#the 1500s or later or never had jewish communities at all | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

insideanairport · 5 years

Text

Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (part II/II)

❍❍❍

Iran between Zoroaster (زرتشت) and Islam

Last Thursday night (June 20th), Trump approved an attack on Iran after a US drone was shot down, yet he suddenly changed his mind and pulled back from the attack. (5) While Trump almost attacked Iran and started a new area of war and misery in the world, Iranians inside Iran and around the world are frightened by this escalation. Today, Iran’s Jewish community is the largest in the Mideast outside Israel – and feels safe and respected. (6)

Iranians in the diaspora have a variety of ethnicities, languages, religions, and political views but with different intensities, they all share the common Iranian-something else identity. There are many different political oppositions to the current Islamic Republic which in itself is one of the most straight-forward opponents of the United States hegemony and its imperial projects. Politically, Iranian Left has a wide spectrum; from the ultra-radical MEK which is supported by no one else but John Bolton, to Tudeh Party of Iran. Iranian right-wing opposition has also a wide gamut from ultra-right nationalists such as Persian Renaissance, Jason Reza Jorjani who hangs out with American white-supremacists Richard Spencer, to the good old monarchists, and of course the recent infamous Mohamad Tawhidi a fake Muslim cleric educated in Iran who is now a hero for the white-nationalists and Islamophobes. (7) (8)

Iranian nationalists see themselves as Caucasian or white. This might be in part due to the fact that etymologically the word Iran means “land of Aryans”. The Avestan name Airiianəm vaējō "Aryan expanse", is a reference in the Zoroastrian Avesta (Vendidad, Fargard 1) to the Aryans’ mother country and one of Ahura Mazda's "sixteen perfect lands". (9) Before the Islamic Revolution of 1978, Shah of Iran was seeing himself as a descendant of the great ancient Persian kings. In 1971, Shah decided to organize a huge event on the 2500-Year Celebration of Persian Empire (officially known as the 2500th year of Foundation of Imperial State of Iran). Many historians argue that this event resulted in the Iranian Revolution and eventual replacement of the Persian monarchy with the Islamic Republic. If you fancy watching some part of the event, there is good propaganda video narrated by Orsen Welles.

Before the Shah, for a short period, Iran had a cozy democracy in 1951-1952. Iran democratically elected its 25th prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (محمد مصدق‎), who was a supporter of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination. He nationalized the Iranian oil for the first time in 1951. The oil industry had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC -later British Petroleum and BP). Mosaddegh’s government was overthrown in a coup d'état (28 Mordad 1332) orchestrated by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6. (10)

Nietzsche and Postmodernism

Zoroaster [Zarathustra as its older form] was the ancient Persian prophet who lived in Iran at some point between 1500 BCE - 1000 BCE. Nietzsche chose the older version of Zoroaster’s name “Zarathustra”. Before publishing the book, Nietzsche included the first paragraph of Zarathustra’s prologue in his previous book Joyous Science (1882). There are two differences between this paragraph and the opening in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (1) The title Incipit Tragoedia [tragedy begins] and (2) in Joyous Science the lake of Zarathustra’s home is mentioned as “lake Urmi” [today’s lake Urmia] compare to the prologue in Thus Spoke Zarathustra where the name of the lake is left out. We know that the real birthplace of Zoroaster is uncertain. (11)

Nietzsche’s anti-Christian and anti-majoritarian views (it's reversals of Christian morality and values) are picked up by white feminists and queer theorists for obvious reasons. As Michael Hardt wrote in the forward for Deleuze’s "Nietzsche and Philosophy”, postmodernists didn’t just use these concepts to get away from the dominant French Philosophical establishment of ’50s and ’60s but they were also genuinely interested in Nietzsche’s anti-universalities views.

Although very similar in methodology, there are some differences between the Nietzschean concept of solitude (which is very predominant in this work) and postcolonial marginalization and anxiety. Words such as "happiness” and “joy” has a distinctive meaning for Nietzsche which wasn’t unpacked in this book but was the main topic of his previous book Joyous Science (1882). Nietzschean Dionysius is more tonal in this book rather than descriptive and maybe has giving its chair to the bigger umbrella of Eternal Return as the "fundamental conception" of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (-Ecce Homo, 1888)

Importance of writing as an activist

“Of all that is written I love only that which is written with blood. Write with blood: and you will discover that blood is spirit. It is not easy to understand the blood of another: I hate the reading idler. He who knows the reader does nothing further for the reader. Another century of readers – and spirit itself will stink. That everyone is allowed to learn to read will in the long run ruin not only writing but thinking, too. Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it is even becoming mob[populace].”

At the end of chapter 4 in Joyous Science, Nietzsche inserted the opening of the Zarathustra’s prologue. He is making his readers ready for a transformation. For understanding Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it is essential for the reader to read Joyous Science first. Nietzsche wants to prepare his readers for his philosophy, so in a way, he is selective about who is he talking to.

“We not only want to be understood when we write, but also just as surely not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book that someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this was precisely the author’s intention – perhaps he did not want to be understood by ‘just anyone’. Every individual with a distinguished intellect and sense of taste, when he wishes to communicate himself, always selects his listeners; by selecting them, he simultaneously excludes ‘the others’. All the subtler laws of style have their origin here; they simultaneously ward off, create distance and forbid ‘entrance’ (or intelligibility, as I have said) – while allowing the words to be heard by those whose sense of hearing resembles the author’s. And between ourselves, may I say that, in my own case, I do not want my ignorance or the vivacity of my temperament to prevent me from being understandable to you, my friends; certainly not the vivacity, however much it may compel me to come to grips with a thing quickly, in order to come to grips with it at all. (The Joyous Science - Book V, 381 On the Question of Intelligibility”)

Anti-Nietzsche writers

Anti-Nietzsche writers usually refer only to Nietzsche’s text from his early period (before the break with Wenger) without taking his later works into consideration. Taking his works out of context is a sign of dismissal of his philosophy and art. Nietzsche met Wagner at the home of Hermann Brockhaus an Orientalist who was married to Wagner’s sister, Ottilie. Brockhaus was himself a specialist in Sanskrit and Persian whose publications included an edition of the Vendidad Sade—a text of the Zoroastrian religion. (12) It was only after the publication of “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth” that he realized who Wagner really was (an anti-Semitic coward). After completion of “Human, All-Too-Human” (1878) and continuation of his friendship with Jewish philosopher Paul Rée, Nietzsche ends his friendship with Wagner, who comes under attack in a thinly-disguised characterization of “the artist”. (12)

“Nietzsche had long hymned the sublime power that Wagner’s music exercised over his senses but now he realised how it robbed him of his free will. The realisation filled him with a growing resentment against the delirious, befogging metaphysical seduction that once had seemed like the highest redemption of life. Now he saw Wagner as a terrible danger, and his own devotion to him as reeking of a nihilist flight from the world. He criticised Wagner for being a romantic histrionic, a spurious tyrant, a sensual manipulator. Wagner’s music had shattered his nerves and ruined his health; Wagner was surely not a composer, but a disease?”

(Sue Prideaux, “I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Nietzsche”)

To even start talking about Heidegger and Nietzschean metaphysics, is to miss-read Nietzsche, just as taking "Will To Power” as something that Nietzsche actually published is wrong. Will to Power was never meant to be a book, it was put together by Nietzsche’s Nazi sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Heinrich Köselitz. They have selected, added and subtracted parts to Nietzsche’s notes in order to compile a book that is accessible to their average readers. (See Will to Power introduction by R. Kevin Hill, Penguin Classics 2017). Sue Prideaux described this perfectly in Nietzsche’s biography "I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Friedrich Nietzsche”. And Carol Diethe’s wrote a biography on Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche which gives us more insight into her proto-Fascist mentality.

The Will to Power book, did everything that Nazis wanted, hugely swerving from Nietzsche’s philosophy, the book starts with "European nihilism" and ends with the forceful sentence “This world is the will to power – and nothing besides! And even you yourselves are this will to power – and nothing besides!”. No other philosophy could do better justice to the Nazi cause than this fabricated assemblage.

Majority of Nietzsche’s work can be hijacked by ultra-right and the new alt-right, expect his fundamental critic of Christianity which is at the heart of his philosophy. Fascist and racist white writers such as Jordan Peterson, Oscar Levy (who wrote the introduction to Untimely mediation in 1909 and according to Walter Kaufmann, forged a fake autobiography of Nietzsche titled “My Sister and I”), Richard Spencer and others have tried to utilize Nietzsche in their hatred of brown and black peoples, religious minorities, Muslims and Jews, Queer people, and liberals. (13)

Methodologically, Nietzsche doesn’t throw away, archaic classical concepts such as; nobility, civilization, and barbarism, he appropriates and instrumentalizes them for his philosophical end. He didn’t have everything perfect, after all, we are talking about a dude who lived his mature period 140 years ago and was using a “writing ball” to type. (14) He has comical and outdated stuff as well. His rejection of vegetarianism is one of them.

Who is living in Nietzsche’s world

It seems to me the worst thing that we can do when reading Nietzsche is to put his philosophy into a functionalist and majoritarian (national) use. He argues in Joyous Science concerning consciousness (which he perceives as a communal category rather than an individual one):

“the growth of consciousness is dangerous, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans even knows that it is a disease. As one might have guessed, it is not the antithesis of subject and object which concerns me here; I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the snares of grammar (the metaphysics of the people). Even less is it the antithesis of the ‘thing in itself’ and the phenomenon; for we do not ‘know’ enough to be entitled to make such a distinction. We have absolutely no organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’; we ‘know’ (or believe, or imagine) exactly as much as may be useful to us, exactly as much as promotes the interests of the human herd or species; and even what is called ‘useful’ here is ultimately only what we believe to be useful, what we imagine to be useful, but perhaps is precisely the most fatal stupidity which will some day lead to our destruction.”

Nietzsche’s critique of European Universalism and Western Humanism is still valid and timely, yet if we stay within the hegemonic “white domain“ (White-main) our theoretical understanding of Nietzsche, will be centered somewhere between the Alt-right racism, white phenomenology, European Modernist and localists, Silicon Valley accelerationism and Nick Land (which is equally racist). The only way to get out of this binary is to step out of White-main and find Nietzsche in between the lines of the second-generation non-European Nietzsche intellectuals (Fanon, Derrida, Aimé Césaire, Muhammad Iqbal, Ali Shariati) and the third-generation intellectuals (Spivak, Bhabha). At this time in history, Europeans can’t (and shouldn’t) any longer teach or perpetuate Nietzsche’s philosophy for any end. Not for Germany, not for any other white-majority nation. This is simply because they are already living in Nietzsche’s post-God reality.

Bib.

1. NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH and HOLLINGDALE, R. J. . Ecce Homo. s.l. : PENGUIN BOOKS, 2004. 9780141921730. 2. Sandis, Constantine. Nietzsche’s Dance With Zarathustra . philosophy now. [Online] 2012. https://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nietzsches_Dance_With_Zarathustra. 3. Ashouri, Daryoush. Nietzsche and Persia. http://www.iranicaonline.org. [Online] July 20, 2003. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nietzsche-and-persia. 4. Nietzsche, Friedrich. the joyous science . s.l. : Penguin Classics, 2018. 5. Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman. Strikes on Iran Approved by Trump, Then Abruptly Pulled Back. nytimes.com. [Online] June 20, 2019 . https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html. 6. Hjelmgaard, Kim. Iran’s Jewish community is the largest in the Mideast outside Israel – and feels safe and respected. msn. [Online] 8 29, 2018. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran%E2%80%99s-jewish-community-is-the-largest-in-the-mideast-outside-israel-%E2%80%93-and-feels-safe-and-respected/ss-BBMAVgX. 7. Mackey, Robert. How a Fringe Muslim Cleric From Australia Became a Hero to America’s Far Right. theintercept.com. [Online] June 25, 2019. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/25/mohamad-tawhidi-far-right/?fbclid=IwAR25hr0TV8w0erffRrGhccVkC5G0KFwjR3y7tM7n2j-4nx4pp_b5PssuFzo. 8. Schaeffer, Carol. ALT FIGHT Jason Jorjani Fancied Himself an Intellectual Leader of a White Supremacist Movement — Then It Came Crashing Down. theintercept.com. [Online] March 18 , 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/18/alt-right-jason-jorjani/. 9. ĒRĀN-WĒZ . Encyclopedia Iranica. [Online] http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eran-wez. 10. Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror . s.l. : John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 11. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Joyous Science. s.l. : Penguin Calssics, 2018. 12. Wicks, Robert. Nietzsche’s Life and Works. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-life-works/. 13. Illing, Sean. The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too. www.vox.com. [Online] Dec 30, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/alt-right-nietzsche-richard-spencer-nazism. 14. Herbst, Felix. Nietzsche’s Writing Ball (Video). felixherbst.de. [Online] https://vimeo.com/43124993.

(Part II/II)

______________________

#read #reading

2 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 6 years

Text

The Day of Shame

By Uri Avnery, CounterPunch, May 21, 2018

On Bloody Monday, when the number of Palestinian killed and wounded was rising by the hour, I asked myself: what would I have done if I had been a youngster of 15 in the Gaza Strip?

My answer was, without hesitation: I would have stood near the border fence and demonstrated, risking my life and limbs every minute.

How am I so sure?

Simple: I did the same when I was 15.

I was a member of the National Military Organization (the “Irgun”), an armed underground group labeled “terrorist”.

Palestine was at the time under British occupation (called “mandate”). In May 1939, the British enacted a law limiting the right of Jews to acquire land. I received an order to be at a certain time at a certain spot near the sea shore of Tel Aviv in order to take part in a demonstration. I was to wait for a trumpet signal.

The trumpet sounded and we started the march down Allenby Road, then the city’s main street. Near the main synagogue, somebody climbed the stairs and delivered an inflammatory speech. Then we marched on, to the end of the street, where the offices of the British administration were located. There we sang the national anthem, “Hatikvah”, while some adult members set fire to the offices.

Suddenly several lorries carrying British soldiers screeched to a halt, and a salvo of shots rang out. The British fired over our heads, and we ran away.

Remembering this event 79 years later, it crossed my mind that the boys of Gaza are greater heroes then we were then. They did not run away. They stood their ground for hours, while the death toll rose to 61 and the number of those wounded by live ammunition to some 1500, in addition to 1000 affected by gas.

On that day, most TV stations in Israel and abroad split their screen. On the right, the events in Gaza. On the left, the inauguration of the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

In the 136th year of the Zionist-Palestinian war, that split screen is the picture of reality: the celebration in Jerusalem and the bloodbath in Gaza. Not on two different planets, not in two different continents, but hardly an hour’s drive apart.

