Archeological Light on the Old Testament by L. L. C.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 16, 1916

Archeological Light on the Old Testament

By L. L. C.

BESIDES confirming the accuracy of statements found in the Pentateuch, archeology has shed light upon many of the other historical books of the Old Testament, upon the prophetical books, and even upon the books of the New Testament. Indeed, as we pass from the earlier times recorded in the first five books, to the period of the kings, the monumental references to the events recorded in the Bible narratives become more numerous. In the words of James Orr:—

“The names and doings of the kings, and events narrated in Scripture, like Shishak’s invasion, Mesha’s rebellion, the fall of Samaria, and captivity of Israel, Sennacherib’s invasion, are inscribed in the contemporary records of the peoples or rulers concerned. Sometimes additional information is imparted. We learn that Shishak’s invasion extended to the cities of Israel and Judah (Cf. 2 Chron. 12:3, 4, which enlarges the account of 1 Kings 14:25, 26); that Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser II, king of Assyria; that Ahab fought, as an ally of Ben-hadad, at the battle of Karkar, in the end of his life (Cf. 1 Kings 20:34; 22:1).”—“Bible under Trial,” p. 135.

Before 1843 Sargon, the king of Assyria, mentioned in Isa. 20:1, was unknown to history. Accordingly many critics considered him a myth. Strangely enough, the first Assyrian exploration made by Botta in 1843 brought to light the ruins of the great palace of this very Sargon. The distinguished explorer, Hilprecht, tells us:—

“There never has been roused again such a deep and general interest in the excavation of distant Oriental sites as toward the middle of the last century, when Sargon’s palace rose suddenly out of the ground, and furnished the first faithful picture of a great epoch of art, which had vanished completely from human sight.”—“Explorations in Bible Lands,” p. 87.

Sargon has now become one of the best-known of Assyrian kings. He was the father of Sennacherib, and final conqueror of Samaria. In the palace discovered by Botta there has been found the portrait of Sargon, and the annals of his reign, including the very siege of Ashdod mentioned by Isaiah.

In the fourteenth verse of the eighth chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet tells of But hearing, when he had been brought in vision to the northern gate of the temple, women weeping for Tammuz. A Babylonian poem has been found which tells of the yearly descent of Ishtar, the goddess of love, to the underworld, to her beloved Tammuz, who had died. The poem ends with the words:—

“On the day of Tammuz, play for me the lapis lazuli flute, play the Santu-flute with it, When the wailing men and women play with it, Let the dead return, let them smell incense.”

The wailing alluded to in this poem is without doubt that spoken of by Ezekiel. Another poem has been discovered in which there are recorded the very words of “a lament over Tammuz.” (See Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, part 15, 18.)

The book of Daniel has been a special subject of attack by the skeptical critics who assign to the composition of this book a very late date. They have offered numerous objections to the historicity of the book. We can notice only a few of these. Many of the objections offered arise from mere lack of confirmatory proof of the Biblical statements. This method of reasoning is unsafe, as is shown from the fact that until the discovery of archeological proof of the existence of Belshazzar, some critics argued that the book of Daniel showed its inaccuracy in calling the last king Belshazzar, when history showed that the last king was Nabonidus. Several inscriptions of Nabonidus have now been found in which he speaks of a son, Belshazzar, whom he associated with himself as joint ruler in the latter part of his reign.

An objection has been offered by critics to the statement that “Darius the Median took the kingdom.” It seems probable, however, from the inscriptions which we find, that Darius the Mede should be identified with Gobryas, whom Cyrus appointed satrap of Babylon.

One of the most striking discoveries of recent times is the description which Cyrus gives of his own account of the taking of Babylon. After giving the credit of the campaign to Marduk, king of the gods, he says:—

“He [Marduk] caused him [Cyrus] to enter Babylon without war or battle. He preserved his city, Babylon, from tribulation; he filled his (Cyrus’s) hand with Nabuna’id, the king who did not fear him. All the people of Babylon, all of Sumer and Akkad, the princes and governors, prostrated themselves under him and kissed his feet. They rejoiced in his sovereignty; their faces shone. The lord, who by his power makes the dead to live, who from destruction and injustice had saved them, altogether they blessed him in joy; they revered his name. “I am Cyrus, king of the world, the great king, the mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of Anshan; an everlasting seed of royalty, whose government Bel and Nabu love, whose reign in the goodness of their hearts they desire. When I entered in peace in Babylon, with joy and rejoicing I took up my lordly dwelling in the royal palace, Marduk, the great lord, moved the understanding heart of the people of Babylon to me, while I daily sought his worship.”

In this the statement that Cyrus makes that he entered Babylon without war or battle, and that the city of Babylon was preserved from the tribulation of a long siege, is an interesting comment on the prophecy recorded in Isa. 45:1:—

“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.”

It would seem that this prophecy was fulfilled by the opening of the gates of Babylon to Cyrus by traitors to the Babylonian king, so that it proved true that the gates were not shut against him, and Babylon was taken without a siege.

While archeological discoveries have illuminated many passages of the Scriptures, their confirmation of the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel is especially important as an answer to those critics who would explain away the prophecy of Daniel by the theory of its production in the days of the Maccabean age.

L. L. C.