Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
Dive into an exploration of biblical accuracy as we delve into the intersection of archaeology and religious scripture. Learn how archaeological findings support, rather than refute, the authenticity of the Bible.
Does Archaeology Undermine Biblical Credibility?
Why does archaeology garner significant attention in the modern world? Its primary allure lies in its capacity to unlock the mysteries of human antiquity. A case in point is the elucidation of the geographic and historical aspects of the Biblical lands and their inhabitants through archaeological studies. Despite its aspiration for scientific precision, the discipline grapples with one inescapable element—the human bias. Every archaeologist comes to the field with a set of personal beliefs, be they atheistic, agnostic, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. This prompts a crucial question: to what degree do these pre-existing convictions shape their interpretations, and could this potentially impede the attainment of accurate results?
In essence, archaeological research functions akin to a detective undertaking. It involves unearthing indirect evidence—artifacts and remains, including pottery, fragments, ruins, debris of bygone civilizations, and skeletons. Following this, deductive reasoning ensues: What might the original object from which the fragment originated look like? Which historical period can be deduced from its shape, color, and composition? What could have been its function? Where might it have originated—from the excavation site or elsewhere? Did it originate from the soil layer in which it was discovered, or could it have descended into a lower stratum over time due to local conditions? These variables, among others, can sway interpretation. Thus, conclusions drawn are contingent on a blend of direct evidence, inference, and personal interpretation.
Yohanan Aharoni, a noted Hebrew archaeologist, aptly commented, “When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgments and hypotheses [tentative assumptions] to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture.”
But what stumbling blocks might one encounter when analyzing the discoveries from excavations? Professor Aharoni elucidates, “The excavator must distinguish carefully between the various strata of his tell [a mound covering the ancient ruins of a city]… This is usually not an easy task, because the actual levels in a particular tell are not uniformly laid one above the other… Usually inscriptions only furnish a terminus a quo [starting point] for their own stratum because the possibility always exists that the inscribed objects saw a long period of use, or even re-use, after being discarded by the original owners… Comparison with other countries is also sometimes dangerous, for one may fall into a vicious circle where the objects in the other culture may have been dated by their relationship to the Palestinian, without sufficient regard for the circumstances of discovery and the relative chronologies involved. It goes without saying that historical considerations are especially risky, since they always involve certain presuppositions and subjective attitudes. We must always remember, therefore, that not all dates are absolute and are in varying degrees suspect.”
How Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea?
Unraveling the Israelites’ Red Sea Crossing: An Archaeological Enigma
In today’s context, it is essential to heed warnings as numerous archaeologists disseminate their discordant findings, theories, and chronologies. One significant example is the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. According to the Biblical narrative, the Israelites were hotly pursued by Egyptian charioteers and cavalry as they approached the Red Sea. One might wonder how they could escape with the sea acting as an insurmountable barrier. The Bible provides an answer:
“Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and Jehovah moved the sea [how?] with a strong east wind all night, and he made the sea become dry ground, and the waters were divided. And the sons of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.”—Exodus 14:21, 22 (UASV).
The explicitness of this narrative is noteworthy. It describes not just a powerful wind, but a “strong east wind.” The waters were sundered, transforming the seabed into dry land. This meticulous detailing suggests a first-hand account, as also reflected in the poetic rendition of the event in the Song of Moses, detailed in Exodus chapter 15. When Pharaoh’s chariots and soldiers attempted to traverse the same passage in pursuit of the Israelites, “the floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone.”—Exodus 15:5 (UASV).
The mechanism by which the waters were parted is further affirmed in the Song of Moses: “At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.”—Exodus 15:8.
Scholars’ Interpretations: Diverse Takes on the Red Sea Crossing
A multitude of scholars have proposed varying theories to demystify this miraculous event. These theories do not necessarily dispute the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea, but instead, they tend to de-emphasize the aspect of divine intervention. For instance, the Hebrew phrase for Red Sea is ‘be yam suph’ (בְיַם־סוּף), translating to ‘Sea of Reeds.’ This has led some scholars to postulate that the Israelites merely traversed a marshy area. However, this theory doesn’t align with the biblical description of walls of water on either side of the crossing path. Furthermore, marsh waters certainly wouldn’t have been sufficient to submerge Egypt’s chariots and cavalry, as described in Exodus 14:28.