The celebration in Jerusalem started as a silly event. A bunch of suited males, inflated with self-importance, celebrating--what, exactly? The symbolic movement of an office from one town to another.

Jerusalem is a major bone of contention. Everybody knows that there will be no peace, not now, not ever, without a compromise there. For every Palestinian, every Arab, every Muslim throughout the world, it is unthinkable to give up Jerusalem. It is from there, according to Muslim tradition, that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven, after tying his horse to the rock that is now the center of the holy places. After Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem is the third holiest place of Islam.

For the Jews, of course, Jerusalem means the place where, some 2000 years ago, there stood the temple built by King Herod, a cruel half-Jew. A remnant of an outer wall still stands there and is revered as the “Western Wall”. It used to be called the “Wailing Wall”, and is the holiest place of the Jews.

Statesmen have tried to square the circle and find a solution. The 1947 United Nations committee that decreed the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state--a solution enthusiastically endorsed by the Jewish leadership--suggested separating Jerusalem from both states and constituting it as a separate unit within what was supposed to be in fact a kind of confederation.

The war of 1948 resulted in a divided city, the Eastern part was occupied by the Arab side (the Kingdom of Jordan) and the Western part became the capital of Israel. (My modest part was to fight in the battle for the road.)

No one liked the division of the city. So my friends and I devised a third solution, which by now has become a world consensus: keep the city united on the municipal level and divide it politically: the West as capital of the State of Israel, the East as capital of the State of Palestine. The leader of the local Palestinians, Faisal al-Husseini, the scion of a most distinguished local Palestinian family and the son of a national hero who was killed not far from my position in the same battle, endorsed this formula publicly. Yasser Arafat gave me his tacit consent.

If President Donald Trump had declared West Jerusalem the capital of Israel and moved his embassy there, almost nobody would have got excited. By omitting the word “West”, Trump ignited a fire. Perhaps without realizing what he was doing, and probably not giving a damn.

For me, the moving of the US embassy means nothing. It is a symbolic act that does not change reality. If and when peace does come, no one will care about some stupid act of a half-forgotten US president. Inshallah.

So there they were, this bunch of self-important nobodies, Israelis, Americans and those in-between, having their little festival, while rivers of blood were flowing in Gaza. Human beings were killed by the dozen and wounded by the thousand.

The ceremony started as a cynical meeting, which quickly became grotesque, and ended in being sinister. Nero fiddling while Rome was burning.

When the last hug was exchanged and the last compliment paid, Gaza remained what it was--a huge concentration camp with severely overcrowded hospitals, lacking medicines and food, drinkable water and electricity.

A ridiculous world-wide propaganda campaign was let loose to counter the world-wide condemnation. For example: the story that the terrorist Hamas had compelled the Gazans to go and demonstrate--as if anyone could be compelled to risk their life in a demonstration.

Or: the story that Hamas paid every demonstrator 50 dollars. Would you risk your life for 50 dollars? Would anybody?

Or: The soldiers had no choice but to kill them, because they were storming the border fence. Actually, no one did so--the huge concentration of Israeli army brigades would have easily prevented it without shooting.

Almost forgotten was a small news item from the days before: Hamas had discreetly offered a Hudna for ten years. A Hudna is a sacred armistice, never to be broken. The Crusaders, our remote predecessors, had many Hudnas with their Arab enemies during their 200-year stay here.

Israeli leaders immediately rejected the offer.

So why were the soldiers ordered to kill? It is the same logic that has animated countless occupation regimes throughout history: make the “natives” so afraid that they will give up. Alas, the results have almost always been the very opposite: the oppressed have become more hardened, more resolute. This is happening now.

Bloody Monday may well be seen in future as the day when the Palestinians regained their national pride, their will to stand up and fight for their independence.

Strangely, the next day--the main day of the planned protest, Naqba Day--only two demonstrators were killed. Israeli diplomats abroad, facing world-wide indignation, had probably sent home SOS messages. Clearly the Israeli army had changed its orders. Non-lethal means were used and sufficed.

My conscience does not allow me to conclude this without some self-criticism.

I would have expected that all of Israel’s renowned writers would publish a thundering joint condemnation while the shooting was still going on. It did not happen.

I would have expected that the dozens of our brave peace organizations would unite in a dramatic act of condemnation, an act that would arouse the world. It did not happen. Perhaps they were in a state of shock.

The next day, the excellent boys and girls of the peace groups demonstrated opposite the Likud office in Tel Aviv. Some 500 took part. Far, far from the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated some years ago against the price of cottage cheese.

In short: we did not do our duty. I accuse myself as much as I accuse everybody else.

But what topped everything was the huge machine of brain-washing that was set in motion. For many years I have not experienced anything like it.

Almost all the so-called “military correspondents” acted like army propaganda agents. Day by day they helped the army to spread lies and falsifications. The public had no alternative but to believe every word. Nobody told them otherwise.

The same is true for almost all other means of communication, program presenters, announcers and correspondents. They willingly became government liars. Probably many of them were ordered to do so by their bosses. Not a glorious chapter.

After the day of blood, when the army was faced with world condemnation and had to stop shooting (“only” killing two unarmed demonstrators) all Israeli media were united in declaring this a great Israeli victory.

Israel had to open the crossings and send food and medicines to Gaza. Egypt had to open its Gaza crossing and accept many hundreds of wounded for operations and other treatment.

The Day of Shame has passed. Until the next time.

#Gaza demonstrations #Israel-Gaza border #Palestinians #Israel

1 note · View note

automatismoateo · 4 years

Text

Historical And Scientific Inaccuracies In The Bible via /r/atheism

Submitted May 25, 2020 at 09:55PM by RunsWithApes (Via reddit https://ift.tt/2XwuNbB) Historical And Scientific Inaccuracies In The Bible

I noticed this past week, that several people (both ones I know personally and those on the internet) are of the honest impression that The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. I know it's way easier to just roll our eyes and silently pity their obvious disillusionment but I still firmly believe that by actually calling out members of this aggressive, narrow minded cult on their BS (firmly yet respectfully) we can eventually stem the influence they collectively have on our everyday lives. Here are some counterpoints I've complied from various authors online to combat the dangerously ignorant claim that the The Bible is nothing more than a series of books written by men whose ideas and understanding of the world have long since been surpassed by the scientific community.

For starters, there was never a global flood. There is no way that the extant biodiversity we have today could even survive such an event. Genesis (6:14-16) mentions the specific dimensions of the Ark pretty clearly and we know from an engineering perspective it not only would fail to have been buoyant but that it also would've be structurally unsound.

The human population didn't come from just two people, and certainly was as never low as 8 (the claimed number from the Noahide flood myth)- scientific analysis of our genes shows that the human population couldn't have dropped below around 1500 unrelated individuals and still have the genetic diversity we see now.

The Jews were never held as slaves in Egypt, thus no Exodus. They were never even IN Egypt en masse, and the Egyptians of the pharaonic period didn't have slaves as suggested in the bible. The monuments of the pharaohs were build by farmers and similar workers in the flood season of the Nile. There is not only zero evidence of the Jews there, but corroborating evidence (from other historical tribes of the Levant area, language analysis, etc) that the Jews never left the Levant at all. There is no evidence of an Exodus of a million odd people as claimed in the bible, and in fact many of the places cited didn't exist until centuries after the time period. The Exodus account was an eighth century BCE justification narrative for a land war with Egypt. Also there is no evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea. The shear amount of rapid erosion this would have caused should still be observable even today.

