D. Clark, Dialogical Apologetics, chap. 5.
A. Dulles. A His lory of Apologetics.
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, part 1.
G. R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims.
B. Ramm, Varieties of Christian Apologetics.
Apotheosis. Critics have used theories of apotheosis to argue that Christ’s deity and resurrection are not unique beliefs to Christianity. Theories of apotheosis regarding persons who are taken to heaven and divinized have been told by other religions (see Mithraism). Among notable modern critics who have used these stories to cast doubt on the New Testament accounts are Otto Pfleiderer in The Early Christian Conception of Christ (1905) and W. Bousset in Kurios Christos (1913).
Claims of divinization are not uncommon in ancient mythology and mystery religions (Pfleiderer). Among those supposedly divinized are various Roman emperors (notably Julius and Augustus caesars) and *Apollonius of Tyana (Habermas, 168).
Claims of Apotheosis. Suetonius reported that after Julius Caesar’s death “a comet appeared about an hour before sunset and shone for several days running. This was held to be Caesar’s soul, elevated to heaven; hence the star, now placed above the forehead of his divine image” (Suetonius, 1.88).
During the cremation of Augustus, Suetonius states that his spirit was reportedly seen “soaring up to Heaven through the flames” (ibid., 2.100). This too was taken to be a sign of apotheosis.
Antinoiis, the favorite slave of Emperor Hadrian, was also said to be divinized at death. Hadrian believed that a star was created from his soul, and so he built a city at the site and erected several statues in Antinoiis’s honor. One such statue declares that Antinoiis was glorified in heaven and actually was the god Osiris (Cartlidge, 198).
Apollonius, a first-century neo-Pythagorean, was also reputed to have been transported to heaven after exhibiting miraculous powers. Later he was reported to have appeared to a young man in a dream
Alexander the Great was said to have been born of a virgin, to have done wondrous deeds, and to have accepted accolades of being divine (Boyd, 49). He too is put in the category of divine-man legends.
Resurrection Claims. There are claims that non-Christian leaders rose from the dead. Robert Price has made an extensive comparative religion study of post-death phenomena found in other religions that rival Christian claims about Christ. These stories have also been used to undercut claims of the uniqueness of Christianity (see Christ, Uniqueness of; Pluralism, Religious).
Evaluation. The divine-man hypothesis has been debunked by such diverse theologians as Oscar Cullmann (The Christology of the New Testament), Reginald Fuller (The Foundation of New Testament Christology), Gary Habermas (“Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions”), and Ronald Nash (Christianity and the Hellenistic World).
There are difficulties if these legends are used as competitive claims to those of Christ. Sources of these stories are all far later than the events described and are questionable. Suetonius lived 150 years after Julius and nearly one hundred years after Augustus. The report of Dio Cassius about Hadrian was about one hundred years later. Philostratus wrote over one hundred years after Apollonius died. By contrast, Christ’s incarnation and divinity were attested by eyewitnesses in contemporary testimony {see Christ, Deity of; New Testament Manuscripts).
A political agenda accompanied most of these reports. Nearly one-half of Suetonius’s twelve emperors were said to have been deified, and the story of Apollonius appeared at a time when some in the Empire were attempting to stimulate renewed mythological worship. They cannot be said to be historical accounts in any case, since there is no way to verily whether a spirit ascended to heaven or a soul turned into a star. Such are highly subjective testimonies. But the claim that Christ was raised physically from the dead, leaving an empty tomb and appearing in a physical body over a period of weeks to hundreds of people, is historically verifiable (see Resurrection, Evidence for).
The concept that a human being could be divinized is not the same as the Christian concept of the incarnation, wherein the second person of the Godhead became human. In Christ, the monotheistic God became human. In apotheosis, a human becomes one among many gods.
The Case of Alexander. The claims about Alexander the Great illustrate the radical difference between these divine-men stories and that of Christ. Unlike the early Gospels, the earliest records of Alexander contain none of the features of the later legends about him. The stories of Alexander’s miracles developed over a period of one thousand years. The miracles of Jesus were recorded within thirty years of their occurrence (see Miracles, Myth and; Miracles in the Bible). The legends of Alexander actually date from later than the time of Christ. It is likely that the stories of Alexander’s super-normal feats were influenced by the Gospel accounts.
The Gospels were written within the context of Jewish monotheism, which held that human beings cannot be God. The stories of Alexander, however, were composed within a pagan, polytheistic setting in which the concept of divinized humans was accepted.
Conclusion. Attempts to reduce Jesus to a Greek divine-man legend are ill-fated. The differences are too radical, and if one influenced the other, the Christian record of God incarnate in human flesh came first.
B. L. Blackburn, “Miracle Working Theioi Andres in Hellenism (and Hellenic Judaism).”
W. Bousset. Kyrios Christos.
G. Boyd. Jesus under Siege.
D. R. Cartlidge, Documents for the Study of the Gospels.
O. Cullmann. The Christology of the New Testament.
R. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology.
G. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions.” R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World.
O. Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ.
R. M. Price, "Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?” Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars.
M. J. Wilkins andJ. P. Moreland. Jesus under Fire.
E. Yamauchi, "Magic or Miracle?”
Aquinas, Thomas. See Thomas Aquinas.
Archaeology, New Testament. The science of archaeology has brought strong confirmation to the historicity of both the Old Testament (see Albright, William F.; Archaeology, Old Testament) and the New Testament. Archaeological evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is overwhelming (see New Testament, Dating of; New Testament, Historicity of). This evidence will be summarized in three parts: the historical accuracy of Luke, the testimony of secular historians, and the physical evidence relating to Jesus’s life (see Christ, Death of).
