no Quranic documentation in existence in the mid-late seventh century. The earliest reference from outside Islamic literary traditions to the book called the Quran occurs in the mid-eighth century between an Arab and a monk of Bet Hale (Nau 1915:6f), but no-one knows whether it may have differed considerably in content from the Quran which we have today. Both Crone and Cook conclude that except for this small reference there is no indication of the existence of the Quran before the end of the seventh century (Crone- Cook 1977:18). Crone and Cook in their research go on to maintain that it was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the Quran (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Quran) could have been compiled as Muhammads scripture (Crone-Cook 1977:18). In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation. (Jeffrey 1944:298) A reasonable conclusion is that it was during this period that the Quran began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Quran which we now know. From this brief survey we can conclude that the archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Quran proves to be the most damaging. Not only do the seventh and eighth century ruins and inscriptions from the area seem to contradict the notion that Muhammad canonized a direction of prayer during his lifetime, or that he had formulated a scripture known as the Quran, but the idea of his universal prophethood, that he was the final seal of all prophets is brought into question. This indeed is significant and troublesome. The question we must now pose is whether there is any archaeological evidence to corroborate the authenticity for the Bible? Do the same problems exist with the Bible that we find with the Quran? Last Section | Contents | Next Section 9/23/2008 QURANS ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE debate.org.uk/topics/history/bi… 7/7 Last Section | Contents | Next Section [B] THE BIBLES ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: (1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David): What has become evident over the last few decades is that unlike the difficulties found with the Quranic evidence, the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the Bibles reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then. Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia. 1) Abrahams name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites. 2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him. 3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as: 4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then. 5) Josephs price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive. 6) Josephs Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem, as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence? 7) Jerichos excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was. 9/23/2008 THE BIBLES ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDE… debate.org.uk/topics/history/bi… 1/4 eyewitness, as Joshua was. 8) Davids capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts. Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Josephs original tomb and home. There remain many tells yet to uncover. Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error. 9) Pauls reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name. It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance: 10) Lukes use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a district of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district. 11) Lukes mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch. 12) Lukes usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica. 13) Lukes usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies. 14) Lukes usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallios true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia... Here then was secular b ti f th A t 18 12 t Y t G lli l h ld thi iti f Th th it f 9/23/2008 THE BIBLES ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDE… debate.org.uk/topics/history/bi… 2/4 corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:53:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015