ContentBlocks 8 1 Ads Shiloh Standard copy

Research Topics

General Apologetics

Articles dealing with apologetic matters that have a bearing on Biblical archaeology and the authority, reliability and inerrancy of Scripture.

CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF ALL THE ARTICLES IN THIS CATEGORY

march bonus

Several years ago, I engaged in a back-and-forth debate with an agnostic about the historical veracity of the Bible. There was nothing unusual about this, except that my hometown newspaper served as the arena for this public sparring match, which lasted over the course of several weeks . Influenced by a skeptical worldview, he believed that the Hebrew authors were guilty of being historical plagiarists, and that the Bible is a literary concoction comprised of numerous fictional tales derived from earlier pagan sources, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Story of Sinuhe, the Code of Hammurabi, the Babylonian Genesis, and many other works from the distant past.

He was basically accusing the Bible of literary syncretism, suggesting that it was a blend of different literary traditions, cultural ideas and practices. Unfortunately, even some Christians have been bamboozled into believing this view, a result of the biblically illiterate, anti-intellectual pandemic that has plagued the modern Church from the pulpit to the pew. Nonetheless, this man raised an interesting point that many Christians have a hard time explaining- similarities.

When similarities are shown between the biblical account and other ancient texts, the Bible is immediately treated as suspect and scrutinized by standards of literary criticism unmatched in the field of historical investigation, and rarely if ever applied to other sacred texts. It is generally assumed that the Bible is the product of literary piracy, and that the Hebrew writers borrowed stories from their pagan neighbors, domesticated them and eventually gave them a Jewish twist­ the ultimate example of ancient spin doctoring! This is an age­ old fallacy propounded by those who approach biblical interpretation with a prejudice that the Bible cannot be historically accurate and true, thus disqualifying it from its proper position as the infallible, inerrant word of God. It has become popular to refer to this point of view as " minimalist," which basically refers to having a low view of Scripture holistically- historically, morally, and especially supernaturally. Hence the label, "anti -supernaturalist."

Do similarities exist between the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts? Yes, but rather than use the word "borrowed," the word "parallel" better complies with erudition. There are numerous examples of parallels between the Old Testament and other ancient epigraphic materials, which have been uncovered by archaeologists. Must these parallels be explained away in order to defend scriptural historical integrity? Do these parallels explain away the biblical authors as unoriginal? Neither position is necessary.

march bonus 1A

Similarities do not necessarily indicate borrowing in one direction or the other. All cultures of the ancient Near East had many things in common. It should be understood that there are only a limited number of options in any given historical-cultural setting. Comparisons do not negate the individuality of any group of people, but indicate cultural commonality. Many factors will be arrived at independently by more than one person or group of people. For example, the urban revolution in Lower Mesopotamia (Sumer) was arrived at independently of the urbanization that was taking place in the Nile River Valley during the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000 BC).1 The discovery and application of raw materials, such as stone (or mud) for building, clays for pottery manufacture , precious stones for jewelry, and animal and crop domestication, occurred in various regions throughout the Fertile Crescent independently, as the diverse populations were forced to adapt to their environments and life circumstances. There is always the ongoing debate of whether environmental factors were the primary determinant behind humanity's cultural developments, or if it was attributed to social factors. While it was probably both, the point is, people shared common experiences.

march bonus 2

It must be kept in mind that the biblical writers were not writing history for history's sake, but wrote with the purpose of glorifying God and demonstrating God's kingdom agenda carried out through the historical circumstances that involved His people and those they came in contact with. Parallels are an impressive testimony that the Bible was not composed in a historical vacuum. The historical reliability of a document is usually verified by its relationship to or correspondence with the cultural milieu to which it belonged. For example, in the Bible (especially Joshua through 2 Kings) the term "Amorite" is used to describe Levantine people-groups in general, such as the Philistines, Jebusites, Canaanites, Ammonites, Moabites, and so on. This is in historical compliance with how the term was used by Israel's neighbors. The Babylonian term Amurru (from which "Amorite" is derived) was used by the Mesopotamians to refer to people and geography west of the Euphrates River. This is shown in Assyrian texts. In Ashurnasirpal's account of his Expedition to Carchemish and Lebanon, he states that he "seized the upper extent of the Lebanon mountain and reached the Great Sea of the Amurru-country."2 The "Great Sea" (also known as "Upper  Sea")  is a reference to the Mediterranean Sea, as opposed to the "Lower Sea" or Persian Gulf. Adad-Nirari III also referred to Palestine as " Amurru-country." 3 This helps underscore the fact that the Israelites were using common terms of the day.

