Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Jerusalem occupies a rather unique position, at least for a city serving as a national capital. Most capital cities are situated near a lake, a river, or with easy access to the sea. However, Jerusalem, located atop the spine of a mountain range in the central highlands of Palestine, is far removed from any significant body of water. 

Water, or the lack thereof, always has a major impact upon man’s ability to live in a particular area. This is particularly true of the city of Jerusalem. The original city of David was easily defended, surrounded on three sides by valleys: the Kidron to the East, the Hinnom to the South, and the Tyropeon to the West. Commanding heights provided strategic superiority. Nevertheless, despite strong fortifications, Jerusalem had no permanent water supply within her protective walls. There are, and have been, various reservoirs, wells and pools. However, all depend upon the rains or aqueducts to fill them. The ancient city had only one reliable, perennial water source — the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley, outside and below the defensive walls.

The Jebusites, the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, cunningly overcame this limitation. Channeling water from the Gihon Spring back under Mt. Zion, into a pool at the bottom of a shaft that rises to join an inclined tunnel, the Jebusites were able to provide for secure access to a permanent water supply from behind their fortress walls. 

The Gihon Spring plays a role in two renowned Bible stories, both of which, incidentally, well demonstrate the problem of pride. During the time of David, the Jebusites arrogantly boasted of their ability to defend Jerusalem. During the time of Hezekiah, the Assyrians arrogantly boasted of their ability to destroy Jerusalem. In both cases, pride went before destruction (Prov. 16:18; 18:12). Therefore, let us study both incidents, discovering such historical, archaeological and ethical lessons as the text may hold.

Jebusite Arrogance

Along with the other Canaanites, the Jebusites were placed under God’s curse because of their sins (Gen. 15:18-21; Exod. 23:23). Joshua conquered southern Palestine, defeating the five allied kings of Canaan, including Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10). However, the Israelites were unable to drive the Jebusites from their fortified stronghold (Josh. 15:63). Later, the sons of Judah captured and burned the city of Jerusalem (Judg. 1:8), but even then, the rout was incomplete and the victory only temporary. The Jebusites soon recovered, and continued to inhabit the hill country of Judah (Judg. 1:21). Four hundred years passed before David captured the stronghold of Zion. The Jebusites arrogantly boasted in their ability to defend Jerusalem, saying, “You shall not come in here, but the blind and lame will turn you away.” Nevertheless, David’s men entered the city of Jebus by stealth, climbing up through the aforementioned water tunnel (2 Sam. 5:6-10; 1 Chron. 11:4-9). The pride of the Jebusites brought them low.

Assyrian Arrogance

In 701 B.C., Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded the Levant. Marching down through Phoenicia and Palestine, his armies wrecked havoc, destroyed numerous cities, carrying away many captives, and much spoil. After the siege and capture of Lachish, Sennacherib sent envoys to Jerusalem, demanding tribute and capitulation. Then, surrounding the city, the Assyrians prepared to lay siege to Judah’s capital (2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chron. 32; Isa. 36-39). 

Anticipating this very threat, Hezekiah had strengthened the defenses of Jerusalem and provided for a more secure water supply. He stopped the Gihon Spring from flowing into the Kidron Valley, and redirected its waters into the Pool of Siloam, located on the Western side of the city of David (2 Chron. 32:30). In a remarkable demonstration of masonic craftsmanship and engineering skill, Hezekiah’s workmen dug a tunnel through a continuous mass of solid rock. The actual length of this channel, with its twists and turns, is 1750 feet, although the direct distance is only 1100 feet. The completion of this project accomplished two goals: (1) it prevented the invading Assyrians from having easy access to water, and (2) it insured a stable and secure water supply for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, even during times of siege (2 Chron. 32:1-8, 30; 2 Kings 20:20). 

Hezekiah carried Sennacherib’s ultimatum into the temple, spread it out before the Lord, and prayed, “Incline Your ear, O Lord, and hear; open Your eyes, O Lord, and see; and listen to the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to reproach the living God” (2 Kings 19:14-19). The prophet Isaiah brought a message of divine comfort and consolation unto this righteous king. Then it happened that night that the angel of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead (2 Kings 19:35). 

In antiquity, official scribes were normally very selective in what they chronicled, giving a detailed accounting of great victories, but omitting any reference to crushing defeats. As would be expected, no mention is made of this disaster in the Assyrian annals. Yet, sometimes silence speaks louder than words. Sennacherib boasts of having defeated 46 towns and imprisoned Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage.” Yet, he never claims to have conquered the city of Jerusalem, nor do the official accounts tell of the end of the siege. If he had been successful, would he have shown such modest reserve? Certainly not. Calamity had overtaken him. With his army annihilated, Sennacherib returned to his palace in Nineveh. Some years later, he was assassinated by two of his sons. The boastful pride of the Assyrian king led to his downfall.

Modern Arrogance

In 1880, a youth, while wading up this very water channel, accidentally discovered an inscription cut into the wall, located about nineteen feet back from where it opens into the Pool of Siloam. Written in a script used in the days of Hezekiah, this inscription commemorates the monumental task workmen faced in excavating the tunnel through solid rock; it celebrates the moment that two gangs, working from opposite ends, using wedge, hammer, and pickax, finally met: 

This is the story of the boring through: whilst [the tunnellers lifted] the pick each towards his fellows and whilst three cubits [yet remained] to be bored [through, there was heard] the voice of a man calling his fellow, for there was a split in the rock on the right hand and on [the left hand]. And on the day of the boring through, the tunnellers struck, each in the direction of his fellow, pick against pick. And the water started to flow from the source to the pool, twelve hundred cubits. A hundred cubits was the height of the rock above the level of the tunnellers” (Kathleen Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament 139).

Completing their task without any of the elaborate equipment on which modern engineers would rely, theirs is truly a remarkable accomplishment. Furthermore, it serves as a call to humility for those who arrogantly boast in modern technological superiority. It is a subtle rebuke to chronological snobbery. Hezekiah’s triumph is a reminder that contemporary man does not have an exclusive claim to genius (Ps. 75:5; Prov. 8:13; 30:13). 

Some wonder at the curiously winding course of Hezekiah’s tunnel, as it carries water down the eastern flank of the hill, and then across the tip of the hill into the Tyropoeon valley. Various explanations have been given for this circuitous route. However, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that the tunnel diggers went astray, and did not follow a straight line. Yet, despite their meandering course, they made the necessary corrections, enabling the two crews to finally meet. The spiritual lesson is clear: We often get off course, but if we correct our mistakes, and press toward the goal, success will be ours in the end (Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Sadly, the aforementioned inscription was surreptitiously cut from the wall of the tunnel in 1891 and broken into fragments. These were, however, recovered by the efforts of the British Consul at Jerusalem. The Siloam inscription is now housed in the Museum at Istanbul in Turkey.

David’s conquest of the Jebusite stronghold, and the deliverance that Hezekiah experienced from the hands of Sennacherib share two points of reference: both illustrate the perils of pride, and both are connected with the same pool of water — the waters which flowed from the Gihon Spring. In both cases, water served as a means to victory. Herein, one can see a comparison to the waters of baptism — crucifying the old man of sin, repudiating the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, we are saved through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Rom. 6:3-4; Tit. 3:5-6; 1 Pet. 3:21). 

4805 Sulley Dr., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Joe R. Price

Words are tools by which we teach, transfer knowledge and share insight. God chose the use of words, both oral and written, to communicate with man (2 Pet. 1:20-21; Heb. 1:1-2; John 12:49-50).

The Bible is the inspired record of God’s word and will to us (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; 14:37; Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3:3-5). While the original autographs were inspired of God, we understand that neither the copies nor translations of the biblical manuscripts are inspired. Without an ability to know the languages in which the Bible was written it would be impossible to produce a translation of it, much less a trustworthy one. A language which cannot be understood cannot be translated. Neither can an unknown language communicate its message to others (cf. 1 Cor. 14:9-11).

The ability to understand the Hebrew and Greek languages and to correctly translate them means we can have trustworthy, reliable translations of God’s word. In like manner, the ability to decipher other ancient forms of writing makes it possible to learn about long lost civilizations. And, with such knowledge in hand we have more abundant evidence at our disposal of the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.

For example, the ancient Egyptians wrote using hieroglyphics (picture script), while the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians used cuneiform (wedge-shaped) characters. Until the first half of the 19th century these languages were unknown to modern man. Language “keys” were needed to unlock or decode the meaning of their shapes, symbols, and letters. The Rosetta Stone and the Behistun Rock gave scholars the keys they needed to unlock the meaning of these languages. Amazing details were revealed about past civilizations once it was possible to interpret these dead languages.

The Behistun Rock

Engraved on a cliff ledge 345 feet about the ground, the Behistun Inscription stands as a monumental feat of the ancient world. Located at the foot of the Zagros Mountains in western Iran near the modern town of Bisitun, the Behistun Rock was commissioned by King Darius I of Persia (522-486 B.C.). Here is a typical description of this amazing relief:

King Darius I of Persia had it cut in the rock at the time of one of his great military victories. It includes a large panel which depicts the scene of his victory, and then three panels underneath with the text. Each panel is in a different language: Old Persian, Akkadian (or Babylonian), and Elamite. In the text Darius describes how he established himself as king with the help of the god Ahuramazda by defeating his main rival, Gaumata. Darius had it cut in the rock and then knocked out the ledge which was below the inscription so that it couldn’t be tampered with. This allowed the inscription to survive through the millennia.1 

The value of the Behistun Rock, in addition to its sheer grandeur and the magnificence of its construction, is its tri-language inscription of a single text. The three different cuneiform languages appearing on the rock cliff — Old Persian, Akkadian (or Babylonian) and Elamite — rendered the key needed to understand these languages. 

In 1835, British officer Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson began his work of copying and deciphering the Behistun Inscription. He literally clung to the side of the cliff in order to copy this massive text which covers the face of a rock half the size of a football field. The work of Rawlinson and his colleagues in first translating the Old Persian, and then unlocking the mystery of the Akkadian (Babylonian) language, provided a means of understanding ancient Babylonia and Assyria as never before.
Rawlinson had . . . thus provided the keys with which to unlock the treasured secrets of the vanished nations of the Babylonian-Assyrian Civilizations. Thriving cities, bannered armies, and industrious citizenry of forgotten centuries came into full view.2

The Rosetta Stone

If the Behistun Rock unlocked the ancient world of the Mesopotamian peoples, the Rosetta Stone did that and more for ancient Egypt. Found in 1799 by a French army officer during Napo- leon’s expedition into Egypt, it is also known as the Stone of Rosette (named for the village in the western Nile Delta near its place of discovery). Still in excellent condition, the Rosetta Stone is housed at the British Museum in London.

A black basalt slab measuring about three feet tall and two feet, four inches wide, the Rosetta Stone contains three scripts of the same text: At the top is Egyptian hieroglyphs (the script of official and religious texts), in the middle is Demotic text (everyday Egyptian script) and on the bottom is Greek. The engraving is the record of a 196 B.C. decree by a council of priests in Memphis, Egypt, in which they honored the first anniversary of Ptolemy V, Epiphanes (ca. 203-181 B.C.). 

Using a knowledge of the Greek language, French Egyptologist, Jean Francois Champollion, and British physicist, Thomas Young, deciphered the hieroglyphics in 1822. The heretofore “silent” symbols of hieroglyphics sprang to life, unmasking the ancient Egyptian world.

The Value of These Discoveries

The Rosetta Stone and the Behistun Rock are of tremendous value in helping to determine the content of ancient texts and their subsequent translation into modern languages. The deciphering tools they hold help to confirm the historical accuracy of biblical references to the same peoples and nations whose languages have been translated. Because of the Rosetta Stone and the Behistun Inscription an abundance of material contemporary with the Bible is now available to us. This material provides a valuable external source of evidence which demonstrates the validity and accuracy of the Bible.

These two archaeological and linguistic achievements stand, not only as monuments to the scholarship of man, but also as monuments to the integrity and historicity of the Biblical text.