Historical Accuracy of Luke. It was once thought that Luke, writer of the most historically detailed Gospel and of Acts, had concocted his narrative from the rambling of his imagination, because he ascribed odd titles to authorities and mentioned governors that no one knew. The evidence now points in exactly the opposite direction (see Acts, Historicity of).
The Census in Luke 2:1-5. Several problems are involved in the statement that Augustus conducted a census of the whole empire during the reign of both Quirinius and Herod. For one, there is no record for such a census, but we now know that regular censuses were taken in Egypt, Gaul, and Cyrene. It is quite likely that Luke’s meaning is that censuses were taken throughout the empire at different times, and Augustus started this process. The present tense that Luke uses points strongly toward understanding this as a repeated event. Now, Quirinius did take a census, but that was in AD 6, too late for Jesus’s birth, and Herod died before Quirinius became governor.
Was Luke confused? No; in fact, he mentions Quirinius’s later census in Acts 5:37. It is most likely that Luke is distinguishing this census in Herod’s time from the more well-known census of Quirinius: “This census tookplace before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” There are several New Testament parallels for this translation.
Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia. This designation in Acts 18:12-17 was thought to be impossible. But an inscription at Delphi notes this exact title for the man and dates him to the time at which Paul was in Corinth (AD 51).
Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene. Lysanias was unknown to modern historians until an inscription was found recording a temple dedication that mentions the name and the title and is in the right place. The inscription is dated between AD 14 and 29, easily compatible with the beginnings of John’s ministry, which Luke dates by Lysanias’s reign (Luke 3:1).
Erastus. In Acts 19:22, Erastus is named as a Corinthian who becomes a co-worker of Paul. If Luke were going to make up any names, this would seem to be the best place to do it. How would anyone know? In excavating Corinth, an inscription was found near the theater that reads, “Erastus in return for his aedileship laid the pavement at his own expense.” If these are the same men, then it
explains why Luke would have included the detail that a prominent and wealthy citizen of Corinth had been converted and had given his life to the ministry.
In addition to these, Luke gives correct titles for the following officials: Cyprus, proconsul (13:7-8); Thessalonica, politarchs (17:6); Ephesus, temple wardens (19:35); Malta, the first man of the island (28:7; Yamauchi, 115-19). Each of these has been confirmed by Roman usage. In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without an error. This led the prominent historian Sir William Ramsay to recant his critical views:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. (Ramsay, 8)
In full agreement, Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Sherwin-White, 189). The critical theories spawned in the early 1800s that persist today are left without substantiation. Archaeologist William F. Albright says, “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today” (Albright, 29).
More recently, another noted Roman historian has cataloged numerous archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy (Hemer, 390ff.). The following is a summary of his voluminous, detailed report (see Acts, Historicity of; New Testament, Non-Christian Sources).
Testimony of Secular Historians. One popular misconception about Jesus is that there is no mention of him in any ancient sources outside of the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous references to him as an historical figure who died at the hand of Pontius Pilate. Some even noted that he was reported to have risen from the dead and was worshiped as a god by all who followed him. Gary Habermas discusses these exhaustively. Quotations from historians and other sources are found in the article New Testament, Non-Christian Sources.
Physical Evidence Relating to Jesus’s Life. Several discoveries illuminate the life of Christ and, to some degree, his resurrection.
Inscriptions. An inscription of Pilate “prefect of Judea” has been found. Also, the ossuary of Caiaphas the high priest, who tried Jesus, was discovered.
Kings and Rulers. A coin of Caesar Augustus, who reigned when Jesus was born, was found.
More recently, the tomb of Herod the Great, who killed all the babies in an attempt to kill Jesus, was discovered.
The Nazareth Decree. A slab of stone was found in Nazareth in 1878, inscribed with a decree from Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) that no graves should be disturbed or bodies extracted or moved. This type of decree is not uncommon, but the startling fact is that here “the offender [shall] be sentenced to capital punishment on [the] charge of violation of [a] sepulchre” (ibid., 155). Other notices warned of a fine, but death for disturbing graves? A likely explanation is that Claudius, having heard of the Christian doctrine of resurrection and Jesus’s empty tomb while investigating the riots of AD 49, decided not to let any such report surface again. This would make sense in light of the Jewish argument that the body had been stolen (Matt. 28:11-15). This is early testimony to the strong and persistent belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
Yohanan—a Crucifixion Victim. In 1968, an ancient burial site was uncovered in Jerusalem containing about thirty-five bodies. It was determined that most of these had suffered violent deaths in the Jewish uprising against Rome in AD 70. One of these was a man named Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol. He was about twenty-four to twenty-eight years old and had a cleft palate and a seven-inch nail driven through both his feet. The feet had been turned outward so that the square nail could be hammered through at the heel, just inside the Achilles tendon. This would have bowed the legs outward as well so that they could not have been used for support on the cross. The nail had gone through a wedge of acacia wood, then through the heels, then into an olive wood beam. There was also evidence that similar spikes had been put between the two bones of each lower arm. These had caused the upper bones to be worn smooth as the victim repeatedly raised and lowered himself to breathe (breathing is restricted with the arms raised). Crucifixion victims had to lift themselves to free the chest muscles and, when they grew too weak to do so, died by suffocation.
Yohanan’s legs were crushed by a blow, consistent with the common use of the Roman crucifragium (John 19:31-32). Each of these details confirms the New Testament description of crucifixion.
Much more textual and archaeological evidence supports the accuracy of the New Testament (see Christ, Death of). But even these examples reveal the extent to which archaeology has confirmed the truth of the Scriptures. Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has boldly asserted that “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Glueck, 31).