Another theory was put forth by Hans Goedicke, an Egyptologist. He hypothesizes that a massive volcanic eruption on the island of Thera, approximately 500 miles (800 km) northwest of the speculated Israelite crossing point, occurred in 1477 B.C.E. This cataclysmic event would have triggered a tsunami, potentially inundating the southeast Mediterranean and reaching the edge of the desert plateau at the Nile delta. This could have, theoretically, drowned the Egyptians situated on lower ground while the Israelites, presumably on higher ground, remained unharmed.
Evidently, this theory glosses over the explicit details provided in the biblical narrative. But what do other academics make of Dr. Goedicke’s hypothesis? Charles Krahmalkov of the University of Michigan dismissed this theory, partially due to the lack of any biblical indication of a giant wave. He offered a novel interpretation, suggesting the Israelites sailed across the sea, and the Egyptians, who pursued them, were drowned when gale-force winds capsized their boats. He conceded, “Needless to say, the reconstruction is pure conjecture. But it is far better grounded in the Biblical text than is Professor Goedicke’s version.” This statement, however, clearly reflects personal bias.
A third academic, Eliezer D. Oren from the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, emphatically countered the tsunami theory, proposing a more plausible alternative, in his view. However, he made a notable admission, stating, “We ought not to forget that [it] . . . can in no way be substantiated by archaeological evidence. Personally, I strongly believe that the Miracle of the Sea—a masterpiece of literary composition —has very little to do with history or . . . ‘factual experience.'”
Here are some archaeologists of the last 42 years (1980-2022) and what they have had to say about the question of how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea:
- David Rohl: Rohl is an Egyptologist who has proposed that the Exodus story took place in the 15th century BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah. He believes that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a shallow point that was later covered by rising tides.
“The Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a shallow point, which was later covered by rising tides. This would explain why the Egyptians were unable to pursue them.”
(David Rohl, “The Exodus: Myth or History?”)
- Donald Redford: Redford is an Egyptologist who has argued that the Exodus story is a myth. He believes that the Israelites were never in Egypt, and that the story of the Red Sea crossing is based on a natural phenomenon, such as a storm or a tidal wave.
“The Exodus story is a myth. There is no historical evidence to support the claim that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, and the story of the Red Sea crossing is based on a natural phenomenon.”
(Donald Redford, “Egypt, Canaan, and the Rise of Israel”)
- James K. Hoffmeier: Hoffmeier is an Egyptologist who believes that the Exodus story is based on historical events. He believes that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a shallow point that was created by a windstorm.
“The Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a shallow point that was created by a windstorm. This would explain why the Egyptians were unable to pursue them.”
(James K. Hoffmeier, “Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Exodus”)
- William G. Dever: Dever is an archaeologist who has argued that the Exodus story is based on historical events, but that it has been exaggerated over time. He believes that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a natural ford that was located near the Gulf of Suez.
“The Exodus story is based on historical events, but it has been exaggerated over time. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a natural ford that was located near the Gulf of Suez.”
(William G. Dever, “Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?”)
These are just a few of the many archaeologists who have weighed in on the question of how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. There is no definitive answer to this question for these archaeologists and many others, and the evidence is still being debated. However, these archaeologists’ work has helped create doubt in the minds of many Christians.
Who Is Right?
Determining the Truth: An Examination of Diverging Perspectives
Dr. Oren’s comments bring us to the pivotal question at hand. Should Christians view significant portions of the Bible as merely ‘literary masterpieces’ devoid of any correlation to “factual experience”? Or can they consider the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God? Should we be influenced by the disparate theories of archaeologists and scholars? Or should we put our trust in the testament of the Bible authors and Jesus Christ himself?
The apostle Paul wrote to his Christian colleague Timothy: “From childhood, you have been familiar with the Holy Scriptures, which can enlighten you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching, reprimanding, correcting, and instilling righteousness.” Earlier, he stated to the followers in Rome, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? Absolutely not! Let God be truthful, even if every man is proven a liar.” —2 Timothy 3:15-16; Romans 3:3-4.
Why then do staunch conservative Christians perceive the Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God? Is their faith contingent on archaeological discoveries? In essence, the evidence for divine inspiration resides within the Bible itself, independent of archaeology. Accurately chronicling history is one thing; preemptively delineating historical events—that is, prophecy—is another. The Bible comprises hundreds of prophecies fulfilled, bearing testament to its divine origins. For instance, it is posited that 332 distinct prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled solely in Jesus Christ.