The Jewish "kingdom" of David and Solomon was nowhere near the size claimed- it was a minor tribal area at best, and even that's a bit shaky. There was no Soddom and Gomorrah- no other culture ever mentioned these allegedly large and prosperous cities, and no trace has been found in the area claimed.

The Gospels are even full of historical problems. Even if one discounts the utter lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus or any of his supposed miracles, there are other issues. The census NEVER required anyone to go to town of origin of their lineage- that would have collapsed the economy of the Empire. Roman censuses counted just the head of household IN their household- they were for tax purposes, so they cared where you lived, not where you came from. They were also done by province, not empire-wide, and usually subcontracted to the publicans. Further, Matthew states that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. Luke claims it was during the census of Israel conducted when Quirinius was governor of Syria- a post he did not take until 6CE, 10 YEARS after Herod the Great died. So both Matthew and Luke contradict themselves- the census literally could not have occurred at the same time as Herod was alive, yet both describe them as simultaneous. Luke also says that Augustus Caesar decreed "all the world should be registered", which is false.

Herod the Great never slaughtered infants as described in Matthew- despite there being many chroniclers of Herod's abuses, this little gem appears NOWHERE but the bible. Even Flavius Josephus, who extensively recorded Herod's evils, mentioned nothing of this event, which he would have if it actually occurred.

There were many minor errors showing the Gospel writers (Greeks, for the most part) had no clue of the geography of the area- like the story of the Gadarine swine, which Jesus supposedly drove into the Sea of Galilee, despite Gadera being kilometers from the sea. And that's just Matthew, since Mark's said "Gerasa", which was 30 kilometers away. Mark's descriptions of Jesus' movements made no geographical sense and are at times impossible.

No historians of the time, despite living in the area, ever recorded any major earthquakes or skies going black as was claimed happened during Jesus' death.

Interestingly, early scholars that even mentioned what early Christians believed- like Tacitus, Philo, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius- never mentioned any crucifixion. In fact, the crucifixion seemed to be unknown even to early Christians until the Second Century!

The trials would never have occurred as claimed in the bible, either. Rather hilariously, a nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the then-extant records of Pilate's court to find a record of Jesus' trial and found nothing. Pilate was depicted by the Gospels as a good man who only reluctantly agreed to the condemnation of Jesus- but history shows he was cruel and corrupt. It was a likely attempt after the First Jewish revolt to place blame on the Jews, rather than the old tradition of blaming Rome for all their ills. The Romans also had no custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, and Pilate was known to be far too ruthless to have ever caved to a mob (in fact, there are many records of him brutally subduing mobs). Never mind that it was claimed in the Passion narrative that the Sanhedrin met on Passover night to have Jesus arrested and condemned- when in reality the Sanhedrin were forbidden by Jewish law to meet during Passover at all.

In the stories of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac Jacob) we read about camels and caravans of camels, although the stories happened before the camels were domesticated in the Levant region and before the trade routes of camel caravans opened. The reason it was even mentioned was that the books were written later, in the days of the camel trade, by people who did not know it was a relatively recent development.

#reddit

0 notes

manuquialex120683 · 6 years

Text

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

by Clifford Wilson on January 24, 2008; last featured August 27, 2014

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

In every area, the evidence has been forthcoming: God has vindicated His Word, and His Book is a genuine writing, with prophecies and revelation that must be taken seriously.

Shop Now

It is a biblical principle that matters of testimony should be established by the mouths of two or three witnesses. According to Hebrew law, no person could be found guilty of an offense without properly attested evidence from witnesses, even though this law was put aside at the trial of Jesus.

When it comes to the Word of God, a similar principle is demonstrated from the modern science of archaeology. We are told in Psalm 85:11, “Truth shall spring out of the earth,” and in Psalm 119:89, “Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.” God’s Word is sure. It outlasts human generations, and in His own time God vindicates its truth. This puts God’s Word in a unique category: it is the “other side” of the two-way communication pattern between God and man. Man’s speech distinguishes him uniquely from all the animals, and God’s written Word distinguishes His special communication to man as immeasurably superior to all other supposed revelations.

According to that biblical principle of “two or three witnesses,” we shall now select evidences that support the truth and accuracy of God’s Word. In every area, the evidence has been forthcoming: God has vindicated His Word, and His Book is a genuine writing, with prophecies and revelation that must be taken seriously. His Book is unique because it is His Book.

Those inspired men of old wrote down God’s message, applicable to themselves in their own times, and also applicable to men and women across the centuries, right down to the present century. The Bible is the “other side” of the Christian’s study of the miracle of language. It is God’s chosen way of revealing His thoughts—the deep things which are unsearchable except by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

In the following outline we suggest certain divisions of the Word of God. Then we list three significant evidences from archaeology to confirm that the witness is sufficient to cause the case to be accepted for each section—God’s Word is indeed Truth.

Major Evidences Regarding Genesis 1–11

One of the Babylonian Creation Tablets, Enuma Elish

Part of the Gilgamesh Epic

Genesis 1–11 is the “seed-plot of the Bible,” an introduction to Abraham and great doctrines, such as God the Creator, Friend, Revealer, Judge, Redeemer, Restorer, and Sustainer. It is actual history, and it is a summary of beginnings.

1) Enuma Elish—This is the Babylonian Creation Record. We also have the Ebla Creation Tablet. The Bible record is clearly superior to this as the Enuma Elish has creation from pre-existing matter, which really isn’t creation at all. The Bible is the true account of this historical event.

2) The Epic of Gilgamesh includes the Babylonian Flood Story. Again, the biblical record is greatly superior. As Nozomi Osanai wrote in her master’s thesis on a comparison between Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamish Epic, “According to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record.”1

3) Long-living Kings at Kish (Sumer)—These kings supposedly lived from 10,000 to 64,000 years ago. The Bible’s record is conservative and is the true account, while the Babylonian and other traditions have been embellished over time. It was later realized that the Babylonians had two bases for arithmetic calculations, based on either tens or sixties. When the records were retranslated using the system of tens rather than sixties, they came to a total within 200 years of the biblical record.

Major Evidences Regarding Genesis 11–36

This section contains Patriarchal records, with special reference to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews.

Abraham’s home city of Ur was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley, with surprising evidence of near-luxury.2

The customs of Patriarchal times, as described in the Bible, are endorsed by archaeological finds at such places as Ur, Mari, Boghazkoi, and Nineveh. These were written records from that day—not just put down in writing many centuries later. They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

Ur Nammu, the king of Ur who claimed to build a famous tower

Thus, Abraham’s relationship with Hagar is seen in a different light by understanding that the woman who could not personally bear a child for her husband should provide him with one of her maidservants. In the Bible record we are told that it was Sarah who made the approach to Abraham, and her maid Hagar was a willing accomplice in having Abraham’s child. Thus, she gained economic security and personal prestige. We stress it was not Abraham who made the first approach to Hagar, but Abraham’s wife Sarah did in keeping with the customs of the day.

The records of the five kings who fought against four kings (Genesis 14) are interesting, in that the names of the people concerned fit the known words and names of the times.

Abraham’s negotiations with the Hittites (Genesis 23) are accurate and follow the known forms of such Hittite transactions. Neo-Hittites came later, but there were distinct language relationships. The Bible was right in calling the earlier people “sons of Hatti” or “Hittites.”