Scholars have also discovered a striking resemblance between the names found in the Patriarchal narratives and the northwest Semitic class belonging to the late third and early second millennium BC. Linguists have pointed out the propensity of names beginning with the " I/Y" prefix (I/J in English, Y  in  Hebrew),  referred to as  "Amorite Imperfectives." For example: Isaac (Yitzchaq), Ishmael (Yishmael), Jacob (Yacob), Judah (Yehudah), Joseph ( Yoseph). There are many more, but these names are represented in the literature of that particular era. Out of a repertoire of some 6000 names from  the first half of the second millennium BC, more than 1300 names contain the "I/ Y" prefix. What is especially important to understand is that this class of names decreases in the late second millennium, and even more in the Iron Age.4 This is strong confirmation that the Patriarchal stories belong to the correct historical time frame in which the Bible places them. It reinforces confidence in the antiquity  of the Genesis account, and decreases the likelihood that a post-Exilic redactor (editor) created these narratives after 539 BC. If these stories are a fabrication of some later scribe living in the Persian or Hellenistic period, how would that scribe have known to use names peculiar only to the Bronze Age? The same can be said of place-names (geographical locations) that occur in the Patriarchal stories, which are also found in the Mari and Ebia tablets.

march bonus 3

What about the parallels between the Bible and Mesopotamian Flood stories, or the Sumerian King Lists, which describe extremely long life spans, corresponding with the long life spans mentioned in Genesis prior to the Flood? We have all played the game, "The Grapevine." One person starts a story and passes it on to another. The story gets passed around a circle, making its way back to the original source. Each person in the circle will have his or her own version of the same story, slightly different from the original. This happens only in a few minutes. Imagine what would happen over the course of several millennia! When oral tradition is transmitted across time, it is commonly embellished and morphs into elaborate versions. According to Kenneth Kitchen, it is a rule that simple traditions evolve into complex legends, but legends were never simplified  to become historical accounts as are found in Genesis.5 The simplicity and terseness of the Bible is quite extraordinary in ancient Near Eastern literature. Similarities point to an original story-event. In the case of the primordial stories contained in Genesis 1- 11, these are represented in corrupted forms in various Mesopotamian texts, reflecting a distant memory that stems from original events of the past. Over the course of time, these stories were corrupted and mythologized, but are preserved in true form in the divinely inspired record of the Bible.

march bonus 4

What Christians need to understand is that in most cases, the differences between parallels outweigh the similarities. The historiographical methodology of the Bible is quite unique and impressive in ancient Oriental literature, especially its candor and brevity. No Egyptian document blatantly reveals the failures of a pharaoh, either ruling from his throne or campaigning in a foreign country. However, the Bible is remarkably personal and transparent, revealing the weaknesses and sins of its heroes, like Abraham, Moses, Samson, David, Solomon, and many others. The Bible extols women such as Jael, Deborah, and Ruth, despite a culture in which women were degraded. These unique literary characteristics (and there are so many more) make the Bible a very real and trustworthy document. John Walton points out that when similarities are found between the Bible and other ancient literature, the burden of proving that the Bible "borrowed" is on the modern interpreter.6 Reasoned interpretation must begin by seeing the Bible in the full historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the ancient Near Eastern world, but accepting it as the inspired word of God ultimately boils down to faith. But faith is informed and justified by the rich cache of discoveries over the centuries that have illuminated the Bible and testified to its accuracy as a historical record of the past, and thus a trustworthy source for the present and the future.

march bonus 5

Endnotes
1 Scholars do believe there was some Mesopotamian cultural influence in Egypt’s formative periods (pre-historic and historic), such as architectural designs and decorative motifs.
2 James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), 276. He also refers to Israel as Hu-umri or “the land of Omri” and Palestine as “Pa-la-äs-tü.” Along with these names, many others occur that correspond with the Bible.
3 Pritchard, 281.
4 Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans), 341–43.
5 Scholars do believe there was some Mesopotamian cultural influence in Egypt’s formative periods (pre-historic and historic), such as architectural designs and decorative motifs.
6 John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 21.

march bonus 6


This article was originally published in the Winter 2017 issue of ABR's quarterly magazine, Bible and Spade.

To purchase back issues of Bible and Spade: https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/bible-and-spade-magazine

To order a subscription for Bible and Spade: https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/bible-and-spade

Capture

A few years back, my sister and brother-in-law invited me to spend a few days with them on vacation up in the Adirondacks. It was summertime.

Imagine you’re sitting at the desk of a renowned biblical archaeologist. In front of you are his field notes and several important artifacts relating to biblical people, places and events. You now have the opportunity to investigate the archaeological evidence for the reliability of the Bible first-hand in a tangible way.

Some people claim, 'Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth about the stories about the birth of Jesus...'

Some people claim, 'Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth about the stories about the birth of Jesus...'

Ah-summertime. I love summertime. It's a time for baseball and picnics. It's a time for hiking and going away to camp. And if you are a kid-it's a time for no school. Yee haw! Vacations are just around the corner…and it's a time for bugs. Yuk!

Those of us who work in the arena of apologetics and polemics are often bemused by the question, 'How is it, in the face of clear archaeological and literary corroborative evidence of the historicity of the Old Testament as now exists from the ancient Near Eastern world, that sceptics can continue to embrace the post-Enlightenment mindset that biblical accounts of such events, precisely because they come from a 'religious' or 'theological book,' must be disqualified as reliable witnesses to the past?' Herodotus, Thucydides, Berossus, Xenophon, Manetho, and Sallust do, indeed, suffer to some extent at the hands of the critics, but nowhere near to the extent as do the composers of the Old Testament.


