April 10, 2023

Nebuchadnezzar II (c. 630-c. 561 B.C. / r. c. 605-c. 561 B.C.) (1) was perhaps the most famous king of ancient Babylonia: largely because of his status as the conqueror of the Kingdom Of Judah in 586 B.C. Bryan Windle notes about this monarch:

Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned close to 90 times in Scripture and figures prominently in the books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah and Daniel.  In Jeremiah 4:7 he is called the “destroyer of nations,” an apt description, as history records that he extended his empire through conquest such that it stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.  At its height, it included parts of modern-day Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Turkey. (2)

The Babylonian Chronicle 5; also known as the Jerusalem Chronicle, a clay tablet written in Akkadian, covers the events during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, from the years of 605-594 B.C. It was acquired in 1896 and is held at the British Museum. (3)

2 Kings 24:8, 10, 12, 17-18 (RSV) Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. . . . At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. . . . and Jehoiachin the king of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of his reign, . . . And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. . . .

2 Kings 25:1-2, 6, 8-11 And in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem, and laid siege to it; and they built siegeworks against it round about. So the city was besieged till the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. . . . Then they captured the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah, who passed sentence upon him. . . . In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month — which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon — Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he burned the house of the LORD, and the king’s house and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down. And all the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls around Jerusalem. And the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to the king of Babylon, together with the rest of the multitude, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried into exile. (cf. Jer. 52:1-15)

Th Babylonian Chronicle 5 records Nebuchadnezzar’s initial defeat of Jerusalem in 597 B.C:

In the seventh year [598/597], the month of Kislîmu, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addarunote [February/March 597.] he seized the city and captured the king. [Jehoiachin]  He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon. (4)

The biblical texts above note that Zedekiah, the final king of Judah, reigned eleven years, under Babylonian siege, until the city and the kingdom were destroyed in 586 (or 587) B.C.: the general date accepted by virtually all scholars for the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of Solomon’s temple; though the exact year is still debated. (5) The biblical accounts above show that Nebuchadnezzar’s initial sack of Jerusalem and detention of King Jehoiachin occurred in the “eighth year” (2 Kings 24:12) of his reign (597 B.C.).

Moreover, it’s recorded that the puppet-king Zedekiah lasted eleven years (2 Kings 24:18; 2 Chron. 36:11; Jer 52:1) before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple: in 586 B.C., and that the eleven-year siege culminating in the catastrophe of Jerusalem’s fall had already commenced by the “ninth year” (2 Kings 25:1; Jer. 52:4) of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (596 B.C.). The year of Jerusalem’s ultimate destruction is described in the Bible (2 Kings 25:8; Jer. 52:12) as Nebuchadnezzar’s “nineteenth year” (587 or 586 B.C.).

We also have deductive and objective biblical clues as to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, based on the biblical mention of a Jewish exile in Babylon for seventy years (Jer. 29:10; 2 Chron. 36:21) before the temple was rebuilt, and the dates of the reign of the Persian king Darius I (the Great). After interruptions (“the people of the land . . . made them afraid to build, and . . . frustrate[d] their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius”: Ezra 4: 4-5; “the work on the house of God which is in Jerusalem stopped”: Ezra 4:24), the final work of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem began in “the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24; cf. Hag. 1:1, 15).

In that year the Jews “began to rebuild the house of God which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 5:2). It “was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:15). We know that Darius the Great reigned from 522 to 486 B.C. (6) Thus, his “second year” — depending on how it is reckoned — was 521 or 520, and his “sixth year” was 517 or 516. And that is seventy years from 587 or 586: the year of the destruction of Jerusalem (give or take a year).

Conclusion: the Bible (as it has been shown to be, innumerable times) is minutely accurate in this instance, as regards the years of the initial and final destruction of ancient Jerusalem and its first temple, built by King Solomon, and also concerning when the temple was rebuilt. It’s confirmed by secular history and archaeology.

FOOTNOTES

1) Henry W.F. Saggs, “Nebuchadnezzar II,” Encyclopedia Britannica.

2) Bryan Windle, “Nebuchadnezzar: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, October 17, 2019.

3) See the British Museum page for Babylonian Chronicle 5: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1896-0409-51. See texts from this tablet at the web page, “ABC 5 (Jerusalem Chronicle),” Livius.org: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-5-jerusalem-chronicle/.

4) Windle, ibid.

5) Saggs, ibid.; Rodger C. Young, “When Did Jerusalem Fall?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47/1 (March 2004) 21-38; C. Ermal Allen, “Jerusalem Fell in 587 Not 586 BC,” Bible and Spade 18:1 (2005). Young sums up the basis of the differences:

After suitable contacts were found linking Hebrew history to the fixed dates of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, the greatest problem remaining was to determine the methods used by the authors who gave us the chronological data in the Scriptures. What did these authors mean when they wrote, “In the Xth year of Y king of Judah, Z became king over Israel, and he reigned W years?” Presuppositions about the method of the author will affect the interpretation of every part of such a sentence: Was the Xth year of king Y measured from his sole reign, or from his coregency? Was the year measured in an accession (non-inclusive) or non-accession (inclusive) sense? Were the years considered to start with [the Hebrew month of] Nisan in the spring or Tishri in the fall? (p. 22)

6) J. M. Munn-Rankin, “Darius I,” Encyclopedia Britannica.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Jeremiah sits amidst the rubble of Jerusalem, after its siege and destruction in 586 BC. Lithograph by Eduard Bendemann (1811–1889) [public domain / Look and Learn: History Picture Archive]

***

Summary: Archaeology and the Bible correspond, with regard to the dates of the siege and fall of Jerusalem (597 and 586 B.C.) and the date of the rebuilt temple (516 B.C.).

February 6, 2023

Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC)

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is one of the world’s most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals. On 24 October 2022, it published the article, “Reconstructing biblical military campaigns using geomagnetic field data,” by Yoav Vaknin et al. It confirms some of the dates indicated in the Bible, according to the timeline of more traditional “maximalist” archaeologists.

Ariel David, in his article, “Archaeologists Reconstruct Biblical Conflicts Using Earth’s Magnetic Field” (Haaretz, 10-25-22), explains in laymen’s terms, the dazzling scientific methodology involved (a new form of dating):

The Earth’s magnetosphere, which protects living beings from dangerous solar radiation and high-energy particles, can fluctuate wildly in intensity and direction, for reasons that are not entirely clear. So if researchers can reconstruct the magnetic conditions for a certain time and region they can also use that information to date ancient ruins and artifacts.

They can do this because ceramic vessels and many ancient construction materials, such as sun-dried mud bricks, contain tiny ferromagnetic particles. When these particles are heated to high temperatures – for example, in a pottery kiln, or in a destructive fire – they behave like tiny compass needles: they align with the magnetic field of the Earth and become magnetized based on the direction and intensity of the field at the time.

David provides an example:

One puzzle concerns the remains of large structures destroyed by a massive fire at Tel Beth She’an. Based on the typology of the pottery remains, the site’s excavators have seesawed between attributing the destruction of the city either to Pharaoh Sheshonq I, the biblical Shishak who raided the Levant around 925 B.C.E., or to the Aramean forces of Hazael of Damascus, who conquered parts of the Holy Land about a century later. . . .

[T]he intensity and direction of the magnetic field recorded in Beth She’an suggests that the last time the ancient walls were heated to a high temperature was in the late tenth or early 9th century B.C.E., which is compatible with the Egyptian invasion led by Sheshonq, recounted both in the Bible (1 Kings 14:25-26) and on the walls of the pharaoh’s own temple at Karnak.

This lines up with the Bible:

1 Kings 14:25-26 (RSV) In the fifth year of King Rehobo’am, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; [26] he took away the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away everything. He also took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made;

Beth She’an is 18-19 miles due south of the Sea of Galilee and about 57 miles north of Jerusalem.

According to prominent archaeologists Gershon Galil and Kenneth Kitchen, the reign of King Rehoboam, who succeeded King Solomon, began in 931 BC and ended with his death in 915/914 BC. Encylopaedia Britannica informs us that Sheshonk I [“Shishak” in 1 Kgs 14:25] reigned from 945-924 BC. Rehoboam’s fifth year would have been 926 BC, which is within Sheshonk’s Egyptian reign. Science has now determined a sacking of Beth She’an in “the late tenth or early 9th century” BC.

Another verified battle occurred in Beth Shemesh: an ancient town just west of Jerusalem. The new magnetic evidence suggests that it was destroyed near the beginning of the 8th century BC. This fits quite nicely with both traditional and excavators’ understanding of a battle between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in this city around 790 BC. The Bible states:

2 Kings 14:11-13 . . . So Jeho’ash king of Israel went up, and he and Amazi’ah king of Judah faced one another in battle at Beth-she’mesh, which belongs to Judah. [12] And Judah was defeated by Israel, and every man fled to his home. [13] And Jeho’ash king of Israel captured Amazi’ah king of Judah, the son of Jeho’ash, son of Ahazi’ah, at Beth-she’mesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem for four hundred cubits, from the E’phraim Gate to the Corner Gate.

The great archaeologist William F. Albright dated the reign of King Jehoash of Israel to 801–786 BC, which fits into the above timeframe. Expert on Old Testament chronology Edwin R. Thiele dated King Amaziah of Judah‘s reign from 797/796 to 768/767 BC, which also fits into the same chronology seen above.

Yoav Vaknin et al write:

In 733 to 732 BCE, Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria, conquered the northern parts of the Kingdom of Israel, as described in biblical and Assyrian sources. The attribution of the destructions at Bethsaida and Tel Kinnerot [aka Kinneret or Chinneroth] to this period is widely accepted. The agreement between our archaeointensity results from these two sites reinforces their concurrent destruction .

