Truth Magazine – Page 54 – Taking His hand, helping each other home.

The Lachish Ostraca

By C.R. Scroggins

The mound of the ancient city of Lachish (ed-Duweir), a large tell approximately thirty acres at the base and eighteen acres at the top, is located twenty-five to thirty miles southwest of Jerusalem. This city was commonly referred to as the “Royal City of the Kingdom of Judah.” For a number of years it was thought by some archeologists that another tell not far distanced (el-Hesy) was the site of Lachish. However, in 1929, W.F. Albright, a most noted author, who had done extensive archaeological survey in Palestine, suggested that the location (ed-Duweir) was a more favorable site. Later excavations of the site begun by the British archaeologist, J.L. Starkey, in 1932, confirmed Albright’s suggestion. Unfortunately Starkey’s work came to an abrupt halt with his murder by a gang of Arab looters in 1938.

Historical Lachish

Starkey’s finds, along with more extensive and systematic excavations and analysis of the various stratums, conducted between 1973 and 1987 revealed that a large Canaanite city was first established near the beginning of the second millennium B.C. It was well fortified, being naturally located in a position that dominated the surrounding territory. Its builders constructed a large wall twenty feet in width with buttresses and towers. In front of the wall, a ramp-like structure (called a glacis) was made of well-compacted earth with a hard plaster surface. At the base of this structure was a moat. However, in spite of this tremendous fortification, the city was captured and violently destroyed by Joshua ca., 1450 B.C. (cf. Joshua 10:31-33). It was during this time, while Joshua was doing battle with the coalition of five Amorite kings, that the Lord caused the “sun to stand still” (Josh. 10:2-13).

The ruins of the city seem to have been deserted until the tenth century B.C. when Rehoboam, last king of the united monarchy and first king of the southern kingdom, rebuilt the fortifications. Another twenty-foot mud brick wall was constructed on a stone foundation (cf. 2 Chron. 11:5-12). During the city’s era of Israelite domination, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded Palestine (c. 701 B.C.) and besieged many of the fortified cities, one of which was Lachish. It was an extremely fierce battle at Lachish, as the remains of many scales of armor, sling-stones, and various other weapons indicate. In the end, however, the city was conquered and its destruction was total. Corroboration of this came when excavations at Nineveh produced the discovery of reliefs on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace, attesting to the fierceness of this great battle.

With his victory at Lachish and other fortified cities, Sennacherib caused Hezekiah, king of Judah, being one that was weak and vacillating, to negotiate a “buy out” with him (2 Kings 18:13-16). The king of Assyria accepted the silver and gold from the treasury and temple but subsequently launched his army, from Lachish, against Jerusalem anyway (2 Kings 17). However, like many in history, Sennacherib failed to take into consideration the God of heaven who sent his angel and “smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand” (2 Kings 19:35). Approximately 64 years later, during the reign of King Josiah (639-609 B.C.), the city of Lachish was rebuilt and again fortified, but not nearly as strong and formidable as it had been previously.

The Ostraca

The various stratums of the Lachish mound plus the Ostraca (potsherds, broken pieces of pottery, with letters, notes, etc., inscribed) which Starkey found there have been most revealing of several events during Jeremiah’s time. There were about twenty-one of these Ostracon found and some have been completely translated. What we have been able to glean from these letters confirms much of the Bible’s account of Jeremiah’s prophecies. For example, one of the letters reads: “Let (the garrison commander) also know that we are watching for the beacon (fires) of Lachish, (interpreting them) in accordance with all the code-signals which my lord has given — but we can no longer see Azekah.” Now, compare this with Jeremiah’s account (Jer. 34:6-7), “Then Jeremiah the prophet spake all these words unto Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem, When the king of Babylon’s army fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish, and against Azekah: for these defenced cities remained of the cities of Judah.”

These letters discovered in 1935 during Starkey’s work have generally been dated late 589 B.C. to 587 B.C., shortly before the Chaldeans besieged and conquered first Lachish and then Jerusalem, ca., 587 B.C. The collection of Ostraca from Lachish were primarily military letters written during the haste and confusion as Babylonian armies were invading. In three of the letters it appears that Hoshaiah, probably a commander of an outpost, was reporting to Yaosh, the commander of Lachish and surrounding region. Please notice that the phrase “the prophet” (most likely Jeremiah) is mentioned in Ostracon number three as follows:

Your servant, Hoshaiah, sent to inform my lord, Yaosh. May YHWH cause my lord to hear a report of peace and a [re]port of [g]ood news. And now open, please, the ear of your servant concerning the letter which you sent to your servant last night, because the heart of your servant has been ill since you sent (the letter) to your servant. And as for what my lord said: “You did not understand it. Call a scribe!” By the life of YHWH no one has attempted to read a letter to me at any time. And, moreover, any scribe who may come to me, (I swear) I did not summon him, [. . .] (I swear) I will not pay him! Not anything! And to your servant it has been reported, saying, “The commander of the army, Coniah the son of Elnathan, has gone down to go into Egypt, so he has sent (messengers) to take Hodaiah, the son of Ahijah, and his men from here. And as for the letter of Tobijah, the servant of the king, which came to Shallum, the son of Jaddua, from the prophet (emp. mine, crs), saying ‘Beware!’, your servant has sent it to my lord.”

Comparing this with Jeremiah 26:20-22, this great find gives us solid, tangible evidence of Biblical “truth.” With the Lachish Ostraca we have a glimpse into history, written after Jeremiah 34:6-7 but before Jeremiah 39:2. These small fragments of pottery with their messages, hidden for centuries, prove the Bible record. So, once again, the skeptics with their molesting of Scripture and mockery of biblical truths have been soundly defeated.

Reference Material
ISBE, Vol. III.
A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Vol. III.
Pictorial Bible Dictionary, M.C. Tenney, gen. ed.
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Archaeology and the O.T., M.F. Unger.
The Bible and Archaeology, J.A. Thompson.
The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Avraham Negev, ed.
Archaeology of Palestine, W.F. Albright.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Leonard Cottrell, ed.
Atlas of Ancient Archaeology, Jacquetta Hawkes.
The City of Lachish, S.B. Oostendorp.

1005 N. Alice Dr., Duncan, Oklahoma 73533-1557 crscroggins@juno.com

Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 1 p12 January 4, 2001

The Cyrus Cylinder

By Kevin Maxey

“How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow is she, who was great among the nations!” (Lam. 1:1). The Babylonian Empire has crushed, broken, and defeated God’s chosen people before the eyes of the world. Could this humiliated nation actually be the same descendants of Abraham, Moses, and David? What about all those glorious messianic prophecies? While Jerusalem lies in rubble, her inhabitants are exiled prisoners in a foreign land. Satan and the pagan world rejoice as they profane the “so-called” people of God (Ezek. 36:20). Where is the Lord of Judah now? Is there any hope for redemption? Where is the Messiah?

This is one of numerous occasions where Jehovah confidently establishes that he indeed “rules in the kingdom of men” (Dan. 4:17), “removes kings and raises up kings” (Dan. 2:21), and employs nations to carry out his will. The divine King is not slumbering on his throne. He has a flawless plan of restoration that involves a certain man named Cyrus, who will conquer the Babylonian Empire, and not only release the Jews, but help them rebuild their temple (Isa. 44:24-45:7; 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 6:1-12). This will ensure the survival of the Jewish remnant and prepare the way for the coming Messiah.

A 2500-year-old clay cylinder was discovered by Hormuzd Rassam in Neneveh, Iraq, in 1879 that validates the biblical description of this king Cyrus who did in fact have a political policy of releasing captives to their homelands and rebuilding their religious sanctuaries. The informative cuneiform message on this broken cylinder, 23 cm long and 11 cm wide consists of approximately 40 lines inscribed around 538 B.C. in the Akkadian (Babylonian) language. The cyrus Cylinder, currently locate in the British Museum, is a key archaeological proof that validates yet another biblical account as true.

