Rex Banks
The Silver Scrolls
Seals from Jeremiah's Time
The Last Days of Judah
Daniel
The Silver Scrolls
The web page of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp) contains some interesting information about excavations at a place called Ketef Hinnom ("shoulder of Hinnom") a hill overlooking the Hinnom Valley, southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem. Evidently the major discovery at the site to date consists of "several rock-hewn burial caves dating from the end of the First Temple period (7th century BCE), which contained an abundance of small artifacts..." The article continues:
The most important of all the objects found in this tomb are two small silver scrolls. They were somewhat damaged - small wonder, since they were placed in the tomb in the 7th century BCE. Carefully unrolled by experts at the Israel Museum laboratories, they were found to be covered with ancient Hebrew script on the obverse, which was deciphered with some difficulty.
The larger of the two plaques measures 97 x 27 mm, the smaller only 39 x 11 mm. The larger plaque contains 18 lines of writing, mostly legible. Both plaques contain benediction formulas in paleo-Hebrew script, almost identical to the biblical Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6:24-26.
This biblical text, dated to the 7th century BCE, is the oldest known to date and pre-dates the texts found in the Dead Sea area by about 500 years. The word yhwh (the name of the Lord in Hebrew) appears in writing for the first time ever. The benediction quoted from the Book of Numbers was recited by the Temple priests when blessing the congregation; here it is found in writing and for individual use. The tiny silver scrolls were probably worn as amulets around the neck. (emphasis mine)
A picture of the scrolls can be viewed at <http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00uz0>
An article headed Are The Bible Stories True which appeared in Time Magazine (December 18, 1995 Volume 146, No. 25) makes mention of this important discovery. In the course of the article, reference is made to the 1995 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, and we are told that "radical minimalist" John Van Setters summed up many of the commonly held positions of the participants. Evidently "with Pope-like confidence" Van Setters declared, among other things, that the "oldest books of the Old Testament.... weren't written until the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, after 587 B.C." (emphasis mine) The article continues:
"It's a truism in archaeology that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Digging up the past is a hit-or-miss proposition. And one hit can demolish a mountain of skepticism. Among the discoveries that strengthen the Bible's claim to historical accuracy:
In 1979 Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay found two tiny silver scrolls inside a Jerusalem tomb. They were dated to around 600 B.C., shortly before the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the Israelites' exile in Babylon. When scientists carefully unrolled the scrolls at the Israel Museum, they found a benediction from the Book of Numbers etched into their surface. The discovery made it clear that parts of the Old Testament were being copied long before some skeptics had believed they were even written." (emphasis mine)
Hopefully in the future claims that Scripture is inaccurate based solely upon the "absence of
evidence" will not be made with such "Pope-like confidence."
Seals from Jeremiah's Time
The same Time Magazine article contains the following interesting piece of information:
"In 1986 archaeologists revealed that several lumps of figured clay called bullae, bought from Arab dealers in 1975, had once been used to mark documents. Nahman Avigad of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem identified the impressions stamped into one piece of clay as coming from the seal of Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the doomsday proclamations of the prophet Jeremiah. Another bore the seal of Yerahme'el, son of King Jehoiakim's son, who the Book of Jeremiah says was sent on an unsuccessful mission to arrest both prophet and scribe-again confirming the existence of biblical characters."
Actually the bullae preserve the names of four individuals who are mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. The best known Biblical name is that of Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe ("Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote on a scroll of a book, at the instruction of Jeremiah, all the words of the Lord which He had spoken to him." [36:4]) One seal contains the inscription "Belonging to Berekhyahu/son of Neriyahu/the scribe," and another has "Baruch son of Neriah the scribe". Interestingly the latter also apparently bears Baruch's fingerprint. Twoother seals preserve the inscription "Elishama servant of the king" and "Gemariah, son of Shaphan," and these individuals are known to us from Jer. 36:10-12 ("And behold all the officials were sitting...[in the scribes chamber] -Elishama the scribe....Gemariah the son of Shaphan..") A fourth seal is inscribed, "(belonging) to Yerahme'el son of the king" and we read of him in Jer. 36:26.
