God is in the Details
by Amy Beange
If someone tries to sell you a flying carpet, at the very least you should insist on seeing it fly before getting out your wallet. And if it flies you should check for wires. Verification is always advisable, whether purchasing a flying carpet or “fresh” fish, but it is especially important when trusting what a book says about eternal life. When you are deciding about forever, you do not want bad advice.
Since the Bible contains unfulfilled prophecy it can never be categorically proven true. But we can test what the Bible says about the ancient past, and it matters that the Bible has never failed such tests. Why is that important? Because the Old Testament is critical for a Christian worldview. It alone provides the foundation of God’s work in the world and then reveals the development of that work through history. Without the Old Testament the New Testament would have nothing upon which to build.
The Old Testament bears witness to the glory, power, wisdom, love, mercy, wrath, and judgment of God, from the original good creation marred by sin, through the calling of Abraham and the founding of the nation of Israel, to the revelation of true righteousness in the books of law, and the promises surrounding his plan to send his son to be the Saviour of the world. Thus, to read the books that make up the first major section of the Bible is to see God’s nature and character, and to understand his intimate relationship with the image bearers he created. And since the Bible speaks so profoundly and dogmatically about such matters, its’ truthfulness is particularly important.
“The Old Testament finds itself with a target on its back because if its witness to history can be debunked, then so can its god.”
Is it any wonder then, that the Old Testament is so criticized, maligned, misinterpreted, attacked, dismissed and ridiculed? If it were simply a book of moral teachings or philosophy, no one would care. Such things can be discussed and debated and either accepted or rejected according to taste. But the Old Testament is not simply a series of ruminations on the meaning of life. It is mainly a story, anchored in history, about God. It tells us who he is by showing us what he has done. Such things are not easily dismissed because if history bears the marks of God, we had best pay attention.
Actions leave evidence. A god who stands aloof from human affairs can be dismissed because he is irrelevant. Who cares if such a god exists? For even if he does, he is not present and does not care. But a God who does care and who has acted and interacted with humanity will leave traces in the dust, traces that can be discovered. The hound of the Baskervilles is only legend until someone’s throat gets torn and then we have something with which to deal.
The Old Testament finds itself with a target on its back because if its witness to history can be debunked, then so can its god. A book that says God established a people in such and such a time and place can readily be dismissed if all the evidence says, “no, actually a different people with different names and customs lived there during that time.” Who cares about a book that cannot get its facts straight or about the god who supposedly inspired it?
But if a book does get basic historical facts right, if the accounts contained therein fit with known timelines and discoverable places, we may lack ironclad proof that the whole thing is true, but we can be assured that it is not a mere fabrication, conjured to justify existing people groups and religious notions, as some argue is the case with the Old Testament.
Here is just a bit of the evidence that demonstrates Old Testament historical reliability. (1) It places the right names of foreign rulers in the correct time periods and in the correct sequence. Imagine yourself discovering a 200-year-old document that mentioned Columbus living in the 1200’s AD or that said Queen Elizabeth I reigned before Julius Caesar. You would know right away you were not dealing with a document of substance. Such details may not be exciting, but they are critical for testing veracity. (2) It gives names and events that have been verified by archaeological evidence. When we have a name in the Bible and then we dig up an inscription that mentions that name, we know we are onto something.
So, to expand the first point—ruler names appearing at the right time, in the right place and in the right sequence. The Biblical books of 1 & 2 Kings presents Abraham’s descendants living at a crossroads between empires with whom they had official dealings. No doubt there are people reading this blog who have encountered the mundane lists of names and details of the reigns of Israel and Judah’s kings within the Bible’s pages and have likely been tempted to skip over such things, but this is where we find some informational gems!
For example, 1 Kings 11:40 tells us that Shishak ruled Egypt at the time of Solomon and 14:25 tells us “It happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam [son of Solomon] that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem.” The biblical Shishak has been identified with Shoshenq I of the 22nd dynasty of Egypt, whose name is found on a monument erected in the northern Israelite town of Megiddo and who inscribed a list of cities he conquered on the walls of a temple at Karnak in Egypt. Shoshenq I’s list included the Israelite cities of Beth-Shean, Rehob, and Gibeon, all mentioned in the Biblical account.
“These rulers are also known to us from non-biblical sources, which means the names, time period and order of reign as recorded in 2 Kings is verified.”
Throughout Israel’s history, most of its troubles came from the west. 2 Kings 15-16 tells us of Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria, who came from the west and waged war against Pekah, King of Israel. Tiglath-Pileser III was followed by Shalmaneser V who defeated the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 18), then Sennacherib came against the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 18-19), followed by Esarhaddon (2 Kings 19), Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24) and Evil-Merodach (2 Kings 25). The book of Kings also refers benignly to Esarhaddon (2 Kings 19), simply saying he succeeded Sennacherib, and to Merodach-Baladan II (2 Kings 20), who sent a delegation to Hezekiah King of Judah “for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick.” These rulers are also known to us from non-biblical sources, which means the names, time period and order of reign as recorded in 2 Kings is verified. As added confirmation, the records of Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V both mention the attacks on Israel and verify that Shalmaneser did in fact succeed Tiglath.
What about our second category, that of archaeological evidence? The OT is well-represented there. Ancient rulers were in the habit of erecting monuments, referred to as “stele” (STEE-lee), that had text, and sometimes images, describing their achievements, particularly military achievements. The Mesha Stele, discovered in 1868 in Jordan, has these words: “I am Mesha…king of Moab…Omri was king of Israel and he oppressed Moab for many days…his son succeeded him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab”. 2 Kings tells us “Now Mesha king of Moab…regularly paid the king of Israel [tribute]. But it happened, when Ahab died, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.” Ahab was the son of Omri, so the stele matches the biblical record.
Another important stele was discovered in 1993 at the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan in northern Israel. The inscription is damaged – it reads: “[…]ram, son of […] king of Israel and […] killed […]iah son of […] of the house of David.” We can pull valuable information even from something as worn as this. Two rulers are mentioned: a king of Israel and someone of the house of David. The house of David ruled the southern Kingdom of Judah, so the inscription probably refers to the ruler of Judah. In which case, we are dealing with two contemporary rulers, one for the northern kingdom – “[…]ram” and one for the southern – “[…]iah”. At what time were these kingdoms ruled at the same time by men with names ending like this? Second Kings 9:14-20 tells us of how Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, who ruled at the same time, were killed by Jehu, during the war between Israel and the king of Damascus, Hazael. The stele tells us that whoever erected it had been made king by “Hadad”, the patron deity of the kingdom of Aram, northwest of Israel, whose capital city was Damascus. Putting these details together, a reasonable interpretation is that the stele was erected by Hazael, king of Damascus, commemorating his (co-opted) defeat of Joram, King of Israel, and Ahaziah, King of Judah.
A third significant stele is the “Black Obelisk”, a two-metre-tall monument discovered in 1846 in northern Iraq which contains sets of carvings depicting people and events accompanied by cuneiform (ancient writing) descriptions for each set. The monument commemorates Shalmaneser III and depicts the bringing of tribute from conquered rulers. It reads - “I received the tribute of Jehu of the house of Omri.” Jehu assassinated Omri’s descendent Joram and ruled in his place but the Assyrian king evidently still counted him as part of the Omride dynasty.
In addition to these steles, we also have evidence in the form of seals used to mark the bits of clay that kept documents closed, as well as the bits of clay, called “bulla”, that were marked by seals. The “Shema seal”, was discovered in the 1904 in the town of Meggido and it reads “…to Shema, servant of Jeroboam”. This seal was dated by its writing to the 8th century BC, which is consistent with 2 Kings 14 which tells us of the reign of Jeroboam II. The “Ahaz bulla” reads, “Belonging to Ahaz son of Yehotam, King of Judah” (2 Kings 16:1) and the “Hezekiah bulla” reads, “Belonging to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, king of Judah” (2 Kings 18:1).
Another sort of archaeological evidence comes in the form of ancient city sites. People of times gone by tended to build and rebuild on the same site, making it possible to trace a particular city’s fortunes throughout its history, going progressively back in time the further down you dig. Hazor, a city in Israel, north of the Sea of Galilee, is such a place, having been inhabited for thousands of years. Going by what was excavated, its upper level (latest) was Greek which is consistent with the conquest of Alexander the Great. Going deeper in the site, and farther back in time, we find evidence of Persian culture, then Assyrian, then a level with not too much of anything, then a developed city that was totally destroyed by fire, then a level that was damaged by an earthquake, then a level with grand architectural remains. How does this stack up against the biblical record of Hazor? 2 Kings 15:29 tells us “Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria came and took…Hazor…and he carried them captive to Assyria.” The city that was destroyed by fire and subsequently inhabited by Assyrians corresponds to this description. Amos 1:1 tells us “The words of Amos...which he saw concerning Israel…in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake” which corresponds with the estimated magnitude 8.0 earthquake of 760 BC that rocked the area—Zechariah 14:5 also mentions it. Moreover, 1 Kings 9:15 reads, “And this is the reason for the labor force which King Solomon raised; to build…Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.” An imperial building project fits nicely with the grand architectural remains discovered at the site, below and thus earlier than the earthquake layer.
“The monument commemorates Shalmaneser III and depicts the bringing of tribute from conquered rulers. It reads - “I received the tribute of Jehu of the house of Omri.””
A final piece of evidence supporting the biblical narratives confirms Sennacherib’s attack on the Israelite city of Lachish. According to 2 Chronicles 32:9 “Sennacherib king of Assyria…laid siege against Lachish” and archaeological efforts have discovered the remains of a siege ramp at the site of this ancient city while the British Museum houses the relief (carving) Sennacherib commissioned to celebrate his exploits depicting Lachish being looted and its people being carried away captive (some being tortured), and which includes the inscription “Sennacherib, the mighty king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lachish. I give permission for its slaughter.”
From the foregoing, we can see that the Old Testament is well supported by archaeological evidence—the narrative is confirmed at many points whether in getting the names of contemporary rulers right, or in having at least some of its characters and events confirmed. Clearly the Old Testament is not a fabrication, but a carefully preserved document bearing witness from antiquity, a witness to which we should pay attention with at least the same courtesy we grant to other ancient writings that speak accurately about days gone by. Jesus and the apostles quoted many Old Testament books, regarding them as authoritative, and Jesus is purported to be the fulfillment of many of the prophecies found in them. If details of the Old Testament record can be independently corroborated, then we have solid grounds to consider that the details lacking such corroboration have a good chance of being accurate as well.