The Bible observed, in complete harmony with this finding of modern science:

2 Kings 15:29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tig’lath-pile’ser king of Assyria came and captured I’jon, A’bel-beth-ma’acah, Jan-o’ah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naph’tali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria.

Bethsaida and Kinneret were both located on or very near the north or northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in Galilee, and in the land of the tribe of Naphtali (see a map of its territory). Tiglath-pileser III, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, reigned from 745-727 BC. King Pekah of Israel is thought to have reigned from c. 740-737-732 BC.

As we can see, the dates once again line up with the brand new magnetic dating data. Tiglath-pileser III and King Pekah were both reigning at the time of the destruction of Bethsaida and Kinneret, precisely as indirectly indicated (through geography) in 2 Kings 15:29. I’m never surprised by the incredibly minute historical accuracy of the Bible, having observed it hundreds of times. But perhaps some readers will be.

Yoav Vaknin et al continue their analysis:

During another Assyrian campaign, led by King Sennacherib in 701 BCE, Tel Lachish Stratum III was destroyed. Unequivocal evidence of the siege, battle, and destruction by fire has been exposed at the site. The attack on Lachish is mentioned in 2 Kings 18–19; Isaiah 36–37; 2 Chronicles 32 and narrated in Assyrian reliefs. According to biblical and Assyrian sources, many other Judean sites were destroyed during the 701 BCE campaign but none are securely identified. Our archaeomagnetic data from Tel Beersheba, Tel Zayit Level XI, and Tell Beit Mirsim argue for their destruction during the 701 BCE campaign.

2 Chronicles 32:9 . . . Sennach’erib king of Assyria, who was besieging Lachish with all his forces . . .

Sennacherib reigned, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, from c. 705-681. The same source states about the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah: “The dates of his reign are often given as about 715 to about 686 BC.” Both fit perfectly into a destruction date of Lachish in 701 BC.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Hanay, 6-2-12: ruins at Bethsaida [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: Extraordinary new dating techniques utilizing the earth’s magnetosphere have dramatically verified the dates of five biblical battles, again confirming biblical accuracy.

September 9, 2021

+ Dates of the Patriarchs and Other Major Events and People in the Old Testament

What we may call “biblical archaeology” flourished from the 1930s through to the 1950s, under the leadership of the great Methodist archaeologist and polymath William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971) and Jewish archaeologist and rabbi Nelson Glueck (1900-1971). In his 1959 book, Rivers in the Desert he summed up his and Albright’s high view of the Bible and belief that archaeology strongly supports it:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.

This is roughly what is now called a “biblical maximalist” position within archaeology. Arguably, today’s most prominent maximalists are the Scottish evangelical Protestant Egyptologist and archaeologist Kenneth A. Kitchen (b. 1932), author of the magisterial  On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), and American James K. Hoffmeier (b. 1951), author of Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (1996) and Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (2005): both published by Oxford University Press.

Kitchen, while a firm defender of the historicity of the biblical accounts (and in that sense a “traditionalist”), doesn’t, however, uncritically accept the overall outlook or (especially) the methodology of Albright and his cohorts, like G. Ernest Wright (1909-1974) and Cyrus Gordon (1908-2001). He made this rather bluntly clear in the above book:

The treatments given here by me are not based on Albright, Gordon, or the vagaries of the little local (and very parochial) United States problem of the long-deceased American Biblical Archaeology/theology school. (p. 469)

Biblical minimalism, on the other hand, has dominated the archaeology of Israel and the Near East since the 1970s. Wikipedia (“Biblical archaeology school”) noted:

The challenge reached its climax with the publication of two important studies: In 1974 Thomas L. Thompson‘s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives re-examined the record of biblical archaeology in relation to the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis and concluded that “not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the Patriarchal narratives to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely.” [p. 328] and in 1975 John Van Seters‘ Abraham in History and Tradition reached a similar conclusion about the usefulness of tradition history: “A vague presupposition about the antiquity of the tradition based upon a consensus approval of such arguments should no longer be used as a warrant for proposing a history of the tradition related to early premonarchic times.” [p. 309]

[I]n the 1970s, . . . it became widely accepted that the remaining chapters of Genesis [12 to 50] were equally non-historical. At the same time, archaeology and comparative sociology convinced most scholars in the field that there was equally little historical basis to the biblical stories of the Exodus and the Israelite conquest of Canaan. By the 1980s, the Bible’s stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt and Conquest of Canaan were no longer considered historical, . . .

[I]in the 1990s a school of thought emerged from the background of the 1970s and 1980s which held that the entire enterprise of studying ancient Israel and its history was seriously flawed by an over-reliance on the biblical text, which was too problematic (meaning untrustworthy) to be used even selectively as a source for Israel’s past, and that Israel itself was in any case itself a problematic subject. This movement came to be known as biblical minimalism. (Wikipedia, “Biblical minimalism”)

Israel Finkelstein (b. 1949) is a prominent “non-traditional” biblical archaeologist today. His Wikipedia page summarizes some of his views:

Finkelstein regards the biblical account on the Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua as an ideological manifesto of the Deuteronomistic author/s of the late 7th century BCE, describing a “conquest to be” under King Josiah of Judah rather than a historical event at the end of the Bronze Age. . . .

Finkelstein sees the biblical description of the time of David and Solomon as multilayered. He acknowledges the historicity of the founders of the Davidic Dynasty, places them in the 10th century BCE, and considers the possibility that the description of the rise of David to power conceals old memories of his activity as a leader of an Apiru-band that was active in the southern fringe of Judah. Yet, he sees the description of a great United Monarchy as an ideological construct that represents the ideology of late-monarchic author/s in the late 7th century BCE, first and foremost the pan-Israelite ideology of the days of King Josiah of Judah.

Following the maximalist timeline of Dr. Kitchen and others (none, “fundamentalists”) who regard the Bible as historically accurate, here are the approximate dates of early biblical figures and patriarchs and events, that line up with the scholarly research I present in my many papers on this topic.

Noah and the Flood (c. 2900 BC)

“Table of Nations” (soon after the Flood: c. 2850 BC?)

Tower of Babel (not long after the Flood: c. 3000-2800 BC?)

Patriarchs (Kitchen: “circa 1900-1600 (2000-1500 at the outermost limits.) . . . This result goes well with that from the external data, such that it is wholly reasonable to speak, once more, of a ‘patriarchal age’ in biblical terms, but on a far sounder basis than was formerly the case”: pp. 358-359). Kitchen wrote about those who would deny the historicity of the patriarchs:

In the light of what is now known, there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing either the patriarchs (with a firm date line) or the exodus . . . they [such skeptics] simply do not know the relevant source materials (which are mainly textual), are not competent to pass judgment on the issues, and would be better described as pitifully ignorant, and can now be mercifully dismissed as out of their depth. (p. 469)

Abraham (born c. 1880-1860 BC) / (Kitchen: “born . . . earlier in the nineteenth century at the latest”: p. 359)

Isaac (born c. 1850-1820 BC) / (Kitchen: “born in the middle to late nineteenth century”: p. 359)

Jacob (born c. 1775 BC) / (Kitchen: “born earlier in the eighteenth century at the latest”: p. 359)

Joseph (born c. 1737-1717 BC) / (Kitchen: “. . . Joseph’s arrival there [Egypt] by about 1720/1700”: p. 359. The Bible states that he was seventeen when sold into slavery: Genesis 37:2)

Moses (c. 1340-c. 1210 BC) (extrapolating from Kitchen’s date for the Exodus)

Joshua (c. 1289-c. 1179 BC)

Exodus from Egypt (c. 1260-1250 BC) (Kitchen, pp. 307, 310)

Israeli “Conquest” of Canaan (c. 1220-c. 1170 BC)

***

Photo credit: Abraham Casting Out Hagar and Ishmael (1657; portion), by Guercino (1591-1666) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Explanation of the debate within archaeology of biblical maximalism vs. minimalism & a listing of the best-estimated dates of patriarchs & other major events & people in the Old Testament.

June 8, 2021

The material formerly here has been re-worked, modified, and edited and is now included only in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023).

*
Photo credit: Dothan, where Joseph was sold by his brothers into slavery [public domain / Wikipedia]
*
***
*

 

December 30, 2023

[find out more about this book and purchase information]

In an atheist forum (which shall remain unnamed), a video critical of the Bible from a secular / minimalist archaeological perspective was posted. This video included a section about Jericho. So I posted much of the portion on that topic in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible.

In a nutshell, I agued that the seeming absence of the archaeological layer dated around 1200 BC, when Joshua would have encountered Jericho, can be explained by a process called haloclasty, in which salt crystals become embedded in buildings and start causing them to deteriorate. Moreover, Jericho is in a desert climate, has rains for six months every year, was uninhabited for hundreds of years, and lies just 21 miles away from the Dead Sea, one of the saltiest bodies of water in the world (ten times more than the ocean), which is also the lowest elevation of any area on earth (Jericho being the lowest elevation of any city).

Then questions started being asked. I can’t quote them because then I’ll likely get in trouble (I may not even make it one day there anyway, because some are attacking me and implying that I should be kicked out). But I can summarize (and I’ll use italics for them).

One person inquired as to why remains from hundreds and thousands of years before Joshua’s conquest (as far back as 8000-7000 BC) still remain at Jericho, whereas the layer dated around 1200 does not?

It’s because  (citing Wikipedia, “Jericho” for the purpose of a quick reply), “Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (to 9000 BCE).” But then, “Bronze Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE.” In other words, since it kept being inhabited and built over and over, on top of earlier settlements, the earlier sections were not exposed to the elements, so they have been preserved.

