What do you think?
Rate this book
Stones and the Scriptures
Book by Yamauchi, Edwin M
Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 24, 2025
A HISTORIAN LOOKS AT A VARIETY OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATTERS
Historian Edwin Yamauchi wrote in the Introduction to this 1972 book, “It is not to be denied… that interest in the relevance of archaeology for the Bible was a primary initiating factor and is still one of the chief motivating elements in the support of excavations today. Indeed, a popular notion exists that ‘archaeology has proved the Bible.’ There is truth to this aphorism … but it needs to be understood properly. If by ‘proof’ is meant irrefutable evidence that everything in the Bible happened ‘just so,’ the ‘proof’ cannot be provided by archaeology. There are a number of striking cases where specific passages have been doubted … and have been directly confirmed. There are many more items and areas which have afforded a general illumination of biblical backgrounds. Finally, there are some cases which---through they do not irrefutably prove that the Bible contains mistakes---certainly do require the believer to admit his inability to resolve difficulties without benefit of additional data.” (Pg. 19-20)
He acknowledges, “In 1929 in excavating Abraham’s city of Ur … Leonard Woolley came upon a thick layer of water-borne sediment… which he claimed as evidence for THE Flood… Later study, however, has shown that there were other flood deposits … which were not identical with the flood deposit at Ur, dated c. 4000 B.C.´(Pg. 34) He also admits that “the designation of Abraham’s city of Ur in lower Mesopotamia as ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ is readily explained as a gloss by a later editor as the Chaldeans are nowhere mentioned in non-biblical texts until the eleventh century B.C.” (Pg. 45)
He explains, “Along with the positive evidence presented here for a 13th century Conquest, there are three sites which present apparently contradictory evidence or a least a lack of evidence for this reconstruction: Jericho, Gibeon, and Ai. At Jericho the earliest excavations in 1930-36 by John Garstang had uncovered walls which [Garstang] identified as those of Joshua’s city c. 1400 B.C. . [But Kathleen] Kenyon’s recent excavations in 1952-58 has shown that Garstang’s walls are in fact remains from … a thousand years before Joshua’s time.” (Pg. 57)
He reports, “In 1942 an Aramaic papyrus was found … in Egypt. It was a letter from a king called Adon… The letter which is dated c. 604 [B.C.] is with the exception of a mutilated fragment the oldest Aramaic papyrus known, and as such is important for its bearing on the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament. John Bright suggests why: ‘The Aramaic of Ezra (4:8-6:18, 7:12-26) … has been branded a forgery… [but it] takes on a more authentic flavor with each such discovery. Again, that courtiers should address Nebuchadnezzar in Aramaic as … Dan 2:4 has it, no longer appears at all surprising.” (Pg. 81)
He notes, “One Old Testament book whose alleged late date most critics have not reconsidered is the book of Daniel… The argument from the presence of Greek loan words in Daniel is the most objective basis for a late date. This was formulated by S.R. Driver in 1897… Since the time of Driver’s statement there has been a flood of materials to show that contacts between the Aegean and the Near East began long before the time of Alexander.” (Pg. 87, 90)
He argues, “One of the most controversial questions as to the accuracy of Luke concerns the Christian census. It is now certain that Jesus was born before 4 B.C., the date of the death of Herod the Great…. It is … Luke 2:2 that poses a problem: ‘And this taxing (enrollment) was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.' Now a census under Quirinius as governor of Syria is well-known for A.D. 6 but none is known for the period before 4 B.C. … In Egypt a census seems to have been taken every fourteen years. The requirement that the person to be enrolled travel to his town of origin has been illustrated by an edict from Egypt… Since such a census as Luke describes could have taken place, the major difficulty remains the … association of Quirinius with an early, unrecorded census. An inscription discovered in … 1828 describes a man who has been identified as Quirinius. The text read that this individual was a legate (governor)… This was interpreted by [William] Ramsay to mean that Quirinius governed ‘again Syria,’ in other words, over Syria twice.
“It can, however, be argue that this only means that Quirinius was legate twice, and that his first position was in Galatia. The difficulty of placing Quirinius as legate in Syria before 4 B.C. is that from other texts we have a fairly complete list of legates ... Ramsay therefore suggested that Quirinius may have been attached to the legate Saturninus as an extraordinary legate for military purposes… the following solutions have been proposed: … translating Luke 2:2 to read: ‘This census was the first BEFORE that under the prefecture of Quirinius in Syria.’ This is a very unlikely rendering of the Greek text… it has been suggested by F.F. Bruce that an early copyist may have mistakenly substituted Quirinius for Saturninus… Jack Finegan accepts Ramsay’s proposal and concludes:… ‘that Quirinius actually took this census is still only concretely affirmed by Luke 2:2; under the circumstances, the affirmation is not unlikely.’” (Pg. 98-99)
Of Jesus’ tomb, he states, “The nearby ‘Garden Tomb’… has no claim to authenticity. Sockets for bolts and hinges in the jambs indicate that it was closed by a door and not a rolling stone…. On the other hand, the traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has much in favor of its authenticity.” (Pg. 110)
He reports, “The discovery in 1931 of an ossuary with the name in Aramaic, ‘Jesus, son of Joseph,’ created a sensation, until Sukenik---the greatest authority on such ossuaries---quickly denied that this had anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels. Josephus, for example, mentions no less than twenty person with the name Jesus. At least six ossuaries with the name Jesus are now known.” (Pg. 122)
This is a fine summary of for/against biblical archaeological evidence, as of 1972.