The fact that the individuals mentioned are not outstanding characters illustrates yet again that
the biblical record is accurate in the minutest of details.
The Last Days of Judah
Not long after having reached the height of its power, the Assyrian kingdom began to decline, and in 612 B.C. the capital city of Ninevah fell to a combined attack of the Medes and Babylonians. Through Nahum the prophet the Lord had said to the cruel Assyrian conquerors "I will prepare your grave" (1:14) and Zephaniah had announced the Lord's intention to "make Ninevah a desolation". (2:13) Then in 605 B.C. in one of the major battles in world history, Egypt was thoroughly routed by the Babylonians at the Canaanite city of Carchemish, and although both sides suffered heavy losses, Babylonia was established as the major world power. Her subsequent contact with the kingdom of Judah provides further confirmation of the biblical record.
Scripture records that Jehoiakim, king of Judah became the "servant" of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar following the battle of Carchemish, but that after a period of three years he rebelled against him. (2 Kings 24:1) Likely Jehoiakim was encouraged in this rebellion by the fact in the year 601 B.C., Egypt managed to repel an invasion of Babylonian forces at her border. The Babylonians sent raiding parties into Judah (2 Kings 24:2) and then in 597 B.C. they besieged and captured Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:10) during the reign of Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiachim. The "treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house" are carried away and Jehoiachin is taken captive to Babylon. (2 Kings 24:12,13) Zedekiah, Jehoiachin's uncle is placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:17) but after 11 years he rebels against Babylon, (2 Kings 24:20) and her armies return and raze Jerusalem to the ground in 585-587 B.C.
Now although the Babylonians did not leave annals behind them as did the Assyrians, an assortment of clay tablets bearing cuneiform inscriptions (usually referred to as the "Babylonian Chronicles") do provide helpful confirmation of a number of points in the biblical record, and they also help with the chronology of the period. Werner Keller speaks of a discovery made by D.J. Wiseman in 1955 while he was translating one tablet. In the official records of the Babylonian royal house, Wiseman came upon a tablet with following inscription:
"In the seventh year, in the month Chislev, the King assembled his army and advanced on hatti-land (Syria). He encamped over against the city of the Judaeans and conquered it on the second day of Adar (March 597). He took the King (Jehoiachin) prisoner and appointed in his stead a king after his own heart (Zedekiah). He exacted heavy tribute and had brought to Babylon."
But this is not the only reference to Jehoiachin in the Babylonian records. Jeremiah tells us that in captivity " a regular allowance was given ...(Jehoiachin) by the King of Babylon" (Jer. 52:36) and another tablet dating to the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar contains a record of provisions supplied to Jehoiachin, "King of the (land of) Judah". So although the Babylonian records do not compare to the annals of the Assyrians, they do provide valuable testimony to the accuracy of the biblical account of Judah's last days.
Also relevant to the study of this historical period are the so-called Lachish Letters which were found in a burned-out room at the site of the city of Lachish, one of the last fortified cities of Judah to fall to the Chaldeans. (Jer. 34:6) These letters constitute "first-hand documents of the uneasy political and military situation reigning in Judah on the eve of Nebuchanezzar's destruction of Jerusalem". (The Interpreters Dictionary of The Bible) In his Archaeology and Bible History, J.P. Free tells us:
"In the days of Jeremiah when the Babylonian army was taking one town after another in Judah (about 589-586 B.C.) we uphold in the Bible that, as yet, the two cities of Lachish and Azekah had not fallen (Jer. 34:7). Striking confirmation of the fact that these two cities were among those still holding out is furnished by the Lachish Letters. Letter No. 4, written by the army officer at a military outpost to his superior officer at Lachish, says 'We are watching for the signals of Lachish according to all indications which my Lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah'. This letter not only shows us how Nebuchadnezzar's army was tightening its net around the land of Judah, but also evidences the close relationship between Lachish and Azekah, which are similarly linked in the book of Jeremiah."