But then it was destroyed in c. 1530 BC, which is about 330 years before the time of Joshua’s conquest. The lack of building and preservation after that, haloclasty, the heat, and the rains would then have eroded the top layer. The article goes on to state that “There was evidence of a small settlement in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1400s BCE) on the site, but erosion and destruction from previous excavations have erased significant parts of this layer.”

This lines up with my thesis. If this small settlement, documented to c. 1400 BC survived till 1200 BC, then it was the city that Joshua conquered, but has since eroded to nothing, so that the minimalist archaeologists claim that it didn’t exist at all in 1200 BC. My thesis attempts to explain why it’s no longer there. The most recent layer simply eroded, in the unique environmental conditions that the city was subjected to.

It was objected that the Great Sphinx in Egypt (dated to the reign of Khafre, c. 2558–2532 BC) has also been subject to erosion, too, but it’s still there.

It’s not analogous because it hasn’t been subject to the same harsh environmental conditions as Jericho. This was my argument. The Sphinx is at an elevation of 85 feet above sea level, compared to Jericho’s 670 feet below sea level. Nor is the Sphinx 21 miles from the Dead Sea, the deepest hypersaline lake in the world and, with a salinity of 34.2 percent, the seventh saltiest body of water in the world—almost ten times more than the oceans. That’s why the Sphinx is still there, and 1200 BC-era Jericho ain’t. It’s not subject to the hyper-saline environment, as Jericho was.

Also, the walls of Jericho were made of mud bricks, which are especially subject to erosion from rain, as well as to salt. I was just perusing an article about ancient Babylon, that repeatedly referred to salt in the groundwater causing significant erosion to the mud bricks there. The Sphinx, in contrast, was made of limestone, and experts believe it was even under the sand for some 700 years. That would obviously help preserve it, just as I noted that older portions of Jericho under the ground and under subsequent developments of the city helped to preserve them.

Erosion happens everywhere. But other places aren’t the lowest city in the world, in extreme desert conditions, subject to yearly severe rains, and close to the seventh saltiest body in the word, which sits at the lowest elevation spot in the entire world. In other words, vastly different conditions apply in this instance.

Another atheist appeared to argue that wind conditions didn’t support my hypothesis, because they didn’t come from the south in the era, and Jericho is north of the Dead Sea.

If the point is that haloclasty proceeds primarily by means of wind, I think it’s incorrect. One article on “Weathering” noted:

Haloclasty (growth of salt crystals): Salt crystallization causes disintegration of rocks when saline solutions seep into cracks and joints in the rocks and evaporate, leaving salt crystals behind. These salt crystals expand as they are heated up, exerting pressure on the confining rock. It is normally associated with arid climates where strong heating causes strong evaporation and therefore salt crystallization.

Likewise, “About: Haloclasty” (DBpedia) opines:

Haloclasty is a type of physical weathering caused by the growth of salt crystals. The process is first started when saline water seeps into cracks and evaporates depositing salt crystals. When the rocks are then heated, the crystals will expand putting pressure on the surrounding rock which will over time splinter the stone into fragments.

None of this has to do — primarily or directly, as far as I can tell — with wind. But it could have quite a bit to do with a very salty local body of water, and to some extent, also rain. In my book I noted from experts that Jericho has a “long rainy season . . . (late October to April).” And I noted that the “water level of the Dead Sea has also greatly fluctuated over the last several thousand years—as much as 1,300 feet, the experts tell us. This means that during the time under consideration, it likely was in some periods much closer to Jericho than it is now, thus exacerbating the problem of haloclasty and the city’s erosion.”

I was asked if I found anything specifically from Jericho regarding the eroding capabilities of salt, per my thesis.

I found an article called, “Sources of salinity in ground water from Jericho area, Jordan Valley.” (Ground Water, March 2001). It stated:

One of the major problems in the lower Jordan Valley is the increasing salinization (i.e., chloride content) of local ground water. The high levels of salinity limit the utilization of ground water for both domestic and agriculture applications. This joint collaborative study evaluates the sources and mechanisms for salinization in the Jericho area. We employ diagnostic geochemical fingerprinting methods to trace the potential sources of the salinity in (1) the deep confined subaquifer system (K2) of Lower Cenomanian age; (2) the upper subaquifer system (K1) of Upper Cenomanian and Turonian ages; and (3) the shallow aquifer system (Q) of Plio-Pleistocene ages. The chemical composition of the saline ground water from the two Cenomanian subaquifers (K1 and K2) point to a single saline source with Na/Cl approximately 0.5 and Br/Cl approximately 7 x 10(-3). This composition is similar to that of thermal hypersaline spring that are found along the western shore of the Dead Sea (e.g., En Gedi thermal spring). We suggest that the increasing salinity in both K1 and K2 subaquifers is derived from mixing with deep-seated brines that flow through the Rift fault system.

As previously noted, the question of the rising or falling levels of the Dead Sea was only one tangential sentence in my book, with no documentation (my book has 393 footnotes: most from scientific articles). The overall argument doesn’t rest on this factor. The two paragraphs that I already cited above [in the thread, not here] from the National Geographic are about Petra, which is 123 miles form the Dead Sea. It explained how “Salt upwelling, the geologic process in which underground salt domes expand, can contribute to the weathering of the overlying rock.” Then it noted that “structures” in Petra “often collapsed” due to this very thing. If that can happen in Petra, all the more so in Jericho.

Add to that yearly rains for six months on end, a desert climate and a lack of maintenance of mud brick walls and buildings for several hundred years, and being 670 feet below sea level (almost the lowest in the world) and my explanation is perfectly plausible. There are many unique factors in play here. We see nothing now of that latest period of ancient Jericho. It doesn’t follow that Joshua saw nothing in 1200 BC.

I wrote earlier about how the layers were built on top of each other, as is the case in many other ancient sites. Jericho was destroyed c. 1550 BC according to Kathleen Kenyon. But there are evidences of a continuing occupation (which in my theory has to occur down to c. 1200 BC). Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology (“Jericho”) states:

One of the most interesting nds from the Middle Building (just east of it on the slope) is a cuneiform tablet, attributable to the fourteenth century B.C.E. Pottery vessels found by Garstang in reused tombs 4, 5, and 13, can be attributed to the same time. Actually, tomb shows vessels as early as the second half of the fteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries B.C.E.; tombs  4  and  13 , conversely, yielded vessels datable to  1375 – 1275  B.C.E. Tomb  5  also included a scarab of Thutmose III (r. ca.  1504 – 1450  B.C.E.) and one of Hatshepsut (r. ca. 1473 – 1458 B.C.E.) (a second scarab of Thutmose III was found in pit tomb 11  dating from the Iron I), while tomb 4 yielded two scarabs with the cartouche of Amenhotep III (r.  1417 – 1379  B.C.E.).

The same source states that the site was “unoccupied” after 1200 BC. But that is consistent with my account since that’s when Joshua’s conquest would have happened (which included burning of the city). I don’t have all the ins and outs worked out, as I am not an archaeologist and am only speculating, but if the city in this era was unoccupied for 3-4 centuries after 1200 (the above source says it may have been occupied again in the 9th c. BC and certainly was from the 8th-6th centuries BC), then being unoccupied for all that time could have been the cause of overwhelming erosion due to the unique environmental factors that I have enumerated.

Archaeologists Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, in their article on Jericho in Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, 2003) opined that the city was not inhabited “during most of the 17th and 16th centuries” and that “if there were any buildings at this period they must have been washed away by the winter rains.” Then they state:

It is possible, however, that the Late Bronze Age II [1400-1200 BC] city of Jericho was conquered by Joshua, and that during the long period that elapsed before its resettlement . . . all remains were washed away by the rains.

They casually assume that rains alone could possibly have done all of that erosion, without even considering haloclasty. So I’m not just pulling these ideas out of thin air. One can reasonably suppose that they know a bit about erosion, and erosion by rain, since this is closely related to the excavation of archaeological sites.

More support for my view on Jericho:

Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar (b. 1942) has been since 1994 a professor at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, holding the Eleazer Sukenik Chair in the Archaeology of Israel. His Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (Yale University Press, 1992) is a widely used textbook for Israelite archaeology in universities. His work has resulted in the Modified Conventional Chronology being the most widely accepted framework for the Israelite chronology during the Iron Age period. He was also one of the first archaeologists to normalize the use of radiocarbon dating in Levantine and Mediterranean sites. He wrote in the above book (p. 331):

At Jericho, no remains of the Late Bronze [1300-1200 BC] fortifications were found; this was taken as evidence against the historical value of the narrative in the Book of Joshua. The finds at Jericho, however, show that there was a settlement there during the Late Bronze Age, though most of its remains were eroded or removed by human activity. Perhaps, as at other sites, the massive Middle Bronze fortifications were reutilized in the Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho was followed by an occupation gap in Iron Age I. Thus, in the case of Jericho, the archaeological data cannot serve as decisive evidence to deny a historical nucleus in the Book of Joshua concerning the conquest of this city.

John M. Monson, Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages (doctorate from Harvard), and author of The Architecture of Solomon’s Temple (Oxford University Press, 2008), adds:

[T]wo points must also be noted. First, the presence of tombs nearby confirms that there was a settlement during the period of the Israelite conquest, however small it may have been. Second, whatever walls did exist were constructed atop those of the substantial Middle Bronze Age city structures. When one considers the arid climate of the Jericho region and the intense, sporadic downpours in winter, together with the ban that Joshua placed on the city, the likely erosion of most Late Bronze Age structures atop the ancient mound makes perfect sense. (“Enter Joshua: The ‘Mother of Current Debates” in Biblical Archaeology,” ch. 19 [citation from p. 437] in James K. Hoffmeier & Dennis R. Magary, editors, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? [Crossway, 2012]; cites in corroboration of his view, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern, 5 vols. [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993], 2:679-81)

I have also seen somewhere (but I couldn’t track down the exact quote) that Dame Kathleen Kenyon, the renowned excavator of Jericho from 1952-1958 allowed for the possibility of a complete erosion of these Late Bronze walls in Jericho, in accordance with the other archaeologists whom I’ve cited. 

