Truth Magazine

By David McClister

One of the most fascinating archaeological finds relating to the Bible is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. It is a four-sided column of black limestone inscribed with words (in the cuneiform alphabet) and pictures. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (who reigned 858-824 B.C.) had it made to record his achievements through the first 31 years of his reign. Austen Layard unearthed it in 1846 during his now-famous discovery of Nimrud (Calah), just south of the capital city of Nineveh. Shalmaneser’s monument was probably set up in a public place where people passing by could see it and take note of the king’s accomplishments. It was, in effect, the ancient Assyrian equivalent of a billboard. The obelisk stands about six feet tall and is now kept in the British Museum. Copies can be seen in other museums, such as the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.

What is so amazing about this ancient monument is that it both mentions and depicts a person from the Bible. In the picture accompanying this article, which is a detail from one of the panels on the obelisk, the person bowing down is none other than Jehu, king of Israel, and the person before whom Jehu is bowing is the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. We are sure that this is indeed Jehu because of the inscription underneath the picture panel, which reads “tribute of Jehu son of Omri” (Jehu was not Omri’s physical son, but the word “son” is here used in the sense of “successor”). This is the only artifact from biblical times that contains a representation of a biblical character. While the picture is stylized and therefore probably not intended to be an accurate depiction of Jehu’s appearance, it is nonetheless striking.

A little background knowledge may help us understand the significance of this artifact. First, you may recall that Jehu was the man God chose to replace the wicked family of Ahab of the house of Omri. Elisha the prophet was commanded to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel in 1 Kings 19, and the command was carried out in 2 Kings 9 (841 B.C.). With the appointment as king came a command from God that Jehu destroy the house of Ahab. In this connection, Jehu is perhaps most remembered for killing the wicked queen Jezebel, the wife of Ahab and a Baal worshiper from Phoenicia. He also killed Joram, Ahab’s son who had taken the throne of Israel. Jehu was far from done, however. He killed Ahaziah, the king of Judah, and his relatives, and he killed the 70 sons of Ahab who lived in Samaria and put their heads in two piles at the city gate. Then, using trickery, he killed all the worshipers of Baal. This killing spree is sometimes called “the purge of Jehu.”

While we may be repulsed by all this bloodshed, it was God’s judgment upon the wicked house of Ahab, and it was just. God was pleased that Jehu carried out his orders (2 Kings 10:30). However, Jehu did not please God in everything. Jehu allowed the golden calves, set up by Jeroboam, to remain. He did much to bring Israel back to God, but he did not finish the job. Apparently Jehu did only enough to secure his position on the throne of the northern kingdom. For his failure to cleanse the kingdom of idolatry God allowed Israel’s enemy, the Syrians, to rise up against Israel. It is probably in the context of Jehu’s military problems that we should interpret Shalmaneser’s monument.

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III records an event that is not mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible mention Jehu going before the king of Assyria and bowing down before him. However, there is every good reason to believe that Jehu did exactly this. When Jehu was anointed he was encamped at Ramoth-gilead (2 Kings 9:1-6), indicating that control of this border town between Israel and Syria was still being contested. The Syrians had another problem, however, and that was the rising military strength of Assyria directly to their east. In the same year that Jehu came to the throne in Israel (841 B.C.) the Assyrians marched westward into Syria. According to Shalmaneser’s records the Syrians suffered heavy losses, but we also know that Shalmaneser was not able to take Damascus. In this context there are at least three scenarios that would have prompted Jehu to bow down before the Assyrian monarch: (1) Jehu saw that Syria (which was a buffer between himself and Assyria) was losing the war with Assyria and that he would not be able to withstand the coming Assyrian advance, so he submitted to their superior military might in order to avoid conflict (which also left his enemy, the Syrians, alone to face the Assyrians), or (2) Jehu may have submitted to the Assyrians in return for help against the Syrians (cf. a somewhat similar tactic by king Asa in 1 Kings 15:17-22; but this is the least likely scenario), or (3) Jehu submitted when the Assyrian army finally pushed into northern Palestine (Shalmaneser says that he took tribute not only from Jehu, but from Tyre and Sidon as well). Either way, it seems that Jehu (wisely) never entered into any anti-Assyrian alliance with Syria and that he probably submitted to Assyria to keep his throne. This is what is being depicted on the obelisk — Jehu bowing before the king of Assyria, recognizing his power, and presenting his nation’s tribute payment. 