R.K. Harrison tells us that Letter No. 3 contains the words "And as for the letter of Tobiah,
servant of the king, which came to Shallum, son of Jaddua through the prophet saying ' Beware!'
by servant hath sent it to my lord". (Introduction) Harrison adds that considerable discussion has
centred upon the identity of the "prophet," some scholars claiming that it refers to Jeremiah,
others arguing that it is a reference to an unknown prophet. He tells us that Letter No. 6 "contains
the complaint of a patriotic official alleging that the...(royal notables) were 'weakening the hands'
of the people by issuing demoralising communications," and adds: "Ironically enough it was this
very accusation that had been levelled against Jeremiah during the days of Zedekiah". Also of
great interest is the fact that a "contemporary seal inscribed 'of Gedaliah who is over the house'
has been found at Lachish". (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopaedia vol 2) Gedaliah was the name
of the individual who was made governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:22-26;
Jer. 40:6-41:18), and the title "who is over the house" was usually held by the chief
administrative official next in rank to the king. In the words of John Romer, the Lachish Letters
"are the last contemporary records of the kingdom of Judah, that rump of the ancient
confederation which claimed descend from Moses' Twelve Tribes". (Testament)
Daniel
Among the "sons of Judah" brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar was one young man named Daniel (Dan. 1:6), the central human character in the book which bears his name. Among other things, the book of Daniel is designed to make it clear that despite the captivity of God's chosen people, it is the Lord (not Babylon) who is ruler over the affairs of men.
In part this assurance is provided by a series of visions which describe the future of four successive world kingdoms, namely the kingdoms of Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The last vision is dated to the "third year of Cyrus king of Persia" (10:1) about the year 536 B.C. So accurate are the details contained in these visions that a sixth century date for the book would constitute proof of divine inspiration, and for this reason rationalist critics insist that the book of Daniel must have been written at a much later date. For various reasons most argue that the writer composed the book between about 165 - 168 B.C., during the days of the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes 4th. They insist that, among other things, certain historical errors and linguistic peculiarities preclude a sixth century B.C. date. However to a large extent archaeological discoveries have drawn the teeth of these arguments.
In his Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist Randall Price tells us that among the biblical manuscripts found that Qumran "are eight copies of the book of Daniel, represented by some 20 fragments". We are also told that "the scrolls also contain other witnesses to biblical Daniel, such as the pseudo-Daniel fragments...pseudo Daniel apocalypses...related apocryphal documents...is and parallels in other apocalypses.." After some discussion of this material Randall-Price expresses the view that "the Hebrew version of Daniel-compared linguistically with the Hebrew of other Qumran scrolls-makes....(the original composition of Daniel in the Maccabean period) an impossibility". (emphasis mine) Randall-Price goes on to quote Gleason Archer as follows:
"In the light of all the data adduced....it seems abundantly clear that a second - century date for the Hebrew chapters of Daniel is no longer tenable on linguistic grounds. In view of the markedly later development exhibited by...second-century documents in the areas of syntax, word order, morphology, vocabulary, spelling and word-usage, there is absolutely no possibility of regarding Daniel as contemporary. On the contrary the indications are that centuries must have intervened between them.....If all the book was written even as early as the third century (and there really is nothing in the linguistic data to militate against a late sixth century composition by the ostensible author himself), the supernatural element of fulfilled prediction would still remain". (The Hebrew of Daniel Compared with the Qumran Sectarian Documents: The Law and the Prophets: Essays in Honour of Oswalt T. Allis. [emphasis mine])
In his excellent little book Daniel in the Critics Den, Josh McDowell has a chapter entitled
Attacks Upon Daniel as a Writer, in which he discusses linguistic arguments against the early
date of Daniel. McDowell quotes at length from the writings of Charles Boutflower wherein he
discusses the Aramaic of Daniel and concludes:
"(W)e are abundantly justified in concluding that the dialect of the Daniel, containing as it does so many Persian, Hebrew and Babylonian elements, and so few Greek words, would not one Egyptian, Latin or Arabic word, and being so nearly allied in grammatical form and structure to the older Aramaic dialects and in its conglomerate vocabulary to the dialects of Ezra and Egypto-Aramaic, must have been used at or near Babylon at a time not long after the founding of the Persian empire." (In and Around The book of Daniel [emphasis mine])
In similar vein, arguments for the late date of Daniel based upon the alleged presence of Greek loan words in this book have been dealt a death blow by recent archaeological discoveries. In the Introduction to his commentary on Daniel, Archer tells us that there is general agreement today that "but three words in the Aramaic of Daniel...have undoubtedly been borrowed from Greek". (The Expositor's The Bible Commentary vol 7) He points out that this usage is easily explained by the fact that inscriptions from the time of Sargon 2nd (722-705 BC) refer to Greek captives being sold into slavery. The presence of these words in Daniel is not evidence of a late date. Archer adds:
"On the other hand, it is inconceivable that the Greek terms for government and administration would not have been adopted into Aramaic by the second century B.C. if Greek had indeed been the language of government for over 160 years (between 332 and 167 B.C.)....(linguistic evidence) points unquestionably to composition in the Persian period (c.530 B.C.). But it renders a late date in the post Alexandrian period linguistically impossible."