Another potent argument for the Bible’s authenticity is that its testimony relies on accounts provided by direct eyewitnesses of the events, often including the author. This is true for the Exodus narrative written by Moses. Do we have any reason to question his integrity as a witness? Absolutely not, especially when we recognize his divine inspiration to write (2 Timothy 3:16). His forthright self-criticism further attests to his credibility. He doesn’t conceal the fact that he murdered an Egyptian in defense of a fellow Israelite. He also doesn’t downplay his pride and the subsequent retribution when he summoned water from the rock (Exodus 2:11, 12; Numbers 20:9-13; consider David’s situation in 2 Samuel 11; Psalm 51). For a more in-depth analysis, refer to ARCHAEOLOGY & THE OLD TESTAMENT and ARCHAEOLOGY & THE NEW TESTAMENT, authored by Edward D. Andrews and published by the Christian Publishing House in 2023.
Should Theories Shake Your Faith?
Christians derive inspiration from the affirmative evidence unearthed by meticulous and adept archaeologists, which frequently substantiates and elucidates the content of the Bible. Material facts and artifacts can offer insights into lifestyles of antiquity. Inscriptions can provide invaluable information. Given the rarity of self-deprecating autobiographies, inscriptions necessitate judicious analysis.
However, when experts commence interpreting, conjecturing, and theorizing about the implications of an archaeological discovery or the chronology of an artifact, a prudent Christian will proceed with caution. Jehovah inspired devout men to document his Word, not to beguile us with literary flights of fancy. Yohanan Aharoni was accurate in his assertion: “Numerous passages [of the Bible] are deemed by various scholars to be purely utopian or literary creations devoid of any political, geographical, or pragmatic foundation whatsoever. We challenge the validity of this perspective; it seems that most geographical texts originate from real-life scenarios, and it is merely our flawed understanding and inadequate information that impedes us from determining their historical content.”
Contemporary Biblical archaeology seems to be split into two vaguely defined factions. One comprises devout and patriotic researchers who seek evidence to validate the biblical account and their respective national or ethnic assertions. Contrarily, the other faction includes those who, in the words of Professor J. E. Barrett, are inclined “to debunk the piety, patriotism, or conventional wisdom of (typically older) peers.” This archaeology professor further observes, “There is an odd form of self-righteousness (not to mention a sadistic delight) among those who assure us they are not pious. The student of modern archaeology should be conscious of these professional, internal games of one-upmanship.”
It is important to remember that archaeologists, being human, are susceptible to all the flaws inherent in imperfect human nature. Ambition, yearning for recognition, competitiveness, subjective engagement—all these can influence an expert’s view or interpretation.
To exemplify, a well-known 19th-century archaeologist grossly exaggerated the significance of ancient jewelry he unearthed at Troy and golden masks discovered at Mycenae. Commenting on this exaggeration, a modern archaeology professor noted, “These instances underscore the impact that a romantic fascination with the ancient world can have on an archaeologist’s judgment—the temptation to equate what we discover with what we desire to find. Perhaps this problem is heightened for the Biblical archaeologist, whose devoutness and patriotism frequently stimulate and rejuvenate the romantic interest that initially compelled them to pursue archaeology.” The same issue can also afflict agnostic or atheistic archaeologists, irrespective of their sincerity.
Should Christian faith waver, then, due to the theories proposed by numerous scholars and archaeologists? Bear in mind, these are merely theories and human opinions, prone to change and the unpredictability of time and academia. The human factor, inclusive of its vanity and ambition, is conspicuously evident. What Professor Barrett wrote in Biblical Archaeology Review (January/February 1981) remains somewhat valid today: “Piety, patriotism, ideology, training, and their counter expressions, sway the archaeologist’s judgment, just as they do the historian’s. In unguarded moments, every professional archaeologist acknowledges this—the most astute scholars recognize it in themselves; others only acknowledge it in their peers.”
The statement that biblical archaeology is divided into two camps is still somewhat true today, but the camps are not as clearly defined as they once were. There are still some archaeologists who are motivated by a desire to support the Bible record, but there are also many who are more interested in finding the truth, regardless of whether it supports the Bible or not.
The “debunking” camp is also less self-righteous than it once was. In the past, some archaeologists were eager to point out any flaws in the Bible, even if those flaws were minor. Today, most archaeologists are more respectful of the Bible, even if they don’t believe it is literally true.
Overall, biblical archaeology is a more nuanced field today than it was in the past. There is still a range of views on the Bible, but there is also a greater willingness to find common ground and to work together to find the truth.
