The discovery and study of ancient Near Eastern libraries have greatly enriched the historical setting in which the Old Testament was written, copied, preserved, and understood. Among these collections, the royal archives associated with Ashurbanipal at Nineveh stand as one of the most important documentary witnesses to the world of the seventh century B.C.E. These archives do not replace the biblical record, nor do they sit above it as a controlling authority. Rather, they illuminate the political, scribal, linguistic, and cultural environment in which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah lived under the shadow of Assyrian power. When examined carefully, they confirm that the Old Testament belongs to a real historical world of kings, treaties, scribes, conquest, tribute, exile, and written records.

The Old Testament itself repeatedly presents writing as a normal feature of covenant life, royal administration, prophetic proclamation, and historical preservation. Moses wrote down covenant material according to Exodus 24:4. Joshua wrote in the book of the law of God according to Joshua 24:26. Samuel explained the rights of kingship and wrote them in a book according to 1 Samuel 10:25. The prophets wrote messages intended for preservation and public reading, as seen in Jeremiah 36:2. The existence of major archives in Mesopotamia, including those at Nineveh, shows that the biblical world was not an oral world without documentary control. It was a world in which trained scribes copied, cataloged, stored, transmitted, and consulted written texts with care.

Ashurbanipal and the World of Assyrian Kingship

Assyria was one of the dominant imperial powers of the ancient Near East, and its pressure upon Israel and Judah forms a major part of Old Testament history. The Assyrian kings are not vague legendary figures in Scripture. They are named, dated, and placed within recognizable historical contexts. Tiglath-pileser III appears in relation to the northern kingdom in 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:7. Shalmaneser is associated with the siege of Samaria in 2 Kings 17:3-6. Sargon is named in Isaiah 20:1. Sennacherib is central to 2 Kings 18–19 and Isaiah 36–37. Esarhaddon appears in 2 Kings 19:37 and Ezra 4:2. Ashurbanipal belongs to this same Assyrian line and stood near the height of imperial Assyrian power.

Ashurbanipal reigned in the seventh century B.C.E., during a period when Judah had already experienced the devastating Assyrian campaigns of the previous generation. He was the son of Esarhaddon and the grandson of Sennacherib. His reign is important not only because of Assyria’s military reach but also because of his deliberate interest in collecting written texts. His royal archive at Nineveh contained thousands of cuneiform tablets, including administrative documents, lexical lists, omen texts, rituals, medical texts, royal inscriptions, literary works, and older Mesopotamian compositions. This library was not a modern public library. It was a royal scholarly archive designed to serve imperial authority, religious practice, intellectual prestige, and scribal continuity.

The Old Testament gives a clear theological interpretation of Assyrian power. Assyria was not merely an empire acting independently of Jehovah’s sovereign rule. Isaiah 10:5 describes Assyria as the rod of Jehovah’s anger, meaning that Jehovah used Assyria as an instrument of judgment, while also holding Assyria morally accountable for arrogance, violence, and self-exaltation. This is essential when comparing biblical history with Assyrian documents. Assyrian inscriptions magnify the king, celebrate conquest, and present imperial domination as divinely sanctioned by Assyrian gods. Scripture presents a higher and more accurate interpretation: Jehovah rules over nations, permits empires to rise for His judicial purposes, and then judges those same empires for pride and cruelty. Nahum 1:2-3, Nahum 2:8-13, and Nahum 3:1-7 demonstrate this clearly in relation to Nineveh.

Nineveh as a Center of Imperial Memory

Nineveh was not merely an Assyrian capital in a political sense. It was a center of imperial memory. Palaces, reliefs, inscriptions, administrative tablets, and scholarly collections all worked together to project royal power and preserve the king’s version of events. Assyrian kings wanted their victories remembered, their building projects recorded, their enemies humiliated, and their divine patrons honored. Their archives therefore preserve valuable historical data, but they also require careful interpretation. Royal propaganda is not neutral history. It contains real names, places, tribute lists, campaigns, and political relationships, while presenting them through the ideology of empire.

