Official Blog Site of the Apostolic Catholic Church of Beloved Ingkong

The Historical Accuracy of the Bible

By Jim Sasser

To be divinely inspired, a book must be historically accurate.  For if its credibility cannot be established on the basis of known events, it certainly cannot be relied upon as an adequate guide in matters beyond our ability to check.  On the other hand, if we can demonstrate that such a book is correct in historical matters, to an extent unknown among human writings, then we have strong evidence that the authors were inspired by God.  In this lesson we shall learn that this is true of the Bible.

Down through the centuries, enemies of the Bible have attacked its historical accuracy. Time after time, the Scriptures have been thus questioned, only later to be shown correct by archaeology.  Archaeology is a study of relics, monu ments, tombs, artifacts, etc., of ancient civilizations.  Peoples and events, known before only in Biblical accounts, have been brought to light by the excavations of ancient cities. Always, the Bible has been proven right.  Let us consider a few of the cases of such findings:

Grapes In Egypt:

In Genesis 40 we are told how Joseph interpreted the dream of Pharaoh’s butler.  In this dream grapes are mentioned.  But the ancient historian, Herodotus, states that the Egyptians grew no grapes and drank no wine, and many therefore questioned the accuracy of the biblical account.  However, paintings discovered on the ancient Egyptian tombs, show the dressing, pruning, and cultivating of the vines, and also the process of extracting the juice of grapes, as well as scenes of drunkenness.  There can be little doubt then that Herodotus was wrong and the Bible right.

The Bricks Of Pithom:

In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh.  In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose.  In 1883, Naville, and in l908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw.  The middle courses have less straw including stubble.  The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever.  It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible.

The Hittites:

Forty-eight times in the Scriptures, a people called the Hittites are mentioned.  We find them blocking Israel’s path as it sought to enter the promised land.  We read of Uriah, the Hittite, whom David sent to his untimely death. However, in all the records of antiquity, not a reference to those people was to be found, and therefore, the skeptics attributed them to the imagination and fiction.  In 1876, George Smith, began a study of monuments at a place called Djerabis in Asia Minor.  This city proved out to be old Carchemish, a capital of the ancient Hatti.  We now know that the Hatti were the Hittites of the Bible, who, according to Prof. A.H. Sayce, “contended on equal terms with both Egypt and Assyria.”  The Hittites not only proved to be a real people, but their empire was shown to be one of the great ones of ancient times.

Sargon:

In Isaiah 20:1, we read, “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)…” This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and they only one in ancient literature.  His place in history was severely questioned on this account.  But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon.  Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah.  Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong.

The Flood:

Geneisis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood.  To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths.  However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true.  Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples.  One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts.  Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood.  Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape.  Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race.  Many add that wickedness of man brought about the flood.  Some even mention Noe.  Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved.  To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding.  The universality of this tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a figment of someone’s imagination.

In 1872, George Smith, discovered the now famous Babylonian flood tablets.  In these, a certain person was told to build an ark or ship and to take into it seed of all creatures. He was given the exact measurements and was instructed to use pitch in sealing it.  He took his family into the boat with food.  There was a terrible storm which lasted six days.  They landed on Mt. Nazir.  He sent out a dove.  It came back.  He sent out a swallow.  It came back.  He sent out a raven and it flew back and forth over the earth.  When these people were safely out of the boat, they offered sacrifice to the gods.  The account differs from the Bible in some particulars, but is so much in agreement with the Scriptures as to make one wonder how the historical nature of the flood could be questioned.

Furthermore, archaeology has found positive evidence of a great flood in some ancient cities.  At Susa, a solid deposit of earth five feet thick was found between two distinct civilizations.  The nature of the deposit establishes beyond doubt that Susa was completely destroyed by a flood which was not merely local.  At Ur, the ancient home of Abraham, a similar deposit of water laid clay eight feet thick was found.  This deposit clearly shows that Ur was destroyed by a flood of such proportions that is must have been a vast flood such as the one of the Bible.  Further evidence could be presented, but this should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Biblical flood was a reality.

Jericho:

Josuha 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho.  For six day they marched once around the city.  On the seventh day they went aroung it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, “The wall fell down flat” (Josuha 6:20). The people then rused straitway into the city and burned it.  They took none of it to themselves.  They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously.

Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho.  His discoveries orresponded remarkably with the Biblical account.  Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls.  This explains how Rahab’s house could have been built upon a wall.  He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat.  Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned.  Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible.

Sergius Paulus, The Proconsul:

In Acts 13:7, mention is made of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus.  For a long time, skeptics contended that Luke should have called him propraetor instead of proconsul since this was the usual title. However, coins descovered on Cyprus, have positively estab lished that the governors of Cyprus  were proconsuls.  One such coin found at Soli on Cyprus bears the inscription, “Paulus the Proconsul”, very possibly referring to the very man mentioned in Acts.