Stones of the Temple. The very stones of the temple, which Jesus predicted would not be left unturned, were unearthed. Each one was separated one from the other, as he said they would be (in Matt. 24).
The Destruction of Jerusalem. The arch of Titus, who conquered Jerusalem in AD 70, was discovered. It shows the Romans carrying away the Jewish menorah from the temple.
Empty Tombs. Grave sites, such as that of Jesus described in the Gospels with a stone rolled in front to seal it, have been discoved. Even one in Jerusalem has been found.
Of course, numerous other sites of Jesus’s time have been unearthed, including a synagogue at Capernaum, the cities of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Bethany, and Jerusalem, along with the Mount of Olives with trees dating back to the first century. This is to say nothing of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and numerous other sites from the time of Christ.
Sources
W. F. Albright, “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology.”
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents.
S. Collins, The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah.
N. Glueck, Rivers in the Desert.
G. Habermas, The Verdict of History.
C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
W. Kaiser and D. Garrett, NIVArchaeological Study Bible.
J. McRay,Archaeology and the New Testament.
J. R. Price, The Stones Cry Out.
W. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen.
J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.
C. A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability.
Archaeology, Old Testament. Several things must be kept in mind when reviewing archaeological data as it relates to Christianity (see Archaeology, New Testament). First, meaning can only be derived from context. Archaeological evidence is dependent on the context of date, place, materials, and style. How it is understood depends on the interpreter’s presuppositions. Therefore, not all interpretations of the evidence will be friendly to Christianity.
Second, archaeology is a special kind of science. Physicists and chemists can do all kinds of experiments to re-create the processes they study and watch them over and over again. Archaeologists cannot. They have only the evidence left from the one and only time a civilization existed. They study past singularities, not present regularities. Because they can’t re-create the societies they study, their conclusions can’t be tested as in other sciences. Archaeologists try to find plausible and probable explanations for the evidence they find. They cannot make laws as can physicists. For this reason, all conclusions must be subject to revision. The best interpretation is the one that best explains all the evidence.
Third, the archaeological evidence is fragmentary. It comprises only a tiny fraction of all that occurred. Hence, the discovery of more evidence can change the picture considerably. This is especially true when conclusions have been based on silence—a lack of existing evidence. Many critical views about the Bible have subsequently been overturned by archaeological discoveries (see Bible Criticism). For example, it was long believed that the Bible was in error when it spoke about Hittites (Gen. 23:10). But since the discovery of the Hittite library in Turkey (1906), this is no longer the case.
Archaeology Supports the Old Testament. The Creation. The opening chapters of Genesis (1-11) are typically thought to be mythological explanations derived from earlier versions of the story found in the ancient Near East. But this view chooses only to notice the similarities between Genesis and the creation stories in other ancient cultures. If we can propose derivation of the human race from one family, plus general revelation, some lingering traces of the true historical account would be expected. The differences are more important. Babylonian and Sumerian accounts describe the creation as the product of a conflict among finite gods. When one god is defeated and split in half, the River Euphrates flows from one eye and the Tigris from the other. Humanity is made of the blood of an evil god mixed with clay. These tales display the kind of distortion and embellishment to be expected when a historical account becomes mythologized.
Less likely is that the literary progression would be from this mythology to the unadorned elegance of Genesis 1. The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend is fallacious. In the ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not the reverse. So the evidence supports the view that Genesis was not myth made into history. Rather, the extrabiblical accounts were history turned into myths (see Creation, Views of; Genesis, Days of).
The discoveries of creation accounts at Ebla (see Ebla Tablets) add evidence of this. This library of sixteen thousand clay tablets predates the Babylonian account by about six hundred years. The creation tablet is strikingly close to Genesis, speaking of one being who created the heavens, moon, stars, and earth. The people at Ebla believed in creation from nothing (see Creation, Views of). The Bible contains the ancient, less-embellished version of the story and transmits the facts without the corruption of the mythological renderings.
The Flood of Noah. As with the creation accounts, the flood (see Flood, Noah’s) narrative in Genesis is more realistic than other ancient versions, indicating its authenticity. The superficial similarities point toward a historical core of events that gave rise to all accounts, not toward plagiarism by the biblical writer. The names change. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story doesn’t. A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because the Deity(-ies) are going to flood the world. He does it, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The Deity(-ies) respond with remorse over the destruction of life and make a covenant with the man. These core events point to a historical basis.
Similar flood accounts are found all over the world. The flood is told of by the Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Algonquins, and the Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives (tens of thousands of years), the list contains this sentence: “[Then] the Flood swept over [the earth] and when kingship was lowered [again] from heaven, kingship was [first] in Kish.”
There are good reasons to believe that Genesis gives the original story. The other versions contain elaborations indicating corruption. Only in Genesis is the year of the flood given, as well as dates for the chronology relative to Noah’s life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship’s log of the events. The cubical Babylonian ship could not have saved anyone. The raging waters would have constantly turned it on every side. However, the biblical ark is rectangular—long, wide, and low—so that it would ride the rough seas well. The length of the rainfall in the pagan accounts (seven days) is not enough time for the devastation they describe. The waters would have to rise at least above most mountains, to a height of above seventeen hundred feet, and it is more reasonable to assume a longer rainfall to do this. The Babylonian idea that all of the flood waters subsided in one day is equally absurd. Another striking difference between Genesis and the other versions is that in these accounts the hero is granted immortality and exalted. The Bible moves onto Noah’s sin. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include this realistic admission.
Some have suggested that this was a severe but localized flood. However, there is geological evidence to support a worldwide flood. Partial skeletons of recent animals are found in deep fissures in several parts of the world and the flood seems to be the best explanation for these. This would explain how these fissures occur even in hills of considerable height, and they extend from 140 feet to 300 feet. Since no skeleton is complete, it is safe to conclude that none of these animals (mammoths, bears, wolves, oxen, hyenas, rhinoceros, aurochs, deer, and smaller mammals) fell into these fissures alive, nor were they rolled there by streams. Yet because of the calcite cementing of these diverse bones together, they must have been deposited under water. Such fissures have been discovered in various places around the world. This is exactly the kind of evidence that a brief but violent episode of this sort would produce within the short span of one year.
The Tower of Babel. There is evidence now that the world did have a single language at one time as the Bible claims. Sumerian literature alludes to this several times. Linguists also find this theory helpful in categorizing languages. But what of the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11)? Archaeology has revealed that Ur-Nammu, King of Ur from about 2044 to 2007 BC, supposedly received orders to build a great ziggurat (temple tower) as an act of worship to the moon god Nannat. A stele (monument) about five feet across and ten feet high reveals Ur-Nammu’s activities. One panel has him setting out with a mortar basket to begin construction of the great tower, thus showing his allegiance to the gods by taking his place as a humble workman. Another clay tablet states that the erection of the tower offended the gods, so they threw down what the men had built, scattered them abroad, and made their speech strange. This is remarkably similar to the record in the
Bible.
Conservative scholars believe Moses wrote these early chapters of Genesis (see Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of). But how could he, since these events occurred long before his birth? There are two possibilities. First, God could have revealed the accounts to Moses supernaturally. Just as God can reveal the future by prophetic revelation, he can reveal the past by retrospective revelation. The second possibility is more likely, namely, that Moses compiled and edited earlier records of these events. This is not contrary to biblical practice. Luke did the same in his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). P. J. Wiseman has argued convincingly that the history of Genesis was originally written on clay tablets and passed on from one generation to the next with each “clan leader” being responsible for keeping them edited and up to date. The main clue that Wiseman found to this in the Bible is the periodic repetition of words and phrases, especially the phrase “This is the generation of’ (e.g., Gen. 2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10). Many ancient tablets were kept in order by making the first words of a new tablet a repetition of the last words of the previous stone. A literary evaluation of Genesis compared to other ancient literature indicates that it was compiled no later than the time of Moses. It is quite possible that Genesis is a family history recorded by the patriarchs and edited into its final form by Moses.
The Patriarchs. While the narratives of the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob do not present the same kinds of difficulties as do the earlier chapters of Genesis, they were long considered legendary because they did not seem to fit with the known evidence of that period. As more has become known, though, these stories have increasingly been verified. Legal codes from the time of Abraham show why the patriarch would have been hesitant to throw Hagar out of his camp, for he was legally bound to support her. Only when a higher law came from God was Abraham willing to put her out.
The Mari letters reveal such names as Abam-ram (Abraham), Jacob-el, and Benjamites. Though these do not refer to the biblical people, they at least show that the names were in use. These letters also support the record of a war in Genesis 14, when five kings fought against four kings. The names of these kings seem to fit with the prominent nations of the day. For example, Genesis 14:1 mentions an Amorite king Arioch; the Mari documents render the king’s name Ariwwuk. All of this evidence leads to the conclusion that the source material of Genesis was firsthand accounts of someone who lived during Abraham’s time.
Sodom and Gomorrah. The exact location near the Dead Sea of these cites is still in dispute. However, Steven Collins has pointed to strong evidence that it is in Jordan northeast of the Dead Sea (see Collins). Evidence in this area points to earthquake activity and that the various layers of the earth were disrupted and hurled high into the air. Bitumen is plentiful there, and an accurate description would be that brimstone (bituminous pitch) was hurled down on these cities that had rejected God. There is evidence that the layers of sedimentary rock have been molded together by intense heat. Rock shows evidence of a five-thousand-degree heat, and human remains have been found seared off at the waist.
The Dating of the Exodus. One of several issues concerning Israel’s relationship with Egypt is when the exodus into Palestine occurred {see Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of; Pharaoh of the Exodus). There is even an official “Generally Accepted Date” (GAD) for the entrance into Canaan of about 1230-1220 BC. The Scriptures, on the other hand, teach in three texts (1 Kings 6:1; Judg. 11:26; Acts 13:19-20) that the exodus occurred in the 1400s BC, with the entrance into Canaan forty years later. While the debate will rage on, there is no longer any reason to accept the 1200 date.
Assumptions have been made that the city “Rameses” in Exodus 1:11 was named after Rameses the Great, that there were no building projects in the Nile Delta before 1300, and that there was no great civilization in Canaan from the nineteenth to the thirteenth centuries. However, the name Rameses is common in Egyptian history. Rameses the Great is Ramses II. Nothing is known about Rameses I. Also, the name might not refer to a city but to an area. In Genesis 47:11, the name Rameses describes the Nile Delta area where Jacob and his sons settled.
Some scholars now suggest that reinterpretation of the data requires moving the date of the Middle Bronze (MB) age. If this is done, it would show that several uncovered cities of Canaan were destroyed by the Israelites. Evidence has come from recent digs that the last phase of the MB period needs more time than originally thought, so that its end is closer to 1400 BC than 1550 BC. This realignment would bring together two events previously thought to be separated by centuries: the fall of Canaan’s MB II cities and the conquest.
Another change may be warranted in the traditional view of Egyptian history. The chronology of the whole ancient world is based on the order and dates of the Egyptian kings and was generally thought to have been fixed. However, Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville assert that six hundred extra years in that chronology throw off dates for events all around the Near East. Courville has argued that the lists of Egyptian kings should not be understood to be completely consecutive. He argues that some “kings” listed were not pharaohs but high officials. Historians had assumed that each dynasty followed after the one before it. Instead, many dynasties list sub-rulers who lived at the same time as the preceding dynasty. Working out this new chronology places the exodus about 1450 BC and would make the other periods of Israelite history fall inline with the Egyptian kings mentioned. The evidence is not definitive, but there is no longer any reason to demand a late-date exodus. For more information, see the article Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Saul, David, and Solomon. Saul became the first king of Israel, and his fortress at Gibeahhas been excavated. One of the most noteworthy finds was that slingshots were one of the most important weapons of the day. This relates not only to David’s victory over Goliath but also to the reference of Judges 20:16 that there were seven hundred expert slingers who “could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” Likewise, a small stone has been found in Goliath’s hometown of Gath with his name inscribed on it in paleo-Hebrew.
Upon Saul’s death, Samuel tells us that his armor was put in the temple of Ashtaroth (a Canaanite fertility goddess) at Bethshan, while Chronicles says that his head was put in the temple of Dagon, the Philistine corn god. This was thought to be an error because it seemed unlikely that enemy peoples would have temples in the same place at the same time. However, excavations have found that there are two temples at this site that are separated by a hallway: one for Dagon and the other for Ashtaroth. It appears that the Philistines had adopted the Canaanite goddess.
An inscription with the phrase “house of David” confirms his kingship and dynasty. One of the key accomplishments of David’s reign was the capture of Jerusalem Problematic in the Scripture account was that the Israelites entered the city by way of a tunnel that led to the Pool of Siloam However, that pool was thought to be outside the city walls at that time. But the 1960s excavations finally determined that the wall did indeed extend well past the pool.
The psalms attributed to David are often said to have been written much later because their inscriptions suggest that there were musicians’ guilds (e.g., the sons of Korah). As a result, many think that these hymns should be dated to about the time of the Maccabeans in the second century BC. Based on excavations at Ras Shamra, it is now known that there were such guilds in Syria and Palestine in David’s time.
The site of Solomon’s temple has not been excavated because it is near the Muslim holy place, the Dome of the Rock. However, what is known about Philistine temples built in Solomon’s time fits
well with the design, decoration, and materials described in the Bible. The only piece of evidence from the temple itself is a small ornament, a pomegranate, that sat on the end of a rod and bears the inscription “Belonging to the Temple of Yahweh.” It was first seen in a shop in Jerusalem in 1979, verified in 1984, and was acquired by the Israel Museum in 1988.
The excavation of Gezer in 1969 ran across a massive layer of ash that covered most of the mound. The ash yielded pieces of Hebrew, Egyptian, and Philistine artifacts. Apparently all three cultures were there at the same time. This puzzled researchers greatly until they realized that the Bible told them exactly what they had found. “Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon’s wife” (1 Kings 9:16).
The Assyrian Invasion. Much was learned about the Assyrians when twenty-six thousand tablets were found in the palace of Ashurbanipal, son of the Esarhaddon who took the northern kingdoms into captivity in 722 BC. These tablets tell of the many conquests of the Assyrian Empire and record with honor the cruel and violent punishments that fell to those who opposed them.
Several of these records confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Every reference in the Old Testament to an Assyrian king has proven correct. Even though Sargon was unknown for some time, the discovery and excavation of his palace revealed a wall painting of the battle mentioned in Isaiah 20. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser adds to our knowledge of biblical figures by showing Jehu (or his emissary) bowing down to the king of Assyria.
Among the most interesting finds is Sennacherib’s record of the siege of Jerusalem. Thousands of his men died and the rest scattered when he attempted to take the city and, as Isaiah had foretold, was unable to conquer it. Since he could not boast about his great victory, Sennacherib found a way to make himself sound good without admitting defeat:
As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts, and to the countless small villages in their vicinity. ... I drove out of them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting and considered (them) booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. (Pritchard, 288)
The Captivity. Various facets of the Old Testament history regarding the captivity have been confirmed. Records found in Babylon’s famous hanging gardens show that Jehoiachin and his five sons were given a monthly ration and a place to live and were treated well (2 Kings 25:27-30). The name Belshazzar caused problems not only because there was no mention of him but also because there was no room for him in the list of Babylonian kings; however, Nabodonius left a record that he appointed his son, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), to reign for a few years in his absence. Hence, Nabodonius was still king, but Belshazzar ruled in the capital. Also, the edict of Cyrus as recorded by Ezra seemed to fit the picture of Isaiah’s prophecies too well to be real, until a cylinder was found that confirmed the decree in all the important details.
Conclusion. In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is good evidence from archaeology that Scripture speaks the truth. In many instances, Scripture even reflects firsthand knowledge of the times and customs it describes. While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.
In fact, while thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad outline and often in detail the biblical picture, not one incontrovertible find has ever contradicted the Bible. The writings of the twentieth-century’s “dean of archaeology,” William F. Albright, are filled with archaeological
confirmation of the Old Testament (see Albright, William F.). Sources
W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine.
G. L. Archer Jr., Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties.
J. Bimson and D. Livingston, "Redating the Exodus.”
S. Collins, The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah.
N. Glueck, Rivers in the Desert.
W. Kaiser and D. Garrett, NIVArchaeological Study Bible.
K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament.
R. Price, The Stones Cry Out.
J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East Texts.
C. A. Wilson. Rocks. Relics, and Biblical Reliability.
E. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures.
Athanasius. Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373) was one of the great early defenders of the Christian faith He was educated in the catechetical school of Alexandria. As secretary to Bishop Alexander, he attended the Council of Nicea (325). He succeeded Alexander three years later. Probably before 318, while still in his twenties, he wrote De Incarnatione (On the Incarnation) and Contra Gentes, explaining how the Logos (Christ) became human and redeemed humanity. Later, in Letters Concerning the Holy Spirit, he defended the personality and deity of the third person of the Trinity.