Conclusion: there is solid archaeological support for my theory of erosion at Jericho, though the aspect of salt and haloclasty is not part of their analysis. To me, it simply strengthens the possibility, alongside annual torrential rains, as another form of known erosion, which is a plausible explanation for what we observe at the site. Moreover, LaMoine F. DeVries, in his book, Cities of the Biblical World (Wipf and Stock, 2006, p. 192) wrote:

Jericho was also ravaged by the forces of nature. . . . the city seems to have been devastated by earthquakes several times during its history. Jericho was occasionally crippled by forces of wind, torrential rains, and massive mud slides, which contributed to erosion and were potentially dangerous in a city that was built primarily of mud brick.

Norman Herz and Ervan G. Garrison, in their book, Geological Methods for Archaeology (Oxford University Press, 1998) suggest that the erosion of mud brick structures is more or less constant, leading to many successive towns on top of each other (precisely as occurred in Jericho):

Tells in the Middle East are low hills containing the remnants of successive settlements. Much of the sediment forming the tell consists of decomposed remains of mud-brick houses that collapsed and over which new mud-brick houses were built. Over time, the accumulated debris and settlement of each succeeding occupation formed the tell.

This being the case, we can see that it is altogether plausible, and indeed likely, that the top level of Late Bronze walls at Jericho, abandoned after 1200 BC, would erode in the very unique climatic conditions of the region. It had, after all, some 3,100 years to do so before modern scientific archaeology and excavations commenced. Sam Kubba provided another relevant fact for my analysis:

It is often thought that heavy torrential rains will severely erode and damage the surface of an unprotected mud wall. The clay content inherent in the brick will resist wetting, except at the surface. Natural erosion rates for vertical surfaces have recently been determined to be about 2.5 cm in twenty years. (The Iraqi Marshlands and the Marsh Arabs [Trans Pacific Press, 2011], p. 194)

I did the math. Over 3100 years, the erosion would be 4.238 yards, or 12.7 feet. A source on “natural building” adds that “unprotected horizontal surfaces, such as tops of walls, will erode much faster.” Another related book similarly states:

If the material is soft, erosion is undoubtedly fast: it has been observed that massive mud-brick walls around ancient Egyptian cities have been completely eroded, and although some of the erosion was undoubtedly by water, most must have been by wind. (Ronald U. Cooke, Andrew Warren, Andrew S. Goudie, Desert Geomorphology, CRC Press, 1993, p. 292)

An archaeological work related to Turkey remarkably confirms the above data:

[M]ud-brick buildings can last from 50-100 years . . . the bricks could retain durability only if well maintained.. . . 

Mud brick is a soft, pliable material, which is subject to erosion by wind, rain, and even to human touch. . . . most processes of deterioration are physical, including erosion, moisture penetrating the surface, and exfoliation due to soluble salts (which is a chemical action but has a physical effect).

Then it was claimed that my entire argument was a form of the ignoratio elenchi logical fallacy (“apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted”).

I have been contending that there is good reason to believe that the wall at Jericho in 1200 BC  would have eroded away in the following 3100 years. I never set out to prove that there was a wall from that time period that can be examined today. In my book, I flatly stated, “The walls from the period in question (c. 1200 B.C.) are simply not there” (p. 126, italics in original).

That was my starting assumption, and then I proceeded to offer a theory as to why they are gone now. That’s perfectly legitimate and not unreasonable and not “unscientific,” unless someone believes that all things are eternal and don’t rot and decay and erode (which is absurd). Offering explanations as I did for their absence is not a stupid fallacy. I find it to be a fascinating discussion.

Contrary to the constant digs in this forum against Christians not giving a fig about facts, being fundamentally dishonest, relentless special pleaders etc. (which is standard boilerplate — and boorish — rhetoric in all atheist forums), I’ve never seen a Christian scholar claim that Jericho was not a problem that we had to explain. We freely admit it. It raises a difficulty. I then submit a possible explanation, and I back it up with the corroboration of several archaeologists: at least for the erosion of the walls, generally speaking.

I haven’t found support for my contention that haloclasty may have played a big role in that, except for the analogy of Petra. But that doesn’t immediately make the theory false. We know that it is a factor in the region, primarily due to the Dead Sea. The question then becomes, how much it affected the later (Late Bronze Age) exposed walls of Jericho.

*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Summary: I reply to several atheist biblical skeptics regarding my thesis as to the erosion (mostly by salt) of the Jericho of 1200 BC that was conquered by Joshua & the Hebrews.

November 28, 2023

[completed on 3 June 2023; 140+ pages; all biblical citations from RSV; available for FREE via linked installments on this page]

 

Table of Contents 

Introduction [read below]

Chapter One: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? [read online]

Chapter Two: Critics’ Misunderstanding of Biblical Idiom, Language, Theology, or Culture (#1-35) [read online]

Chapter Three: Alleged Factual and Historical Discrepancies (#36-89) [read online]

Chapter Four: Supposed Contradictions and Errors with Regard to Science (#90-95) [read online]

Chapter Five: Manufactured “Contradictions” Based on Ignorance of Logic (#96-120) [read online]

Chapter Six: God’s Revealed Nature and Character (#121-134) [read online]

Chapter Seven: Allegedly Contradictory Accounts of the Infancy of Jesus (#135-138) [read online]

Chapter Eight: Supposedly Clashing Reports of Jesus’ Passion and Crucifixion (#139-158) [read online]

Chapter Nine: Claimed Inconsistencies in the Stories of Jesus’ Burial and Resurrection (#159-191) [read online]

Appendix: Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism [read online]

Introduction 

Atheists, particularly of the “anti-theist” variety: those who specialize in a constant criticism of Christianity, Christians, and the Bible, are very fond of asserting ad nauseam that the Bible is chock-full of alleged “contradictions.” This, of course, is a disproof, as they see it, of Christian claims that the Bible is God’s inspired revelation, and/or infallible and inerrant. If it’s full of such errors, then clearly (I agree) it couldn’t and wouldn’t be inspired revelation. And then Christians would have a huge problem, since our faith is based on this Bible.

Christian apologists like myself, as a result of these polemical and aggressive, even relentless attacks, have a duty to respond and to disprove a great number of the accusations of alleged massive self-contradiction. This duty flows not only from intellectual principle and the courage of one’s convictions, but also from the responsibility to those within the Christian community who may be stumbled or even lose their faith as a result of these attacks. And we need to be assured and confident that our faith and our Bible are harmonious with reason, including logic.

I have taken up this challenge, and my solutions or resolutions in this book came about and were stimulated as a result of direct challenges from atheists: either personally to me or expressed in articles that I have (I think) refuted. The material found herein is entirely of that nature: based on becoming familiar with a charge made by an atheist and then responding to it with a rebuttal.

There are no “hypothetical” atheist objections in this book. What is here was actually expressed by an atheist or other sort of biblical skeptic. Readers will see for themselves, how such critics reason, and (here’s the good news) how invariably weak – very often, downright foolish and sillytheir reasoning is, again and again and again.

I respond in part because Christians, generally speaking (but especially Christian teachers, apologists, catechists, priests, pastors, theologians, etc.), are commanded to defend the faith and by extension, the Bible when they are attacked:

1 Peter 3:15 . . . Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

And I enter into a controversy like this with a robust faith in the power of Holy Scripture to bear witness to itself:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

That makes my job much easier. If indeed a set of books is inspired revelation, and therefore, powerful and moving, due to the fact that they are ultimately the product of not only an omniscient but an all-loving God, then in a sense this collection of canonical books, the Bible, can in effect fully defend itself. It is what it is. The work I am doing, though assuredly necessary, is merely laying out the internal consistency and coherence in the Bible that has always been there, as an inherent aspect of its majesty.

In other words, what I present is nothing new. People simply had to become aware of it. It’s a matter of “revealing the hidden treasures.” When a thing is true, it’s easy to defend, and I have found that to universally be the case in the course of this work (not to deny that some aspects of biblical defense involve more complexity and labor and probing than others). Truth possesses intrinsic power in a way that falsehood never can.

My book, The Word Set in Stone: How Science, History, and Archaeology Prove Biblical Truth (Catholic Answers Press, 2023) was devoted to external objective, scientific and historiographical verification of biblical accuracy and trustworthiness. This one is sort of a companion-piece or parallel work in relation to that volume, and it examines the internal objective logical verification of the Bible.

Is Holy Scripture able to “pass” both of these tests? I think it does so with flying colors! And I have provided readers with 191 separate arguments and abundant intellectual justification and warrant for believing this to be the case.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo CreditDirection Paradox Contradiction, by CDD20 (12-3-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Book by Dave Armstrong (6-3-23), in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions and demonstrates that they actually aren’t that at all.

Last updated on 7 December 2023

June 18, 2023

Atheist charge: According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests gave “thirty pieces of silver” to Judas. But how is that possible, since there were no silver coins used as currency in Jesus’ time, and there had not been any for about 300 years?