Here are some additional thoughts on the statement:
- The two camps are not mutually exclusive. There are some archaeologists who fall into both camps, depending on the specific issue being studied.
- The camps are not static. The views of individual archaeologists can change over time, and the field of biblical archaeology as a whole is constantly evolving.
- The statement is based on the views of a single archaeologist, J.E. Barrett. It is important to remember that Barrett’s views are not necessarily shared by all archaeologists.
Ultimately, whether or not the statement is still true today is a matter of opinion. However, it is clear that the field of biblical archaeology has become more nuanced and more respectful of the Bible in recent years.
Therefore, a rational Christian will not demand absolute proof from archaeology for everything stated in the Bible, particularly in this imperfect era. Regardless, he is certain that a time will soon arrive when it will be feasible to perfectly scrutinize many of the individuals and events mentioned in the Bible. How so? “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” (John 5:28-29). Yes, in the resurrection, we will have the opportunity to question those who actually experienced biblical history. Imagine the fascination of hearing them elaborate on the details of numerous accounts that intrigue us today! It will no longer be about resorting to human theories and speculation for these details. The actual eyewitnesses of these events will present the facts!
The Intersection of Archaeology and the Bible
For students of the Bible, archaeology plays a supportive role, supplementing their understanding of life, customs, conditions, and languages in the eras of the Bible. Archaeology also furnishes useful information concerning the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, such as those foreseeing the downfall of ancient cities like Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre. (Jeremiah 51:37; Ezekiel 26:4, 12; Zephaniah 2:13-15) However, it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of this science. Artifacts need interpretation, and such interpretations are susceptible to human error and subsequent adjustment.
The foundation of the Christian faith doesn’t rest on fragmented pottery, decaying bricks, or dilapidated walls but on the comprehensive, congruous compendium of spiritual truth manifested in the Bible. (2 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 11:1) Indeed, the internal coherence, honesty, fulfilled prophecies, and myriad other features of the Bible provide compelling evidence that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) That being said, there are numerous fascinating archaeological discoveries that corroborate biblical narratives.
In 1970, an archaeological team conducting an excavation in Jerusalem stumbled upon a burnt ruin. “The scenario was unmistakable to any trained eye,” commented Nahman Avigad, the team leader. “The structure had been devastated by fire, leading to the collapse of its walls and ceiling.” Among the ruins, the skeletal remains of an arm were discovered, its fingers outstretched, seemingly reaching for a step.
Scattered across the floor were coins, the most recent dating back to the fourth year of the Jewish revolt against Rome—69 C.E. Various objects had been dispersed before the building’s collapse. Avigad remarked, “Observing this, we were reminded of Josephus’s depiction of Roman soldiers pillaging the residences after the city’s conquest.” The Roman destruction of Jerusalem is historically dated to 70 C.E.
The skeletal remains were analyzed and determined to belong to a woman in her twenties. As described by Biblical Archaeology Review, “Trapped in the fire when the Romans launched their assault, a young woman in the kitchen of the Burnt House fell to the floor and was reaching for a step near the doorway when she perished. The fire spread so swiftly that she couldn’t escape and was entombed by falling debris.”
This tragic scene harks back to Jesus’ prophecy about Jerusalem, voiced almost four decades prior: “Your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another.”—Luke 19:43, 44.
Archaeological discoveries that corroborate biblical statements also encompass the names of individuals referenced in the Scriptures. Several of these findings dispelled earlier assertions by skeptics that the authors of the Bible had either invented certain characters or overstated their prominence.
Epigraphic Evidence of Biblical Figures
In the past, notable academics asserted that the Assyrian King Sargon II, who is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1 of the Bible, was a fictional character. However, in 1843, Sargon’s palace was discovered near contemporary Khorsabad, Iraq, along a tributary of the Tigris River. The palace spans approximately 25 acres (10 hectares). Once obscure in secular history, Sargon II has since become one of the most recognized kings of Assyria. One of his chronicles claims his victory over the Israelite city of Samaria, which, according to biblical accounts, fell to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. Additionally, Sargon’s account of capturing Ashdod provides further validation to Isaiah 20:1.
While excavating the ruins of ancient Babylon, currently in Iraq, archaeologists discovered about 300 cuneiform tablets near the Ishtar Gate. These inscriptions, dating back to the reign of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, include a list of names. Among them is “Yaukin, king of the land of Yahud,” a reference to King Jehoiachin of Judah. Jehoiachin was taken captive to Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar’s initial conquest of Jerusalem in 596 B.C.E. (2 Kings 24:11-15). The tablets also mention five of Jehoiachin’s sons, as noted in 1 Chronicles 3:17, 18.
The archaeology piece we are referring to is called the Sargon II prism. It is a clay prism that was discovered in 1843 during an archaeological dig in Khorsabad, Iraq. The prism is inscribed with a record of the military campaigns of the Assyrian king Sargon II.
The Sargon II prism is significant because it provides independent confirmation of the biblical account of the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians. The prism records that Sargon II captured Samaria in 722 BCE, which is the same year that the Bible says Samaria fell to the Assyrians.
The Sargon II prism is also significant because it provides insights into the Assyrian military and their methods of warfare. The prism describes how the Assyrians besieged Samaria and how they eventually captured the city. The prism also describes how the Assyrians deported the people of Samaria and resettled them in other parts of the Assyrian empire.
The discovery of the Sargon II prism is a significant archaeological find. It provides valuable insights into the history of the ancient Israelites and the Assyrian empire. It is also a reminder that the Bible is not just a religious text but also a historical document that can be corroborated by archaeological evidence.
The cuneiform tablets we mentioned were also found in Babylon, and they provide further confirmation of the biblical account of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The tablets mention King Jehoiachin of Judah, who was taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 596 BCE. The tablets also mention five of Jehoiachin’s sons, who were also taken captive to Babylon.
The discovery of these tablets is a significant archaeological find. They provide valuable insights into the history of the ancient Israelites and the Babylonian empire. They are also a reminder that the Bible is not just a religious text, but also a historical document that can be corroborated by archaeological evidence.
In 2005, during an archaeological dig aiming to locate King David’s palace, a significant stone structure was unearthed. It is believed this was destroyed when the Babylonians demolished Jerusalem approximately 2,600 years ago, during the era of Jeremiah, God’s prophet. While the attribution of the ruins to David’s palace remains uncertain, archaeologist Eilat Mazar identified an intriguing artifact: a 0.4-inch-wide (1 cm) clay seal impression inscribed with “Belonging to Yehuchal son of Shelemiyahu son of Shovi.” This impression seems to be stamped by the seal of Yehuchal (also known as Jehucal or Jucal), a Jewish official mentioned in the Bible as opposing Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1-6).
According to Mazar, Jehucal is only the “second royal minister,” following Gemariah, son of Shaphan, whose name appears on a seal impression discovered in the City of David. The Bible identifies Jehucal, son of Shelemiah (Shelemiyahu), as a prince of Judah. Prior to the discovery of the seal, he was unknown outside of biblical texts.
The archaeology piece we are referring to is called the Jehucal seal. It is a small clay seal impression that was discovered in 2005 during an archaeological dig in Jerusalem. The seal impression is inscribed with the name “Belonging to Yehuchal son of Shelemiyahu son of Shovi.”
The Jehucal seal is significant because it is the first physical evidence of a person mentioned in the Bible. Yehuchal is a Jewish official who is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah as opposing the prophet. The seal impression provides evidence that Yehucal was a real person who held a position of authority in Judah.
The Jehucal seal is also significant because it provides insights into the material culture of ancient Judah. The seal is made of clay, which was a common material for seals in the ancient Near East. The inscription on the seal is written in the Paleo-Hebrew script, which was the script used in Judah during the 7th century BCE.
The discovery of the Jehucal seal is a significant archaeological find. It provides valuable insights into the history of ancient Judah and the people who lived there. It is also a reminder that the Bible is not just a religious text but also a historical document that can be corroborated by archaeological evidence.
A Literate Ancient Israel?
The Bible suggests that the ancient Israelites were literate (Numbers 5:23; Joshua 24:26; Isaiah 10:19), a claim that critics have disputed, contending that biblical history was primarily conveyed through unreliable oral tradition. However, in 2005, this argument was challenged when archaeologists working at Tel Zayit, located midway between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean, uncovered an archaic alphabet etched into a piece of limestone, possibly the oldest Hebrew alphabet ever found.
Dated to the tenth century B.C.E., some scholars argue that this discovery points to “formal scribal training,” a “sophisticated level of culture,” and a “rapidly developing Israelite bureaucracy in Jerusalem.” Therefore, contrary to critics’ assertions, it appears that the Israelites were indeed literate by at least the tenth century B.C.E., and thus capable of documenting their history.