Read More About the Rosetta Stone:

Text of the Rosetta Stone: http://pw1.netcom.com/qkstart/rosetta.html
“The Stone of Rosette” (Danielle Jantzen): http://www.students.sunysuffolk.edu/~jantd09/ paper06.html

Read More About the Behistun Rock:

1. Text of the Behistun Rock: http://wwwhost. utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/ behistun.html
2. “Behistun Inscription” (Jon Bartlett): http://seminary. georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/ Jbartlett/BI.html

1 “Behistun Inscription,” by Jon Bartlett (http://seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/Jbartlett/BI. html)
2     Archaeology and the Bible, Frederick G. Owen, 36; Cited by Jon Bartlett

6204 Parkland Way, Ferndale, Washington 98248 joe@bibleanswer.com

By Marc W. Gibson

The ancient manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin shepherd in a cave in the cliffs just above the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. In the years that followed, some eight hundred intact and fragmented manuscripts were found in several nearby caves, adding up to the greatest archaeological find of the twentieth century. It continues to be the prevailing view of scholars today that these ancient scrolls were placed in these caves by the inhabitants of the settlement of Qumran, the remains of which lie between the cliffs and the Dead Sea.

The most likely inhabitants of Qumran were the Essenes, a sect of the Jews which separated itself from, and was critical of, mainstream Judaism based in Jerusalem. Though a point of dispute among scholars today, the manuscripts were most likely produced and owned by the Qumran settlement, and hidden when the Romans sent their army to the region to put down a Jewish uprising (A.D. 68-70). The excavators of Qumran have determined that it was destroyed in A.D. 68 by the Romans as they prepared to overthrow Jerusalem. Though Qumran was destroyed, the scrolls were safely hidden in the caves until their discovery 1,879 years later.
The scrolls date from between 250 B.C. and A.D. 68 and include communal (sectarian) laws and regulations, religious documents, and most importantly for biblical textual studies, manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. Every book of the Old Testament was represented except Esther. This discovery pushed the evidence for the Old Testament text back more than one thousand years, and a study of these texts have shown that our Old Testament translations today are extremely accurate and based on solid textual evidence. 

The remaining materials in the cache of scrolls should not be quickly dismissed as inconsequential to the study of the Bible or the New Testament in particular. When one understands that most of the sectarian and religious scrolls were produced and/or collected in a Jewish setting of the two centuries leading up to the time of Jesus and the New Testament (known as Second Temple Judaism), then he will realize that information may be available to shed light on the society and times in which Jesus lived and the New Testament was written. Jesus encountered various opinions and views among the Jews of his day. Could the  scrolls help us identify some of this thinking? In what ways can they illuminate our understanding of New Testament backgrounds?

Dangerous Theories

In reading scholarly works on this subject, one will be inundated with the theories of men concerning the relationship of the New Testament and the Second Temple Judaism in the years before and during the first century. The Christian should beware of the liberal critical opinions that downplay, or even dismiss, the role of divine inspiration as the source of the message of the New Testament. Much speculation is practiced in the attempt to derive the “sources” of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. Emphasis is given to the Jewish “soil” out of which Christianity supposedly arose. While it is true that the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament must be understood against the backdrop of the promises, prophecies, and shadows of the Old Testament, Jesus was not dependent on the Jewish thinking of his day to help formulate his doctrine. 

The prevailing Jewish opinions of that day about the Old Testament and the person and work of the Messiah were not the “soil” from which New Testament doctrine was founded. Any parallels that have been suggested are only that, parallels. They do not prove in any way that Christianity borrowed or tweaked the popular thinking of its day, and became just another sect of Judaism. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and reveal divine truth (Matt. 5:17; John 7:16-17). He confronted various erroneous views and faulty interpretations (John 5:46-47; Matt. 22:15-46). The scrolls can help us understand more about both the parallels and contrasts.

Parallel Themes

One of the more interesting parallels in the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament is the distinction between Light and Darkness. One Qumran text, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, speaks of the battle between the forces of Light and Darkness. Jesus used light and darkness to illustrate the distinction between truth and error (John 3:19-21; 8:12), as did Paul (2 Cor. 4:3-6; 6:14) and John (1 John 1:5-6; 2:9-10). Other parallel themes found in the scrolls include criticism of loving riches, righteousness, flesh and spirit, and the necessity of conversion. These parallels illustrate the common use of metaphors and the understanding of general themes revealed in Scripture.