Interestingly, the Hittite word for retainers, which means “servants trained in a man’s own household” is hanakim (Genesis 14:14). This term is used only here in the Bible. Execration texts of the Egyptians (found on fragments of ceramic pots, which seem to have been used in ritual magic cursing of surrounding peoples) gives us the meaning of this term, and it is correctly used in the Bible record in Genesis 14.

Major Evidences Regarding Genesis 37–50

This section tells us the history of Joseph, the son of Jacob and great-grandson of Abraham. His brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites who sell him to an Egyptian eunuch. Joseph becomes successful in Egypt and helps to settle all of Israel there.

1) Known Egyptian titles such as “captain of the guard” (Genesis 39:1), “overseer” (Genesis 39:4), “chief of the butlers” and “chief of the bakers” (Genesis 40:2), “father to the Pharaoh” (actually “father to the gods,” which to Joseph was blasphemous because he could not accept Pharaoh as a manifestation of Ra the sun god; Joseph Hebraized the title, so that he did not dishonor the Lord), “Lord of Pharaoh’s House” (the palace), and “Ruler of all Egypt” (Genesis 45:8) attest to the historicity of this account.

2) Joseph’s installation as vizier (chief minister) is very similar to other recorded ceremonies. His new name was Zaphnath-Paaneah, meaning “head of the sacred college” (Genesis 41:41–45). Other Egyptian phrases and other local color are also plentiful throughout the record (e.g., embalming and burial practices [Genesis 50]).

3) The Dead Sea Scrolls make the number of the people of Jacob 75, not 70, in Genesis 46:27, thus correcting a scribal error and showing that Stephen’s figure was right (Acts 7:14).3

Major Evidences Regarding Exodus to Deuteronomy

The Eshnunna Law Code dating to c.1900 BC

These are the other four books of the Pentateuch, written by Moses, and probably at times in consultation with Aaron, the chief priest, and Joshua, the military leader.

1) The Law of Moses was written by a man raised in the courts of pharaoh, and it was greatly superior to other law codes, such as those of the Babylonian king Hammurabi, and the Eshnunna code that was found near modern Baghdad.

2) The covenant forms of the writings of Moses follow the same format as those of the Hittites, as endorsed by Professor George Mendenhall. The law code is a unity, dating to about 1500 BC (the time of Moses). These writings come from one source only, and there is no one to fit this requirement at this time except Moses. Ethical concepts of the Law were not too early for Moses, despite earlier hypercriticism. (Ebla tablets from Syria pre-date Moses and, for example, include penalties against rape.)

3) At this point it is relevant to comment on two world-famous archaeologists with whom I had the privilege of working as an area supervisor with the American Schools of Oriental Research at the excavation of Gezer in Israel many years ago. Each of them (at two separate excavations) gave wonderful lectures to 140 American college students.

At the time of his lecture, Professor Nelson Glueck stated, “I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error.” Being a world-class Jewish scholar, Professor Glueck would have meant the Old Testament when he referred to the Bible, but it is also true that at least on one occasion, to my knowledge, he defended the accuracy of the New Testament writings as well.

The other lecture was given by Professor George Ernest Wright of Harvard University. He spoke on the validity of the writings of Moses, especially the covenant documents in the Pentateuch. He stated that the research of Professor George Mendenhall had led to the conclusion—with which he agreed—that the covenant documents of Moses were a unity and must be dated to approximately 1500 BC.

In further conversation after the lecture, Professor Wright told me that he had lectured for 30 years to graduate students—especially at Harvard—and he had told them that they could forget Moses in the Pentateuch. He now acknowledged that for thirty years he had been wrong, and that Moses really had been personally involved in the actual writing of the Pentateuch.

The ten plagues or judgments against the leading gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12) are seen as real judgments, with a leading god of Egypt selected for judgment with each of the plagues.

Major Evidences Regarding Joshua to Saul

Canaanite deities, Baal and Asherah

This section includes the conquest, the judges, and the early kingdom.

Deities such as Baal, Asherah, and Dagan are properly identified in association with the right people.

City-states are also identified (e.g., Hazor as “the head of those kingdoms” [Joshua 11:10]. The excavation of Hazor corroborated its great size).

Saul’s head and armor were put into two temples at Beth-Shan. Both Philistine and Canaanite temples were found. The Bible record was endorsed when such an endorsement seemed unlikely (1 Samuel 31:9–10 and 1 Chronicles 10:10).

Major Evidences Regarding David to Solomon

At this time the Kingdom of Israel is established.

1) David’s elegy at Saul’s death is an accurate reflection of the literary style of his times. Excavations at Ras Shamra (the ancient Ugarit in Syria) clarified various expressions, such as “upsurgings of the deep” instead of “fields of offerings” as in 2 Samuel 1:21.

2) Following the discovery of the Ugaritic library, it has become clear that the Psalms of David should be dated to his times and not to the Maccabean period, 800 years later, as critics claimed. The renowned scholar William Foxwell Albright wrote, “To suggest that the Psalms of David should be dated to the Maccabean period is absurd.”4

3) Solomonic cities such as Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (1 Kings 9:15) have been excavated. Solomon even used similar blueprints for some duplicated buildings. The entrance to the Solomonic City of Gezer

Major Evidences Regarding the Assyrian Period

King Sargon of Assyria, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1

Part of a pathway excavated by Dr. Clifford Wilson between Sennacherib’s palace and the temple where his sons killed him

This was the time of “The Reign of Terror,” not long after Solomon’s death.

1) Isaiah 20:1 was challenged by critics because they knew of no king named Sargon in lists of Assyrian kings. Now Sargon’s palace has been recovered at Khorsabad, including a wall inscription and a library record endorsing the battle against the Philistine city of Ashdod (mentioned in Isaiah 20:1).

Assyrian titles such as tartan (commander-in-chief ), and several others, are used casually yet confidently by Bible writers.

2) Other Assyrian titles such as rabmag, rabshakeh, and tipsarru were also used by Bible writers. As the Assyrians disappeared from history after the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, this retention of “obsolete” words is a strong pointer to the eyewitness nature of the records. Thus it points also to the genuineness of the prophecies because the same men who wrote the historical facts also wrote prophecies.

The death of Sennacherib is recorded at Isaiah 37:38 and 2 Kings 19:37 and is confirmed in the records of Sennacherib’s son, Esarhaddon. It was later added to by Esarhaddon’s son Ashur-bani-pal.

3) Various details about Nineveh and the account of Jonah point to the Bible’s historicity. The symbol of Nineveh was a pregnant woman with a fish in her womb.

Adad-Nirari III, who might have been the king of Jonah’s time, introduced remarkable reforms—possibly after the message of the prophet Jonah. Adad-Nirari’s palace was virtually alongside the later construction of what is known as “Nebi Yunis” (“the prophet Jonah”). That structure is the supposed site of the tomb of Jonah, and although that is unlikely, the honoring of Jonah is very interesting.

Major Evidences Regarding the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar

Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and took Judah into captivity.

1) Daniel knew that Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the splendor of Babylon (Daniel 4:30). This was unknown to modern historians until it was confirmed by the German professor Koldewey, who excavated Babylon approximately 100 years ago.

2) We now know from the Babylonian Chronicle that the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem was the night of March 15/16, 597 BC. We also know that Belshazzar really was the king of Babylon at this time because his father Nabonidus, who was undertaking archaeological research, was away from Babylon for about 10 years. He appointed his son Belshazzar as co-regent during that time.

3) Prophecies against Babylon (e.g., Jeremiah 51, 52) have been literally fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar wrote that the walls of Babylon would be a perpetual memorial to his name, but Jeremiah said, “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken” (Jeremiah 51:58). Jeremiah, inspired by God, has been confirmed.

Critics said ‘There was no such king’, but his palace and library were uncovered

Major Evidences Regarding Cyrus and the Medes and Persians

The Medes and the Persians took over after the Babylonians.

Cyrus became king over the Medes and Persians. We read of Cyrus when his name was recorded prophetically in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1. He issued the famous Cyrus Decree that allowed captive peoples to return to their own lands (2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4). The tomb of Cyrus has been found.

God was in control of His people’s history—even using a Gentile king to bring His purposes to pass. The Cyrus Cylinder (a clay cylinder found in 1879 inscribed in Babylonian cuneiform with an account of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 BC) confirms that Cyrus had a conquest of Babylon.

Some Jews remained in Babylon, as shown in the book of Esther. The type of “unchanging” laws of the Medes and Persians shown therein (Esther 1:19) is endorsed from Aramaic documents recovered from Egypt.

The Cyrus Cylinder—Isaiah referred to him prophetically

Major Evidences Regarding Ezra and Nehemiah

Part of the restored wall of Nehemiah

This was the time of the resettlement in the land after the exile in Babylon.

1) Elephantine papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums of Job, etc., show that Aramaic was then in use, as Ezra indicates.

2) Sanballat was, as the Bible says, the Governor of Samaria (Nehemiah 4 and 6), though it was claimed by many writers that Sanballat was much later than Nehemiah. Several Sanballats are now known, and recovered letters even refer to Johanan (Nehemiah 12:13). Geshem the Arab (Nehemiah 6) is also known. Despite longstanding criticisms, Ezra and Nehemiah are accurate records of an actual historical situation.

3) The letters about Sanballat (above) clear up a dating point regarding Nehemiah. Nehemiah’s time was with Artaxerxes I who ruled from 465 to 423 BC, not Artaxerxes II. This illustrates the preciseness with which Old Testament dating is very often established by modern research.

Major Evidences Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls

After approximately 2,000 years of being buried in caves near the Dead Sea, these scrolls came to light again in AD 1947. The Jews were searching for a Messiah or Messiahs—the king-like David, the great High Priest of the people of Israel, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, the prophet like Moses, and possibly the pierced Messiah.

I say “possibly the pierced Messiah” because this refers only to a very small fragment. Also, the future and the imperfect tenses in the Hebrew language are very often the same and can only be determined by the context.

Part of the main Scroll of Isaiah recovered alongside the Dead Sea

In this case the prophecy could be saying that the expected Messiah will be “pierced” or that “he was pierced.” Isaiah 11:4 states, “And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked [emphasis added].” And in the NASB, Isaiah 53:5 says, “He was pierced through for our transgressions [emphasis added].” Both statements are relevant, for in fact the Messiah was pierced, and in a coming judgment those who have rejected the Messiah will bepierced.

The Scrolls have provided copies of most of the Old Testament, for fragments of every Old Testament book except Esther have been found in Hebrew, about 1,000 years earlier than previous extant Hebrew copies. (A writing from the book of Esther is found in another scroll.)

Considerable light was thrown on New Testament backgrounds and on the Jewish nature of John’s Gospel. For example, contrasts such as “light and darkness” are common to John and the “War Scroll,” a text that describes the eschatological last battle; and Hebrew was still a living language, not just a priestly language.

The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah also shows an old form of the Hebrew letter “tau,” which looks like an “X” in the margin of the scroll. It occurs 11 times, at Isaiah 32:1, 42:1, 42:5, 42:19, 44:28, 49:5–7, 55:3–4, 56:1–2, 56:3, 58:13, and Isaiah 66:5. As already stated, both the records of the Assyrians and the Dead Sea Scrolls (with a near-complete copy of Isaiah) were totally hidden from human eyes for about 2,000 years. Most of the content of these two sources overlapped and thus confirmed the evidence for the genuineness of the prophecies of Isaiah.

An important point about the finding of these scrolls is that they relate to the uncovering of the Assyrian palaces from the 1840s onwards. Isaiah gives a number of historical facts relating to the Assyrians that remarkably confirm the accuracy of Isaiah.

Possibly, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls is one of the most wonderful facts regarding the relevance of biblical archaeology and the Bible.5

Major Evidences Regarding the Person of Our Lord Jesus

Part of an inscription about enrolling for the poll tax

Events surrounding the words and actions of Jesus have been authenticated by archaeological discoveries.

Problems about the census at the time of our Lord’s birth have been resolved by the findings of important papyrus documents. These documents were found in Egypt inside sacred, embalmed crocodiles. The documents were the Jewish priestly writings that were written immediately before, during, and just after New Testament times.

The excavators Granfell and Hunt reported that their evidence showed that this was the first census (poll tax—enrollment) that took place in the time of Quirinius. (Another inscription has shown that Quirinius was in Syria twice—first as a military leader at a time of civil unrest, and later as Governor of Syria.) The census was probably delayed in Palestine because of that civil unrest.

Those papyrus findings have thrown much light on the words our Lord used. It is indeed true that He spoke the language of His time on earth (Mark 12:37).

Pilate is now better known because of a recovered inscription at Caesarea. The John Rylands papyrus (AD 125) records part of the trial before Pilate, fragments of which are recorded in John 18:31–33, 37–38.

Both sides of the Rylands Papyrus

Major Evidences Regarding the New Testament, the Early Church, and the Early Years of Christianity

The documents of the New Testament have been validated as accurate historical documents.

A flood of evidence shows the continuity between the New Testament documents (e.g., the Rylands Papyrus with parts of John 18:31–33 on one side and John 18:37–38 on the other) and the abundant evidence from the secular Roman writers and the early church fathers.

The papyrii from those Egyptian “talking crocodiles” have demonstrated that the New Testament documents are remarkable records of the times claimed for them in the language of “everyday” people. Those everyday expressions from Paul’s time have also thrown much light on Paul’s writings themselves.

The findings of Sir William Ramsay and his successors in Asia Minor reestablished the veracity of Luke the historian and other New Testament writers.

The three Bible writings most attacked by critics were the Moses’ Pentateuch, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Luke. Every one of these has been remarkably confirmed as being accurate and reliable by the research of credible scholars.

Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?

Even when excavators are digging to uncover a past time period dealt with in the Bible, it is by no means sure that direct biblical history will be unearthed. Such findings are hoped for, not only by Bible students, but by disinterested archaeologists as well, because they know that they must take Bible records seriously. A link with Bible history is an excellent dating point, always desirable but not possible or achieved. These findings are excellent confirmations of God’s Word, as opposed to “proving the Bible.”

Archaeologists are scholars, usually academics with interest in the Bible as an occasional source book. A substantial number of scholarly archaeologists are committed Christians, but they are a minority. Many people believe that all archaeologists set out to verify biblical history, but that is not the case. Many excavators have virtually no interest in the Bible, but there are notable exceptions.

Superiority Despite Attacks by Critics

We have already said that we do not use the statement: “Archaeology proves the Bible.” In fact, such a claim would be putting archaeology above the Bible. What happens when seemingly assured results of archaeology are shown to be wrong after all? Very often archaeology does endorse particular Bible events. And some would say that in this way it “proves the Bible.” But such a statement should be taken with reservation because archaeology is the support, not the main foundation.

SEEMINGLY ASSURED RESULTS “DISPROVING” THE BIBLE HAVE A HABIT OF BACKFIRING.

Thousands of facts in the Bible are not capable of verification because the evidence has long since been lost. However, it is remarkable that where confirmation is possible and has come to light, the Bible survives careful investigation in ways that are unique in all literature. Its superiority to attack, its capacity to withstand criticism, and its amazing facility to be proved right are all staggering by any standards of scholarship. Seemingly assured results “disproving” the Bible have a habit of backfiring.

Over and over again the Bible has been vindicated from Genesis to Revelation. The superiority of Genesis 1–11 has been established, and the patriarchal backgrounds have been endorsed. The writings of Moses do date to his time, and the record of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua has many indications of eyewitness recording.

David’s Psalms were clearly products of his time, and records about Solomon should no longer be written off as “legendary.” Solomon was a literary giant, a commercial magnate, and a powerful ruler—under God. God alone gave Israel their “golden age.”

The Assyrian period has given dramatic confirmation to biblical records, with excavations of palace after palace over the last 150 years. Such excavations constantly add to our understanding of the background to Old Testament kings, prophets, peoples, and incidents.

The exile in Babylon is endorsed at various points, and the Cyrus Decree makes it clear that captured people could return to their own lands and worship according to their own beliefs. Ezra and Nehemiah are accurate reflections of that post-exilic period.

Likewise, the New Testament documents have been consistently demonstrated as factual, eyewitness records. Kings, rulers, and officials are named unerringly; titles are used casually but with remarkable accuracy; geographic boundaries are highlighted; and customs are correctly touched on.

It is indeed true that “truth shall spring out of the earth” (Psalm 85:11).

Archaeology as It Relates to the Biblical Record

Our understanding of essential biblical doctrine has never changed because of archaeological findings. It should be acknowledged, however, that at times it has been necessary to look again to see just what the Bible is actually saying. There have been times when new light has been thrown on words used in Scripture in both Old and New Testaments.

We have seen that the titles of officials of Israel’s neighbors are now better understood and that many words are better understood because of the records in clay, on papyrus, and on stone.

The Old Testament is an ancient book, not a modern record, and its style is that of the East and not the West. At times it must be interpreted, based on its context, in the symbolic and figurative style of the Jews of ancient times, and not according to the “scientific precision” of our modern materialistic age.

Sometimes the Bible uses “the language of phenomena”—as when it refers to the sun rising. Scientifically speaking, the earth is what “rises.” However, though the Bible is not a science textbook, it is yet wonderfully true that where the Bible touches on science it is astonishingly accurate.

The more this new science of archaeology touches the records of the Bible, the more we are convinced that it is a unique record. At many points it is greatly superior to other writings left by neighboring people.

We have not said, “Archaeology proves the Bible,” and we do not suggest it. To do so would be quite wrong, even though such a statement is often made by those introducing a lecturer on biblical archaeology. The Bible itself is the absolute; archaeology is not. If archaeology could prove the Bible, archaeology would be greater than the Bible, but it is not. The Bible comes with the authority of almighty God. It is His Word, and He is greater than all else.

Nevertheless, archaeology has done a great deal to restore confidence in the Bible as the revealed Word of God. It has thrown a great deal of light on previously obscure passages and has helped us to understand customs, culture, and background in many ways that seemed most unlikely to our fathers in a previous generation. Archaeology is highly relevant for understanding the Bible today.

The Value of Archaeology for the Bible Student

Archaeology has done a great deal to cause many scholars to take the Bible much more seriously. It has touched the history and culture of Israel and her neighbors at many points and has often surprised researchers by the implicit accuracy of its statements.

If it can be shown (as it can) that the Bible writers lived and gave their message against the backgrounds claimed for them, it becomes clear that their amazing prophetic messages are also genuine, written long before the events they prophesied. Consider five important ways in which archaeology has been of great value for Bible students.

Archaeology confirms Bible history, and it often shows that Bible people and incidents are correctly referred to.

One example is that of Sargon, a king named in Isaiah 20:1. Critics at one time said that there was no such king. But then his palace was found at Khorsabad, and there was a description of the very battle referred to by Isaiah. Another illustration is the death of the Assyrian King Sennacherib. His death is recorded in Isaiah 37 and also in the annals of Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon, whom Isaiah says succeeded Sennacherib.

Archaeology gives local color, indicating that the background is authentic.

Laws and customs, gods, and religious practices are shown to be associated with times and places mentioned in the Bible. Rachel’s stealing her father’s clay gods illustrates the correct understanding of customs: she and Leah asked, “Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house?” (Genesis 31:14). She knew the teraphim (clay gods) were associated with title deeds, which was a custom of that time.

Archaeology provides additional facts.

Archaeological facts help the Bible student understand times and circumstances better than would otherwise be possible. Bible writers tell us the names of such Assyrian kings as Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and we now know a great deal more about these rulers from records recovered in their palaces and libraries.

Archaeology has proved of tremendous value in Bible translations.

The meanings of words and phrases are often illuminated when found in other contexts. 2 Kings 18:17, for example, correctly uses three Assyrian army titles. Those terms are tartan(commander-in-chief), rabshakeh (chief of the princes), and rabsaris (chief eunuch). The meanings of these words were unknown at the time of the production of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611.

Only when Assyrian palaces were excavated was a great deal of light thrown onto their meanings. The fact that these titles are correctly used in the Old Testament is another strong argument for eyewitness recording. People do not know the titles of their enemy without some form of contact.

Archaeology has demonstrated the accuracy of many Bible prophecies.

The prophecies against Nineveh, Babylon, and Tyre in Isaiah are typical examples, as are the early records of creation in the Bible. It is also highly important that Isaiah and others so accurately pointed to the coming Messiah. At many points their history has been vindicated, and so have their prophecies about Jesus.

This spiritual application is surely one of the most important aspects of biblical archaeology, reminding us that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

Archaeology has done much to demonstrate that “the Bible was right after all.” Its early records of creation, Eden, the Flood, long-living men, and the dispersal of the nations are not mere legends after all. Other tablets recording the same events have been recovered, but they are often distorted and corrupted.

The Bible record is immensely superior, and quite credible. Those early Bible records can no longer be written off as myth or legend.

“For ever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89).

A Memory Aid Showing the Relevance of Archaeology to the Bible

S Superiority—Creation, Flood, Tower of Babel, Laws of Moses, Psalms of David, genuine prophets of Israel, the teachings of Jesus.

C Customs—Rachel stealing clay gods; Joseph’s story; religious practices; ruthlessness of Assyrians; unchangeable laws of Medes and Persians; enrolling for census when Jesus was born.

A Additional information—Moabite Stone; Jehu and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser; the assassination of Assyrian King Sennacherib; Belshazzar as co-regent with his father Nabonidus; new light on New Testament backgrounds from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts and inscriptions.

L Language and Languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Others are touched in passing, including Egyptian, Canaanite, Philistine, Babylonian, Persian, Latin, and Assyrian.

P Prophecy—about Bible lands and people, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ. The local color and the integrity of prophecies demonstrate the uniqueness of the Bible.

S Specific Incidents and People—Sargon’s victory against Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1); the death of Sennacherib (Isaiah 37); Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon who campaigned against Jerusalem and Judah; various rulers (such as the Herods) correctly identified (the Gospels and Acts); the census in the time of Caesar Augustus.