Athanasius not only defended orthodox Christianity but also helped set the standard for it, particularly on the deity of Christ. From 339 to 359 he wrote a series of defenses of the faith (Orations against Arians) aimed at those who denied the full deity of Christ. Grammatically, the issue centered around whether Christ was homoiousion (of “like substance”) or homoousion (of the “same substance”) with the Father. Athanasius stood firm, against great odds and at great personal cost, to preserve a biblical stand when most church leaders wandered into Arianism For this he earned the title contra mundum (“against the world”).
It is uncertain what exact role Athanasius played in framing the Nicene Creed. He certainly defended it with his life. This creed reads, in part, in its original form: We believe in ONE GOD THE FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. . . . And in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.
Sources
Athanasius. Athanasius, Contra Gentes.
--, On the Incarnation.
--, Orations against the Arians.
F. L. Cross, "Athanasius, St.”
--, The Study of St. Athanasius.
J. A. Domer, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, vol. 2.
A. Robertson, Athanasius.
P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1. R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies.
Atheism. While *polytheism dominated much of ancient Greek thought and theism dominated the medieval Christian view, atheism has had its day in the modern world. Of course, not all who lack faith in a divine being wish to be called “atheist.” Some prefer the positive ascription of “humanist”
(see Humanism, Secular). Others are perhaps best described as “materialists.” But all are nontheists, and most are antitheistic. Some prefer the more neutral term a-theists.
In distinction from a theist (see Theism), who believes God exists beyond and in the world, and a pantheist, who believes God is the world, an atheist believes there is no God either beyond or in the world. There is only a universe or cosmos and nothing more.
Since atheists share much in common with agnostics (see Agnosticism) and skeptics, they are often confused with them (see Russell). Technically, a skeptic says, “I doubt that God exists,” and an agnostic declares, “I don’t know (or can’t know) whether God exists.” But an atheist claims to know (or at least believe) that God does not exist. However, since atheists are all nontheists and since most atheists share with skeptics an antitheistic stand, many of their arguments are the same. It is in this sense that modern atheism rests heavily upon the skepticism of David *Hume and the agnosticism of Immanuel *Kant.
Varieties of Atheism. Broadly speaking, there are differing kinds of atheism Traditional (metaphysical) atheism holds that there never was, is, or will be a God. The many with this view include Ludwig *Feuerbach, Karl *Marx, Jean-Paul *Sartre, and Antony *Flew. Mythological atheists, such as Friedrich *Nietzsche, believe the God-myth was never a Being but was once a live model by which people lived. This myth has been killed by the advancement of man’s understanding and culture. There was a short-lived form of dialectical atheism held by Thomas *Altizer that proposed that the once-alive, transcendent God actually died in the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ, and this death was subsequently realized in modern times. Semantical atheists (see Verification, Kinds of) claim that God-talk is dead. This view was held by Paul Van Buren and others influenced by the logical positivists who seriously challenged the meaningfulness of language about God. Of course, those who hold this latter view need not be actual atheists at all. They can admit to the existence of God and yet believe that it is not possible to talk about him in meaningful terms. This view has been called “acognosticism,” since it denies that we can speak of God in cognitive or meaningful terms. Conceptual atheists believe there is a God, but he is hidden from view, obscured by our conceptual constructions. Finally, practical atheists confess that God exists but believe we should live as z/he did not. The point is that we should not use God as a crutch for our failure to act in a spiritual and responsible way (some of Dietrich Bonhoffer’s writings can be interpreted in this category).
There are other ways to designate the various kinds of atheists. One way is by the philosophy by which they express their atheism In this way, one could speak of existential atheists (Sartre),
Marxist atheists (Marx), psychological atheists (Sigmund *Freud), capitalistic atheists (Ayn *Rand), and behavioristic atheists (B. F. Skinner).
With regard to apologetics, the most applicable way to consider atheism is in a metaphysical sense. Atheists are those who give reasons for believing that no God exists in or beyond the world. Thus, we are speaking about philosophical atheists as opposed to practical atheists, who simply live as though there were no God.
The so-called New Atheism (see Atheism, New) is mostly the old atheism repackaged and with a louder, more shrill voice. The special emphasis is that religion is the source of many of the great evils of humankind. Major voices include Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion׳, Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great׳, Victor Stengel, God: The Failed Hypothesis׳, Michael Onfray, Atheist Manifesto׳, and Michael Shermer, How We Believe.
Arguments for Atheism. The arguments for atheism are largely negative, although some can be cast in positive terms. Negative arguments fall into two categories: (1) arguments against proofs for God’s existence (see God, Objections to Proofs for), and (2) arguments against God’s existence (see God, Alleged Disproofs of). On the first set of arguments, most atheists draw heavily on the skepticism of Hume and the agnosticism of Kant.
Atheists offer what they consider to be good and sufficient reasons for believing no God exists. Four such arguments are often used by atheists: (1) the existence of evil (see Evil, Problem of);
(2) the apparent purposelessness of life; (3) random occurrence in the universe; and (4) the first law of thermodynamics (see Thermodynamics, Laws of)—that “energy can neither be created or destroyed” and therefore the universe is eternal and, hence, needs no Creator.
Responses to the Arguments. The Existence of Evil. A detailed response to the problem of evil is given elsewhere (see Evil, Problem of), so it will be treated here only in general terms. The atheist’s reasoning is circular. Former atheist C. S. *Lewis argued that in order to know there is injustice in the world one has to have a standard of justice. So, to effectively eliminate God via evil, one has to posit an ultimate moral standard by which to pronounce God evil (Mere Christianity). But for theists, God is the ultimate moral standard, since there cannot be an ultimate moral law without an Ultimate Moral Law Giver.
Atheists argue that an absolutely good God must have a good purpose for everything, but there is no good purpose for much of the evil in the world. Hence, there cannot be an absolutely perfect God.
Theists point out that just because we do not know the purpose for evil occurrences does not mean that there is no good purpose. This argument does not necessarily disprove God; it only proves our ignorance of God’s plan. Along the same reasoning, just because we do not see a purpose for all evil now does not follow that we never will. The atheist is premature in his judgment. According to theism, a day of justice is coming. If there is a God, he must have a good purpose for evil, even if we do not know it. For a theist, God is omniscient and knows everything. He is omnibenevolent and has a good reason for everything. So, by his very nature he must have a good reason for evil.
Purposelessness. In assuming that life is without purpose, the atheist is again both a presumptuous and premature judge. How does one know there is no ultimate purpose in the universe? Simply because the atheist knows no real purpose for life does not mean God does not have one. Most people have known times that made no sense at the moment but eventually seemed to have great purpose.
The Random Universe. Apparent randomness in the universe does not disprove God. Some randomness is only apparent, not real. When DNA was first discovered, it was believed that it split randomly. Now the entire scientific world knows the incredible design involved in the splitting of the double helix molecule known as DNA. Even actual randomness has an intelligent purpose (see Teleological Argument). Molecules of carbon dioxide are exhaled randomly with the oxygen (and nythogine in the air), but for a good purpose. If they did not, we would inhale the same poisonous gases we have exhaled. And some of what seems to be waste may be the product of a purposeful process. Horse manure makes good fertilizer. According to the atheist’s time scale, the universe has been absorbing and neutralizing very well all its “waste.” So far as we know, little so-called waste is really wasted. Even if there is some, it may be a necessary by-product of a good process in a finite world like ours, just like sawdust results from logging.
The Eternality of Matter (Energy). Atheists often misstate the scientific first law of thermodynamics. It should not be rendered, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” Science as science should not be engaged in “can” or “cannot” statements. Operation science deals with what is or is not, based on observation. And observation simply tells us, according to the first law, that “the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” That is, while the amount of usable energy is decreasing, the amount of actual energy is remaining constant in the universe. The first law says absolutely nothing about the origin or destruction of energy. It is merely an observation about the continuing presence of energy in the cosmos.
Unlike the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, must have had a beginning, the first law makes no statement about whether energy is eternal. Therefore, it cannot be used to eliminate a Creator of the cosmos.
Tenets of Atheism. Atheists do not have identical beliefs, any more than do all theists. However, there is a core of beliefs commonto most atheists. So while not all atheists believe all of the following, all of the following are believed by some atheists. And most atheists believe most of the following.
About God. True atheists believe that only the cosmos exists. God did not create man; people created God.
About the World. The universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it came into existence “out of nothing and by nothing.” It is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. As astronomer Carl *Sagan put it, “The Cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be” (Sagan, Cosmos, 4). If asked “What caused the world?” most atheists would reply with Bertrand Russell that it was not caused; it is just there. Only the parts of the universe need a cause. They all depend on the whole, but the whole needs no cause. If we ask for a cause for the universe, then we must ask for a cause for God. And if we do not need a cause for God, then neither do we need one for the universe.
If one insists that everything needs a cause, the atheist simply suggests an infinite regress of causes that never arrives at a First Cause (i.e., God). For if everything must have a cause, then so does this “First Cause.” In that case, it really isn’t first at all, nor is anything else (see Sagan, Broca ,s Brain, 287).
About Evil. Unlike pantheists (see Pantheism), who deny the reality of evil, atheists strongly affirm it. In fact, while pantheists affirm the reality of God and deny the reality of evil, atheists, on the other hand, affirm the reality of evil and deny the reality of God. They believe theists are inconsistent in trying to hold to both realities.
About Human Beings. A human being is matter in motion with no immortal soul. There is no mind apart from brain. Nor is there a soul independent of body. While not all atheists are strict materialists who identify soul and body, most do believe that the soul is dependent on the body. The soul in fact dies when the body dies. The soul (and mind) may be more than the body, the way a thought is more than words or symbols. But as the shadow of a tree ceases to exist when the tree does, so the soul does not survive the body’s death.
About Ethics. No moral absolutes exist, certainly no divinely authorized absolutes. There may be some widely accepted and long-enduring values, but absolutely binding laws would seem to imply an absolute Faw Giver, which is not an option (see Morality, Absolute Nature of).
Since values are not discovered from some revelation of God, they must be created. Many atheists believe values emerge by trial and error the way traffic laws developed. Often the right action is described in terms of what will bring the greatest good in the long run. Some frankly acknowledge that relative and changing situations determine what is right or wrong. Others speak about the expedient behavior (what “works”), and some work out their whole ethic in terms of self-interest. But virtually all atheists recognize that each person must determine personal values, since there is no God to reveal what is right and wrong. As the Humanist Manifesto put it, “Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values” (Kurtz, 8).
About Human Destiny. Most atheists see no eternal destiny for individual persons, though some speak of a kind of collective immortality of the race. But the denial of individual immortality notwithstanding, many atheists are Utopians. They believe in an earthly paradise to come. Skinner proposed a behaviorally controlled utopia in Walden Two. Marx believed an economic dialectic of history would inevitably produce a communist paradise. Others, such as Rand, believe that pure capitalism can produce a more perfect society. Still others believe human reason and science can produce a social utopia. Virtually all, however, recognize the ultimate mortality of the human race but console themselves in the belief that its destruction is millions of years away.