Old Testament Prophecy

The Qumran community cited the Old Testament in its religious texts, but the fulfillments of its prophecies were often interpreted in the context of their ideology. One such example is found in the Manual of Discipline [Community Rule] (8:12-15) where Isaiah 40:3 is applied to the community itself, instead of John the Baptist’s heralding of the coming of Jesus (Matt. 3:1-3). They also understood themselves to be the eschatological “last generation” through whom God would bring final victory for the righteous. Through them would come a “Teacher of Righteousness” that would give the proper understanding of God’s Word. These examples affirm the fact that the Old Testament prophecies and promises were not fully understood until Jesus Christ revealed their fulfillment in him and his kingdom.

Views About the Messiah

One of the most significant subjects that the Dead Sea Scrolls helps us to understand is the confused first century view of the person and work of the Messiah. Those at Qumran reflected their times in that they had a high expectation of the Messiah. References are made to “the Messiah of Righteousness . . . the Branch of David” (Genesis Commentaries [4Q252]; Commentaries on Isaiah [4Q161]), and to a royal and militaristic “Prince of the Congregation” (Damascus Document 7:18-20; War Scroll 5:1) But the concept was taken further in the expectation of two messiahs: “They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in all the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (Manual of Discipline 9:10-11). Actually, three different characters are spoken of here: the Prophet, Messiah of Aaron, and the Messiah of Israel. The Messiah of Israel was a royal messiah, while the Messiah of Aaron was a priestly messiah and is the prominent one in that context. These beliefs again reflected erroneous views of Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah. On the other hand, the Messianic Apocalypse accurately speaks of a Messiah whose work would be of liberating captives, restoring sight to the blind, healing the wounded, reviving the dead, and bringing good news to the poor (see Isa. 61:1; Matt. 11:4-5). There were many different views and opinions as to whom the Messiah(s) was and what role he would fulfill, but there is no suggestion that he would be a suffering servant who would die. The expectation that the Messiah would suffer and give his life as a ransom for sinful man is noticeably absent in Jesus’ day and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Matt. 16:21-23; Luke 24:25-26).

Misunderstanding and confusion is also found concerning the Prophet and the Messiah being understood as two different individuals, instead of two roles being combined in the Coming One (John 1:19-21; Acts 3:22-26). The popular conceptions of the Messiah did not consider him to be a suffering servant who would die (Matt. 16:21-23; John 12:34). The Jews were looking for a victorious earthly warrior-king (John 6:14-15). Christ and the apostles would be the ones who would expound the divine truth concerning Jesus the Messiah as Prophet, Priest, and King (Luke 24:27, 44; Acts 2:36; 17:2-3). Jesus was given all authority and brought grace, truth, and salvation (Matt. 28:18; John 1:9-16). He fulfilled the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are one of the most significant discoveries in the history of Biblical archaeology. They reveal snapshots of Jewish thought in the years leading up to Jesus and the New Testament. We view in them the struggle to understand the meaning of the text of the Hebrew Bible. We see the confusion and errors that plagued the thinking of many who needed the light of truth revealed in Jesus. Only in that truth would they be able to find familiar themes placed in their proper context and the divine plan of God revealed in its fullness. Only in Christ would they be able to see the mystery revealed (1 Cor. 2:26-16; Eph. 3:1-7).

Recommended Reading

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes (New York: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1997).
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks, ed. (New York: Random House, 1992).
The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hershel Shanks (New York: Random House, 1998).
The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, John J. Collins (New York: Doubleday, 1995).
The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, Hershel Shanks, et. al. (Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991).
Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Edward M. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994).
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, Charles F. Pfeiffer (New York: Weathervane Books, 1969).
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament, Harold Scanlin (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).
“Dead Sea Scrolls,” William Sanford LaSor, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 883-897.

6708 O’Doniel Loop W, Lakeland, Florida 33809marcgibson@aol.com

By Robert Hutto

Through the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth, a collection of papyri was found at and around a Jewish colony located near Aswan at Elephantine, an island in the Nile just north of the first cataract. The discoveries include papyri written in Egyptian, Greek, and Aramaic, of which the latter are the most valuable for Bible study. The documents do not contain copies of the Scriptures, but deal with a variety of matters ranging from political to religious, family, business, and literary concerns. Among these texts are letters (both official and personal), contracts, lists, literary works (a collection of proverbs called The Words of Ahikar), and accounts. The collection, which was acquired over about one hundred years through purchases from Egyptian dealers in antiquities as well as archaeological excavation, contains the largest collection of Aramaic papyri ever found. When discovered, many of these documents were still neatly folded and sealed (see photograph in LaSor’s article entitled “Aramaic” in the revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1979).

What is Aramaic?

The Old Testament is written primarily in Hebrew, but about two percent of it is written in Aramaic. The two languages are quite similar. They are both classified as Northwest Semitic, their vocabularies overlap, and they share syntactic features. Even the square script of the Hebrew Bible was developed from the Aramaic script (Wurthwein 3-6). Aramaic was incorrectly identified as Chaldee in places such as Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by William Gesenius and Syrian/Syriack in Ezra 4:7 and Daniel 2:4 in the King James Version (corrected in NKJV). It apparently was developed by a rather non-descript group of people, the Arameans, whose only contribution (besides their association with Israel) is this language. The biblical passages written in Aramaic are Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26, Daniel 2:4b-7:28, one verse in Jeremiah (10:11), and two words spoken by Laban in Genesis 31:47. Its influence is also seen in New Testament words and expressions such as marana tha (1 Cor. 16:22), ephphatha (Mark 7:34), and talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).
Aramaic became the “medium of international communication in the days of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires . . .” (LaSor 229). Eventually Aramaic became the common language of the ancient Near East until the spread of Hellenism and the imposition of Greek. The Elephantine Papyri, written in Imperial Aramaic, span the fifth century B.C. By this time the Persians had allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild.

Even after the spread of Greek through the ancient world, three areas continued to speak Aramaic (LaSor 231). These included Arabia (until the Christian era), Mesopotamia (in some cases to the present day), and Palestine (until the conquest by Islam). Although it is debated, it is widely held that Jews of the first century, including Jesus, commonly spoke Aramaic (for example, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” Mark 15:34).

The Elephantine Papyri and the Bible

These papyri give us some insight into the character of Judaism outside Palestine in the Persian period. Though Persia allowed the Jews to return to Palestine, many Jews chose to remain where they were. Among them were the Jews at Elephantine. This did not mean, however, that they chose to abandon the worship of the Lord (one of the features of these texts is the use of Yahu, a form of the divine name Yahweh). Unfortunately, they did not worship him according to the requirements of the Law. No doubt because of the influence of their surroundings, they combined elements of idolatry with the worship of the Lord. Kidner calls them an example of “unreformed Judaism, to set alongside that of the reformed community which came back chastened from Babylon” (Kidner 143).

The Law required that sacrifices be made in the place where God put his name (Exod. 20:24; Deut. 12:5-6; Ezra 6:12). That place was Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:3). However, the Elephantine community had erected a temple in their city, and had equipped it with an altar for offering meal-offerings, incense, and burnt offerings. This temple had been spared by Cambyses when he invaded Egypt (525 B.C.), but was subsequently destroyed by one Widrang, an Egyptian, perhaps because they found the slaughtering of lambs offensive (the priests of Khnub, an Egyptian cult, held lambs to be sacred). 

What happened next proves quite interesting. Apparently Elephantine Jews appealed to the Persian king for permission to celebrate the Passover. This they were granted (the so-called “Passover Papyrus” does not mention the Passover explicitly, though many believe the reference is suggested). The sacrifice of animals must have continued to be a point of contention, however, for in a later text we learn that the Jews were willing to limit their sacrifices to incense and meal-offerings and forgo the sacrifice of sheep and oxen. Note that the Elephantine Jews appealed to the king in much the same way as the Jews and their adversaries did in the book of Ezra. 