Many people have commented that they do not have the knowledge to talk about archaeology and the Bible; this acrostic SCALPS should help.6

1 Peter 3:15 urges us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”

That’s a command to Christians

0 notes

baltics4engbergs · 7 years

Text

Wednesday: A morning in Riga and a drive to Lithuania, home of the Litvak

Wednesday morning we were raring to go-- so we could get on the road soon to drive to Lithuania. There was a lot we were looking forward to doing in Lithuania, since it is the “family history” main attraction of this trip. Before we left, we took the kids on a little walk back to the park from the day before where we met the diplomat’s kids, but alas, they were not there this second morning. The kids needed to get their wiggles out before our long drive, but they were really more inclined to get their brattiness out, it seemed. Rowan was just in a funk, not wanting to listen, being cross, etc. Neither kid wanted to cooperate and perhaps they were just anticipating a long car-day and wanted to let us know that that wasn’t what they had in mind for a fun time.

So, the park jaunt was not really a success. Rowan mostly moped and Cece was kind of a maniac. Luckily, we got out of the park with zero injuries, minor bouts of screaming (though we did have a sustained bout on our way to the car a bit later), and some nice pictures of the beautiful--just gorgeous-- morning n Riga. Riga is certainly a city I would go back to and spend more time in. We did not get to go to any museums or take a tour conducted by a guide, both things I think I really could have benefited from. Piecing together the history of the Baltics-- and of the individual states and their pre-WWII and their Soviet-era histories-- is something I really wish I’d had more time to do before this trip, but I didn’t, so I’ve sort of scrambled to find some information out Wikipedia-style while we’ve been on the road, but I feel that with more preparation, the visits to these amazing cities, most with really tragic histories for my people, could have been even more enriching. Riga today seems really lively and fun and full of lots of sites to see, so perhaps our future travels will take us back.

We spent almost four hours on the road and it was pretty smooth, except for a weird traffic jam at the Lithuanian border, because the road was down to one lane there. We stopped at a town just over the border, Pasvalys, and went to the Maxima grocery store, which we were curious about (and it was lunchtime). The day before when we were at the Riga central market, there also happened to be a Maxima there that was jam-packed and we were like, what is up with the jam-packed grocery store? Does it have bargain-basement prices or what? So, when we saw one on our lunch stop, we stopped. We bought yogurt, some beer, some nectarines, some tissues for Cece’s nose . . . We were quite a crew making our way through the grocery store. I learned today that the richest man in Lithuania is the owner of this grocery chain Maxima. So, it is interesting that this store is one that has come up a few times in our travels.

So, the kids were actually quite good in the car. We also bought a small bag of Lithuanian-made cereal, which is probably a kind I would never buy at home (too sugary), but it was a good on-the-road snack and it kept the kids entertained: it was teddy bears and dinosaurs. Cece slept for a bit of the drive and Rowan zoned out for part of it. Alia snoozed and read the guide book, my dad snoozed, and I read some Wikipedia about where we were traveling (and about Baltic grocery store chains, haha).

We got to Vilnius with about twenty minutes to spare before my dad and I had to be at the Tolerance Center, of the Vilna Gaon Jewish Museum, where we had a 4:00 guided tour scheduled. We got to our apartment and met Jurgita, out host, who owns the apartment, and oh my goodness, it is the most beautiful apartment. The best of the trip, hands down. But the apartment’s exterior looks like a run-down concrete apartment block! It’s incredible. But, once you get up the one flight of stairs (which has sagging, rotted wood planks, decaying cement walls, a smell, and no light), you enter this gorgeous, newly remodeled, spacious, excellently appliance-d, just beautiful apartment. They have two little kids, so there were tons of toys and the kids were in heaven. My dad and I did not have time to really soak in how great the apartment was (with its three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a real-live dryer, and a gorgeous deck with flowers and vegetable plants) until we got back from our tour.

So, my dad and I walked about fifteen minutes to the tour, and met Nathalie, our English-speaking tour guide. At this point, we had about an hour and half for our tour. She is the wife of the cantor at the only remaining synagogue here in Vilnius. She is a religious woman, and if you know the different degrees of orthodoxy of Judaism, she is an orthodox woman, who does not shake hands with men, wears a wig, and lives her life halachically. She spent much of the first hour just talking to us, because we had so many questions.

She, I would say, is probably among a handful of “religious” Jews in Vilnius. She says the turn-over of rabbis is great, so her husband is often asked to perform bar mitzvahs, but she said he would not do it all the time, because those asking were not “real Jews.” Now, this means that both parents are not Jewish. When she said this, I did not want to out myself as a person who, by that definition, is also not a “real Jew,” because only my father is Jewish, but this issue came up a few times in all of her talking to us -- the issue of “real Jews” (regarding parentage and many other issues related to following the Torah) versus people who privilege cultural traditions over living in accordance with the formal religious dictates. She was a woman who espoused strict adherence to Jewish law. Anyway, her words to us and her message about Jewish history in Vilnius were through this lens. It was super interesting. We learned so much and wanted to talk, and talk, and talk to her.

We learned about how much of the population in certain Lithuanian cities -- particularly Vilnius-- was Jewish at the end of the 1800s, and how many Jews were in Vilnius in 1941. We learned a lot about the Jewish community in Lithuania today and about attitudes about Jewish people in the country today. Now, since I am writing this a day later, after since we have now been on a day-long tour with another Jewish person (who Nathalie would not have considered a Jew, as it turns out, but whose family has been here for generations and had survived the Holocaust), I see her words in a different light, but not in a light that diminishes the value of what she said. She came to her perspective on Jewish life historically and in the present day from a very orthodox perspective. I come from a Conservative Jewish family and we have always really thought of ourselves as really adhering to cultural, rather than strictly religious, traditions. Putting my own history in conversation with how Jewish people in Lithuania-- whoever they are, religious Jews or “cultural” Jews-- see themselves, was very eye-opening. Nathalie was a big believer in Jews not affiliating with nations, but only with their faith. Our guide today, when I asked him about his Lithuanian identity, said he does feel a strong sense of that. I think part of this is generational, and part of it has to do, I am pretty confident, with orthodoxy.

Anyway, the museum part of our tour we actually had to go through kind of quickly. There were museum displays and lots of text and pictures about different eras of Jewish life in Vilna, from the 1500s to day. Of course, there was a lot of material on the extermination of Lithuania’s Jews starting in 1941 (and there was material about the persecution of Jews before that). There were stories of Holocaust survivors, particularly of children who were hidden, and there was a whole interactive, multimedia area of the museum dedicated to those children. It is so harrowing -- I mean, it even sounds so cliched to say “it is so harrowing,” but I cannot even begin to describe how impactful that was, especially knowing that we have many relatives from this city whose whereabouts post-1941 we just do not know. I will return to this when I describe my tour from today.

Anyway, I will post some pictures from the Tolerance Center soon, but we left there at six when they closed, and it was like a very moving wave had come over us -- we really felt immersed in the place, and we were kind of blown away, because we’d gotten out of the car, raced to the museum, had this intense tour and learned so much, and then we were back outside in the bright, afternoon sunshine walking back to the apartment.

That night, my dad and the kids and I went out to an amazing vegetarian restaurant, Namai, like two doors down from our place and they had a play corner for kids and were so nice to the kiddos, accommodating them with a fruit plate, plain white rice (oh man, my kids, ugh), and my dad and I got to enjoy a great meal and an unwinding, getting-our-thoughts-together and our-bearings-about-us kind of chat. It was quite a day.

0 notes