This point matters for Old Testament study because the biblical writers also used historical specificity, but their purpose differed sharply from Assyrian royal ideology. The historical books of the Old Testament do not merely preserve royal self-praise. They evaluate kings morally according to covenant standards. The reigns of Israelite and Judean kings are measured by faithfulness or unfaithfulness to Jehovah, not by territorial expansion, military strength, or monumental architecture. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 required Israel’s king to submit to the written law of Jehovah. The king was not above the text; he was under it. This differs fundamentally from Assyrian royal culture, where texts frequently supported the king’s sacral authority and imperial claims.

The archives of Nineveh therefore provide a powerful contrast. In Assyria, archives served the throne. In Israel, the covenant text judged the throne. This is why prophets could confront kings with divine authority. Nathan rebuked David in 2 Samuel 12:7-12. Elijah confronted Ahab in 1 Kings 21:17-24. Isaiah addressed Ahaz in Isaiah 7:3-9 and Hezekiah in Isaiah 39:5-7. Jeremiah confronted Judah’s final kings with the word of Jehovah in Jeremiah 22:1-30. The written and spoken word of Jehovah stood above political authority. Ancient libraries show that writing mattered throughout the Near East, but Scripture shows that revealed writing held a unique covenantal authority in Israel.

The Archive of Ashurbanipal and Scribal Culture

The archive of Ashurbanipal demonstrates the highly developed scribal culture of Mesopotamia. Cuneiform writing required years of training. Scribes learned signs, lexical lists, grammatical forms, traditional compositions, and specialized terminology. Their work included copying older tablets, preserving scholarly traditions, producing administrative documents, and maintaining royal records. The presence of duplicate texts and variant copies in Mesopotamian archives shows that ancient scribes operated within real textual traditions. They transmitted texts, compared copies, preserved older material, and occasionally updated or adapted compositions for new settings.

This helps modern readers understand that the Old Testament’s own references to scribes are historically natural. The Hebrew word often translated “scribe” refers to one who could write, count, record, or serve in an administrative and literary capacity. Scribes appear in royal and priestly contexts. Shebna the scribe is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:18. Shaphan the scribe plays a major role in the rediscovery and reading of the book of the law in 2 Kings 22:3-13. Baruch writes Jeremiah’s words on a scroll in Jeremiah 36:4. Ezra is described as a skilled scribe in the law of Moses in Ezra 7:6. These references do not reflect a fictional literary world. They fit the known scribal environment of the ancient Near East.

At the same time, Hebrew scribal transmission must not be collapsed into Mesopotamian scribal culture as though both served the same ends. Mesopotamian archives preserved a wide range of texts tied to divination, omen interpretation, ritual practice, royal ideology, and polytheistic religion. Israel’s scribal tradition was governed by covenant revelation. Deuteronomy 4:2 prohibited adding to or taking away from Jehovah’s commandments. Deuteronomy 12:32 repeated the same principle. Proverbs 30:5-6 warned against adding to God’s words. The biblical scribal ideal was not creative expansion but faithful preservation, public reading, teaching, and obedience.

The Old Testament and Written Records

The Old Testament repeatedly indicates that written documents were central to Israel’s life. Exodus 17:14 records Jehovah’s instruction to Moses to write a memorial in the book. Exodus 34:27 records Jehovah’s command to write the words of the covenant. Deuteronomy 31:9 states that Moses wrote the law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, and to the elders of Israel. Deuteronomy 31:24-26 further states that when Moses finished writing the words of the law in a book, he commanded the Levites to place it beside the ark of the covenant as a witness.

These passages are significant because they present textual preservation as built into Israel’s covenant structure from the beginning. The written law was not an afterthought. It was a covenant witness. It was to be read publicly, taught diligently, and preserved carefully. Deuteronomy 6:6-9 required the words of Jehovah to be kept on the heart, taught to children, and made part of daily life. Deuteronomy 31:10-13 required public reading of the law at the Feast of Booths so that men, women, children, and foreign residents could hear and learn to fear Jehovah. This public reading created communal awareness of the text and limited the possibility of hidden textual manipulation.

The existence of ancient archives strengthens the historical plausibility of such written preservation. If Mesopotamian kings could collect, copy, and store large bodies of traditional texts, there is no historical difficulty in recognizing that Israel preserved covenant documents, genealogies, royal records, prophetic writings, and temple-related materials. The issue is not whether ancient peoples could maintain written records. They clearly could. The more important question is what kind of texts they preserved and under what authority. Israel’s Scriptures were preserved as the word of Jehovah, not as royal propaganda or scholarly curiosity.

Assyrian Archives and Biblical Historical Corroboration

Assyrian texts often intersect with the world of the Old Testament. They confirm the broad historical setting of Assyrian expansion, the existence of named kings, the practice of tribute, the deportation of conquered peoples, and the imperial pressure experienced by Israel and Judah. The Assyrian policy of deportation is particularly important for 2 Kings 17:6, which records that the king of Assyria captured Samaria and carried Israel away into exile. This policy is also reflected in 2 Kings 17:24, where the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and settled them in the cities of Samaria.

The Old Testament’s account of Assyrian deportation is not a theological invention detached from history. It fits Assyrian imperial practice. The Assyrians used deportation to weaken conquered peoples, disrupt national identity, control rebellious regions, and repopulate territories with groups dependent on imperial administration. Scripture interprets Israel’s exile covenantally. According to 2 Kings 17:7-18, the northern kingdom fell because it sinned against Jehovah, walked in the customs of the nations, served idols, rejected Jehovah’s statutes, and refused prophetic correction. The historical mechanism was Assyrian conquest; the covenantal cause was Israel’s rebellion.

This dual perspective is vital. Archaeology and archives can describe imperial mechanisms, but Scripture reveals the moral and theological meaning of events. A tablet can record tribute. A relief can depict conquest. A royal inscription can boast of victory. But only inspired Scripture explains why Jehovah permitted judgment and what covenant violations brought it about. This distinction protects the interpreter from reducing the Old Testament to ordinary ancient historiography. The biblical text belongs to history, but it is also Spirit-inspired revelation, as stated in 2 Peter 1:21.

Ashurbanipal, Manasseh, and Judah Under Assyrian Pressure

Ashurbanipal’s era overlaps the reign of Manasseh of Judah, who reigned from 697 to 642 B.C.E. Manasseh’s long reign is described in 2 Kings 21:1-18 and 2 Chronicles 33:1-20. The biblical account presents Manasseh as a deeply unfaithful king who rebuilt high places, erected altars for Baal, made an Asherah, worshiped the host of heaven, built pagan altars in the house of Jehovah, practiced divination, and shed innocent blood. Second Kings 21:10-15 states that Jehovah spoke through His servants the prophets and announced judgment upon Jerusalem and Judah because of Manasseh’s sins.

Second Chronicles 33:10-13 adds that Jehovah spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they paid no attention; therefore Jehovah brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon. In distress, Manasseh humbled himself before Jehovah, and Jehovah restored him to Jerusalem. This passage is historically coherent within Assyrian imperial practice. Vassal kings who rebelled or became unreliable could be summoned, humiliated, bound, or restored under imperial oversight. The account is also covenantally coherent: discipline led to humbling, and humbling led to restoration.

The Assyrian setting sharpens the seriousness of Judah’s situation. Judah survived Sennacherib’s assault in Hezekiah’s day because Jehovah delivered Jerusalem, as recorded in 2 Kings 19:35-37 and Isaiah 37:36-38. Yet survival did not mean immunity from future discipline. Manasseh’s apostasy showed that Judah’s spiritual danger was not only external Assyrian aggression but internal covenant treachery. The empire outside the walls was formidable, but the greater issue was whether Judah would obey Jehovah’s revealed word. The archives of Ashurbanipal show the power and sophistication of Assyria; the biblical account shows that no empire, however powerful, could overturn Jehovah’s covenant judgments or promises.

Mesopotamian Literature and the Question of Borrowing

The library of Ashurbanipal preserved copies of older Mesopotamian literary works, including flood traditions and creation-related compositions. These texts have often been used by modern critics to argue that Genesis borrowed from Babylonian or Mesopotamian mythology. That claim goes beyond the evidence. Similarity does not prove dependence, and shared ancient memory does not establish literary borrowing. The proper question is not whether Genesis and Mesopotamian texts mention some similar subjects, such as creation, flood, human wickedness, divine judgment, or ancient kings. The proper question is which text preserves the true theological interpretation of early human history.

Genesis presents creation by the one true God, not by conflict among gods. Genesis 1:1 states that God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:26-27 presents mankind as made in God’s image. Genesis 6:5-7 explains the Flood as Jehovah’s judgment upon pervasive human wickedness. Genesis 6:9 identifies Noah as righteous and blameless among his contemporaries. Genesis 7:11 gives a precise chronological notice for the beginning of the Flood. Genesis 8:15-19 presents ordered deliverance from the ark. Genesis 9:8-17 records God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants. This is sober covenant history, not mythological polytheism.

The Mesopotamian flood traditions preserved in cuneiform reflect a distorted memory of the same ancient catastrophe rather than a source from which Genesis must have been copied. The biblical account is earlier in substance, morally coherent, monotheistic, covenantal, and free from the crude theological features of pagan mythology. The Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E., and post-Flood peoples carried memory of that judgment as they spread from the region of Babel. Genesis 10:8-12 places early imperial development in the Mesopotamian sphere, including Babel, Erech, Akkad, Calneh, and Nineveh. This explains why Mesopotamian cultures retained memories of primeval events while reshaping them within false religious systems.

The Tower of Babel and the Background of Mesopotamian Civilization

Genesis 11:1-9 is essential for understanding the cultural world behind later Mesopotamian archives. After the Flood, mankind disobeyed the divine mandate to fill the earth and instead gathered in Shinar to build a city and tower. Jehovah confused their language and scattered them. This account explains the origin of post-Flood linguistic division and the dispersal of peoples. It also provides the theological foundation for understanding Mesopotamian civilization as brilliant in organization and technical skill, yet rebellious in religious orientation when separated from obedience to Jehovah.

The great archives of Mesopotamia, including Ashurbanipal’s, therefore display both human capacity and human distortion. They show the ability to write, preserve, classify, and transmit. They also show the corruption of religion when mankind turns from Jehovah. The same scribal skill that could preserve lexical lists and historical records could also preserve omen texts, incantations, and ritual instructions rooted in false worship. The Old Testament consistently condemns divination, sorcery, and consultation of omens. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 forbids such practices because Israel was to be blameless before Jehovah. Isaiah 47:12-15 mocks Babylon’s reliance on spells, astrologers, and stargazers. The contrast is not between literate Assyria and primitive Israel; it is between pagan scholarship under false religion and covenant revelation under Jehovah.

This contrast also guards the reader from romanticizing ancient libraries. A library is not automatically a source of truth. It is a repository of texts, and texts must be judged by their origin, content, purpose, and relation to reality. Ashurbanipal’s archive is historically valuable, but it is not spiritually authoritative. The Old Testament is authoritative because it is inspired by God, transmitted through faithful scribal means, and preserved within the covenant community. Its authority does not rest on Assyrian confirmation, though Assyrian records often corroborate the historical setting in which biblical events occurred.

The Old Testament Text and the Stability of Transmission

The study of ancient libraries naturally leads to the question of textual transmission. If ancient scribes copied and recopied texts for centuries, how can one evaluate the preservation of the Old Testament? The answer begins with the Hebrew textual tradition. The Masoretic Text remains the proper textual base for the Old Testament because it represents the most carefully preserved Hebrew tradition. The Masoretes did not create a new Bible. They preserved, vocalized, annotated, and guarded a received Hebrew text with extraordinary discipline.

The great Masoretic codices are central here. Codex Leningradensis is the earliest complete manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible and stands behind standard critical editions. The Aleppo Codex is a premier witness to the Ben Asher tradition, though it is no longer complete. These codices reflect a tradition of controlled copying, marginal notation, vowel pointing, accentuation, and textual counting. Such features demonstrate a culture of preservation, not free rewriting.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide earlier Hebrew witnesses that confirm the antiquity and stability of much of the Masoretic tradition. They also show that variant textual traditions existed in the Second Temple period, including forms related to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet the existence of variants does not imply textual chaos. The evidence shows a strong stream of proto-Masoretic textual continuity alongside more limited variant forms. The task of Old Testament textual criticism is not to replace the Hebrew text with speculative reconstructions but to evaluate evidence carefully, giving proper priority to the preserved Hebrew tradition.

The Septuagint and Ancient Versions

The Septuagint is an important ancient version, especially where it reflects a Hebrew Vorlage different from the later Masoretic tradition or where it helps explain how Jewish translators understood the Hebrew text. However, it is a translation, not the Hebrew original. It must be weighed carefully and not treated as automatically superior because of its age. Translation involves interpretation, and the Septuagint varies in literalness from book to book. In some places it reflects a careful rendering of Hebrew; in others it paraphrases, expands, abbreviates, or reflects different translational techniques.

Other ancient witnesses, including the Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, Latin Vulgate, and Samaritan Pentateuch, also have value. Their value is greatest when they corroborate a reading already supported by strong Hebrew evidence or when they preserve a trace of an older Hebrew reading that explains the origin of later variants. Nevertheless, departures from the Masoretic Text require strong manuscript support. The burden of proof rests on the proposed departure, not on the received Hebrew text. This disciplined approach avoids both careless traditionalism and reckless conjecture.

Ancient libraries help explain why such care is necessary. Texts do not transmit themselves. Scribes copy them. Translators render them. Communities preserve them. Errors can occur, including omissions, dittography, harmonization, orthographic variation, and marginal intrusion. But trained scribal cultures also developed methods to prevent and correct such errors. The Old Testament textual tradition, especially in its Masoretic form, shows the marks of such disciplined preservation. This supports confidence in the recoverability and reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Archives, Prophecy, and the Fall of Assyria

The archives of Ashurbanipal also stand under the shadow of biblical prophecy. Assyria appeared invincible at the height of its power. Its armies had crushed nations, deported populations, and made kings tremble. Yet Jehovah had already announced judgment upon Assyria’s pride. Isaiah 10:12 states that when Jehovah finished His work on Mount Zion and Jerusalem, He would punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the glory of his haughty eyes. Nahum’s prophecy against Nineveh is even more direct. Nahum 3:5-7 declares that Jehovah was against Nineveh and that all who saw her would shrink back from her.

Nineveh fell in 612 B.C.E. to the Babylonians and Medes. The fall of Assyria did not occur because the empire lacked scribes, libraries, armies, wealth, or administrative genius. It fell because Jehovah judges nations. Human archives can preserve imperial memory, but they cannot preserve an empire from divine judgment. The ruins of Nineveh therefore preach a lesson consistent with Scripture: political power without submission to Jehovah ends in humiliation. Psalm 33:10-11 states that Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nothing, but His counsel stands forever.

The destruction of Nineveh also affects how one reads the archive of Ashurbanipal. The library survived not because Assyria endured, but because the city fell and its tablets were buried in ruins. The very catastrophe that ended Assyrian power helped preserve many of its written remains for later discovery. This is a striking historical irony. Ashurbanipal gathered texts to magnify royal prestige and preserve elite knowledge; the collapse of his empire turned those texts into witnesses of a vanished power. Scripture had already declared the true principle: “The name of the wicked will rot,” according to Proverbs 10:7, while the word of Jehovah endures.

The Difference Between Preservation and Inspiration

Ancient archives clarify another important distinction: preservation is not the same as inspiration. Many ancient texts were preserved. That does not make them inspired. Cuneiform tablets, royal inscriptions, omen texts, myths, treaties, letters, and administrative records can be historically useful without being divinely authoritative. The Old Testament is different in origin and function. Its writers spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, according to 2 Peter 1:21. Its message reveals Jehovah’s acts, covenant, law, judgments, promises, and purpose.

This distinction prevents two errors. The first error is to dismiss nonbiblical texts as useless because they are not inspired. That is unnecessary. Assyrian records can illuminate chronology, geography, political relationships, language, and cultural practices. The second error is to elevate nonbiblical texts as though they correct Scripture’s theology or stand as equal witnesses to divine truth. That is equally wrong. Nonbiblical archives are servants in historical study, not masters over the biblical text.

The same principle applies to textual criticism. Manuscripts and versions are evidence. They help restore and confirm the text. But the critic does not stand above Scripture as judge of its truth. The task is to recover, as accurately as possible, the wording of the inspired Hebrew text. This requires knowledge of Hebrew, scribal habits, manuscript relationships, ancient versions, paleography, and historical context. It also requires restraint. Conjectural emendation without strong evidence is not sound textual criticism. The preserved Hebrew text deserves confidence where the evidence supports it.