The principal objections to Old Testament historical credibility are (1) the narration of miracles; (2) its theocentricity; (3); its 'unscientific' assertions; and (4) its tendentious or biased point of view. The purpose of this article is to respond to each of these.

Simple definitions of 'miracle' are 'an extraordinary event manifesting a supernatural work of God;' or 'an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment' (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 540). Key terms are 'supernatural' and 'outstanding.' The first connotes by 'super' that the event is above the natural, and the second, with 'out,' suggests that is outside the realm of that which stands-that is, that with which one is familiar. It is, of course, true that miracle calls to mind 'thens' and 'theres,' not 'heres' and 'nows.' The assumption is that since I (we, the world) have never seen a miracle, such things could not and cannot occur. That is, my experience and my observation are the givens against which all reality-past and present-must be assessed. This simple declaration lies at the root of the most profound post-modern scientific and philosophical thinking as to what is possible or impossible. Once this principle is endorsed, the miracle stories of the Bible are ipso facto disqualified as scientific historiography. Concomitantly, all that exists must have purely naturalistic and self-generating explanations. But what is 'supernatural' to the natural man is 'natural' to the omnipotent God who called it into existence (Rom 8:1-2, 6-8; 1 Cor 2:10-16). To believe in miracles requires one to have experienced the miracle of new life in Christ.

'Theocentricity' means simply that God is the principal actor in the biblical drama, the one about whom and around whom the whole narration finds meaning. To modern literary criticism, any composition displaying such features is by definition mythological. Hermann Gunkel defined myths a century ago as 'narratives about gods, in contrast to legends whose agents are humans' (Hermann Gunkel, Genesis. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997, p. xii). Gunkel's preference for 'legend' over 'myth' for the whole composition does little, however, to shore up a view even close to history writing. The result is that even in this terminology the Bible does not really tell us what God said and did, but only what the ancient traditions (the Legende) attributed to him. The real issue is, how can we know how accurately the so-called legends correspond to reality?

As for the scientific 'blunders' and 'inaccuracies' of the Old Testament, only two rejoinders can be offered here: (1) Those who propose that the ancients, including those of biblical times, held such fallacious views as a flat earth, a geocentric universe, a rising and setting sun, and a self-generating light of the moon, overlook the pedagogical principle that learning by observation precedes learning by essential actuality. That is, the scientific data accumulated over the millennia would have contradicted the observational interpretations of the ancients to the point of being nonsensible and even misleading. One does not start the mathematical education of the first grader with differential equations or calculus, but by the simplicity of 2 2=4. (2) What modern critics seem unable to understand is what God understood from the beginning: Learning at its basic level is observational. The sun appears to rise and set, and therefore it is not incorrect to say at a certain level of scientific achievement that it does indeed do these things. The Bible was not written exclusively for the 21st-century scientific enterprise, but for people of all ages and all places. Thus, the language of 'appearance' in no way negates or endorses a certain way of 'doing' science.

Is the Bible 'tendentious'? Of course it is, because its fundamental purpose is to glorify the Creator by putting forth, in intentionally understandable and invitational terms, the message of redemptive grace, the reception of which leads to forgiveness and everlasting life. It is not primarily a work of history, biography, geology, anthropology, biology, astronomy, meteorology, or any other -ology except theology. It is, at base, the account of account of God and his word, and on those grounds is not guilty should it not satisfy the agenda of the modern sceptic who is not looking for the Author of the book.

Conclusion

What then is the role of consecrated, God-honoring archaeological research by ministries such as ABR? If the sceptic cannot be won over, is there apologetic value at all? Let me suggest briefly the following considerations:

• The search for confirmation and clarification of the biblical witness is a noble end in and of itself.
• The exegetical and expositional process can be and has been abetted by archaeological research, especially with the recovery of inscriptional material.
• Those weak in the faith or wavering in terms of a sure confidence in the Word of God can be benefited by discoveries which, when properly interpreted, will, without fail, bolster their confidence in God's whole revelation.

I've spent the last eight years here in Jerusalem studying Biblical Archaeology. When I began, I assumed I'd be studying Archaeology in a way that affirmed the Bible and was in agreement with its teachings. After all, it is called Biblical Archaeology! However, I soon came to understand that although the word 'Biblical' is part of its name, the field is secular and always has been.

SUPPORT ABR

ABR fulfills its mission through memberships and generous donations from supporters.

Join us in our mission! No matter what your level of interest, from keeping abreast of the fascinating research that comes out of the field work, to actively participating in an archaeological dig, you can become an integral part of our ministry.

Please click here for our support page.

ASSOCIATES FOR BIBLICAL RESEARCH

Phone: 717-859-3443

Toll Free:  800-430-0008

email: comments@biblearchaeology.org

PO Box 144, Akron, PA 17501

ABRSocialMediaFacebook

ABRSocialMediaTwitter

ABRSocialMediaYouTube

Site Design and Management by: Nehemiah Communications [http://nehemiahcommunications.com] & Enktesis [http://enktesis.com]

ABRT 28 | 8/1/2019