Historian Edwin Yamauchi wrote in the Introduction to this 1972 book, “It is not to be denied… that interest in the relevance of archaeology for the Bible was a primary initiating factor and is still one of the chief motivating elements in the support of excavations today. Indeed, a popular notion exists that ‘archaeology has proved the Bible.’ There is truth to this aphorism … but it needs to be understood properly. If by ‘proof’ is meant irrefutable evidence that everything in the Bible happened ‘just so,’ the ‘proof’ cannot be provided by archaeology. There are a number of striking cases where specific passages have been doubted … and have been directly confirmed. There are many more items and areas which have afforded a general illumination of biblical backgrounds. Finally, there are some cases which---through they do not irrefutably prove that the Bible contains mistakes---certainly do require the believer to admit his inability to resolve difficulties without benefit of additional data.” (Pg. 19-20)
He acknowledges, “In 1929 in excavating Abraham’s city of Ur … Leonard Woolley came upon a thick layer of water-borne sediment… which he claimed as evidence for THE Flood… Later study, however, has shown that there were other flood deposits … which were not identical with the flood deposit at Ur, dated c. 4000 B.C.´(Pg. 34) He also admits that “the designation of Abraham’s city of Ur in lower Mesopotamia as ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ is readily explained as a gloss by a later editor as the Chaldeans are nowhere mentioned in non-biblical texts until the eleventh century B.C.” (Pg. 45)
He explains, “Along with the positive evidence presented here for a 13th century Conquest, there are three sites which present apparently contradictory evidence or a least a lack of evidence for this reconstruction: Jericho, Gibeon, and Ai. At Jericho the earliest excavations in 1930-36 by John Garstang had uncovered walls which [Garstang] identified as those of Joshua’s city c. 1400 B.C. . [But Kathleen] Kenyon’s recent excavations in 1952-58 has shown that Garstang’s walls are in fact remains from … a thousand years before Joshua’s time.” (Pg. 57)
He reports, “In 1942 an Aramaic papyrus was found … in Egypt. It was a letter from a king called Adon… The letter which is dated c. 604 [B.C.] is with the exception of a mutilated fragment the oldest Aramaic papyrus known, and as such is important for its bearing on the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament. John Bright suggests why: ‘The Aramaic of Ezra (4:8-6:18, 7:12-26) … has been branded a forgery… [but it] takes on a more authentic flavor with each such discovery. Again, that courtiers should address Nebuchadnezzar in Aramaic as … Dan 2:4 has it, no longer appears at all surprising.” (Pg. 81)
He notes, “One Old Testament book whose alleged late date most critics have not reconsidered is the book of Daniel… The argument from the presence of Greek loan words in Daniel is the most objective basis for a late date. This was formulated by S.R. Driver in 1897… Since the time of Driver’s statement there has been a flood of materials to show that contacts between the Aegean and the Near East began long before the time of Alexander.” (Pg. 87, 90)
He argues, “One of the most controversial questions as to the accuracy of Luke concerns the Christian census. It is now certain that Jesus was born before 4 B.C., the date of the death of Herod the Great…. It is … Luke 2:2 that poses a problem: ‘And this taxing (enrollment) was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.' Now a census under Quirinius as governor of Syria is well-known for A.D. 6 but none is known for the period before 4 B.C. … In Egypt a census seems to have been taken every fourteen years. The requirement that the person to be enrolled travel to his town of origin has been illustrated by an edict from Egypt… Since such a census as Luke describes could have taken place, the major difficulty remains the … association of Quirinius with an early, unrecorded census. An inscription discovered in … 1828 describes a man who has been identified as Quirinius. The text read that this individual was a legate (governor)… This was interpreted by [William] Ramsay to mean that Quirinius governed ‘again Syria,’ in other words, over Syria twice.
“It can, however, be argue that this only means that Quirinius was legate twice, and that his first position was in Galatia. The difficulty of placing Quirinius as legate in Syria before 4 B.C. is that from other texts we have a fairly complete list of legates ... Ramsay therefore suggested that Quirinius may have been attached to the legate Saturninus as an extraordinary legate for military purposes… the following solutions have been proposed: … translating Luke 2:2 to read: ‘This census was the first BEFORE that under the prefecture of Quirinius in Syria.’ This is a very unlikely rendering of the Greek text… it has been suggested by F.F. Bruce that an early copyist may have mistakenly substituted Quirinius for Saturninus… Jack Finegan accepts Ramsay’s proposal and concludes:… ‘that Quirinius actually took this census is still only concretely affirmed by Luke 2:2; under the circumstances, the affirmation is not unlikely.’” (Pg. 98-99)
Of Jesus’ tomb, he states, “The nearby ‘Garden Tomb’… has no claim to authenticity. Sockets for bolts and hinges in the jambs indicate that it was closed by a door and not a rolling stone…. On the other hand, the traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has much in favor of its authenticity.” (Pg. 110)
He reports, “The discovery in 1931 of an ossuary with the name in Aramaic, ‘Jesus, son of Joseph,’ created a sensation, until Sukenik---the greatest authority on such ossuaries---quickly denied that this had anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels. Josephus, for example, mentions no less than twenty person with the name Jesus. At least six ossuaries with the name Jesus are now known.” (Pg. 122)
This is a fine summary of for/against biblical archaeological evidence, as of 1972.
Displaying 1 of 1 review