Evaluation. Positive Contributions of Atheism. Even from a theistic point of view, not all views expressed by atheists lack truth. Atheists have provided many insights into the nature of reality.
The reality of evil. Unlike pantheists, atheists do not close their eyes to the reality of evil. In fact, most atheists have a keen sensitivity to evil and injustice. They rightly point to the imperfection of this world and to the need for adjudication of injustice. In this regard, they are surely right that an all-loving, all-powerful God would certainly do something about the situation.
Contradictory concepts of God. In contending that God is not caused by another, some have spoken of God as though he were a self-caused being (causa sui). Atheists rightly point out this contradiction, for no being can cause its own existence. To do this it would have to exist and not exist at the same time, for to cause existence is to move from nonexistence to existence. But nonexistence cannot cause existence. Nothing cannot cause something (see Causality, Principle of). On this point atheists are surely right.
Positive human values. Many atheists are humanists. With others they affirm the value of humanity and human culture. They earnestly pursue both the arts and the sciences and express deep concern in ethical issues. Most atheists believe that racism, hatred, and bigotry are wrong. Most atheists commend freedom and tolerance and have other positive moral values.
The loyal opposition. Atheists are the loyal oppositionto theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one’s own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God.
A Critique of Atheism. Still, the positionthat God does not exist lacks adequate rational support. The atheist’s arguments against God are insufficient (see Atheism). Further, there are good arguments for the existence of God (see God, Evidence for). For many things, atheism provides no satisfactory answer.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Atheism does not provide an adequate answer as to why anything exists when it is not necessary for anything at all to exist. Nonexistence of everything in the world is possible, yet the world does exist. Why? If there is no cause for its existence, there is no reason why the world exists (see Cosmological Argument).
What is the basis for morality? Atheists can believe in morality, but they cannot justify this belief.
Why should anyone be good unless there is a Definer of goodness who holds people accountable? It is one thing to say that hate, racism, genocide, and rape are wrong. But if there is no ultimate standard of morality (i.e., God), then how can these things be wrong? A moral prescription implies a Moral Prescriber (see Moral Argument for God).
What is the basis for meaning? Most atheists believe life is meaningful and worth living. But how can it be if there is no purpose for life or destiny after this life? Purpose implies a Purposer. But if there is no God, there is no objective or ultimate meaning. Yet most atheists live as if there were.
What is the basis for truth? Most atheists believe that atheism is true and theism is false. But to state that atheism is true implies that there is such a thing as objective truth. Most atheists do not believe that atheism is true only for them But if atheism is true, there must be a basis for objective truth (see Truth, Nature of). Truth is a characteristic of a mind, and objective truth implies an objective Mind beyond our finite minds.
What is the basis for reason? Most atheists pride themselves on being rational. But why be rational if the universe is the result of irrational chance? There is no reason to be reasonable in a random universe. Hence, the very thing in which atheists most pride themselves is not possible apart from God.
What is the basis for beauty? Atheists also marvel at a beautiful sunset and are awestruck by the starry heavens. They enjoy the beauty of nature as though it were meaningful. Yet if atheism is true, it is all accidental, not purposeful. Atheists enjoy natural beauty as though it were meant for them, and yet they believe no Designer exists to mean it for them
Sources
T. J. J. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism.
P. Bayle, Selections from Bay le ’s Dictionary.
R. Dawkins, The God Delusion.
L. Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity.
J. N. Findlay, “Can God’s Existence Be Disproved?”
A. Flew and A. Varghese, There Is a God.
C. Hartshome, “The Necessarily Existent.”
J. Hick, The Existence of God.
C. Hitchens, God Is Not Great.
B. C. Johnson, An Atheist Debater’s Handbook.
P. Kurt/, Humanist Manifestos I and II.
I. Lepp,Atheismfor Our Time.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
M. Martin ,Atheism.
K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion.
G. Mavrodes, Belief in God.
T. Molnar, Theists and Atheists.
J. P. Moreland and K. Nielsen, Does God Exist?
K. Nielson ,Philosophy and Atheism.
F. Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom.
--, Thus Spake Zarathustra.
M. Onfray, Atheist Manifesto.
A. Rand, For the New Intellectual.
B. Russell, “What Is an Agnostic?”
C. Sagan, Broca 's Brain.
--, Cosmos.
J.-P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness.
M. Shermer. How We Believe.
B. F. Skinner, About Behavioralism.
G. Smith. Alheistn.
R. C. Sproul ,If There Is a God, Why Are There Atheists? V. Stengel, God.
P. Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel.
Atheism, New. Recently, there has been a surge of writings by a movement called “New Atheism” They include Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis; Michael Onfray, Atheist Manifesto; Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great; J. L. Schellenberg, The Wisdom of Doubt; Matthew Chapman, 40 Days and 40 Nights; Tim Callahan, The Secret Origins of the Bible; and writings by Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptic Society and editor of Skeptic magazine. The content of their arguments does not differ significantly from the “old” atheism (see Atheism), but their zeal, aggressiveness, and vociferousness are new. One of their major themes is the alleged evil that religion has brought upon society.
Athenagoras. Athenagoras was a second-century Christian apologist who was called the “Christian philosopher from Athens.” His famous Apology (ca. 177), which he called “Embassy,” petitioned Marcus Aurelius on behalf of Christians. He later wrote a strong defense of the physical resurrection (see Resurrection, Physical Nature of), On the Resurrection of the Dead.
His English translator noted, “Both his Apology and his treatise on the Resurrection display a practiced pen and a richly cultured mind. He is by far the most elegant, and certainly at the same time one of the ablest, of the early Christian Apologists” (Pratten). The silence about Athenagoras by the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius is strange in view of his work.