• About Dr. Steven Anderson

TruthOnlyBible

~ About the Bible, Christianity, and current events

TruthOnlyBible

Tag Archives: archeology

The Sign of Jonah

04 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Apologetics, Easter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

archeology, book of Jonah, Jonah, Nineveh, resurrection

What does the historicity of the Old Testament book of Jonah have to do with Easter? Quite a bit, actually. In Matthew 12:39-41, Jesus said, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.

Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh in that he came back from the dead in a sense—not literally, but after having spent three days under the ocean, in the stomach of a fish. In the context of this quotation from Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is arguing that His resurrection would prove the unbelief of the Pharisees. The people of Nineveh repented at the sign of Jonah, but the Pharisees would not repent at the greater sign of the Son of man’s resurrection from the dead. But if there never was a Jonah who spent three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, and if he never did preach in Nineveh and lead the city to repentance, the comparison would be imaginary and would prove nothing about the Pharisees. And if Jonah wasn’t literally in the belly of a fish for three days, then maybe Jesus wasn’t literally in the grave for three days, either. Jesus’ assertion that “a greater One than Jonah is here” would also be an empty claim if Jonah never actually preached at Nineveh.

There are, however, strong reasons to believe in the historicity of both the prophet Jonah and the events in the biblical book which bears his name. The strongest reason is, of course, the fact that the book of Jonah is a part of inspired Scripture, as acknowledged by both the ancient Jews and the Lord Jesus Christ. The man Jonah is mentioned in another part of the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 14:25. The historical context in which Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25 corresponds to a period of weakness and disorder in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, during which Jonah’s warning that Nineveh would be overthrown in forty days would have been particularly believable. During this period, there was a time in which the administrative control of the Assyrian king was reduced to “greater Nineveh,” which explains why Nineveh is the main focus of Jonah’s prophecies (rather than “Assyria”). There are good reasons to believe that when Nineveh is described as a journey of three days in breadth (Jonah 3:3), with 120,000 young children (Jonah 4:11), it is the district of Nineveh that is referenced, and not just that part of Nineveh enclosed by the city wall.

Many critics have also asserted that it is impossible for a man to survive for three days and three nights in the belly of a fish. While this fish is said to have been specially prepared by God (Jonah 1:17), it still was a real fish, and it really did swallow Jonah alive. The common idea that this fish was a whale is nowhere stated in Scripture; in fact, whales are very rare in the Mediterranean, and this was more likely a great white shark, which has a much slower metabolism than a whale. It is also important to realize that the term “three days and three nights” does not necessarily refer to a full 72-hour period, but only to parts of three days. “Day and night” is a Hebrew idiom for what we would call a “day.” Among other references to “day and night” in the Bible, Jesus said that His body would be buried for three days and three nights (Matt 12:40), yet He was buried late in the day on Friday and raised at early dawn on Sunday, a period of about 36 hours.

For more detailed argumentation regarding the historicity of the book of Jonah, see my new Kindle book, The Historicity of the Book of Jonah, and Why It Still Matters.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ur of the Chaldees: Abraham’s original home

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

archeology, Genesis, Ur

Genesis 11:28-31 identifies Abraham’s original hometown as “Ur of the Chaldees,” or “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Sometime during Abraham’s adult life, probably while he was already about seventy years old, his father Terah moved the family clan to the city of Haran in northern Syria as the first step in a planned migration to the land of Canaan. Terah himself did not complete the journey; he died while the family was living in Haran. When Abraham was seventy-five years old, he received a personal call from God to migrate to Canaan (Gen 12:1-3). This caused a division in the family clan: Abraham’s nephew Lot went with him to Canaan, while the rest of Abraham’s family stayed in the area of Haran, where Abraham’s relatives are found living in later chapters of Genesis.

There are two ancient cities called “Ur” that are known from archaeology. By far the most famous is a city in southeastern Mesopotamia that was a great center of early civilization. A second Ur, which was far less prominent, is called “Ur in Haran” by an ancient tablet from Ebla. Islamic tradition identifies Shanliurfa, which is 24 miles (39 km) northwest of Haran, as Abraham’s original home. This city was refounded in the Hellenistic period as Edessa, and later became the center of the Syriac Christian community.