Confirmation By Non-Biblical Writers:

Some Biblical accounts have been substantiated by non-Biblical writers. For example: the Jewish historian Josephus has said many things concerning facts in the Bible.  For example: in Matthew 14:3,4, we are told that Herod put John the Baptist to death for the sake of Herodias, his brother  Philip’s wife, because John had informed Herod that it wasn’t lawful for him to have her as his wife.  Josephus tells us why it was unlawful.  Herodias had originally been married to Herod’s brother, Philip. But she divorced Phlip and married Herod.  this unlawful marriage was the occasion of John’s rebuke.  The account of Josephus and the Bible are in perfect accord.

Apparent Inconsistencies:

Apparent inconsistencies fade away whenever the Bible is studied with an open mind. An example is found in regard to the ruling family of Palestine In Matthew 2:1, we read of “Herod the King” who was reigning when Jesus was born. Matt. 2:19 records his death.  Yet in Acts 12:12, we read once more of “Herod the King” putting James to death.  How could he do this if he were already dead?  Does the Bible contradict itself?  Josephus, an unbeliever in Christ, explains the difficulty by showing that Herod of Acts 12, was actually the grandson of the Herod mentioned in Matthew 2. The Bible agrees perfectly with the facts.

Again, Luke 2:1, mentions “Caesar Augustus” as the ruling monarch of the Roman Empire.  In Luke 3:1, we are told that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This shows that Augustus was no longer on the throne.  Still later in Acts 25:21, we find Paul appealing his arrest to August.  A superficial reading might lead us to suppose that the Bible contradicts itself.  But on close examination, with other known facts, we find that the emperor at that time was Nero, whose full name was Caesar Augustus Nero.  Luke, the author of both books in question, does not explain this because the first century readers were familiar with the fact that there were two different men named Augustus.

The attacks upon the credibility of the Bible have served to make stronger, not weaker, the conviction of every lover of the true Word of God.

Please read this article.  It might give you a different perspective.

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?

By: Jimmy Williams

How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven’t copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.

Three Errors To Avoid

   1. Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
   2. When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
   3. Do not start with modern “authorities” and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.

Procedure for Testing a Document’s Validity

In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism. These tests are:

   1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
   2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
   3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.

We will look now at the bibliographical, or textual evidence for the Bible’s reliability.

The Old Testament

For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: “Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?”

The Scribe
The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text
During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these “Dead Sea Scrolls” at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, “This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition.”

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: “A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our “honor” and the English “honour”) and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for “light.” This word was added to the text by someone after “they shall see” in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah.”

The Septuagint
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion
In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, “We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity.”

The New Testament (The Greek Manuscript Evidence):

 
There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.

Papyrus and Parchment

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).

2. Older Papyrii

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.

4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Versions (Translations)
In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome’s original translation in 384 400 A.D.

Church Fathers
A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.).

It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!

A Comparison
The evidence for the early existence of the New Testament writings is clear. The wealth of materials for the New Testament becomes even more significant when we compare it with other ancient documents which have been accepted without question.

*Where a slash occurs, the first date is conservative, and the second is liberal.
**New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary. Earliest complete manuscript is from ca. 350; lapse of event to complete manuscript is about 325 years.

Conclusion

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, “The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: “If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.” In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

The Anvil? God’s Word.

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime:
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed . . . the hammer’s gone.
Author unknown

Notes

   1. C.Sanders, Introduction in Research in English Literacy (New York: MacMillan, 1952), 143.
   2. Merrill F. Unger, Famous Archaeological Discoveries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 72.
   3. R. Laird Harris, Can I Trust My Bible? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 124.
   4. Ibid., 129-30.
   5. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967), 892.
   6. Ibid.
   7. Ibid.
   8. Sir Fredric Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), 288ff.
   9. B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort, eds., New Testament in Original Greek, 1881, vol. II, 2.

© 1995 Probe Ministries
About the Author
James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International, and currently serves as Minister at Large. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.

During the past thirty-five years, he has visited, lectured, and counseled on more than 180 university campuses in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Union.

He has also served on the faculties of the American, Latin American, and European Institutes of Biblical Studies. Jimmy can be reached via e-mail at jwilliams@probe.org.

Archeology cannot prove that the Bible is God’s written word to us. However, archeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible’s historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible — sometimes when historians didn’t think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn’t think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.⁷

The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.⁸

In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: “Archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see ‘no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.’” Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.⁹

Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archeology. “In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error.”¹⁰

Archeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. “It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses’ writings by at least three centuries.”¹¹

Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., hundreds of years before Abraham.¹² The tablets describe the local culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.

Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#3

Chart listing some of the major archaeological finds…