The archaeology piece we are referring to is called the Zayit abecedary. It is a small limestone tablet that was discovered at Tel Zayit, a site located in the Judean Shephelah, about halfway between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea. The tablet dates to the 10th century BCE, making it one of the oldest known examples of the Hebrew alphabet.
The Zayit abecedary is a rectangular tablet that measures about 2.5 inches by 1.5 inches. It is inscribed with 22 letters, which are arranged in two columns. The letters are written in a Proto-Canaanite script, which is the ancestor of the Hebrew alphabet.
The discovery of the Zayit abecedary has challenged the traditional view that the Hebrew alphabet was developed in the 8th century BCE. The tablet suggests that the Hebrew alphabet may have been in use as early as the 10th century BCE. This would mean that the Hebrew alphabet was developed about 200 years earlier than previously thought.
The Zayit abecedary is a significant archaeological find. It provides valuable insights into the development of the Hebrew alphabet and the early history of the Hebrew language. It is also a reminder that there is still much that we do not know about the ancient Israelites.
Corroboration from Assyrian Chronicles
The ancient Assyrian Empire, once a global superpower, is frequently mentioned in the biblical narrative, and numerous archaeological discoveries in this region corroborate the accuracy of these biblical references. For instance, an excavation at the site of ancient Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, revealed a sculpted slab in King Sennacherib’s palace, illustrating Assyrian soldiers driving Jewish captives into exile following the fall of Lachish in 722 B.C.E. This image aligns with the biblical account found in 2 Kings 18:13-15.
Moreover, the annals of Sennacherib recovered from Nineveh, describe his military exploits during the reign of Judean King Hezekiah, whom the annals explicitly name. Cuneiform records of various other monarchs make reference to Judean Kings Ahaz and Manasseh, as well as Israelite Kings Omri, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, and Hoshea.
Intriguingly, while Sennacherib’s accounts brag about his military victories, they conspicuously neglect to mention the conquest of Jerusalem. This omission bolsters the biblical narrative, which asserts that Sennacherib never besieged Jerusalem but instead suffered a defeat inflicted by God. Subsequently, an abashed Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, where, as per the Bible, he was murdered by his own sons (Isaiah 37:33-38). Two Assyrian inscriptions corroborate this assassination.
Furthermore, due to the wickedness of Nineveh’s inhabitants, the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah prophesied the city’s total destruction (Nahum 1:1; 2:8–3:19; Zephaniah 2:13-15). This prophecy was fulfilled when Nabopolassar, the King of Babylon, and Cyaxares the Mede jointly besieged and seized Nineveh in the mid-7th century B.C.E. The unearthing and excavation of Nineveh’s ruins once again validated biblical accounts.
In a different vein, Nuzi, an ancient city located east of the Tigris River and southeast of Nineveh, unearthed many artifacts during excavations conducted between 1925 and 1931, including approximately 20,000 clay tablets. Written in Babylonian, these documents provide a plethora of information regarding legal customs analogous to those of the patriarchal era depicted in Genesis. For instance, texts reveal that family gods, often represented by small clay figurines, were essentially deeds, conferring inheritance rights to their possessor. This practice may elucidate why Rachel, Jacob’s wife, stole her father Laban’s family gods, or “teraphim,” when Jacob’s family relocated. Consequently, it is unsurprising that Laban attempted to retrieve the teraphim (Genesis 31:14-16, 19, 25-35).
Isaiah’s Prophecy and the Cyrus Cylinder
The ancient clay cylinder depicted here, known as the Cyrus Cylinder, presents a cuneiform inscription that verifies yet another account from the Bible. This artifact was unearthed at the site of ancient Sippar, near the Euphrates River and approximately 20 miles from modern-day Baghdad. The inscription recounts the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire. Astoundingly, nearly 200 years prior to these events, the prophet Isaiah, under divine guidance from Jehovah, spoke of a Medo-Persian ruler named Cyrus, saying: “‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose’, and say of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.'” (Isaiah 13:1, 17-19; 44:26–45:3).
Notably, the Cyrus Cylinder makes reference to Cyrus’s distinct policy—differing greatly from those of other ancient conquerors—of allowing captives held by the former ruling power, to return to their homelands. Both biblical and secular historical records affirm that Cyrus did indeed liberate the Jewish captives, enabling them to rebuild Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:1-4).
Although the discipline of Biblical archaeology is relatively nascent, it has already evolved into a significant field of study, providing a wealth of invaluable information. As we’ve explored through numerous articles on this blog, myriad discoveries have attested to the authenticity and precision of the Bible, often down to the minutest detail.