Thus solid archaeological evidence has destroyed those late date arguments based upon linguistic considerations. Radical theories have had to give way to stubborn facts.
Archaeological findings have also effectively answered those critics who allege that historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel prove that the writer lived long after the events which he claims to describe. In his Daniel, McDowell says that Daniel's dating of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem is "the beginning of the critics' attempt to discredit Daniel's historical reliability". He draws our attention to the fact that Daniel places the siege in the "third year of the reign of Johoiakim" (Dan. 11) whereas the statement in Jeremiah 46:2 implies that "the battle that supposedly opened the way for a Babylonian invasion of Judah did not occur until the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign". Some cried "contradiction" but this allegation was made before there was any understanding of the complexity of ancient dating systems. In this context McDowell quotes historian J.D. Wison (among others) who points out that "there are is no need to suggest discrepancy (between Daniel and Jeremiah). In the Babylonian calendar the year began in the spring. The Babylonian third-year would overlap the Judean fourth-year by about 6 months. The same date could be both the third and fourth year, according to the mode of reckoning" (Did Daniel Write Daniel?) It is clear that Daniel, living in Babylon, followed the Babylonian system, a fact which not only answers the critics, but actually supports the view that the author wrote from a Babylonian perspective."
Another alleged error is detected in the use of the term "Chaldeans" in the book of Daniel. Originally the term was use to refer to a particular group of tribes, and only later acquired the limited meaning of wise men/astrologers/magicians. McDowell quotes (among others) C.H. Cornill who emphatically affirms:
"The manner in which the term kasdim (Chaldean) exactly like the Latin Chaldaeus is used in the sense of soothsayer and astrologer (2:2,4,5,10; 4:4; 5:7,11) is inconceivable at a time when the Chaldeans were the ruling people of the world". (Introduction to the Canonical The books of the Old Testament)
McDowell first points out that the writer of Daniel also uses the term to refer to an ethnic or tribal group (e.g. 1:4; 9:1) and then he cites evidence from Herodotus (450 B.C.) to prove that the term Chaldean was indeed used of a special class of priests at an early date. Evidently what Cornell found inconceivable Herodotus considered quite normal.
For years, critics of Daniel were adamant that the reference to "Belshazzar the King" (5:1), who was slain the night that Babylon fell (5:30), provided further evidence of the Bible's inaccuracy. Nebuchadnezzar is called "his father" (5:2), but the problem was that Belshazzar's name was not known outside of Scripture, and what's more other ancient documents were unanimous in naming Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. However four clay cylinders discovered in Iraq by J.G. Taylor in 1854 helped solve part of the problem. The cylinders were written for Nabonidus, and record the fact that he had rebuilt a ziggurat for the god Sin. In part the inscription reads:
"Let their [the temples] foundations be established as the heavens. As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sin against your great divinity, and give me life until distant days. And as for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, and may he commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life." (The entire text can be read at The Ziggurat of Ur web page <http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/ziggurats/explore/cylinder.htmlis>)
So once again critics like Ferdinand Hitzig, who had affirmed that Belshazzar was a fictional haracter, were proved wrong. Let's also keep in mind that "By the time of Herodotus (mid 5th century B.C.) the very name Belshazzar had been forgotten (at least by the Greek informants of this historian. How would a 2nd century Jewish historian (writing fiction) have gotten hold of it...?" (Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Daniel) This is a good point which turns out to be a good argument in favour of the early date.