*
This is untrue. The shekel was made of silver, and was in use in Israel in the first century A.D. The silver shekel (94% or more pure) was first produced in Tyre (present-day Lebanon) in 125 BC and continued up through 66 AD. In the same book of Matthew, “the half-shekel tax” was referred to in 17:24. If atheists won’t accept that because it’s from the Bible (a most irrational attitude, given the Bible’s proven historical accuracy, again and again), then we can submit the Jewish first century historian Josephus, who referred to the half-shekel temple and civil tax or “tribute” (Wars of the Jews, VII, ch. 6. Sec. 6):
Caesar . . . laid a tribute upon the Jews wheresoever they were, and enjoined every one of them to bring two drachmae every year into the Capitol, as they used to pay the same to the temple at Jerusalem. And this was the state of the Jewish affairs at this time.
The drachma (primarily Greek) was made of silver (see also, Robert B. Strassler, The Landmark Thucydides, New York, Free Press [1996]. 620). A half-shekel (biblical Hebrew) was the equivalent of 1.676 drachmae (biblical Greek). New Bible Dictionary (ed. J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, “Money”) states:
The basic Greek coin was the silver drachme . . .
*
The drachme is mentioned only in Lk. 15:8 f. . . . where it is translated ‘pieces of silver'(EVV) [RSV: “ten silver coins”]: . . . It was regarded as approximately equivalent to the Roman denarius . . .
*
The didrachmon or 2-drachm piece was used among the Jews for the half-shekel required for the annual Temple tax (Mt. 17:24). . . .
*
The stater, tetradrachmon, or 4-drachm piece, is found only in Mt. 17:27 [RSV: “shekel”], where it is the coin which would pay the Temple tax for Jesus and Peter. . . .
*
Most numismatists agree that this was the coin in which Judas received his thirty pieces of silver (Mt. 26:15 . . .). (p. 840)
Jesus also referred to the denarius, made of silver (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13).
*
Moreover, at Horvat ‘Ethry in Israel (22 miles southwest of Jerusalem), between 1999 and 2001, Boaz Zissu and Amir Ganor of the Israeli Antiquities Authority discovered a half-shekel coin from the 2nd century A.D., with the words “Half-Shekel” in paleo-Hebrew on it. It had a silver content of 6.87 grams. See their article, “Horvat Ethri — A Jewish Village from the Second Temple Period and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the Judean Foothills,” Journal of Jewish Studies 60 (1), Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, London 2009, 90-136, pp. 96; 118.
*
But there is more. Smithsonian Magazine, in an article dated September 16, 2022 (“Ancient Coin Made in Defiance of Roman Rule Returns to Israel,” by Ella Feldman), noted that an ancient Jewish silver quarter-shekel, dated 69 A.D., had been found at an auction in Denver.
*
So much for this atheist objection . . . I feel like I just crushed a grape with a sledgehammer.
*
Related Reading
*

Coins of the Bible: Shekel of Tyre. Official temple sanctuary tax coins”

“Coins” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Coin” (McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia)

*
*
*
*
*
*

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Loren Bider, Judas [public domain / PublicDomainPictures.Net]

***

Summary: Atheists and other biblical skeptics object to Judas “thirty coins of silver.” I document how various coins made of silver in 1st century Israel have been established.

April 27, 2023

1 Kings 10:1-2, 10-11 (RSV) Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD, she came to test him with hard questions. She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices, and very much gold, and precious stones . . . Then she gave the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and a very great quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again came such an abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon. Moreover the fleet of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a very great amount of almug wood and precious stones.

The Hebrew Sheba is understood by all to be the equivalent of Saba“: a kingdom (the Sabaeans or Sabeans) in the southwest of the Arabian peninsula (current-day Yemen). Joel 3:8 refers to “the Sabeans, . . . a nation far off.” Isaiah 45:14 also makes mention of “the Sabeans,” as does Job 1:15, while Job 6:19 has “the travelers of Sheba” and Psalm 72:10, “the kings of Sheba” (cf. Ezek. 38:13). They were exporters of gold (Ps. 72:15: “gold of Sheba”; Isa. 60:6: “those from Sheba . . . shall bring gold and frankincense”), as well as of precious stones and spices (Ezek. 37:22: “The traders of Sheba . . . traded with you; they exchanged for your wares the best of all kinds of spices, and all precious stones, and gold”), and incenses and perfumes (Jer. 6:20: “frankincense . . . from Sheba”). Jesus assumes her historicity as well as Solomon’s:

Matthew 12:42 The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (cf. Lk 11:31; almost identical language)

Sheba is mentioned in conjunction with four other peoples and trading and commerce in Isaiah 60:6-7. Midian was located in northwestern Arabia. Ephah is also believed to be Arabian, and may have been near present-day Median (Yathrib in ancient times). Kedar, or the Qedarites, attested since the 8th century B.C., were located in northern Arabia, as were the people of Nebaioth, descendants of the Ishmaelites. These were likely associated with Sheba in the Bible because of their being on the incense trade route, which flourished on the western and southern coasts of Arabian peninsula, by the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

Egyptologist and archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen provides the basic background:

In the late eighth and early seventh centuries we have Assyrian mentions of Itamru (Yithas’amar) and Karibilu (Karibil) as kings of Saba . . . Before that, Assyrian sources record Sabaean trade caravans explicitly for the later eighth and implicitly for the early ninth centuries, little more than half a century after Solomon [r. c. 970-c. 931 B.C.]. As they traveled freely north, so could she have done. (1)

Does trade from Sheba date to the Queen of Sheba or even further back, according to secular science? One historian offers near-proof:

In the ancient period, it would seem that South Arabia and the Horn of Africa were the major suppliers of incense, . . . Early ritual texts from Egypt show that incense was being brought to the upper Nile by land traders, but perhaps the most spectacular evidence of this trade is provided by the frescos dated to around 1500 BC on the walls of the temple at Thebes commemorating the journey of a fleet that the Queen of Egypt had sent to the Land of Punt. Five ships are depicted in these reliefs, piled high with treasure, and one of them shows thirty-one small incense trees in tubs being carried on board. (2)

The “Land of Punt” is generally agreed to be in eastern Africa: modern-day Somalia and/or Ethiopia: directly across from ancient Sheba in present-day Yemen. If Egyptian ships could make it to Punt via the Red Sea, they could just as easily stop by Sheba on the other side of the water. And the queen of Sheba could have (and probably did) travel mostly by water, with a relatively short land journey to get to Jerusalem.

Keall uncovered zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines from the site of al-Midammam on the Red Sea in ancient Sheba, dated to between c. 2500 B.C. and the tenth century B.C. (3) Gunnar Sperveslage (4) summarizes an abundance of research findings that establish a date of trade between ancient Yemen and Egypt to some dozen centuries before Solomon and Sheba:

At the end of the 2nd millennium BCE [1000 B.C.] the camel was domesticated on the Arabian Peninsula . . . (5) (6) and it replaced the donkey as a pack animal on long distance trade routes. The ability of the camel to get along without water for days increased the efficiency of trade in desert regions. Although watering holes and wells occur frequently, only the large oases, which are not less than a few days’ ride apart, were capable of supplying large caravans with enough water. The overland trade of aromatics, and especially of frankincense, was the most important source of revenue for South Arabia, resulting in prosperity and wealth. . . . not long after the domestication of the camel, the ancient South Arabian Kingdom of Saba arose as an ancient civilisation of high culture. (p. 305)
*
According to recent archaeological fieldwork, the time span of intercultural contacts can be projected back at least as far as the late Old Kingdom. [which ended c. 2200 B.C.] . . . The Italo-American excavations at Mersa Gawasis on the Egyptian Red Sea coast exposed detailed information on the ancient harbour site and its use from the late Old Kingdom to the early New Kingdom (7) (8) . . . Ship timbers and naval equipment, such as blades of steering oars, ropes, anchors and cargo boxes have been found, as well as some fragments of exotic pottery, indicating the wide network of naval activities around 2000 BCE. A few pottery sherds occurred that originated from the Yemeni Tihama and the Aden region. They were found in assemblages dating from the late Old to the late Middle Kingdom [which ended in 1782 B.C.] (9) (10) . . . the presence of South Arabian pottery in Middle Kingdom Egypt illustrates beyond doubt aspects of long distance trade and exchange of goods conducted by people from ancient Yemen long before the rise of the Sabaean Kingdom. (p. 308)

A very recent discovery is even more directly relevant to the question of Solomon and Sheba. Daniel Vainstub, of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, summarizes:

In Eilat Mazar’s excavations in the Ophel in Jerusalem, a partially preserved inscription engraved on the shoulder of a pithos was found in 2012 in a context dated to the 10th century BCE. . . . In this study, it is argued that the inscription was engraved in the Ancient South Arabian script and that its language is Sabaean. The inscription reads “ ]šy ladanum 5.” The aromatic ladanum (Cistus ladaniferus),. . . [is] the second component of incense according to Exod 30:34. The inscription was engraved before the locally made vessel was fired, leading to the conclusion that a Sabaean functionary entrusted with aromatic components of incense was active in Jerusalem by the time of King Solomon. (11)

Our knowledge of the ASA [“ancient south Arabian”] script and the languages spoken and written by the civilizations that developed in the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula as of the end of the second millennium BCE has expanded enormously in recent decades . . . [due to, among other things] intensive archaeological excavations in the area, which have yielded stratigraphically datable inscriptions. . . . they have enabled the chronological rearrangement of ASA inscriptions on a firm radiometric basis rather than on their paleographic development alone. (13) This last point is of great importance for the present study. Before the abovementioned 14C analyses, most ASA inscriptions were dated to the 8th century BCE; now, it has become clear that the two branches of ASA script—the monumental, generally called musnad, and the minuscule, generally called zabūr—were in use in the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula as early as the 11th century BCE . . . the letters [of the inscription in question] were most probably written before the end of the second millennium BCE . . . (14)  

