Archaeological Affirmations (8/5)

Who is Nebo-Sarsekim?

Of all the tours that are given at the British Museum, there are probably very few that include the Arched Room. The Arched Room is little more than a storage room, but it holds over 130,000 Assyrian tablets, some of which are 5,000 years old. Considering the immense number of tablets that the room holds, one is bound to think of finding anything of great significance as a pure ‘needle-in-haystack’ scenario.

However, a very intriguing ‘needle’ was found just a little over a year ago. Dr. Michael Jursa, an Assyriology professor at the University of Vienna, was studying in the Arched Room and came across a cuneiform tablet that was said to have been made in 595 BC. Dr. Jursa deciphered the inscription on the two inch tablet. His translation revealed what one reporter called, “a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.”

Archaeological Affirmations (7/10)

A few weeks ago, we published a post on confirmation of the Bible offered by Archaeology. The post was purposefully general. However, I would like to start addressing specific archaeological finds that affirm the biblical record and give us more evidence to believe. I cannot say how frequent or how consistent these will be, but I guess we’ll see.  

Evidence from Ebla

Two professors from the University of Rome, archaeologist Dr. Paolo Matthiae and epigrapher Dr. Giovanni Pettinato, began their work in 1964 excavating a site at Tell Mardikh in Syria. By 1968, they had uncovered a statue of King Ibbit-Lim with an inscription referencing Ishtar, the godess who “shines brightly in Ebla.” This was the first of many phenomenal discoveries to come.

Who Says Jesus Existed? (follow up)

The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the primary sources for information about the life of Christ. However, as we saw in the previous post, there is a significant amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus from sources outside the Bible that confirm the Biblical record. Included in these sources are the witness of historians, government officials, and Jewish and Gentile documents that are all dated within 150 years of the life of Christ. Their testimonies are valuable because they were actually hostile witnesses which had no incentive to falsify their account.

As a follow up post, I would like to take a look at what these sources actually have to say.

The Bibliography of the New Testament

In a previous post, we examined the reliability of the Old Testament by testing it bibliographically. We found that despite the small amount of extant manuscripts, the few Massoretic texts that we do have are of outstanding integrity. This is proven by comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the oldest Massoretic manuscript by about 1000 years. The reliability of the Old Testament, therefore, is proven bibliographically.

By contrast, the reliability of the New Testament is not only proven by the integrity of extant copies, but it is confirmed even further by an overwhelming number of manuscripts that we have today. It has been said that on the basis of manuscript evidence alone, the documents that make up the New Testament are the most frequently copied and widely distributed books of antiquity.

We will put the New Testament to the same bibliographical test by examining the number of extant manuscripts in comparison to other works of antiquity and by examining the accuracy within those manuscripts. We will also mention the support that is provided by the variety of translations and the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Bibliography of the Old Testament

Christianity is the religious faith of the Bible. The foundation for our entire belief system is found in the Scriptures. If any idea or practice is incompatible with the Bible, then it is incompatible with the Christian faith. So, naturally the Bible is the target for much of the scrutiny of skeptics and non-Christian opponents.

Historically, most of the charges brought against the Bible have to do with its reliability. However, there are literary tests which are commonly used to determine the reliability of literary works that can be held against the Bible to determine whether it is reliable or not. One of those tests deals with the bibliography of the piece.

The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission or the process by which documents reach us. This test is necessary when original documents are not available, as is the case with the Bible. Because we do not have the original documents of the Bible (commonly called autographs), we must determine how reliable the copies (commonly called manuscripts, or written as MSS) are. We can test the reliability of the text itself by examining #1 – the number of manuscripts and #2 – the time interval between the original and existing copies (referred to as extant) and #3 – the accuracy of the manuscripts.

When the Bible is tested bibliographically, it does more than pass. Simply put, it aces the tests.

Archaeology and the Bible

Some of the most prevalent criticisms leveled against the Bible are concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a supposed lack of evidence from non-biblical sources to confirm the Biblical record. Because the Bible is filled with supernatural claims and is inherently a religious book, many take the position that its record cannot be trusted as historical fact. Some stop there and say that the Bible is still a good book of moral lessons despite historical inaccuracy. Others go further and claim that it cannot be a standard of morality because of its historical errors. Either way, their claims spring from a “guilty until proven innocent” charge based on a lack of outside evidence. Nevertheless, the Bible’s “innocence”, and more specifically its reliability, has been evidenced time and again, particularly in the field of archaeology.