|
"Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as
history"—John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers1
In considering the Old Testament, archaeology has vindicated the
biblical record time and again. The New International Dictionary of
Biblical Archaeology, written by a score of experts in various
fields, repeatedly shows that biblical history is vindicated. To
illustrate, the editor’s preface remarks,
Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and
geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By
clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors,
archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly
partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along
with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the
entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that
emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere.2
John Arthur Thompson was director of the Australian Institute of
Archaeology in Melbourne and has done archaeological fieldwork with
the American Schools of Oriental Research. In The Bible and
Archaeology he writes,
Finally, it is perfectly true to say that biblical archaeology
has done a great deal to correct the impression that was abroad at
the close of the last century and in the early part of this century,
that biblical history was of doubtful trustworthiness in many
places. If one impression stands out more clearly than any other
today, it is that on all hands the over-all historicity of the Old
Testament tradition is admitted. In this connection the words of W.
E Albright may be quoted: "There can be no doubt that archaeology
has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament
traditions."3
Geisler and Brooks point out,
In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is
good evidence from archaeology that the scriptures are accurate....
While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and
continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of
God is better informed than its critics.4
For example, many aspects of Bible books have been confirmed over
the views of critics, in particular the books of Moses, Daniel, Ezra,
Kings, and Luke in the book of Acts. Daniel, for example, because of
its clear supernatural predictions, is dated by critics to the time of
the Maccabeans, around 165 B.C., though Daniel himself indicates or
implies a sixth century B.C. date at the beginning of every chapter
but one. Critics had also doubted the Exile and the return of the Jews
referred to in the book of Esther, as well as its official government
decrees. And the chronological records of the books of Kings were held
to be hopelessly confused, according to the critics. To the contrary,
archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson and others have provided many
examples of how archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of these books.
In his Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability, Dr. Wilson
supplies examples, some of which we quote below:
There are other evidences of eyewitness recording by Daniel. That
he knew Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon (Daniel 4:30) is a problem by
those who argue for a later date for Daniel. This fact of history
was recovered by excavation only in modern times, yet Daniel had
recorded it correctly. One critic wrote that this was a difficulty;
the answer to which "we shall presumably never know".... Linguistic
pointers from the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., a recent targum of Job)
also suggest an early, not a late, date for Daniel.... The overthrow
of the nonhistorical view of the Exile and the return of the Jews
came with the finding of the famous Cyrus Cylinder.... By this
decree [of King Cyrus] the Hebrew people were given leave to rebuild
the temple in Jerusalem.... The same can be said about the style of
writing in the Book of Ezra, for as Albright says; "If we turn to
the Book of Ezra, recent discoveries have indicated the authenticity
of its official documents in the most striking way." Albright shows
that the language of Ezra had been seriously challenged, but that
some of the very words that have been challenged have turned up in
Egyptian, Aramaic, and Babylonian cuneiform documents that date to
the exact time of Ezra. Albright goes on: "If it were practicable to
quote from still unpublished Aramaic documents from fifth century
Egypt, the weight of factual evidence would crush all
opposition".... Still another convincing evidence of the genuineness
of the Bible records is in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
Kings by Edwin R. Thiele. Where once it seemed that the dates of
the kings in the divided-kingdom period were inaccurate and vague,
he has been able to show remarkable synchronisms.... Once again, an
area that many believed was total confusion has been shown to be
staggeringly accurate recording, with fine chronological
interweaving that cannot be claimed for any other book of ancient
history.5
The reliability of the New Testament is also confirmed; based on
archaeological data, "the evidence for its historical reliability [is]
overwhelming."6 In the case of the
book of Acts,
It is widely agreed today that in this book [Acts] we can see the
hand of a historian of the first rank.... Luke is shown to be a most
careful recorder of information, whether it be matters of geography
and political boundaries, local customs, titles of local officers,
local religious practices, details of local topography, or the
disposition of buildings in Greek or Roman, Asian or European towns.7
A. N. Sherwin-White remarks, "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."8
Consider some examples of Luke’s accuracy in historical reporting:
Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical
and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were
established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:41; 16:2, 6-8. He
identified regions, such as that referred to in Acts 13:49, and
various dues, as in Acts 14:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of
local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the
Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman
who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the
city of Ephesus was known as "the temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts
19:35).... he refers to different local officers by their exact
titles—the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates
at Philippi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for
magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia
(Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile)—which was the
title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans
16:23)....
Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as
the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware
that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this
was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana
or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28);
and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images
(Acts 19:26-27).9
As Merrill C. Tenney, professor of New Testament, points out about
Luke’s writings, the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, "The two
volumes he wrote comprise at least one-fourth of the total canon of
the New Testament and provide the only piece of continuous historical
writing that covers the period from the birth of Jesus of Nazareth to
the establishment of a church in the capitol of the Roman Empire."10
In other words, the fact that Luke has been established as such a
careful writer means that fully one-fourth of the entire New
Testament, on the basis of his accuracy alone, bears the same marks of
authenticity.
But it is this very same careful historical writer, the physician
Luke, who reports that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead "by
many convincing proofs"—and that he had carefully investigated the
evidence for this from the beginning (cf., Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3). If
Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, on
what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his
reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but
to others as well?
Noted biblical scholar and apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery
summarizes the evidence when he writes, "Modern archaeological
research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New
Testament geography, chronology, and general history."11
And Dr. Wilson concludes, "Those who know the facts now recognize that
the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source
book.…"12
In general, if not always in the particulars, the entire Bible,
both Old Testament and New Testament, has been strikingly confirmed.
Kitchen remarks that after "a fair and full investigation of the total
available resources, the verdict is frequently a high measure of
agreement between the Bible and the world that is its ancient and
original context."13 Dr. Schoville
observes, "Thus far, no historical statement in the Bible has been
proven false on the basis of evidence retrieved through archaeological
research."14 Thompson concludes his
book by stating, "It is very evident that the biblical records have
their roots firmly in general world history."15
Archaeologist Joseph Free, chairman of the department of archaeology
at Wheaton College and later professor of archaeology and history at
Bemidji State College in Minnesota, concluded his Archaeology and
Bible History with the following words: "I thumbed through the
book of Genesis and mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters was
either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery—the
same would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible,
both the Old and New Testaments."16
Again, given the large amount of data already uncovered in the last
150 years, this is no insignificant conclusion. There are literally
thousands of opportunities for archaeological research to indisputably
prove the Bible false—and yet it has never done so.
Notes:
1 John Elder, Prophets,
Idols and Diggers (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), p. 16, a book
endorsed by an editorial board comprising American Liberal
Clergymen, from Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), rev.), p. 166.
2 E. M. Blaiklock, "Editor’s
Preface," The New International Dictionary of Biblical
Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan,
1983), pp. vii-viii, emphasis added.
3 J. A. Thompson, The Bible
and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 5.
4 Norman Geisler and Ron
Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences
(Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), p. 200.
5 Clifford A. Wilson,
Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan/Richardson, TX: Probe, 1977), pp. 98-110.
6 Geisler and Brooks, p. 200.
7 Thompson, pp. 375, 405.
8 Cited in Geisler and Brooks,
p. 202.
9 Wilson, pp. 112-113.
10 Merrill C. Tenney,
"Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke," in Roy B. Zuck (gen.
ed.,), Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reasons and Revelation
in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), p.
204.
11 John Warwick Montgomery,
"The Jury Returns: A Juridicial Defense of Christianity" in J. W.
Montgomery (ed), Evidence for the Faith: Deciding the God
Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991), p. 326.
12 Wilson, p. 120.
13 K. A. Kitchen, The Bible
and Its World: The Bible and Archeology Today (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1977), p. 134.
14 Keith N. Schoville,
Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978),
p. 156.
15 Thompson, p. 442.
16 Joseph P. Free and Howard
F. Vos, Archeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), p. 294.
|