The Elephantine Jews also requested permission to rebuild their temple. They had sent a letter to Johanan the high priest and his associates in Jerusalem, but after three years they received no reply (which itself may show Jerusalem’s disapproval of a temple outside the holy city). A letter of request was then sent to Bagoas, Persian governor of Judea. Two things are to be noticed. First, if the Jews at Elephantine were aware of the law prohibiting sacrifice outside the precincts of Jerusalem, they must not have thought it applied to them. It may be, however, that in simple ignorance they appealed to Jerusalem for permission to build a temple. Second, they mention in the letter to Bagoas that they had also written to Delaiah and Shelemaiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria about their case. Interestingly, the Samaritans were similar to the Elephantine Jews in that they both had connections with Judaism, but were something less than “orthodox.” Apparently, these Jews did not share the same animosity toward the Samaritans that their Judean brethren harbored. They clearly wanted someone to endorse their efforts, and it apparently mattered little to them whether it came from Jerusalem or Samaria.

We also find evidence of idolatrous influence at Elephantine in the names of gods referred to in these texts. These Jews there apparently did not hesitate to combine the name of God (Yahu) with the names of other deities. For example, one passage contains the name Anath-yahu, a combination of the name of an old Canaanite deity (Anath) and the divine name of God (Yahu). Some suggest (Rowley 257) that the Elephantine Jews thought of Anath-yahu as a consort of Yahweh, something like the Queen of Heaven referred to by Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17). 

These things remind us that there has always been a wide variety of beliefs, practices, and expectations within Judaism. We sometimes speak of “what Jews thought” or “what the Jews were looking for” as if all Jews believed the same thing. In reality, though there may have been certain core beliefs, there has always been a wide range of opinion in Judaism.

The correspondence between the Jews at Elephantine and the Persian government also sheds light on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. First, the mention of Sanballat helps both to demonstrate the historicity of these books and fix their date. Second, critical scholars once considered the Aramaic portions of Ezra spurious because the style appeared too recent to fit the traditional date. These considerations led some to date the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah as late as the third century B.C. (Phifer 812). The Elephantine Papyri show conclusively, however, that the Aramaic of Ezra was in use during the fifth century B.C. Furthermore, these papyri show that the Persians took a genuine interest in the affairs of their subjects and that letters were sent back and forth between subjects and officials of the Persian government when it became necessary. In short, the historical conditions of Ezra-Nehemiah are confirmed by the Elephantine Papyri (Harrison: 1969, 1141). Other more nuanced considerations affecting the dating of Ezra-Nehemiah can be found in the commentaries and introductions.

Conclusion

Again and again archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of the Bible. By mentioning a biblical character, Sanballat, and locating him in the same place and time in which the Bible places him, these ancient documents do their part to establish the credibility of the Old Testament. But work on the Elephantine Papyri is an ongoing project. These documents have made a significant contribution to this point, but what role they may yet play in helping with the interpretation of the Bible is still to be determined. For example, Bezalel Porten uses the form of the Elephantine conveyances to help interpret Numbers 18 (Porten: 1993, 257-271). 

To this point these texts have been published in various sources and not easily obtained. However, Porten and Yardeni are publishing a four-volume collection of the Elephantine Papyri in Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited, and Translated into Hebrew and English. Otherwise one may find some of these texts in Ancient Near Eastern Texts edited by James Pritchard and Documents from Old Testament Times edited by D. Winton Tomas.

Bibliographic Information

Harrison, R.K. “Elephantine Papyri.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Gen. ed. Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. II:58-61. 4 vols.

Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Kidner, David. Ezra and Nehemiah. Tyndale Old Testament  Commentaries. Ed. D.J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979.

LaSor, W.S. “Aramaic.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Gen. ed. Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. I:229-233. 4 vols.

Phifer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Porten, Bezalel. “Elephantine Papyri.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Vol 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992. II:445-455.
____. “Elephantine Aramaic Contracts and the Priestly Literature.” Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Eds. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993.

Rowley, H. H. “Papyri from Elephantine.” Documents from Old Testament Times. Ed. D. Winton Thomas. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958.

Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

211 Crutcher Cr., Athens, Alabama 35611