Further evidence of Daniel's accuracy is provided by the so-called Verse Account of Nabonidus which was made available in 1924. This work is by one of the priests from the temple of the Babylonian supreme god Marduk, and it reveals the priests' displeasure with Nabonidus because of his neglect of a certain religious ceremonies. The document contains the following:
"After he (Nabonidus) had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit (a temple devoted to a hitherto unknown god) had built this abomination, a work of unholiness -when the third year was about to begin - he entrusted the army [?] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west." (emphasis mine)
Here then is proof positive that Belshazzar (oldest son of Nabonidus) shared the kingship with his father, a fact supported by other inscriptions. What is more, not only was the writer of Daniel correct in calling him "the King," but his intimate knowledge of the historical situation is revealed by the fact that Daniel is said to have been made "third ruler in the kingdom". (Dan. 5:16) Clearly the writer is well aware of the co-regency. Also of great interest is the fact that according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, from year 7 until year 16 of his reign Nabonidus was at Temâ in the Arabian desert, and thus the failure of the book of Daniel to mention him is quite understandable. Finally, Nebuchadnezzar may have been the father of Belshazzar's mother, and it is clear that "ab" ("father") was used to refer to a grandfather or great grandfather. (Gen. 28:13; 32:9; 1 Kings 15:10-13) Too, the term "father" was also used of a predecessor in office, a fact attested to by various ancient documents and by Scripture itself. (2 Kings 2:12) Interestingly R.H. Pfieffer who denies the early date of Daniel says:
"We shall presumably never know how our author learned...that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Bar 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as King when Cyrus took Babylon in 538." (chpt 5) (Introduction to the Old Testament)
Of course those of us who accept the biblical record as it stands have no problem understanding this. Pfieffer also says that we may never known "how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30) as the excavations have proved (see R. Koldeway, Excavations at Babylon 1915)..." (ibid) We recall that the writer of Daniel represents Nebuchadnezzar as speaking of "Babylon the great, which I myself have built...by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty" (4:30) and in this context the following observation by Werner Keller is interesting:
"Hardly any other monarch in the past was such an assiduous builder. There is scarcely any mention of warlike activities, conquests and campaigns. In the forefront there is the constant building activity of Nebuchadnezzar. Hundreds of thousands of bricks bear his name, and the plans of many of the buildings have been preserved. Babylon in fact surpassed all the cities of the ancient orient: it was greater than Thebes, Memphis and Ur, greater even than Nineveh."
Finally, it is of interest to compare Daniel's is account of the fall of Babylon to Cyrus with that of Herodotus. Scripture records that Belshazzar and 1000 of his nobles were engaged in a great feast on the night that the city fell (5:1, 30) and Herodotus confirms this unusual situation. The historian tells us that the Babylonians "shut themselves up, and made light of his siege, having laid in a store of provisions for many years in preparation against this attack... (1:190) He goes on to describe how the city was taken by surprise while her citizens "were engaged in a festival (and) continued dancing and revelling" until they learnt of the capture. (1:191) (Full text available at: Herodotus Web Site: <http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/Text/Book1.htm>)
The New Bible Dictionary provides a useful summary at this point:
"The author gives evidence of having a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonian and early Persian history than any known historian since the 6th Century B.C. ...He knew enough of 6th century customs to represent Nebuchadnezzar as being able to make and alter the laws of Babylon with absolute sovereignty (2:13-13, 46), while depicting Darius the Mede as being helpless to change the laws of the Medes and Persians. (6:8-9) Also, he accurately represented the change from punishment by fire under the Babylonians (chpt 3) to punishment by the lions' den under the Persians (chpt 6), since fire was sacred to them." (Daniel: Book of)Home|Contents