Although some scholars identify Ur of the Chaldees with the northern city of Ur, the arguments in favor of the southern location are compelling. In Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, he says that Abraham’s original home was in “the land of the Chaldeans” (Acts 7:4), a term which is used by other biblical writers to refer to southern Mesopotamia (e.g., Isa 23:13; Jer 25:12; Ezek 12:13). It seems that the author of Genesis intended to specify the southern location of Ur by identifying it as the one that is in the land of the Chaldeans. Stephen says that Abraham had to leave the land of the Chaldeans in order to travel to Haran (Acts 7:4), whereas the reference to the northern Ur as “Ur in Haran” shows that it already lay within the territory of Haran. Stephen also indicates in Acts 7:2 that what he means by “Mesopotamia”—Abraham’s original home—is a different region than the region around Haran, since he says that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran.

Abraham’s relatives are found in later chapters of Genesis to be living near Haran in northern Syria/Aram (now part of Turkey). However, as has already been noted, this does not mean that “Ur of the Chaldees” was in northern Syria, since Genesis 11:31-32 states that Terah had moved Abraham’s extended family to Haran prior to Abraham’s journey to the land of Canaan with Lot (Gen 12:5). Since Arameans dominated the region around Haran, the Bible calls Laban “the Aramean” (Gen 25:20; 31:20, 24), and portrays Laban as a speaker of the Aramaic language in Genesis 31:47. Deuteronomy 26:5 even calls Jacob an “Aramean” because of his twenty years spent with Laban in Paddan-aram (near Haran). But Jacob and Laban could not have been of Aramean descent, since they were descended from Shem’s son Arpachshad (Gen 11:10-26), whereas the Arameans were descended from Shem’s son Aram (Gen 10:22-23).

Some scholars argue that because Abraham seems to be culturally Semitic in the Genesis narratives, he must have been from the northern location of Ur, which was in Aramean territory, and not from the southern location of Ur, which was in Sumerian territory. Several points may be noted against this argument. First, although the southern Ur was in Sumerian territory, it was culturally Hurrian, and the dates of modern secular archeology are divergent enough from the Bible’s chronology so that we cannot be certain which group dominated the city at the time of Abraham. Possibly Ur was already dominated by the Chaldeans (an Aramean tribe) at the time of Abraham. Alternatively, the reference to the Chaldeans could have been made by a later writer (I would argue Ezra) who updated some geographical references in the Pentateuch. Second, Abraham himself was a Semite by birth, and therefore would have retained the culture of his clan, regardless of where he lived. Third, although most of the stories in the Abraham narrative of Genesis occur in a Semitic cultural setting (the Canaanites spoke a Semitic language even though they were not Semites by blood), Abraham and Sarah chose to move to an urban, sophisticated Egyptian culture during a famine, and they evidently had little difficulty living in that culture. Lot, as well, chose to live in the large urban center of Sodom, which seems to indicate that the family was used to life in a big city with a mixed population. When Abraham seems to act like a Bedouin, it may just be that he is conforming to the culture of the land.

Ur in southern Mesopotamia was founded by the Sumerian people. But the earliest Semitic texts in Mesopotamia are also from Ur. The Sumerians called the early Semitic migrants “westerners.” Abraham was evidently part of the huge Semitic minority that lived in the large Sumerian city-state of Ur. Ur had hot and cold running water, a sewer system, multistory buildings, paved roads, major temples, ornate furniture, and a variety of metal instruments. The Sumerians developed a sexagesimal system that divided the hour into 60 minutes, the minute into 60 seconds, and the circle into 360 degrees—a system that we still use today. There were well developed law codes and a standard system of weights and measures. There was a system of canals connecting the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys to control floods and provide irrigation so farming could go on year-round. At the time of Abraham, Ur would have been on or very near the shore of the Persian Gulf, in the Euphrates River delta, though the vast amounts of sediment carried by the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have since filled in about 150 miles of the original gulf. There was probably a port on the gulf shore that was alive with trade and fishing boats.

In my job working for BiblePlaces, I have looked at pictures of more than 10,000 ancient artifacts from the collections of museums all over the world. One would think that the artifacts from the most ancient periods would be crude, and the craftsmanship would become finer in later periods. But I would say that the artifacts from Abraham’s Ur are among the most impressive of all. Their craftsmanship is finer, more luxurious, better, than most of what came later.

If Abraham was a wealthy man in Ur, as he appears to have been, he must have possessed many treasures of the finest craftsmanship and the most exquisite materials. He would have lived in a mansion in Ur that would probably still look impressive today. As an upper class, free man, he would have attained a high level of education and must have been literate and fluent in Sumerian, Akkadian, various other Semitic languages (e.g., Amorite, Aramaic), and probably Egyptian as a trade language. He would have enjoyed a refined urban life in a highly advanced center of civilization. To leave all of this in order to journey to Canaan would have meant a huge sacrifice of material comfort for Abraham. Abraham lived in a tent in Canaan, not in a house, and he lived in rugged fields, deserts, and mountains, away from the conveniences of civilization. Whereas Ur had a perpetually dry and sunny climate with a stable water supply from rivers, Canaan had a far messier and more unpredictable climate, with rain, snow, frost, dew, and so forth. The only two centers of advanced civilization near Canaan were Egypt and Sodom, both of which were spiritually problematic and outside of the area where God wanted Abraham to live.

When we read the narrative of the call of Abraham, it is easy to overlook the fact that Abraham gave up a lot of wealth and comfort when he left Ur and went to Canaan. Abraham also gave up the linguistic sophistication of Ur, since his descendants would adopt the language of the land of Canaan (Hebrew), which was not one of the major literary languages of the ancient world (outside of its use by Abraham’s descendants). That Abraham obeyed God’s call to settle his family in the land of Canaan shows that when he was forced to make a choice between God and money, he would choose God. The depth of Abraham’s commitment to God is shown again in Genesis 22, when Abraham chose to obey God even at the cost of his own son Isaac’s life. Abraham was truly a man with a great heart for God.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why do the Saudis view history as a threat to their religion?

12 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

archeology, Mecca

One of the things that makes Christianity different from other religions is that it is essentially a religion of history. That is, the core tenets of the Christian faith are not philosophical ideas or theories, but are historical events and historical realities—such as the incarnation of Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension, and His future return in glory. Even justification by faith is something that involves an actual change in the justified individual, who receives a new nature through regeneration at the same time as he is made right in his standing before God. Christians have always had a fascination with archeology, because of the way in which archeological discoveries illumine the Bible and corroborate Christian beliefs.

Recently there was an editorial in the New York Times, written by a Muslim, who says that “the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the clerics have a deep hatred of history,” and they have intentionally destroyed nearly every site of historical or archeological significance in Mecca. The structures they have razed in Mecca include ancient mosques, the houses of Muhammad’s wives and companions, and houses from the Ottoman era, among many others. In their place the Saudis have constructed an ultra-modern city of skyscrapers, highways, and luxury shopping malls. Muhammad’s house still stands, but it is off-limits and the Saudi clerics want it destroyed. Even the scenic mountains which once ringed Mecca are gone, having been flattened by Saudi bulldozers and demolition crews. The Sacred Mosque at the center of the hajj (pilgrimage) is now closely hemmed in by skyscrapers, including some of the world’s largest, and plans have already been made to demolish the ancient mosque itself and replace it “with an ultra-modern doughnut-shaped building,” according to the article. Muslims who come to Mecca for the hajj are now assigned to a tour group, which restricts their ability to move about and to interact with people outside of their group. This not only keeps visitors from looking for historical sites in Mecca, it also keeps the Saudi people from hearing alternative interpretations of Islam.

It is clear that the Saudis are trying to erase all traces of the past in Islam’s holiest city. But why? The Islamic religion, especially in its strict form practiced by the Saudis, is a religion of laws and principles, not history. A search for the historical basis for these religious principles would potentially undermine them. Rather than asking and investigating such questions as how the Koran was written and standardized, how Muhammad developed and promulgated his religious convictions, and how Islamic traditions subsequently developed, the Saudis want to focus on the Islamic religion as it is taught and practiced by them today, and they want to prohibit the expression of contrary ideas. The self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has also earned a reputation for hating history, and for destroying ancient mosques, churches, shrines, and archeological sites. Their creed is a philosophical system, not a history. History is a threat to them, since there are many historically dubious claims made in the Koran and other Islamic traditions, and the history of the development of Islam shows that it is a manmade religion. The attempt by the Saudis and other strict Muslims to erase all memory of the past in Islam speaks volumes for the largely unspoken problem of finding an authentic historical basis for the beliefs and practices of the Islamic religion.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow TruthOnlyBible on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 225 other subscribers

Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Archaeology
  • Bible
  • Bible prophecy
  • Bible scholarship
  • Biblical languages
  • Books
  • Christmas
  • Church history
  • Creation
  • Current events
  • Easter
  • Ecclesiology
  • Evangelism
  • History
  • Missions
  • Practical theology
  • Theology

RSS links

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Join 225 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: