Tag Archives: Biblical archaeology

Identifying the Pharaoh of the exodus

27 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Apologetics, Bible scholarship

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

There are three different Pharaohs noted in the book of Exodus: that of 1:8, that of 2:15, and that of 5:1 et al. None of these Pharaohs is named, making their identification disputed. Some suggest that Moses intentionally decided not to name Pharaohs in order to snub these mighty kings who claimed to be gods on earth—although “Pharaoh” almost seems to function as a proper name in the Pentateuchal narratives.

Identifying the Pharaoh of the exodus necessitates following four paths of investigation, and seeing where all the data points line up. These paths of evidence include: (1) the date of the exodus according to the Bible; (2) the historical circumstances of the exodus according to the Bible; (3) the dates of reigning Pharaohs according to the chronology of ancient Egypt; and (4) the historical circumstances of ancient Egypt. Other evidence could also be added, such as for the date of the conquest of Canaan, but this additional evidence will be related to the four points just noted. To find the correct date, one must prioritize the biblical evidence, and allow this to inform one’s understanding of Egyptian history and chronology. Unfortunately, the most common evangelical identifications of the Pharaoh of the exodus make fundamental errors in their methodology, and ultimately place greater confidence in the claims of secular archaeologists than in the claims of Scripture.

The first common error is to suggest the Bible does not give a clear or reliable date for the exodus. A date and a Pharaoh of the exodus is then proposed by forming theories based on certain historical indicators in the biblical text in combination with the narrative of ancient Near Eastern history that is propounded by archaeologists who have an anti-biblical worldview and agenda. Scholars who commit this error hold that the exodus occurred sometime in the thirteenth century BC (ca. 1275 BC), within the conventional dates for the reign of Ramesses II (1290–1224 BC). This is based in part on the mention of the word “Rameses” (with two different spellings) twice in Exodus, which is likely associated with a city where Ramesses II conducted extensive construction work.[1] Perhaps just as important to these scholars are theories about the Israelite conquest and settlement of Canaan, and archaeological dates of occupational levels at sites in Canaan/Israel. However, these theories must dismiss in some way the clear statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that there were 480 years between the exodus and the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (cf. Judg 11:26). There is wide agreement among scholars that biblical and extrabiblical data can be combined to yield a date of 966 or 965 BC for the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. Counting backwards 480 years from this date places the exodus in 1446 or 1445 BC, and the thirteenth century BC date can be dismissed as incompatible with Scripture. It is important to note that scholars of this persuasion typically only accept certain historical indicators in the Bible—in this instance, the name “Rameses/Raamses,” while dismissing as “metaphorical” or inaccurate the many other indicators that don’t fit the theory. In essence, the identification of Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus is rooted in a low view of scriptural authority.[2]

Many evangelical scholars accept the 1446/1445 BC date for the exodus, but commit a second error which again results in a misidentification of the Pharaoh of the exodus. This is the error of accepting the secular (conventional) chronology of ancient Egypt, which either ignores or intentionally contradicts biblical chronological data and is instead based on an assumed evolutionary history of man. Simply matching a Pharaoh from this timeline with the biblical calendar date for the exodus results in the identification of Thutmose III (reigned ca. 1479–1426 BC in the conventional chronology) as the Pharaoh of the exodus. The problem is, the historical circumstances of Thutmose III’s reign in no way fit the biblical data for what happened at the time of the exodus. There is no evidence for a large population of Semitic slaves in Egypt at that time, nor is there any evidence for a collapse of Egyptian civilization due to the plagues and the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea (cf. Deut 11:4). In fact, if Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the exodus, he and his army survived the Red Sea event quite nicely, for Thutmose III undertook vast campaigns of conquest and is considered by many scholars to have been the most powerful of all the Pharaohs (along with his powerful son and successor, Amenhotep II). Because of this incompatibility between the history of Thutmose III and the biblical history of the exodus, it is clear that the view that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the exodus, like the view that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the exodus, is another capitulation to the authority of secular archaeology over Scripture.

Although proponents of the Thutmose III view often claim faithful adherence to the biblical chronology, this is only the case for the statement in 1 Kings 6:1. These scholars actually argue strenuously against the chronology from the Deluge to Abraham that is presented in Genesis 11. Either major problems with the Hebrew text of that chapter are hypothesized, or else the historicity of its genealogy is dismissed altogether. This is because if Genesis 11 is accepted as literal, accurate history, adding up the numbers results in 2417 BC as the date when the Deluge ended, and approximately 2317 BC for the dispersion of the nations from Babylon (Babel), which means there was less than 900 years of history from the beginning of Egyptian civilization until the exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. However, the common date given for the first king of the first dynasty of united Egypt is 3100 BC, with rulers of upper and lower Egypt preceding him as part of a prehistory which spans more than 2,000 years. Most Bible scholars assume that it is impossible to compress the events and rulers in the conventional chronology of Egypt into the far shorter biblical chronology, and as a result they assume that the genealogy of Genesis 11 is wrong in some way. Ultimately, they have more confidence in the claims of secular archaeologists than in the reliability of Scripture. Their firm belief in the accuracy of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt is the reason why they stand by the identification of Thutmose III as the Pharaoh of the exodus in spite of the way in which the history of Egypt during his reign does not seem to allow for the events described in the book of Exodus. This view also runs into problems with finding archaeological evidence for the Israelite conquest of Canaan under Joshua, since archaeological sites in Canaan/Israel are dated in early periods by connecting them with contemporaneous periods of Egyptian history (Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, etc.).

Thus, in order to identify the Pharaoh of the exodus correctly, it is necessary to calculate the date of the exodus from the Bible (contra the Ramesses II theory), but this is not enough. It is also necessary to calculate Egyptian chronology according to the biblical timescale, and in accordance with biblical history (contra the Thutmose III theory). Specifically, it is necessary to look for evidence of a period in ancient Egypt that matches the biblical description of a large population of Semitic slaves living in the land of Goshen, followed by cataclysmic plagues and the abrupt departure of the Semitic population, followed by a collapse of Egyptian power. If this period is correctly identified, then the date of this period of Egyptian history can be established according to the biblical chronology, and earlier and subsequent Egyptian history can be filled in naturally according to the biblical timescale. The Pharaoh of the exodus will be one who is not succeeded by his firstborn son, and whose death marks a sudden collapse of Egyptian civilization.

The reality is that while dates in Egyptian chronology may be presented very dogmatically by modern scholars, the extrabiblical evidence for these dates is not at all clear-cut, and has been interpreted in many different ways. The proper way to construct a chronology of ancient Egypt is to use the Bible as one’s starting point, rather than Darwinian evolution. Guided by the Bible, scholars can place the rulers and events of Egyptian history into a chronological framework that fits both the biblical data and the extrabiblical archaeological and literary evidence. In fact, an agnostic scholar who views the Bible as largely historical, David Rohl, has done extensive work on a “new chronology” which shows that the most natural way to interpret the archaeology of ancient Egypt is in a way that fits biblical chronology and history. Rohl and others have shown that the picture of consecutive Egyptian dynasties that is often presented is much too oversimplified. Dynasties often overlapped; at times Egypt was divided into multiple parts, with four or even up to twelve kings reigning at the same time. There are also issues with interpreting Egyptian astronomical records in view of Egyptian calendar reforms. The result is a far shorter Egyptian chronology—one which comports with the biblical timescale. Further, since ancient Greek, Cypriot, Hittite, and Canaanite dates are dependent on Egyptian chronology, a compression of the conventional Egyptian chronology also results in a downward revision of the other chronologies. Rohl identifies the Pharaoh of the exodus with Dudimose, who reigned near the end of the 13th dynasty. In support of this, Rohl cites Manetho (quoted by Josephus), who calls the Pharaoh of the exodus “Tutimaeus” (= Dudimose?). In Rohl’s reconstruction, the 13th dynasty ended with the invasion of the Hyksos, whom he identifies with the biblical Amalekites (cf. Num 24:20). Rohl identifies the pre-Hyksos Asiatics who lived at Avaris in the land of Goshen as the Israelites. Rohl’s theory has much to commend itself, although he advocates the “short” Egyptian sojourn (215 years), in contradiction of Exodus 12:40-41.

As for Ramesses II, Rohl identifies him with the biblical “Shishak” who was king of Egypt near the end of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 11:40), and who successfully invaded Judah in the fifth year of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25; 2 Chr 12:2-9). According to Rohl’s chronology, the reign of Ramesses II began around 979 BC, late in the period of David’s reign. Based on a Hittite cuneiform tablet which records a treaty made with Ramesses II, Rohl suggests that Ramesses II was known as “Shysha” in the ancient Near East, which becomes “Shishak” in the Bible. According to Rohl, a relief at Karnak temple depicts a battle which Ramesses II fought with Israelites/Judeans, in which the Israelites are depicted in chariots. Since the Israelites did not acquire chariots until the reign of David or Solomon, Rohl argues that this battle cannot predate the united monarchy period.

Building largely on the work of David Rohl and John Bimson, evangelical filmmaker Tim Mahoney has done an excellent job of presenting the archaeological evidence for the Israelites in Egypt in the documentary film Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. In this film, Mahony embarks on a personal search for archaeological evidence of Israel’s exodus from Egypt in response to challenges from archaeologists who deny that the exodus event ever happened. Mahoney finds that there is abundant archaeological evidence for the biblical account of the Israelites journeying to Egypt, becoming a great nation there, being enslaved, leaving in a dramatic exodus, and conquering Canaan some 40-45 years later. However, this evidence is not recognized by scholars who are committed to interpreting archaeological data within the conventional chronological framework, since the evidence is not from the right time period. Mahoney shows that it is entirely reasonable to compress the conventional chronology, resulting in the evidence for the Israelites living in Egypt lining up with the biblical chronology.

While there is still considerable work to be done to bring the conventional Egyptian chronology and history fully into conformity with biblical chronology and history, believers can rest assured that when the evidence is correctly understood, the Bible stands as written and does not need to be allegorized or modified to fit with archaeology. The common identifications of the Pharaoh of the exodus with Ramesses II or Thutmose III are not possible from a biblical standpoint, and also do not ultimately fit the archaeological data. It does seem that the Hyksos are the biblical Amalekites, and that they invaded the largely-defenseless Egypt and ruled the Egyptians for 400 years (until the time of Saul) in an act of divine judgment following the departure of the Israelites. As for Rohl’s identification of the last major pre-Hyksos Pharaoh as Dudimose, this seems less certain, and provides a subject for further investigation by Bible-believing Egyptologists.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

[1] There are actually five references to Rameses/Raamses in the Pentateuch: “the land of Rameses” (Gen 47:11), the store-city of “Raamses” (different spelling – Exod 1:11), and the site of “Rameses” (Exod 12:37; Num 33:3, 5). Some scholars point to this as evidence that the Pentateuch was written during or after the reign of Ramesses II (a.k.a. “Ramses,” “Rameses”). However, such a supposition is unnecessary, as there are numerous other instances throughout the Pentateuch of original place names being substituted for later names by a later inspired “updater” (possibly Ezra—see the Introduction to the Pentateuch). These updates were made so that later readers could understand the referents of the original place names. While various explanations have been offered, most likely the references to “Rameses” or “Raamses” in the Pentateuch are to the great city of Pi-Ramesses, which was located next to and encompassed Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris), the center of Israelite civilization in the land of Goshen. Pi-Ramesses was one of the largest cities in the ancient Near East, and therefore is most likely the site named in the biblical text. Since Pi-Ramesses (Pi = “house [of]”) was built or greatly expanded by Ramesses II and his father Seti I, the references to a land of Ramesses or a city of Ramesses in the biblical text can be considered an inspired update to the original text of the Pentateuch, which likely read “Avaris.”

[2] Evangelical scholars who identify Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus also typically follow many other naturalistic explanations of Old Testament history, such as for the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the appearance of God on Mount Sinai, and the crossing of the Jordan River. Dates, census figures, and historical details are routinely explained away as some sort of metaphor or literary device. Although such scholars claim to believe the Bible, their real confidence usually rests in naturalistic theories of science and archaeology.

Top ten yet-to-be-discovered finds in biblical archaeology

21 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in Archaeology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

From time to time, one will see a list of the top ten finds in biblical archaeology, usually within a certain time period (e.g., “the top ten finds of 2014”). In this blog post, I have created a “top ten” list of potential future finds in biblical archaeology. This list is restricted to finds that I think are potentially discoverable, and does not include items such as the ark of the covenant or the holy grail that are very probably undiscoverable.

#10: An ancient library of Greek and Latin literature

The world of early Christianity included several great libraries which housed comprehensive collections of all the major Greek and Latin literature that was then known. The two most famous libraries of classical antiquity were housed at Alexandria and Pergamum, each of which contained hundreds of thousands of scrolls. Some historians who are knowledgeable about Roman archeology are convinced that many people who were household names in the Roman world of the first century AD are completely unknown to us today. Most of the books that were then in existence have been lost, and many of the famous authors of the day are completely unknown. Fewer than one-tenth of the writings of a man as significant as Aristotle have been preserved, despite his obvious prominence and his tutelage of Alexander the Great. If somehow, somewhere, a well-preserved trove of classical literature were discovered—like the discovery of the documents held by the Essenes at Qumran—such a discovery would vastly improve our understanding of the biblical world. A complete and unedited manuscript of the Babylonian historian Berossus, for example, would potentially fill huge gaps in our understanding of the history of Babylon, and would give context for Berossus’ passing reference to a certain “King Darius” at the time of Babylon’s fall, in a quotation of Berossus from Eusebius (cf. Dan 5:31). Other classical authors would fill many gaps in our understanding of the culture and history of the ancient world, while annals, census records, and tax receipts would give us direct access to the raw data of history. Let us hope that such a find will soon be made.

#9: The skeleton of one of the Nephilim

Critics have long scoffed at the Bible’s description of giants, casting these accounts as myths and legends (see, e.g., Gen 6:1-4; Num 13:32-33; Deut 2:11; 9:2; 1 Sam 17:4; 2 Sam 21:16-22; 1 Chr 20:4-8). The discovery of an actual skeleton, or even just a leg bone, of a powerfully built man 10-14 feet tall would be an indisputable testimony to the accuracy of the Bible’s accounts of the Nephilim. (The bedstead of Og king of Bashan, for example was 13½ feet long and 6 feet wide [Deut 3:11].) Of course, the bones would have had to survive at least 3,000 years (which is about the time when the last recorded Nephilim were killed [2 Sam 21:15-22]), but in all probability there is some direct physical evidence of the Nephilim that remains to be discovered; Augustine claims that human bones of incredible size were still occasionally found in his day (City of God XV.9). An analysis of existing extrabiblical documents and archeological evidence does show ample evidence for a race of giants in ancient times, but the evidence that already exists is not seriously analyzed because it is dismissed out of hand as scientifically impossible. For example, some Greek legends describe giants, and this ABR article points out relief drawings of quite large men. The direct physical evidence of bones of huge men would force archeologists to take the rest of the evidence seriously.

#8: Coffins of the patriarchs

Modern monuments mark the traditional gravesites of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (in Hebron) and Joseph (in Shechem). Unfortunately, the tombs only contain cenotaphs, and evidently do not contain the original coffins or bones of the patriarchs. While it is possible that the graves were robbed in antiquity, or that the bones have rotted away, there is a chance that they still exist in some undiscovered location. Both Jacob (Gen 50:2) and Joseph (Gen 50:26) were embalmed, so their corpses could still remain to this day. Both Jacob and Joseph were probably buried in elaborate coffins, given Joseph’s position as ruler over the land of Egypt (second only to Pharaoh). If Jacob’s and Joseph’s coffins still exist and are found, not only would they serve as a powerful testimony to the biblical history of the Israelite nation, the coffins might also give the name of the Pharaoh who promoted Joseph, among other information which would be extremely useful for understanding the archeological context of the Genesis narratives. In addition, DNA analysis would probably be performed on the corpses to verify their identity, which in turn would allow for positive genetic verification of living descendants of Jacob and Joseph. If coffins of Jacob’s other sons and their embalmed remains were discovered somewhere, these would allow for genetic identification of living members of each of Israel’s twelve tribes.

#7: The remains of the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea

Critics have long denied the historicity of the biblical book of Exodus, and believers have long debated the location and date of the famous crossing of the Red Sea (which some identify as merely a lake or a swamp). Yet nearly everyone has heard of Moses and the exodus which he led from Egypt, which is still remembered annually by the Jews in the feast of Passover. Evidently there has never been a serious effort to find the remains of Pharaoh and his Egyptian army under the waters of the Red Sea, where the Bible says they were drowned when the waters which had parted for the passage of the Israelites returned. (Most of the dead bodies washed up on the shore [Exod 14:30].) Dredging up and sifting the mud on the bottom of the northwestern end of the Gulf of Suez—where I believe the crossing of the Red Sea took place—would be a significant undertaking, but the potential significance of the find would be even greater. Finding the remains of an ancient Egyptian army’s military hardware underneath the sea would silence many critics, since it would definitively prove when and where the crossing of the Red Sea took place. It would also, of course, attest to the historicity of the exodus from Egypt (for those who are not convinced from the Bible), since Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and foot soldiers could hardly have ended up at the bottom of the Red Sea (or on the beach) in any other way than that described in the book of Exodus. Additionally, if Pharaoh’s chariot and his ring were found, it would allow for a definitive identification of the Pharaoh of the exodus.

#6: An extrabiblical text of any royal decree in the book of Daniel

Among the royal decrees mentioned in the book of Daniel, there are two that are specifically said to have been promulgated to all the lands of an empire: the letter of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, and the decree issued by Darius the Mede in Daniel 6:25-27. Since these decrees were issued to all peoples and languages, presumably copies were made in the Akkadian language on clay tablets, and it is possible that those clay tablets survive somewhere to the present day. If extrabiblical copies of these decrees in Akkadian or in any other language were discovered, not only would they be a great boon to the study of the book of Daniel, they would also confound the critics who regard the book of Daniel as mythical and legendary. Both of these decrees relate extraordinary miracles which were confirmed by the king himself as an eyewitness and participant, and both attest to the power of the God of heaven. Both decrees specifically name Daniel, and the decree of Daniel 6:25-27 names Darius the Mede. Such a find would be of particular interest to me, since I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on Darius the Mede; see my website for more information.

#5: The treasures of the Second Temple

The Arch of Titus depicts the golden menorah, the silver trumpets, the altar of incense, and other items looted from the temple being paraded in the great victory celebration in Rome. The menorah is mentioned as late as the sixth century AD as being carried on parade in Constantinople. If indeed any or all of the temple treasures still exist somewhere (unlikely but possible), the discovery of them would be a phenomenal find, and the objects might be used in a rebuilt Jewish temple. (The Bible describes a rebuilt Jewish temple in the end times [Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4]. Any such temple would be spiritually illegitimate in the present age, although the construction of the third temple is necessary to fulfill prophecy.) Besides these objects, according to Josephus, the Romans seized the official copies of the OT Scriptures from the temple when they destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Wars 7.5.5 [7.150]; 7.5.7 [7.162]). Josephus claims that Titus later gave him these scrolls as a personal favor upon his request (Life 75 [418]). What became of them afterward, if Josephus is telling the truth, is not clear. These scrolls would have contained the most accurate text of the Old Testament available at the time, and if they still exist somewhere they would be a tremendous help to the study of the text of the Old Testament. (The original temple vessels were made by Bezalel under the direction of Moses [Exod 37–39], taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar [Jer 52:18-19], taken back to Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar [Ezra 1:7-11], stolen from the temple by Antiochus IV and presumably destroyed [1 Macc. 1:21], and replaced by the Maccabees [1 Macc. 4:49-50].)

#4: Jeremiah’s deed of purchase

As the final stage of Judah’s exile to Babylon was approaching early in the sixth century B.C., the prophet Jeremiah was commanded by God to buy from his cousin Hanamel a piece of land that was under the control of the Babylonian army which encircled Jerusalem (Jer 32:1-9). In all likelihood, Jeremiah’s cousin simply wanted to get a little extra money to buy food during the siege; a Babylonian-occupied piece of land was worthless property. Jeremiah, however, was commanded by God to purchase the property as a sign that someday the nation of Israel would reoccupy the land. Jeremiah carefully followed formal procedure by signing two identical deeds of purchase and sealing one of them shut before witnesses (Jer 32:10-12). Jeremiah then commanded his scribe Baruch to place the deeds of purchase in a clay container in some place where they would be preserved for a long time (Jer 32:13-15). Since God’s purpose in having these documents preserved in a clay jar was to have them function as a prophetic sign, it is not unlikely that they will be rediscovered. If so, this find would be a dramatic affirmation of Israel’s eschatological restoration—a divine sign that the restoration is God’s work. It would also be yet another profound setback for critics of the book of Jeremiah, as more and more of the history described in that book is discovered in the archeological record. And, for any archeologist, a discovery of actual deeds of purchase from pre-exilic Jerusalem would be a remarkable and significant find. The authenticity of the find could be verified by comparing it with a seal impression of “Baruch the son of Neriah” that has already been found.

#3: Noah’s ark

The biblical account of the Flood of Noah’s day, and of the ark which Noah built to survive the Flood, is generally ridiculed today by the majority of people in the world. But the Bible does teach that Noah built a huge ship to carry both his own family and large numbers of animals through a worldwide Deluge. The ark is said to have come to rest in the mountains of Ararat (Urartu), and a ship as large as the ark, coated with pitch, would not have rotted away quickly. The landing site of the ark would have remained well known for a long time after the Flood, and the ship itself would have been visible from a great distance (the pitch coating and the nails would have made it difficult to dismantle and reuse). Gordon Franz and Bill Crouse have recently published research which argues convincingly that the ark did not land on the mountain called “Mount Ararat” today, but that it rather came to rest on a much lower mountain in Turkey called Cudi Dagh (Mount Cudi). The ark’s landing site on that mountain is attested by a great number of sources from all ancient periods and extending to the present day. A German geologist even dug some trenches in the area around the shrine which marks the site, where traces of the boat’s shape are still visible, and he found what appeared to be ancient decayed remains of a ship’s hull. What is really needed is a large-scale, very public, excavation of that site, which would have the potential to confirm the exact size and shape of the ark, if indeed the remains at Cudi Dagh match the measurements given in the Bible. One could also test the type of wood used, the type of pitch used, the nails, and other construction materials; perhaps the division of compartments on the lower level of the ark might even be traceable. An excavation of Noah’s ark would certainly rank as one of the greatest discoveries in the history of archaeology, and it would have the potential to powerfully confirm the biblical story of Noah’s Flood. Such an excavation would greatly strengthen the faith of believers, and it would literally present a huge problem for those who attempt simply to laugh away the biblical account.

#2: The original tablets of the ten commandments

According to Exodus 32:15-16, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai after spending forty days with the God of Israel, he held in his hands two stone tablets that had been hewed and engraved by God Himself, which contained the ten commandments. (There were two identical copies made so that the one could be checked against the other to ensure it was not altered.) According to Exodus 32:19, when Moses came out of the cloud of glory on the top of the mountain and saw the people dancing around the golden calf they had made, he angrily threw the two tablets down to the base of the mountain, where they were shattered. Moses later made two new tablets to replace the ones he had broken (Exod 34:1). The remains of the original broken tablets evidently are still at the base of Mount Sinai, perhaps covered in sand. One would think that some parts of them would still be readable. There are several different proposed locations of Mount Sinai, since problems exist with identifying the traditional site since the Byzantine period, Jebel Musa, as the real Mount Sinai. Bryant Wood favors Jebel Khashm et-Tarif, but other proposals exist; a find of the original tablets of the ten commandments at the base of the mountain would settle the issue. The tablets would also show how the Hebrew language was written at the time of Moses—in the perfectly shaped letters written by God Himself. Any expedition to look for these tablets would have to be organized very carefully, because skeptics would immediately label such a remarkable find as a forgery if there was any way they could cast doubt upon it. Needless to say, the remains of those two tablets would be a great national treasure for the state of Israel, and they would cause much spiritual reflection among the Jewish people.

#1: An autograph (original manuscript) of any book of the Bible

Does an original manuscript of a book of the Bible survive to the present day, waiting to be discovered? Probably not; but it is not impossible that one does, and I would rank such a find as the most significant discovery in the whole history of archaeology. A late second-century church father speaks of the autographs of the books of the New Testament as still in existence and able to be viewed in the churches to which they were originally sent (Tertullian De Praescriptione Haereticorum Chapter 36). There were two periods of intense persecution in the history of the early church when the Romans specifically sought to destroy the church’s manuscripts of the Bible—the Decian persecution (250) and the persecution by Diocletian (early fourth century). Most or all remaining autographs were likely destroyed at those times. Nevertheless, one church father who died near the end of the Diocletian persecution, Peter of Alexandria, claims (in Fragment 1) that the autograph of John’s Gospel was still held by the church in Ephesus. Many New Testament manuscripts did survive the persecutions, and it is possible that some devout Christian hid one or more of the autographs in order to prevent their destruction. If the Christian who hid the autograph was then executed, no one would know where the hidden autograph was located, and it might still be in existence today if it has not rotted away over time. Or, as manuscripts were smuggled around the empire during the persecutions, the fact that a particular manuscript was the autograph could have been forgotten, and the autograph could have been taken to some remote monastery and placed in an archive. As for Old Testament books, the autographa would have originally been kept in the temple as official reference copies. Many or all of the autographs which survived until the pogrom of Antiochus IV (ca. 167–164 B.C.) were probably destroyed by him (see Josephus Ant. 12.5.4 [12.256]; 1 Macc 1.56; Dan 8:12). But, once again, it is possible that someone hid some manuscripts to prevent their destruction (as the Jews later did during the Jewish War of A.D. 66–73), and it is not impossible for at least fragments of a manuscript from 400 B.C., or even a thousand years earlier, to survive until the present day under the right conditions. Since the original manuscripts were used frequently in the temple, it is likely that they would have worn out over time, but once again it is more likely that the worn out copies would have been kept in a geniza (storage area) rather than burned as scrap paper or thrown out with the garbage. The great significance of the discovery of an autograph of a book of the Bible would be in the certainty it would give us of the original text of the Word of God. The manuscript itself would have no special power; it is the original words themselves that are significant, but the original manuscript would infallibly attest to those original words.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.