The Historical-Grammatical Value of Ancient Archives

The historical-grammatical method reads the Old Testament according to language, grammar, syntax, literary context, historical setting, and authorial intent. Ancient archives are useful within this method because they provide background data. They help explain treaty forms, royal titles, scribal practices, tribute systems, city administration, warfare, exile, and international diplomacy. They do not authorize allegorical interpretation, mystical speculation, or theological innovation beyond the text.

For example, knowledge of Assyrian vassal arrangements can help readers understand the political pressure behind passages involving Judah’s appeals to foreign powers. Second Kings 16:7 records Ahaz sending messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying that he was his servant and son. This language reflects submission to a superior king. Yet Isaiah 7:1-17 shows that Ahaz’s true failure was not merely political miscalculation but lack of trust in Jehovah. Historical background sharpens the reading; it does not replace the inspired interpretation.

Similarly, Assyrian siege practices illuminate the terror behind Sennacherib’s invasion in 2 Kings 18–19, but the decisive meaning of the event is theological. Rabshakeh mocked trust in Jehovah in 2 Kings 18:29-35. Hezekiah prayed in 2 Kings 19:14-19. Isaiah delivered Jehovah’s answer in 2 Kings 19:20-34. Jehovah delivered Jerusalem in 2 Kings 19:35. The Assyrian background makes the crisis vivid, but Scripture explains the outcome: Jehovah defended the city for His own sake and for the sake of David His servant.

Why Ancient Libraries Strengthen Confidence in the Old Testament

The archives of Ashurbanipal strengthen confidence in the Old Testament in several important ways. They confirm that the biblical world was historically concrete. Kings kept records. Empires collected tribute. Scribes copied texts. Conquerors deported peoples. Royal courts maintained archives. Political correspondence, legal transactions, literary copying, and scholarly study were normal features of ancient Near Eastern life. The Old Testament fits this world naturally.

They also confirm that writing and textual preservation were highly developed long before the latest dates proposed by skeptical theories. The existence of extensive cuneiform archives makes it unreasonable to treat early biblical writing as historically implausible. Moses’ writing activity in the fifteenth century B.C.E., including the covenant materials associated with the Exodus in 1446 B.C.E., belongs to a world where writing was already well established. The question is not whether writing existed; it did. The question is whether one accepts the biblical testimony concerning who wrote, what was written, and why it was preserved.

Most importantly, ancient archives provide a contrast that highlights the uniqueness of Scripture. Assyria preserved texts for empire, omen, ritual, and royal memory. Israel preserved the word of Jehovah for covenant obedience, worship, correction, wisdom, and hope. Assyrian kings boasted of conquest. Biblical prophets announced that Jehovah humbles the proud. Assyrian libraries stored the learning of a pagan court. The Hebrew Scriptures preserved the revelation of the living God.

Conclusion: The Archive Beneath the Ruins and the Text That Endures

The archives of Ashurbanipal are among the most important discoveries for understanding the world of the Old Testament. They illuminate Assyrian power, scribal sophistication, imperial memory, and the historical environment in which Israel and Judah lived. They help readers see that the Old Testament belongs to the real world of ancient kings, cities, treaties, exiles, scribes, and archives. They also show that written transmission was not primitive or accidental but could be disciplined, organized, and long-lasting.

Yet the true value of Ashurbanipal’s archive is not that it stands over Scripture, but that it stands beside Scripture as a historical witness to the world Scripture describes. The archive confirms the reality of ancient literacy and imperial recordkeeping, but it also exposes the limits of human power. Assyria’s tablets survived in ruins; Assyria’s empire did not. Jehovah’s word, preserved through faithful transmission, remains.

Isaiah 40:8 states that grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of God stands forever. That declaration is not contradicted by the discoveries of archaeology; it is illustrated by them. The proud empire fell. Its capital was buried. Its king’s library became a ruin-field. But the Hebrew Scriptures continued to be copied, read, translated, studied, and preserved. The archive of Ashurbanipal is therefore valuable, but the Old Testament is authoritative. One is a witness from the ruins of empire; the other is the enduring word of Jehovah.

You May Also Enjoy

The Talmud and the Text: How Jewish Commentary Informs Our Understanding of Old Testament Texts

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS