one true God. He reinstated worship in the Jerusalem temple and destroyed idolatry throughout his country.

   In addition to his spiritual reform the biblical record tells that Hezekiah refused to pay the tribute the Assyrians had levied on Judah since the days of his father. For a while his resistance to Assyria was successful and the country enjoyed a time of peace. But in the fourteenth year of his reign Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, retaliated against Hezekiah and attacked Judah with all of the force of his mighty army.

   One after another, Judah's cities began to fall to the Assyrians, who were known for their military strength and brutality. As Sennacherib marched toward Jerusalem, Judah's capital, capturing every city in his path, Hezekiah began frantically preparing Jerusalem for the impending battle. His biggest concern was that the city would be cut off from its water supply, which was unprotected outside the city walls. To ensure this didn't happen, the Bible claims, he dug a tunnel to carry water underground directly from the nearby spring into the city. It also says that he fortified the walls of the city and built additional towers and even built a second wall outside the first.

   When the city of Lachish, just twenty-five miles from Jerusalem, fell to the Assyrians, Hezekiah made one last attempt to deflect Sennacherib's army by offering a large sum of gold and silver to make up for the tribute he had refused to pay. However, Sennacherib rebuffed his attempt and sent a message to Jerusalem mocking Hezekiah and the God of Judah. In desperation Hezekiah called out to God, asking him to save Jerusalem from destruction.

   So what happened? According to 2 Kings 19:35-37:

That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and

Page 94

eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp.... So Sennacherib king of Assyrian broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.

   One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god of Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword.

   This story of how Jerusalem escaped certain capture by the Assyrians is amazing, and many would undoubtedly question its truthfulness. However, archaeology has supplied confirmation of many of the details of the biblical account. The Bible specifically mentions the capture of Lachish by the Assyrians. Remarkably, archaeologists have discovered a ninety-foot mural depicting this battle between the Assyrians and the people of Lachish in the palace of King Sennacherib in Nineveh. Excavations from Lachish also confirm the event.

   The water tunnel that Hezekiah dug to prepare for the Assyrian siege can still be seen today. Even now scientists cannot explain exactly how this 1,750-foot tunnel could have been carved out in limestone without the aid of compasses or modern tools. Some of the fortifications Hezekiah added to the city walls also have been discovered as well, including the second wall he built outside the original one. This outside wall was discovered during an excavation in Jerusalem conducted from 1969 to 1982. It is called the Broad Wall because it is twenty-three feet thick. The haste and desperation with which it was constructed is evidenced by the fact that it was built with stones from homes of the people. This is alluded to in Isaiah 22:10: "You counted the buildings in Jerusalem and tore down houses to strengthen the wall."

   Archaeology has also confirmed that Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem. No reason outside the biblical one given has been found for this strange turn of events. In fact, after his military campaigns Sennacherib never returned to Judah. And a Babylonian inscription has been found confirming that Sennacherib was later killed by his own son just as the Bible says.

   Jeremiah's scribe. The book of Jeremiah credits a scribe named Baruch with playing a significant role in the strategic days before the Babylonian conquest of 586 B.C. The Bible says Baruch was the personal secretary and confidant of the prophet Jeremiah. Baruch is even credited with writing down at least some of Jeremiah's prophecy and going to the temple to read it when Jeremiah could not go himself.

   In 1975 an assortment of clay document seals was found that archaeolo-

Page 95

gists believe date back to the time of Jeremiah and the destruction of the first temple. Written on the clay seals were the name of their ancient owners. Among these was one that bore the inscription of "Berekhahu [Baruch] son of Neriyahu [Neriah] the scribe." Later another seal was found with the name of another scribe mentioned numerous times in Jeremiah, "Gemaryahu [Gemariah] the son of Shephan" (Jer 36:10-12, 25-26). A third name mentioned in Jeremiah was also found: Ishmael, the man Jeremiah says was responsible for the assassination of Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor (Jer 41:1-3).

So Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and while Jeremiah dictated all the words the LORD had spoken to him, Baruch wrote them on the scroll. Then Jeremiah told Baruch, "I am restricted; I cannot go to the LORD's temple. So you go to the house of the LORD on a day of fasting and read to the people from the scroll the words of the LORD that you wrote as I dictated. Read them to all the people of Judah who come in from their towns." JEREMIAH 36:4-6

   Darius and Xerxes. For centuries travelers passing by the Iranian mountain known as the Rock of Behistun couldn't help but notice a huge mural carved into the cliff three hundred feet above their heads. The mural scene includes one man with upraised hands, with ten other men standing in front of him and two behind. No one knew who these men were or how the carving came to be until scholars scaled the side of the cliff and discovered hundreds of wedge-shaped characters that they determined must be an ancient form of writing.

   When the writing was finally deciphered, they found one phrase clearly proclaiming, "I am Darius, Great King, King of Kings, the King of Persia." This mural turned out to be the first extrabiblical evidence of the existence of King Darius, named in the Bible as responsible for returning the Jews to Jerusalem and allowing them to rebuild the temple. Also in agreement with the biblical record, a line in the inscription mentioned Darius's son Xerxes, who the Bible names as the king who married Esther.

   How do these archaeological finds affect your view of the Old Testament?

   Do  you know of other archaeological finds that speak to the trustworthiness of the Old Testament? If so, what are they and how have they affected you?

Page 96

Examples of New Testament Discoveries

Crucifixion techniques. In 1968 the remains of a crucified man from the time of Christ were found in a tomb near Jerusalem. The tomb markings identified the man as Yohanan. The primary evidence of his crucifixion was that his right anklebone was still pierced with a seven-inch-long nail and attached to a piece of wood. Apparently when the man was nailed to the cross, the nail hit a knot and became so lodged that both the nail and the piece of wood remained when the victim was removed.

   The discovery of Yohanan refuted two long-held criticisms of the biblical account of Jesus' death. Skeptics had argued that the entire narrative of Jesus' burial in Joseph's tomb was unhistorical because a crucified prisoner would never have been allowed a proper burial but would have been thrown into a common grave reserved for criminals. However, Yohanan's tomb yielded an example of at least one crucified victim who had received a proper burial. Skeptics had also maintained that the Gospels were mistaken in depicting crucified victims as secured to the cross with nails instead of ropes. But the evidence supplied by Yohanan's remains again upheld the Gospel accounts.

   The reliability of Luke and Acts. Luke and Acts have come under particular attack by critical scholars. Even today some consider this two-volume work to be a highly fictitious account told by a second-century storyteller far removed from the facts. However, archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the geographical and historical details included in these books.

   Luke and Acts mention thirty-two specific countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without making any mistakes. They even use the correct titles for officials in these varying locations. For instance, the author correctly mentions "politarchs" in Thessalonica, "temple wardens" in Ephesus, "the proconsul" in Cyprus and "the first man of the island" in Malta.

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. A.N. SHERWIN - WHITE (Roman historian)9

   Skeptics have also repeatedly criticized Luke for certain word choices they believed were inauthentic, but further archaeological discoveries have continually proved the skeptics wrong and the writer of Luke and Acts correct.

   James the brother of Jesus. Church history tells us that Jesus' brother

Page 97

James became a believer after Jesus' death and a leader of the church in Jerusalem. He is mentioned several times in the New Testament (Mt 13:55; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9; Jude 1:1) and is held to be the author of the book that bears his name. An important passage written by Josephus, a Jewish historian, in the early second century confirms this information and tells the circumstances of James's death: "As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity... so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."¹⁰

   Erastus, Corinth's director of public works. In Paul's letter to the Romans written from Corinth, Paul mentions a man named Erastus whom he describes as the "city's director of public works" (Rom 16:23). In excavations of Corinth made in 1929, pavement was found bearing a Latin inscription that read "Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense." Scholars believe this pavement dates from the first century and the inscription very likely refers to the same man mentioned by Paul.

   What is the effect of these archaeological finds on your view of the New Testament?

   Do you know of other archaeological finds that speak to the trustworthiness of the New Testament? If so, what are they and how have they affected you?

Ancient Witnesses

While we were in Israel, we visited an archaeological dig in process. The ancient city stretched before us, broken-down walls of white rock tracing the perimeters of homes, shops, stables and public restrooms long deserted. As we walked along, we occasionally found fragments of pottery mixed in with the pebbles under our feet. Our guide explained that these were pieces of ceramic tickets residents had used to gain entrance to the amphitheater. As I held one of them, it struck me that I was holding a ticket someone had used hundreds of years ago — a firsthand witness to the existence and

Page 98

activities of a long-past civilization.

   The ancient witnesses of archaeology have made a dynamic contribution to my view of the Bible, giving me a new sense of its historic reliability and reinforcing the credibility of my faith. I wish I had space in this chapter to include even more examples of archaeological discoveries. There are many others pertaining to both significant biblical events and incidental cultural and geographical details.

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. MILLAR BURROWS (archaeologist)11

   While archaeology has its limitations and many unanswered questions remain, I came away convinced of one thing. Archaeology has shown the Bible to be much more grounded in history than many people have assumed. Both Old and New Testament have been shown repeatedly to contain extremely accurate references to the events, customs and geography of the times they describe. "While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible," Norman Geisler writes, "time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics."¹²

   What is your response to the statement that archaeology has shown the Bible is much more rooted in history than many believe?

    Do you believe that archaeology generally supports the historical reliability of the Bible? Why or why not?

Digging Deeper

   The Stones Cry Out by Randall Price (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997). This is one of the few recent books written for the layperson focusing on archaeological discoveries that confirm the reliability of the Bible.

   Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998). Archaeology and the New Testament by John McRay (Grand Rapids,

Page 99

Mich.: Baker, 1991). These two illustrated books, written by top scholars in their fields, offer comprehensive, up-to-date summaries of archaeological findings that relate to the Bible.

Chapter Nine  ||  Table of Contents