This [is] the first time an ASA inscription dated to the 10th century BCE has been found in such a northern location . . . As the 10th-century BCE South Arabian political scene is well known, there seems to be little doubt that the writer of this inscription was a Sabaean. At this time, the Kingdom of Sheba was the dominant power in South Arabia, with a flourishing economy based on the irrigated cultivation of incense and perfume plants and their marketing over long distances by means of camel caravans . . . The Ophel inscription is the most ancient ASA inscription found so far in the Land of Israel. (15) (16)
The Ophel inscription makes an important contribution to the age-old question of the likelihood of a visit by a delegation from the South Arabian Peninsula to King Solomon in the 10th century BCE as related in 1 Kgs 10 and 2 Chr 9; . . . Scholars . . . who have based their opinions on the data of the last two decades, will find strong support of their opinion in the inscription. (17)
Many theoretically possible routes have been proposed for the trade between Southwest Asia and the Levant from the Bronze Age onward . . . One of these is the maritime route, sailing around the Arabian Peninsula and along the Red Sea. This is a valid possibility also for the trade route between Sheba and Israel in the 10th century BCE, which could be traveled by sea as far as Eilat and continued northward by land . . . (18)
Kitchen notes another interesting factor about the queen of Sheba:
*
In north Arabia we have a series of executive queens, seemingly queens regnant, in the ninth and early seventh centuries, as Assyrian texts prove clearly. . . . Zabibe (738), Samsi (733), Iati’e (703) —  and lastly Te’elkhunu in 691 . . . After 690, never again do we find any Arabian queen playing any active role whatsoever in history. . . .
Thus, in terms of old-fashioned OT scholarship, the queen of Sheba is “pre-Deuteronomic” (well before 621, the imaginary date for the first “publication” of Deuteronomy and its religious beliefs). There was no rational reason for inventing a story about a queen . . . visiting Solomon at any time after 650 at the latest . . . Our queen should belong to genuine historical tradition . . . (19)
As we saw in the Bible passage above, Hiram brought gold to Solomon and Judah from Ophir, and the queen of Sheba brought “very much gold.” The gold could have been derived from the same place. Where is this Ophir? In my book, The Word Set in Stone (2023, pp. 23-24), I took the position that it was  Mahd Adh Dhahab (“Cradle of Gold”), a small gold area and mine in the northwest Arabian Peninsula. Geologists believe more 30 metric tons of gold came out of this mine in antiquity. This area was directly in the line of the ancient incense trade route. Besides the biblical connection of Ophir with gold, we have a Hebrew ostracon (likely eighth century B. C.), found in 1951, with the inscription, “Gold of Ophir for Beth-Horon — 30 shekels.”
*

FOOTNOTES

1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 116.

2) Himanshu Prabha Ray, The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia (Cambridge University Press: 2003), 31.

3) E. Keall, “Possible connections in antiquity between the Red Sea coast of Yemen and the Horn of Africa,” in P. Lunde, A. Porter (eds), Trade and travel in the Red Sea region (Oxford: 2004), 45, figures 11-12.

4) Gunnar Sperveslage, “Intercultural contacts between Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula at the turn of the 2nd to the 1st millennium BCE,” ch. 14 (pp. 303-330), in J. C. Moreno García (ed.): Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East 1300-500 BC (Oxford: 2016). (Link)

5) See H.-P Uerpmann & M. Uerpmann, “The appearance of the domestic camel in south-east Arabia,” Journal of Oman Studies 12 (2002): 235–260.

6) See M. Heide, “The domestication of the camel: biological, archaeological and inscriptional evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and traditional evidence from the Hebrew Bible,” Ugarit-Forschungen 42 (2010): 331–382.

7) K. A. Bard & R. Fattovich (eds), Harbor of the Pharaohs to the Land of Punt. Archaeological Investigations at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt, 2001–2005 (Naples: 2007).

8) K. A. Bard, R. Fattovich, & C. Ward, “Sea Port to Punt: new evidence from Mersā Gawāsīs, Red Sea (Egypt),” in J. Starkey, P. Starkey & T. Wilkinson (eds), Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea (British Archaeological Report S1661 /Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 5), 143–148, (Oxford: 2007).

9) Bard & Fattovich, 130–131.

10) Bard, Fattovich, & Ward, 147.

11) Daniel Vainstub, “Incense from Sheba for the Jerusalem Temple,” Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology (Jan. 2023) 4: 42–68. (Link)

12) Vainstub, 45-46.

13) See M.B. Piotrovskij and A. V. Sedov, “Field-Studies in Southern Arabia,” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia (1994) 1: 202–219; particularly pp. 204-206; A. Avanzini, Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions I–III: Qatabanic, Marginal Qatabanic, Awsaniete Inscriptions (Pisa: Edizioni Plus—Università di Pisa, 2004), 10.

14) See P. Stein, “Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian Script: New Evidence for an Absolute Chronology,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (2013) 24: 186–195.
*
15) Vainstub, 59.
*
16) See A. De Maigret, “A Sabaean Stratigraphy from Barāqish,” Arabia (2007 –2010) 4: 67–95.
*
17) Vainstub, 61.
*
18) Vainstub, 62. See also the media article highlighting this find: Amanda Borschel-Dan, “Newly deciphered inscription gives clue to biblical queen of Sheba’s Jerusalem visit,” The Times of Israel, April 3, 2023. https://www.timesofisrael.com/newly-deciphered-inscription-gives-clue-to-biblical-queen-of-shebas-jerusalem-visit/.
*
19) Kitchen, 117.
*
20) Kitchen, 120.
*
***

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Solomon And The Queen Of Sheba, by Giovanni Demin (1789-1859) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Is the queen of Sheba and her famous visit to see king Solomon the stuff of myth and legend or actual history? I provide significant evidence in favor of the latter.

April 25, 2023

1 Kings 9:14 (RSV) Hiram had sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold.

1 Kings 10:10-11 Then she gave the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and a very great quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again came such an abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon. Moreover the fleet of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a very great amount of almug wood and precious stones.

1 Kings 10:14-18 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold, besides that which came from the traders and from the traffic of the merchants, and from all the kings of Arabia and from the governors of the land. King Solomon made two hundred large shields of beaten gold; six hundred shekels of gold went into each shield. And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three minas of gold went into each shield; and the king put them in the House of the Forest of Lebanon. The king also made a great ivory throne, and overlaid it with the finest gold.

Archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen observed, “Such figures have very often been dismissed as fantasy; but it is wiser to check on their background before jumping to premature conclusions.” (1) Kitchen notes that — “from firsthand sources” — we know that:

Metten II of Tyre (ca. 730) paid a tribute of 150 talents of gold to . . . Tilgath-pileser III (2) of Assyria [r. 745-727 B.C.], while in turn his successor Sargon II (727-705) (3) bestowed 154 talents of gold upon the Babylonian gods — about 6 tons in each case. (4)

Pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt (5) [r. 1479-1426 B.C.] offered approximately 13.5 tons (more than 200 talents) of gold implements to the god Amun in Thebes, and additionally a fabulous collection of gold vessels. This constitutes almost one-third of Solomon’s reported annual revenue of gold, and it was merely one occasion, at one Egyptian temple.

But that’s a mere pittance compared to Pharaoh Osorkon I [r. c. 979-c. 973 B.C.] (6), who offered “383 tons of gold and silver” (7) to the gods of Egypt in his first four years as Pharaoh. And it’s nothing in comparison with the 1,180 tons of gold from Susa that Alexander the Great plundered, or the 7,000 tons of gold altogether that he took away from the conquered Persian Empire. (8) The website Iran (9) states that the gold taken from Persia was “more gold than today in Fort Knox.” Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell, biographers of Alexander the Great, estimate it to have been “200,000 talents” of precious metals (10): a sum that would be about $1.6 trillion in today’s U.S. dollars.

Thus, on what prima facie basis should the amount of wealth that the Bible attributes to King Solomon be questioned as supposed fantasy and fiction, in light of the above historical analogies from the documented facts of history?

FOOTNOTES

1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 133.

2) Donald John Wiseman, “Tilgath-pileser III,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tiglath-pileser-III.

3) Jorgen Laessoe, “Sargon II,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sargon-II. This article dates the beginning of Sargon’s reign to 721 B.C., as opposed to Kitchen’s 727.

4) Kitchen, 133-134.

5) Peter F. Dornan, Margaret Stefana Drower, “”Thutmose III,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thutmose-III.

6) “Osorkon I,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Osorkon-I.

7) Kitchen, 134.

8) Ibid.

9) “Alexander,” Iran. https://www.the-persians.co.uk/alexander1.htm.

10) Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell, Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 86. https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-Story-Ancient-Life/dp/0521767482/ref=sr_1_1.

***

See Related Articles

Archaeology & Solomon’s Temple-Period Ivory [1-28-23]

King Solomon’s “Mines” & Archaeological Evidence [3-24-23]

Solomon’s Temple and its Archaeological Analogies (Also, Parallels to Solomon’s Palace) [4-25-23]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***
Photo credit: Linnaea Mallette [public domain / PublicDomainPictures.Net]

***

Summary: Many critics have stated that Solomon’s wealth was “impossible”. Analogies to other rich monarchs in ancient times, however, show that it was completely possible.

April 20, 2023

Thus far, in my articles and my 2023 book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible, I have documented archaeological confirmation — of one sort or another — for kings of the United Monarchy (Saul, David, and Solomon), and kings in the period of the divided kingdom of (southern) Judah (931-586 B.C.) and (northern) Israel (931-722 B.C.). These include Hezekiah, Ahaz, Jotham, Pekah, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, Jehoiakim, Manasseh, Rehoboam, Ahaziah of Judah, Jehoram I of Israel, and Ahab (with Queen Jezebel).

