The Bibleís Archaeological Evidence
What has become evident over the last few decades is that unlike the difficulties
found with the Qur'anic evidence, the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the
Bible's reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past
can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then.
Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to
look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to
light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places
Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia.
1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period
of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was
redacted back by the later Israelites.
2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh
Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished
warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of
the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in
Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.
3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to
Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the
sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.
There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such
4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are
heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9.
Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics
previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because
security was no longer such a concern then.
5) Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according
to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier
account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more
6) Joseph's Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem, as in the
find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is
this mere coincidence?
7) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua
6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the
laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly
have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua
8) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles
11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and
defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until
archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon
on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.
Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried
out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had
archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods,
but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this
period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl
(in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It
seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating
the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of
the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and
Joseph's original tomb and home. There remain many 'tells' yet to uncover.
Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once
again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best
dubious and at worst in error.
9) Paul's reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was
thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in
1929 bearing his name.
It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms,
because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific
peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription
findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For
10) Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of
Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to
describe divisions of a district.
11) Luke's mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus
has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.
12) Luke's usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts
17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use
of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.
13) Luke's usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has
been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their
14) Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under
much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never
referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer
of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position.
It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered.
This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of
Achaia..." Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet
Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have
written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have
known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives
credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and
around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many
liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been
contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.
It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, "Where Luke has
been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some
inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed
the New Testament record."
In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the
topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not
reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has
been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been
historical data which has validated his accounts, we can