Why is the Cyrus Cylinder Important

1. The Cyrus Cylinder verifies Cyrus as an authentic historical figure. In his cylinder Cyrus asserts, “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims (of the earth), son of Cambyses” (All italicized Cyrus Cylinder quotes come from The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by James B. Pritchard [1958] 206-208). When Isaiah named, over a century in advance, Cyrus as the king who would restore the people of God to their homeland (Isa. 44:28), he did not resort to a random selection of chance. The Scriptures contain nineteen direct references to this Cyrus. The Cyrus Cylinder, along with several other historical records, attests to the accuracy of the Biblical account. The Bible is neither fairy tale nor fable; rather, it is an inspired and correct record of the lives of authentic people, cities, and events (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

2. The Cyrus Cylinder confirms the biblical prophecy of Cyrus’ defeat of Babylon. The cylinder describes how the Babylonian god, “Marduk, the great lord . . . ordered him to march against his city Babylon” (Ibid. 206). Cyrus continues to explain how he “entered Babylon” and “established the seat of government in the palace of the ruler” (Ibid. 207). Even before Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon, God foretold the very one whom he would use to defeat Babylon. The Lord identified this as Cyrus, whom he appointed “to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings,” (Isa. 45:1). God predicted the dethroning of Babylon and the clearly implied instrument he would use for their collapse was Cyrus (Isa. 47:1; 45:1).

Daniel 5:30-31 speaks of the fall of Babylon and makes mention of the ensuing reign of Darius the Mede. Other references in both the Scriptures and secular history identify Cyrus as the one responsible for conquering Babylon. This is not a contradiction because it very well could be that Darius the Mede was left in rule of Babylon while serving under the imperial reign of Cyrus.

3. The Cyrus Cylinder affirms the biblical prophecy of Cyrus’ release of captives. God not only used Cyrus as a tool to punish Babylon for their iniquities (Isa. 47:10-11), but once Cyrus gained power, the Lord used him to return his people to Jerusalem. After pronouncing judgment on Judah by the hands of Babylon (Isa. 43:14), God looks past the captivity and “says to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be inhabited’” (Isa. 44:26). Even before the Babylonian captivity, Jehovah gave hope to the faithful remnant by promising a return. The one ruler whom God would providentially use to make this happen would be, “Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all My good pleasure’” (Isa. 44:28).

The Holy Spirit not only foretells the coming Babylonian destruction, he also specifies the length of their captivity. “For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform my good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place” (Jer. 29:10). Both Chronicles and Ezra refer to Jeremiah’s prophecy. “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom” (2 Chron. 36:22; Ezra 1:1). Cyrus allows the captive Jew to return home saying, “May the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up!” (2 Chron. 36:23).

The Cyrus Cylinder verifies that Cyrus did in fact have a policy of returning captives to their homeland. He says, “I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations” (Ibid. 208). Nearly 150 years prior to the event, the Holy Spirit accurately prophesied the return of the Jewish captives. Liberal scholars, try as they might, cannot adequately explain away this prophecy.

4. The Cyrus Cylinder verifies Cyrus’ sanctuary rebuilding policy. Speaking of Cyrus, Jehovah said, “He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’” (Isa. 44:28). Cyrus proclaimed, God “has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2). The Persian king even goes as far as to command his people to contribute “silver and gold, with goods and livestock, besides the freewill offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:4). Years later as Darius the king of Persia (not to be confused with Darius the Mede) researches this edict of Cyrus, he discovers that Cyrus financed the Jerusalem reconstruction with Persian funds. “Let the expenses be paid from the king’s treasury” (Ezra 6:4).

Again, this is consistent with Cyrus’ behavior as described on his cylinder. “I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries” (Ibid. 208). Though there is no reference on the cylinder of king Cyrus specifically doing such for the Jewish nation, this quote clearly establishes the fact that the actions of Cyrus, as recorded by the Scriptures, are consistent with his dealings with conquered nations.

Final Lessons

The events surrounding Judah, Cyrus, and this cylinder affirm the following fundamental lessons:

1. God performs works beyond our imagination. While a dejected Judah sat captive in a foreign land, God was performing a grand work beyond their finite comprehension. About these events, the Lord explained to Habakkuk, “Look among the nations and watch — be utterly astounded! For I will work a work in your days which you would not believe, though it were told you” (Hab. 1:5; 2:3). Though we may not understand the discouraging events of our day, we can rest assured that God “is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3:20).

2. God does rule in the kingdoms of men. The Creator of this world is not indifferent towards or uninvolved with his creation. Just as God used Cyrus as an instrument to “perform all My pleasure” (Isa. 44:28), we can be confident that even among the worldly and political turmoil of our day, “The Most High rules in the kingdom of men” (Dan. 4:25).

Why is the Cyrus Cylinder Important

Final Lessons

The events surrounding Judah, Cyrus, and this cylinder affirm the following fundamental lessons:

3. God’s word is true. Despite the persistent effort of unbelievers to disprove the Bible, the Cyrus Cylinder is yet another historical find that affirms the Scriptures as accurate. Just prior to the Cyrus prophecy, Jehovah asserts, “I am the Lord . . . who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers” (Isa. 44:24-26). God kept his word in Cyrus’ day and he will keep his word in our day (2 Pet. 3:1-9).

Eichenring 4a, 66877 Ramstein, Germany Maxey5998@aol.com

Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 1 p18 January 4, 2001

The Mesha Stele or Moabite Stone

By Steve Willis

“I am Mesha, son Chemosh[it], king of Moab, the Dibonite — my father (had) reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father, — (who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh….” This is the beginning of the text inscribed on the Moabite Stone, one of the major finds relating to biblical archaeology. The inscription goes on to tell of Mesha’s successful revolt from Northern Israel and mentions his conquest of Israelite territory.

Background
After Israel’s kings Saul, David, and Solomon, the Kingdom of Israel divided into two sections, Israel to the north and Judah to the south (see 1 Kings 12). Judah’s kings, ruling from Jerusalem, would all be from the family of David. Northern Israel would be ruled by several families in Tirzeh and Samaria. The kingdom was never again united: “Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19).

Texts and excavation in archaeology have provided background for the time of the Divided Kingdom. A few significant finds include Syrian’s king Benhadad’s Stele, the monolith of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, and the Moabite Stone, which is the subject of this article. The Moabite Stone is also called the Stele of Mesha. Mesha was king of Moab, Israel’s neighbor to the East beyond the Dead Sea (see 2 Kings 3:4).

The nation of Moab figures importantly into the Bible accounts of Lot, Israel’s Wilderness Wanderings, Ruth, and the United and Divided Kingdoms of Israel. Moab had been subjected to United Israel during the time of David (2 Sam. 8:2). By Solomon’s time they were probably allied, for Solomon loved a Moabitess and built a temple to her god, Chemosh (2 Kings 11:1, 7). Sometime after the division of Israel, Moab was subjected to the northern king Omri (880-874 B.C.) and received a tribute from Moab of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams with their wool (2 Kings 3:4). Moab’s king Mesha would rebel against Omri’s Dynasty when Omri’s son Ahab (874-853 B.C.) died. Mesha also revolted against Omri’s grandsons, Ahaziah (853-852 B.C.; 2 Kings 1:1-2) and Jehoram (852-841 B.C.; see 2 Kings 3:4-27). (For dates and problems with determining chronologies, see Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings; Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament.)

Setting up the Moabite Stone

2 Kings 3 gives the Bible account of the rebellion of Moab under their king Mesha against northern Israel, whose king was Jehoram (Joram):

Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and used to pay the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. But it came about, when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. And King Jehoram went out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. Then he went and sent word to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to fight against Moab?” And he said, “I will go up; I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” And he said, “Which way shall we go up?” And he answered, “The way of the wilderness of Edom.” So the king of Israel went with the king of Judah and the king of Edom; and they made a circuit of seven days’ journey, and there was no water for the army or for the cattle that followed them. . . . But when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites arose and struck the Moabites, so that they fled before them; and they went forward into the land, slaughtering the Moabites. Thus they destroyed the cities; and each one threw a stone on every piece of good land and filled it. So they stopped all the springs of water and felled all the good trees, until in Kir-hareseth only they left its stones; however, the slingers went about it and struck it. When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too fierce for him, he took with him 700 men who drew swords, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land. (Text taken from 2 Kings 3.)
Each side could claim a victory, and this is what Mesha did when he would later erect the Mesha Stele, or Moabite Stone, in Dibon, the Moabite capital. The Mesha Stele was made of basalt rock. It was 3 feet 10 inches tall, 2 feet wide, and 2-1/2 inches thick. It was rectangular except that the top had been rounded to a semi-circle. It had 39 lines of text inscribed into the rock in the Moabite language. Mesha described victories and building projects, including building a “high place,” probably for worship in gratitude for his various victories. Here is Mesha’s version of events in 2 Kings 3:

As for Omri king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit. days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished forever! Now Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and (Israel) has dwelt there in his time and half of the time of his son (Ahab), forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time. (Moabite Stone, lines 5-10). (One may read the entire inscription from The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, volume 1; ed. James B. Pritchard; Dr. A. Neubaurer’s translation, with Bible references inserted, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr.)

However, this is not the only victory he claims against Israel. He also says he slew all in Antaroth, took Nebo, and he slew many thousand men, women, boys and girls, devoting them to his god, Chemosh. The stone also describes other cities Mesha reclaimed and rebuilt as well as other building projects he is said to have finished. It was set up to honor Mesha’s god, Chemosh, who is mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13). The Mesha Stele was probably set up between 850 and 830 B.C.

The Moabite Stone in Modern Times

In August 1868, in Dhiban (biblical Dibon), German missionary F.A. Klein (V. Klein, in ISBE) was shown an inscribed slab by an Arab sheik. Before that the French scholar Clermont-Ganneau had heard reports of its existence in Jerusalem, but Klein saw it first. The British Museum, German and French consular authorities, and eventually the Turkish officials showed interests in the Stele. In 1873, Arabs broke the Moabite Stone into many pieces by kindling a fire under it, then pouring water on it. This caused it to crack. Fragments were carried away as charms to bless their crops.

The French, however, had previously taken a “squeeze” (impression) of the Stone before it was broken. With that, and efforts to recover as much as possible (two large fragments and eighteen smaller pieces), archaeologists were able to reconstruct about two-thirds of the texts inscribed on the stone. Parts of 34 of the 39 lines are readable, as scholars have restored 660 of the estimated 1,100 letters. An edition of the text was prepared by Professors Smend and Socin in 1886. William F. Allbright’s translation is in “Palestinian Inscriptions” in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. James B. Pritchard (1954, 1958).

By 1873, the Stele was taken to the Louvre museum in France, where it is on display. (For more on the history of the Moabite Stone, see The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr; The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney; The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer.)

The Value of the Moabite Stone to Biblical Archaeology

The Moabite Stone is historical confirmation of the biblical narrative and is a historical document of the first order for a number of reasons. First, it is a text written close to the time it describes. It was written by — or at least commanded to have been written by — a person named in the Bible, Mesha (2 Kings 3:4). The name “Israel” is mentioned six times on the Moabite Stone. The text names Israel’s sixth king Omri and refers to his sons as well. The Bible hints at Omri’s greatness (1 Kings16) whereas the Moabite Stone and confirms it so by reporting Moab’s vassalage to Israel until Mesha’s revolt.

Initially, there were few ancient texts to compare to biblical Hebrew, but by careful comparison (paleography), the Mesha Stele helps scholars understand the language used in Old Testament times. Moab and Israel’s languages were probably mutually understandable. “With the political and economic domination of Moab by Israel during parts of the 10th and 9th centuries (B.C.), it is not surprising that the Moabite would be similar to Hebrew . . .” (Dearman and Mattingly, in “Mesha Stele,” Anchor Bible Dictionary). The inscription on the Moabite Stone was written in an Aramaic dialect and in early cursive Hebrew-like script, which was very similar to the language used in ancient Israel. The inscription on the Moabite Stone has allowed scholars to see the early alphabet and formation of letters (orthography), the use of punctuation marks, word dividers and the use of phrases from that time period. Mesha used “high place” as a place of worship to his idol (cf. 2 Kings 23:15). The use of “Chemosh” — his god — in his father’s name is comparable to the forms of Jehovah (Yahweh, Yah) in Israelites’ names (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, etc.). The term or rite of “cherem” (devoted, under the ban) is used by Mesha much as it was in Bible times (Josh. 6:17-18; 1 Sam. 15:21), and has been better understood since finding the Moabite Stone. Another term used by Mesha is “forty” of the length of Omri’s oppression, which has been thought to have been used figuratively, indefinitely, or at least as an upward-rounding of numbers. R.K. Harrison wrote that even combining Omri and Ahab’s reigns, could “. . . hardly have been more than twenty-three years at the very most” (Introduction to the Old Testament 1164). Some have suggested the Bible uses this term this way as well in a few places.

The Moabite Stone confirms the geography of many Bible place names. In the acquiring of cities by war and rebuilding campaign of Mesha, we can read many places named in the Bible. Arnon (Num. 21:13, Deut. 2:24; 3:16), Aroer (Josh. 13:16), Ataroth (Num. 32:34), Baal-meon or Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 13:17; Num. 32:38), Beth-bamoth (Bamoth-baal, Josh. 13:17), Beth-diblathaim (Jer. 48:22), Bezer (Josh. 20:8), Dibon (Num. 32:34; Josh. 13:17; Isa. 15:2), Horonaim (Isa. 15:5), Jahaz (Josh. 13:18; Isa. 15:4), Kerioth (Jer. 48:24), Kiriathaim (Josh. 13:19; Jer. 48:23), Medeba (Madeba, Josh. 13:9, 16; Isa. 15:2), and Nebo, where Moses stood to view the Promised Land (Num. 32:38; Deut. 34:1; Isa. 15:2). (From Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, Vol. 1, 189]. Mesha also credited himself with building the highway in Arnon (river valley, cf. Judg. 11:18; Jer. 48:20). (One should consult one of the Bible atlases to locate these on a map. See Baker’s Bible Atlas; The Harper’s Atlas of the Bible; Oxford Bible Atlas.)

Last, and certainly not least, the Moabite Stone was the first non-biblical text or inscription found in modern times using “Yahweh” (YHWH, or Jehovah), as a name for the God of Israel; Mesha knew “Yahweh” was Israel’s God:

And I took there the […] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh.

Some have supplied “vessels” in the space where the text it lacking. Since finding the Moabite Stone, there have been other secular sources found with this biblical name of God, but the Moabite Stone was the first witness of it found in modern times. In addition to Israel’s God, the Moabite Stone supplies the names of Mesha and Moab’s gods which are named and condemned in the Bible: Chemosh (Num. 21:29) and Ashtar, which is known in the Scriptures in the plural as Ashtaroth (see 1 Sam. 12:10). Again we can see the trustworthiness of the biblical account as witnessed by the Moabite Stone.

The Moabite Stone: Archaeological Light on the Bible

In 1925, R.A.S. McAllister wrote, “The chief light shed by excavation upon Palestinian political history has come, not from Palestine itself, but from foreign countries which from time to time influenced it in one way or another” — to which Oswald T. Allis added in 1972, “The statement is largely true today” (McAllister quoted in Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics 180). Few archaeological discoveries show this to be truer for the time of the Divided Kingdom than the Moabite Stone.

18 Rossmere Ct. SE, Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada T1B 2M3

Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 1 p5 January 4, 2001

The Code of Hammurabi

By Doug Roush

The Code of Hammurabi, was discovered by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of Jacques de Morgan in 1901-1902 at the ancient site of Susa in what is now Iran. It was written on a piece of black diorite, 2.25 m (7 ft. 5 in.) in height, and contained 282 sections. Although the block was broken into three pieces, the major portion of it has been restored and is now in the Louvre in Paris.

Many scholars believe that the code is actually a series of amendments to the common law of Babylonia. It addresses legal procedure with statements for penalties for unjust accusations, false testimony, and injustice done by judges. In addition, it states laws concerning property rights, loans, deposits, debts, domestic property, and family rights. The sections covering personal injury invoke penalties for injuries sustained at the hand of another as well as permanent injury incurred by unsuccessful operations that were performed by physicians. In addition, the code established rates for various services in trade and commerce.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Written Word

Bible critics once made the charge that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Old Testament because the art of writing was not developed until well after his death. This criticism, however, has been negated by a multitude of archaeological discoveries, among which is The Code of Hammurabi. Free and Vos have stated:

The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.). . . . This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C., contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws. . . . In view of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos [1992], Archaeology and Bible History 103, 55).

The Code of Hammurabi, among other discoveries of ancient writing, established beyond doubt that writing was practiced for hundreds of years before the time of Moses. This fact is so well documented by archaeological discovery and historical confirmation that only the dishonest or misinformed critic of the Bible would appeal to this line of argumentation.

Similarities and Contrasts Between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses

The other misuse of the Code of Hammurabi against the Law of Moses by Bible critics was the similarities between the two systems. Since it had been established that the Code predated the Law, it was charged that Moses had plagiarized Hammurabi, or at least had borrowed from him.

It is true that the Code and the Law contain many similarities. However, most of the similarity ends with the topics they address. The specifics as to how the topic is handled are, in most cases, different, if not contrasting.

Bible critics often point to the principle of equal retribution in the Code. Paragraphs 196, 197, 199 establish, an eye for an eye, a broken bone for a broken bone, and a tooth for a tooth, respectively. However, the Code treats those who are born free, made free, and slaves differently in the matter of retribution. Equal retribution is practiced only toward those who are born free. A price of one gold mina was to be paid to an injured freed man, and if the injured be a slave, the offender was to pay one-half of the slaves value to his master. No mention is made of a slave who suffers permanent injury at the hand of their owner, however the Law of Moses provided for the freedom of a slave that was so injured (Exod. 21:26-27).

The Law provided that, “. . . he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death” (Exod. 21:15). In comparison and contrast, the Code provided, “If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off” (§195).

Numerous comparisons can be made between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Few are exactly the same, however the similarities are striking. Perhaps one explanation for these similarities can be the civil and moral portion of the law of God that was handed down by word of mouth through the patriarchs. Just as there are similarities between the Mosaic Law and the law of Christ in their moral principles, it should not be surprising to find hints of the civil and moral aspect of the Patriarchal Law in the written codes of ancient cultures; even though these cultures had become corrupt and, like Hammurabi, attributed their code to gods of idolatry.

Explanation of Pre-Mosaic Customs
Among the Patriarchs

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the Code of Hammurabi is the insight it provides into the customs of patriarchal cultures. Although, as near as one can now tell, Abraham lived shortly before the time of Hammurabi, other ancient writings verify that many of the customs that Hammurabi codified were widely practiced by patriarchal cultures.

For instance, Abraham had resigned himself to the situation that Eliezer of Damascus, “one born in my house (i.e., the son of one of his slaves) is mine heir” (Gen. 15:2-3). This statement is consistent with the practice of adoption as outlined in the Code of Hammurabi and other, more ancient codes. Therefore, in the mind of Abraham, adoption of a child born to one of his slaves presented a acceptable cultural solution to God’s promise as it was stated in Genesis 6:2-3.

In addition, the insistence of Sarah, Rachel, and Leah for their husbands to bear them children by their handmaids (Gen. 16:1ff; 30:1ff, 9ff) is consistent with the cultural custom that is described in paragraphs 144 and 146 of the Code of Hammurabi. As written in the Code, it is apparent that the practice was common prior to the time of Hammurabi; however, his code protected all parties involved in this arrangement.

Paragraphs 159-161 of the Code address fair treatment of the “purchase price” for a bride in the event the prospective groom or father-in-law should change his mind about the marriage. Although there are some differences, the practice of a purchase price or dowry is consistent with what we find in Genesis 24:10, 53, where we find Abraham’s servant went in search of Isaac’s prospective wife with “all goodly things of his master’s in his hand,” and then giving Rebekah and Rebekah’s mother and brother precious things. The practice of a “purchase price” being paid to the father of the bride is especially evident in the case where Jacob, when he did not have possession of a “purchase price,” worked for Laban for two consecutive seven year periods to satisfy the “purchase price” for each of Laban’s daughters, Rachel and Leah.

Conclusion

Archaeological discoveries provide us with some fascinating information that enhances our appreciation of the Bible record. Perhaps, most striking, as exemplified in the early years of Abraham, is how ancient cultures attempted to make God’s revelation fit their cultural practice rather than fully embrace God’s promise. Thousands of years have passed, but man continues to make the same mistakes. However, like Abraham, we come to know the grace of God and his blessings when we fully accept him at his word.

18883 Pinkley Rd., Fredericktown, Ohio 43019 DougRoush@ecr.net

Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 1 p3 January 4, 2001