The political effect of Jehu’s action would have been that while Jehu may have saved his kingdom from destruction (for the moment), he weakened his kingdom by obligating Israel to hefty annual tribute payments to Assyria. His capitulation to Assyria also increased Syria’s animosity toward Israel and the king of Syria, Hazael, apparently after the Assyrians withdrew, vented his anger against Jehu and captured all of Israel’s transjordan territory (2 Kings 9:32f). These negative effects only compounded the political crisis Jehu already faced. When he killed off the house of Ahab (including Jezebel), he lost favorable relations with the Phoenicians (Jezebel was a Phoeni- cian), and the Moabites had already successfully rebelled from Israelite subjugation under Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1) about ten years earlier, which meant that Moab’s tribute payments, which once boosted Israel’s economy, had ceased. So Jehu created enemies to his north, he lost his territories to the east, and had lost control of the Moabites to the south. It would not be until the reign of Jeroboam II that Israel would recover.

There are two brief lessons to consider. The first is about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III proves that there really was a man named Jehu who was the king of Israel, just as the Bible says there was, and that he lived in the time period which the Bible reports. The name of Hazael, the king of Syria at that time — who is also mentioned in the Bible — also appears on the Assyrian king’s monument. The Bible’s stories are true, they really happened, and the biblical record is accurate.

The second lesson is a moral one, and has to do with our influence on the world around us, how others see us. I have always thought it regrettable that here we have an actual picture of a person in the Bible — and what is he doing? He is making a fool of himself! Here was the king of Israel. With God behind him, there was nothing he could not have accomplished. God would have fought for Israel, and Israel could have risen to great power and blessing. But Jehu took advantage of none of this. In times of trouble Jehu looked for human help rather than looking to God for help. This scene, carved in rock and preserved for all the world to see, makes me think about the influence that we, as God’s people today, should have. How do others see us? Do they see us like they saw Jehu — catering to the world and bowing down (figuratively) before worldly people, surrendering ourselves to them and their lifestyle? If all that ever remained of our lives in the records of the world was that we served the world instead of God, what kind of legacy have we left?

Whenever I see this panel from Shalmaneser’s monument, I am both happy and sad. I am happy to know that the biblical record has been proven to be true and accurate, but I am sad to see that it shows one of God’s people acting in a faithless way. Let us live so that we are not remembered like Jehu was.

2210 71st St. W., Bradenton, Florida 34209

By Mike Willis

The Dead Sea Scrolls are particularly important for the study of the text of the Old Testament. Without minimizing the contribution that the Scrolls make for the backgrounds of the New Testament era and for vocabulary, one needs to emphasize the contribution the Scrolls make to the study of the text of the Old Testament. K.A. Kitchen said, “Ultimately, by far the most important contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical study lies in their witness to the recopying and transmission of the Hebrew text of the books of the Old Testament” (The Bible in Its World 129).

What Was Found at Qumran

In this section, I will limit my comments to what biblical texts were found at the caves near Wadi Qumran. Lasor said, “Tens of thousands of fragments were gathered from the floors of the caves, and are gradually being sorted and classified in the Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. The exact number is probably not known, and would be of no great value. Dr. Frank Cross says that 382 different manuscripts are represented by the fragments so far identified from just cave 4Q alone. Add to this number the different manuscripts represented by the fragments in each of the other caves (none of which yielded as much as cave 4Q), and it is possible that the total number of manuscripts was between 600 and 800. Some of the fragments are so small that they contain a single letter of the alphabet. These are of little value. Other fragments contain just a few words, and still other fragments contain two or more columns (or portions of columns) of text” (The Dead Sea Scrolls 39). Here is a partial list of what was found:

Genesis: fragments of 5 different manuscripts (mss.) 
Exodus: fragments of 6 mss. 
Leviticus: fragments of 5 mss. plus one nearly complete scroll 
Numbers: 4 mss. 
Deuteronomy: 16 mss. 
Joshua: 2 mss. 
Judges: 3 mss. 
1-2 Samuel: 3 mss. all following the LXX text 
1-2 Kings: 2 mss. 
Isaiah: 14 mss. The Isaiah scrolls were the most significant texts found 
Jeremiah: 5 mss. 
Ezekiel: 3 mss. 
Minor Prophets: 8 mss. 
Psalms: 11 mss. 
Job: fragments in 2 caves 
Ruth: 4 mss. 
Song of Solomon: 3 mss. 
Ecclesiastes: 2 mss. 
Lamentations: 2 mss.
Esther: none 
Daniel: 4 mss. plus fragments 
Ezra-Nehemiah: 1 mss. 
Chronicles: 1 mss.

The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Texts

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant copy of the Hebrew text was Codex Leningrad which is dated A.D. 916. The rabbis had a practice of destroying worn out copies of the Scriptures. Hence, the earliest Hebrew texts are very late. Most scholars think that rabbis in the Council of Jamnia (approximately A.D. 90) worked out a standard text; hence, variant readings are relatively few in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. The translation of the Old Testament into Greek, known as the Septuagint (abbreviated by the Roman numeral LXX for the seventy men who worked on it) was made in approximately 250 B.C. It differs significantly on some passages from the Masoretic text. Because of the variants between the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic Text, scholars questioned how reliable is the Hebrew text on which we depend. There was no basis on which to check the reliability of the Masoretic text.

Suddenly in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, providing a copy of Isaiah that is conservatively dated approximately 200 B.C. It predated our existing Hebrew texts  of Isaiah by over 1000 years. For the first time, scholars could examine the accuracy of the Masoretes. What conclusions have scholars drawn from the texts?

1. The accuracy of the Masoretic text. Millar Burrows wrote, “What has been said may be enough to indicate the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments for the technical study of the text of the Old Testament. The general reader and student of the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this changes our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible. We did not need the Dead Sea Scrolls to show us that the text has not come down to us through the centuries unchanged. Interpretations depending upon the exact words of a verse must be examined in the light of all we know about the history of the text. The essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however, have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text” (The Dead Sea Scrolls 320). 

Yigael Yadin added,  “The great importance of the antiquity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the fact that they belong to the period in which no standardization of the holy scriptures had been effected. This is at once obvious by comparing the text of the scrolls with that of the translations on the one hand and the Masora on the other. What is astonishing is that despite their antiquity and the fact that the scrolls belong to this pre-standardization period, they are on the whole almost identical with the Masoretic text known to us” (The Message of the Scrolls 83). 

The conclusion drawn by textual scholars is that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy in the transmission of the text of the Old Testament back 1000 years earlier than the manuscripts that existed prior to their find.

2. The value of the LXX. Charles F. Pfeiffer said, “Although many of the Qumran Biblical texts are not yet available to the student, the information which we now have has caused the whole question of the relationship of the Septuagint to the traditional Masoretic text of the Old Testament to be reopened. Competent scholars have indicated their belief that the Septuagint is a literal translation of a Hebrew text in some respects different from the traditional one. This does not, of course, deny that the Septuagint, like translations in all ages, expresses the theological viewpoint of its translators in many areas, but it does insist that the Septuagint is a witness to an ancient text of the Old Testament as well” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible 106). The effect of this is to re-assess the testimony of the LXX when it varies with the Masoretic text. Scholars are suggesting that the difference in the two readings may not be caused by a less than literal translation of the LXX, but may reflect a different Hebrew text behind the translation.

The full impact of Dead Sea Scrolls for the text of the Old Testament will be assessed for many more years. However, already they are demonstrating the accuracy of our Old Testament text, although there obviously will be cases of specific improved readings.

The Isaiah Scroll And The Text of Isaiah

The most important text found at Qumran was the Isaiah scroll. A replica of this scroll is displayed at the Shrine of the Book museum in Jerusalem. Regarding the influence of this manuscript on the Revised Standard Version (RSV, Old Testament copyrighted in 1952), Burrows wrote, 

Thirteen readings in which the manuscript departs from the traditional text were eventually adopted. In these places a mar­ginal note cites “One ancient Ms,” meaning the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll. A brief review will show that even in these thirteen places the superiority of the manuscript’s reading is not always certain. For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been retained.

In eight of the thirteen instances the reading of the scroll is supported to some degree by the ancient versions (305).

Of the thirteen readings adopted by the RSV, the New American Standard Bible follows the Dead Sea Scrolls text in four places. In the other nine places, the translators thought the received text is superior. One should remember that antiquity is not synonymous with accuracy. Thus for the 66 chapters of Isaiah, only four changes occurred as a result of transmission of the text by hand over a period of 1000 years and none of these changes made any significant difference in our understanding of God’s will for mankind.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Inspiration

How did the first century Jews view the Old Testament? Charles F. Pfeiffer wrote, “While the Dead Sea Scrolls can neither prove nor disprove inspiration, they clearly indicate that a community of Jews more than nineteen centuries ago possessed a library of sacred writings which, in all essential details, is the same as the Bible which we have regarded as authoritative. They also had books which we term apocryphal, as well as works distinctive to their sect. Their regard for the Old Testament was, however, supreme. Commentaries were written on its books. Scholars who have examined the manuscripts assert that the Biblical scrolls are written in a style of writing which is distinctive — as if to mark them off for special consideration. Those who believe in an inspired Bible find much encouragement in the Qumran texts” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Bible 111). The belief in an inspired Old Testament existed years before the coming of Christ.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls are also important for what they show us about what books of the Old Testament were considered a part of their canon of inspired books. Were the Apocryphal books incorporated in the Catholic Bible a part of the canon of the community at Qumran? Pfeiffer wrote, “Indicative of the fact that the Old Testament as we have it was regarded as sacred Scripture at Qumran is the fact that every book except Esther is represented, at least in the form of fragments. In editing the Zadokite work, Chaim Rabin notes that quotations or allusions to every book in the Old Testament except Joshua, Joel, Jonah, Haggai, Ruth, and Lamentations are made in that document. Since the Zadokite work is related to the Qumran community, and copies of it have been found at Qumran, this gives added testimony to the canon of Scripture. Thus every book of the Old Testament is found either in manu­script, quotation, or allusion in the Qumran literature. The absence of Esther from the Qumran library may be due to the fact that it was not composed among Palestinian Jews. Since its locale is Persia it may not have been well known by the Qumranians. It is not quoted in the New Testament” (Ibid. 111-112).

The evidence of Qumran regarding the Old Testament canon confirms the testimony of Josephus (Against Apion I:8) and the testimony of Scripture (Luke 11:51, the “blood of Abel” to the “blood of Zacharias” reflects the death of the first and last persons in the Old Testament according to the accepted order of the books of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible). The 39 books that we accept in the Old Testament were the 39  accepted in the time of Christ.

Conclusion

The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that the text of the Old Testament has been transmitted accurately to modern man. Finding the scroll of Isaiah enabled textual scholars to see how accurately the text had been transcribed over a period of 1000 years. The result is that modern Old Testament scholars found that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transcribed for that period, leaving one with the confidence that the text one has in his hand is the text of Scripture as it was inspired by God. 

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

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