That’s already fifteen kings out of a total of 23 kings in Judah, and 19 kings in northern Israel (= 42 total). Now I shall document the same sort of evidence for ten more kings, which means that I now have extrabiblical documentation for 25 out of 42 kings (60%). It all adds up to the Bible being relentlessly historically accurate.

2 Chronicles 26:1, 3 (RSV) And all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amazi’ah. . . . Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem.

Uzziah, king of Judah (aka Azariah in 1 Kings 15:1-7), according to Encyclopedia Britannica reigned from 791-739 B.C. (1) Bryan Windle (2) details some of the evidence for his historicity:

Two seals which once belonged to officials in his court mention him by name.  One reads, “belonging to Abiyau, servant of Uzziah.” (3)  . . . The second seal is made of red limestone and reads, “Belonging to Sebnayau, servant of Uzziah.” (4) . . . Based on the shapes of the letters and the styles of the seals, both date to the time of King Uzziah.

Windle continues,

A fragmentary inscription from the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III mentions “Azariah of Judah” (Uzziah’s other name) several times.  In one part, Tiglath-Pileser writes: “19 districts of Hamath, together with the cities of their environs, on the shore of the sea of the setting sun, who had gone over to Azariah in revolt and contempt [of Assyria].” (5) While this event is not known in Scripture, it would be consistent with Uzziah’s influence as he expanded his control in the region . . . (6)

Encyclopedia Britannica (7) dates the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III to 745-727 B.C., which overlaps that of Uzziah by some six years.

Uzziah was a prolific builder:

2 Chronicles 26:6, 9-10 . . . he built cities in the territory of Ashdod and elsewhere among the Philistines. . . . Moreover Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate and at the Valley Gate and at the Angle, and fortified them. And he built towers in the wilderness, and hewed out many cisterns, . . .

A fortress dated to Uzziah’s time-period has been discovered by archaeologists at Ain el-Qudeirat (or Kadesh Barnea). It had eight rectangular towers and a large cistern. (8) Archaeologists Negev and Gibson wrote about it:

A completely new fortress was built in the 8th century BC (Stratum II) . . . [with] three projecting towers on each side. . . . This fortress was probably erected by Uzziah . . . Its destruction is ascribed to the Assyrians. (9)

Moreover, Stratum III at Lachish, from Uzziah’s time, “was strongly fortified and surrounded by a double wall . . . further strengthened by buttresses and towers . . . a formidable shaft measuring 75 feet by 75 feet by 66 feet . . . was probably intended to provide the city with a safe water supply . . .” (10)

Beth Shemesh (Stratum II), has been dated to the 9th-7th centuries B.C., and among the many finds there included “a large plastered water reservoir.” (11)

Manasseh, king of Judah, reigned from c. 686-642 B.C. (12) The Bible states that he reigned fifty-five years (2 Kings 21:1), but this likely includes eleven years of co-regency with his father, Hezekiah. (13) A seal has been discovered that may be one that Manasseh used during his co-regency with his father.  In a book about such seals, Nahman Avigad concluded,

a thorough microscopic examination of the stone revealed that the engraving does not give the impression of being recent. Moreover, the script, showing a fluent classic Hebrew hand, appears to be authentic in form and spirit. (14)

Bryan Windle adds,

Interestingly, it bears the same iconography – the Egyptian winged scarab – as that of numerous seals attributed to King Hezekiah.  While some may be surprised to see an Egyptian symbol on a Hebrew king’s seal, it must be noted that Hezekiah established an alliance with Egypt against the Assyrians (2 Ki 18:21; Isaiah 36:6). (15)

In the annals of Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r. 680-669 B.C.) (16), Manasseh was named as a mere vassal, conscripted to deliver wood for the construction of Esarhaddon’s palace. (17) Windle continues,

Esarhaddon’s son and successor, Ashurbanipal, also mentions “Manasseh, King of Judah” in his annals, which are recorded on the Rassam Cylinder, named after Hormuzd Rassam, who discovered it in the North Palace of Nineveh in 1854.  This ten-faced, cuneiform cylinder includes a record of Ashurbanipal’s campaigns against Egypt and the Levant. (18)

This cylinder states in part,

During my march (to Egypt) 22 kings from the seashore, the islands and the mainland, Ba’al, king of Tyre, Manasseh (Mi-in-si-e), king of Judah (la-ti-di)…[etc.]…servants who belong to me, brought heavy gifts (tdmartu) to me and kissed my feet. (19)

The dates of reign for Ashurbanipal are 668-627 B.C. (20), so we see that 26 of those years are contemporaneous with Mannaseh.

2 Kings 14:23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, began to reign in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years.

Jeroboam II ruled from c. 791-c. 750 in Israel (21). Bryan Windle (22) summarizes a key evidence for his historicity,

The “Megiddo Seal,” as it called, was discovered in excavations at Megiddo in the early 1900’s.  The seal was made of jasper, and depicted a crouching lion, along with the inscription, “(belonging) to Shema, Servant of Jeroboam.” (23)

Archaeologist Kenneth A. Kitchen observes,

The famous seal of ‘Shema servant [=minister of state] of Jeroboam’ is almost universally recognized to belong to the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel . . . attempts to date it to Jeroboam I’s reign are unconvincing. (24)

In 2020, archaeologist Yuval Goren of Ben-Gurion University claimed to have proven the authenticity of a bulla (clay seal impression) bearing the image of a roaring lion and a paleo-Hebrew inscription, “(Belonging) to Shema, Servant of Jeroboam.” (25)

2 Kings 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria, and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria, . . .

Hoshea was the final king of Israel, and reigned from 731-722 B.C. (26) Windle (27) noted,

An ancient seal, bearing the paleo-Hebrew inscription, “Belonging to Abdi, servant of Hoshea” was purchased at a Sotheby’s auction in 1993 for $80,000. . . . At the bottom is an Egyptian winged sun disk, an image that is common on prominent Hebrew seals, such as that of King Hezekiah. In ancient seals, the servant’s title, ’ebed, indicates that the master was a king, (28) . . . Moreover, epigrapher André Lemaire notes, “The paleo-Hebrew writing on this seal fits very well with other dated inscriptions from the last third of the eighth century B.C.E.” (29) Even though the seal was purchased on the antiquities market, most experts support its authenticity.

2 Kings 15:29-30 In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Jan-oah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. Then Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.

Along these same lines, Hoshea appears in the royal inscriptions of the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727).  Summary Inscription No. 4 reads:

The land of Bit-Humria [literally Omri-Land, that is Israel]…all of its people […to] Assyria I carried off Pekah, their king, [I/they ki]lled…and Hoshea [as king] I appointed over them. (30)

2 Kings 17:3, 5-6 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his vassal, and paid him tribute. . . . Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria, and for three years he besieged it. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria, and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria, . . .

This biblical account of the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel is corroborated by the Babylonian Chronicle ABC 1 (BM 92502) which states, “On the twenty-fifth of the month Tebêtu, Šalmaneser in Assyria and Akkad ascended the throne. He ravaged Samaria.” (31) Shalmaneser V reigned from 726-721 B.C. (32)

1 Kings 16:23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri began to reign over Israel, and reigned for twelve years; . . .

Omri was king of Israel from 886/885-875/874. (33) He is referred to several times in the Mesha Stele (34) (or Moabite Stone), dated to 840 B.C., in which King Mesha of Moab describes his exploits. He’s also mentioned on the Black Obelisk of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (r. 858-824 B.C.) (35) Even a hundred years after Omri’s reign, Israel was referred to by Assyrian kings as “Omri-land”: by Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 B.C.) in his Annalistic Records (36) and by Sargon II (37) (r. 721-705) (38).

2 Kings 10:36 The time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years.

Jehu reigned over Israel in the general period of c. 842-815 B.C. (39) or 841-814/813 (40). Bryan Windle (41) sums up the archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record with regard to this king:

Jehu’s reign corresponded with that of Shalmaneser III [r. 858-824 B.C.], . . . One of the longest versions of Shalmaneser III’s annals . . . records the various campaigns he took through the first 21 years of his reign. (42)  In his 18th year, Shalmaneser . . . wrote, “I received tribute from Ba’ali-manzeri of Tyre and from Jehu of the house of Omri.” (43) Other copies of Shalmaneser’s annals have been discovered with the same description of Jehu’s tribute.  These include inscriptions on two monumental bulls discovered at Nimrud (ancient Calah), (44) in an annalistic tablet, (45) as well as on the Kurba’il statue of Shalmaneser III. (46) . . .

It should be noted that, in Assyrian records, Jehu is often associated with the “house of Omri” or described as the “son of Omri.”  Jehu was not a descendant of Omri; rather he was the successor to the Omride dynasty.  The Assyrians often referred to successive rulers in relation to the name of the ruler of the country with whom they had first contact. (47)

2 Kings 13:10 In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned sixteen years.

Jehoash II, Or Joash (2 Chron. 25:17), was king of Israel from 806/805-791/790. (48) Bryan Windle describes the primary extrabiblical evidence in his case (49):

Shortly after Jehoash began to reign, the Assyrian king, Adad-Nirari III [r. 810-783 B.C.] (50) invaded the western lands. A victory stele (monument) was discovered in 1967 during excavations at Tell al-Rimah which contains a record of Adad-Nirari III’s campaign. While its date is unknown, many scholars associate it with Adad-Narari III’s expedition westward in 796 BC. (51) It reads:

. . . I received the tribute of Jehoash the Samarian, of the Tyrian ruler and of the Sidonian ruler. (52)

2 Kings 15:17, 19 In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah Menahem the son of Gadi began to reign over Israel, and he reigned ten years in Samaria. . . . Pul the king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that he might help him to confirm his hold of the royal power.

Menahem reigned in Israel from 749/748-739/738 (53). Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 B.C.) invaded Samaria in 743 B.C. and boasted, “As for Menahem I overwhelmed him like a snowstorm and he . . . fled like a bird, alone, and bowed to my feet. I returned him to his place and imposed tribute upon him: gold, silver, linen garments with multicolored trimmings…” (54) In another inscription, “Menahem of Samaria” is named — with sixteen other kings — as having paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. (55).

2 Kings 22:1 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. . . .

Josiah was king of Judah from c. 640-609 (56). Kitchen writes,

Ostracon Mousaieff 1, . . . required payment of three shekels of silver to “the House [= temple] of the LORD [YHWH] “in the name of ‘Ashiah/’Oshiah the king, via a man [Z]echariah. The script is either eighth . . .. or seventh century . . . In the former case, ‘Ashiah/’Oshiah is a variant of Joash, king of Judah; in the latter case, of Josiah, which is the latest date possible. In Josiah’s time a Levite named Zechariah was concerned with repairs to the Jerusalem temple (cf. 2 Chron. 34:12), . . . (57)

Sure enough, after Kitchen wrote the above (in 2003), further evidence of King Josiah has surfaced. A signet ring was discovered in the ancient City of David in Jerusalem which features the name of one of King Josiah’s officials, Nathan-melech, a “chamberlain” named in 2 Kings 23:11. The inscription of the ring says, “belonging to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King” (58). Sixteen years’ time in biblical archaeology is more than enough for all kinds of new exciting discoveries to be made. They literally arrive every few months. This find is a classic case, and not in the least surprising. Also, a seal with the text “Asayahu servant of the king” probably belonged to “Asaiah the king’s servant” (2 Kings 22:12). (59)

2 Kings 8:16-17 In the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

Jehoram II reigned in Judah from 849/848-842. (60) He is mentioned on the Tel Dan stele (61), a Canaanite artifact discovered in 1993 — most notable for its reference to the “House of David.” The prevailing opinion as to its date is the second half of the ninth century B.C.: precisely when Jehoram II reigned. He’s referred to as the father of Ahaziah of Judah (see 2 Kings 8:24-25).

Kenneth Kitchen explains the absence in extrabiblical sources of most of the rest of the kings of Judah and Israel, and the overall extraordinary accuracy of the biblical accounts:

Here the evidence began with Omri and Ahab, coming up to the mid-ninth century. Before that time, no Neo-Assyrian king is known to have penetrated the southwest Levant, to gain (or record) knowledge of any local king there. And it was not Egyptian custom to name foreign rulers unless they had some positive relationship with them (e.g., a treaty). Foes were treated with nameless contempt. . . .

But from 853 onward we do have some data. Some nine out of the fourteen Israelite kings are named in external sources. Of the five missing men, three were ephemeral (Zechariah, Shallum, Pekahiah) and two reigned (Jehoahaz, Jeoboam II) when Assyria was not active in the southwest Levant. And one of these (Jeroboam II) is in any case known from a subject’s seal stone. Judah was father away than Israel, so the head count is smaller: from Jehoram I to Zedekiah we have currently mention of eight kings out of fifteen. Of the seven absentees, Uzziah . . . is known from his subjects’ seals. Amaziah reigned during Assyrian absence from the southwest Levant; Jotham . . . is known from a bulla of Ahaz. Amon and Jeho-ahaz were ephemeral, while Josiah reigned during the Assyrian decline, without documentation by them of Levantine kings. But seal impressions and possibly an ostracon come from his time. . . .

The time-line order of foreign rulers in 1-2 Kings, etc. is impeccably accurate, as is the order of the Hebrew rulers, as attested by the external sources. (62)

The basic presentation of almost 350 years of the story of the Hebrew twin kingdoms comes out under factual examination as a highly reliable one, with mention of own and foreign rulers who were real, in the right order, at the right date, and sharing a common history that usually dovetails together well, when both Hebrew and external sources are available.  Therefore we have no valid reason to cast gratuitous doubt on other episodes where comparable external data are currently lacking . . . (63)

This concludes our survey. As I already mentioned, I’ve now presented extrabiblical documentation for 25 out of 42 kings of Judah and Israel (60%). As Dr. Kitchen mentioned in the preceding citation, five of the remaining kings were “ephemeral” (i.e., ruled for a very short time). If we don’t include them, it’s 25 out of 37, or 68%. Plausible, feasible explanations for most or all of the remaining dozen not being mentioned are provided by Kitchen as well. The Bible, in this historical respect, as in many others, is, as Dr. Kitchen asserted, “impeccably accurate” and “highly reliable.”

FOOTNOTES

1) “Uzziah,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Uzziah.

2) Bryan Windle, “King Uzziah: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, August 7, 2020. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/08/07/king-uzziah-an-archaeological-biography/.

3) Amahai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (London: Yale University Press, 1990), 519.

4) Clyde E. Fant and Mitchell G. Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 143.

5) D. D. Luckenbill. “Azariah of Judah.” American Journal of The Semitic Languages and Literatures. Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 1925), 220.

6) Windle, ibid.

7) Donald John Wiseman, “Tiglath-pileser III,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tiglath-pileser-III.

8) Catherine L. McDowell, study note on 2 Chronicles 26:10, in ESV Archaeology Study Bible (ed. John Currid and David Chapman; Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 632.

9) Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, eds., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, revised ed., 2003), “Kadesh Barnea,” 277.

10) Negev & Gibson, “Lachish,” 289.

11) Ibid., “Beth Shemesh . . .,” 88.

12) “Manasseh,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Manasseh-king-of-Judah.

13) Ewin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 174-176.

14) Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Israel Exploration Society, and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Institute of Archaeology, 1997), 55.

15) Bryan Windle, “King Manasseh: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, February 12, 2021. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/02/12/king-manasseh-an-archaeological-biography/.

16) “Esarhaddon,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Esarhaddon.

17) James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), 291.

18) Windle, “King Manasseh . . .”

19) Pritchard, 294.

20) Donald John Wiseman, “Ashurbanipal,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ashurbanipal.

21) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 31.

22) Bryan Windle, “King Jeroboam II: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, March 4, 2021. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/03/04/king-jeroboam-ii-an-archaeological-biography/.

23) David G. Hansen, “Megiddo, the Place of Battles,” Bible and Spade Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring 2010).  https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/conquest-of-canaan/3084-megiddo-the-place-of-battles.

24) Kitchen, 19.

25) Amanda Borschel-Dan, “2,700 years ago, tiny clay piece sealed deal for Bible’s King Jeroboam II,” Times of Israel, December 10, 2020. https://www.timesofisrael.com/2700-years-ago-tiny-clay-piece-sealed-deal-for-bibles-king-jeroboam-ii/.

26) Kitchen, 31.

27) Bryan Windle, “King Hoshea: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, October 8, 2021. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/10/08/king-hoshea-an-archaeological-biography/.

28) Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 65.

29) André Lemaire, “Royal Signature: Name of Israel’s Last King Surfaces in a Private Collection,” Biblical Archaeology Review 21:6, (November/December 1995), 51.

30) Mordecai Cogan, The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 73.

31) A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley: J.J. Augustin Publisher, 1975), 73. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-1-from-nabu-nasir-to-samas-suma-ukin/.

32) “Shalmaneser V,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shalmaneser-V.

33) Kitchen, 30.

34) “Mesha Stele,” New World Encyclopedia. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mesha_Stele.

35) “Shalmaneser III,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shalmaneser-III.

36) A. Leo Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in Ancient Near Easter Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), 284.

37) Jorgen Laessoe, “Sargon II,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sargon-II.

38) Oppenheim, ibid., 285.

39) “Jehu,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jehu.

40) Kitchen, 30.

41) Bryan Windle, “King Jehu: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, October 9, 2020. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/10/09/king-jehu-an-archaeological-biography/.

42) Albert Kirk Grayson,  Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: II (858-745 BC) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 50.

43) Ibid., 54.

44) Ibid., 48.

45) Pritchard, 280.

46) Grayson, 60.

47) Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 135.

48) Kitchen, 31.

49) Bryan Windle, “King Jehoash: An Archaeological Biography,” Bible Archaeology Report, August 13, 2021. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/08/13/king-jehoash-an-archaeological-biography/.

50) “Sammu-ramat,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sammu-ramat#ref258856.

51) Linda S. Schearing, “Joash,” in D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4473.

52) “The Tell al-Rimah Stela,” Livius.org, July 10, 2020. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/cos-2.114f-the-tell-al-rimah-stela/.

53) Kitchen, 31.

54) Pritchard, 284.

55) Mordecai Cogan, The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 59.

56) “Josiah,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Josiah.

57) Kitchen, 20.

58) Amanda Borschel-Dan, “Tiny First Temple find could be first proof of aide to biblical King Josiah,” The Times of Israel, March 31, 2019. https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-tiny-first-temple-inscriptions-vastly-enlarge-picture-of-ancient-jerusalem/.

59) Michael Heltzer, The Seal of Asahayu, in William H. Hallo, The Context of Scripture (Brill, 2000), Vol. II, 204.

60) Kitchen, 30.

61) Kitchen, 17-18.

62) Kitchen, 62-63.

63) Kitchen, 64.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***
Photo credit: King Uzziah Stricken by Leprosy (c. 1639), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
Summary: I provide extrabiblical documentation for ten kings of Judah & Israel, adding to my 15 previous similar efforts, for a total of 25 out of 42, or 60% “outside” verification.

Browse Our Archives