The law code consists of an introduction stating that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods to record the code, followed by 282 statements of law, and concluded with an epilogue. What is unique about this code is that unlike other ancient findings, it is completely intact.

Before this discovery, skeptics resisted the older date of the first five books of Moses. However, since this discovery, those conclusions have been challenged. Archaeology has revealed that this code predates the Law of Moses.

Because of this fact, critics say that Moses borrowed from Hammurabi’s code when writing the Law. There are a number of similarities between the two laws. Hammurabi’s code shares 37 similar lines with the Law of Moses. Lines 1, 8, 21-24, 60, 117-126, 129, 130-132, 154-158, 195-201, and 250-252 correspond to Exodus 20:14-15; 21:2-11, 15-16, 22-25, 28-36; 22:1-3, 7-9; 23:1-3; Leviticus 19:11-13, 23-25; 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 5:18-20; 15:12-18; 19:16-21; 21:1-5; 22:1-4, 22-27; 24:7; 27:22-23; Numbers 5:5-29; and Ruth 3:11; 4:10.

One of the reasons why this perplexed scholars when it was discovered is because of the small number of law codes known to exist at the time. Scholars first believed that the Mosaic Law was derived from the code of Hammurabi; however, further archaeological finds of other comparable law codes have forced scholars to abandon this theory. In fact, many countries had law codes at this time demonstrating that the code of Hammurabi is not as unique as first thought. However, there is more to it than just similar law codes.

As one compares the two they will see that the Mosaic Law goes beyond Hammurabi’s code or any other ancient code of law, being grounded in the worship of the one true God. Hammurabi’s code deals with many subjects which can be divided into twelve sections: legal processes, thieves, vassals, homes and land, trade-ins, deposits, family, injury to others, building, hiring, and the treatment of slaves. Marriage, family, and property are covered in 67 paragraphs within the code. Yet, with all the subjects covered there is one that’s missing: religion. According to Hammurabi, he received this code from the Babylonian gods Anu and Bel, but while it was received from gods, the subject of religion was not even once addressed in the code. There was no overall theme to this code, just a list of rules and regulations, with no deeper application to be made than submitting to the rules themselves.

This is not the case when one reads the Mosaic Law. While on the surface the law does state a variety of regulations in which the Israelites were to follow, the theme of the law is abundantly clear when the entire narrative is read. God’s law was designed and had the power to convict the heart and soul; Hammurabi’s code and other laws were not. The focus of the Mosaic Law was not just following God’s commands, but developing a character of love in the Israelites. While Jesus was teaching in Jerusalem, a lawyer came and asked Him about the greatest commandment. Jesus said, “You shall love the LORD you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-39). God’s special covenant was a precursor to the law that Jesus would preach in the New Testament (Hebrews 10:1), and to the example that He would show us when He gave His life as a ransom for us (Matthew 20:28).

While the code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law may have some similarities between them regarding civil matters, it cannot be said that they were derived from the same source. The Mosaic Law goes so much further in developing an order and a people convicted of the things that the Lord has commanded them. To say that Moses copied from the code of Hammurabi betrays an ignorance of the purposes of the two laws.

His mention of matters such as the census (Luke 2:1-3), Lysanias as a tetrarch (Luke 3:1), Lystra and Derbe being cities of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6) all show his intimate knowledge of first century life.

Furthermore, his usage of terms such as “deputy” (Acts 13:7, 12; 18:12), “part” (Acts 16:12),“rulers” (Acts 17:6) and “chief man” (Acts 28:7) have confounded scholars but he has always be proven to be right.

Concerning Luke’s ability as a historian, Sir William Ramsay concluded after thirty years of study that “Luke is an historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Thanks to the many archaeological finds, most of the ancient cities mentioned in Acts have been identified. The journeys of Paul can now be accurately traced as a result of these finds. In all, Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands without an error.

Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian, has cataloged numerous archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy.

• Specialized details, which would not have been widely known except to a contemporary researcher such as Luke who traveled widely.
• Details archaeologists know are accurate but cannot verify as to the precise time period.
• Correlation of dates of known kings and governors with the chronology of the narrative.
• Facts appropriate to the date of Paul or his immediate contemporary in the church but not to a date earlier or later.
• Undesigned coincidences between Acts and the epistles to Paul.
• Internal correlations within Acts.
• Off-hand geographical references that reveal familiarity with common knowledge.
• Differences in formulation within Acts that indicate the different categories of sources he used.
• Peculiarities in the selection of detail that are explainable in the context of what is now known of first century life.
• Accounts shaped in such a way as to suggest that the author was recounting a recent experience, rather than shaping a text long after it had been written.
• Cultural or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the first century world.

All of this has lead A. N. Sherwin-White to conclude, “For Acts the confirmation of history is overwhelming.… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” If anyone tries to tell you that believing in the Bible is just like believing in Alice in Wonderland, you can tell them that the Bible was written from a historical point of view, and that point of view is correct!

The word archaeology is composed of two Greek words: Archaios, meaning “old” or “ancient”; and Logos, signifying “word, treatise or study.” A literal definition is “the study of antiquity.” It is the science which deduces a knowledge of past times from the study of existing remains. The earliest known archaeologist was Nabonidus, king of Babylon, who, in the sixth century B.C., excavated a temple floor down to a foundation stone laid 3,200 years before. Modern archaeology began with Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt (1798), when one of his officers discovered the Rosetta Stone, whose identical inscription in three languages unlocked the mystery of Egyptian hieroglyphs and opened the history of Egypt. Later a British officer named Henry Rawlinson found a trilingual inscription at Behistun, Persia, that unlocked the mysteries of cuneiform. Since 1948, archaeology has been concerned with the scientific study of the actual culture of people in the Bible.

There are several reasons why it is helpful to study archaeology. First, archaeology helps us to put the Bible story in context with a larger historical background. Second, it helps us illustrate allusions to contemporary religious practices. Third, it helps us to be sure that we have an accurate translation of the Bible. Fourth, archaeology helps us to understand the words of that text. Fifth, it helps us to see comparable literary forms. Sixth, archaeology shows us how to illustrate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Old Testament history is full of archaeological discoveries which have helped confirm the accounts of the Bible. Norman Geisler said, “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.” The role which archaeology is performing in New Testament research in expediting scientific study, balancing critical theory, illustrating, elucidating, supplementing, and authenticating historical and cultural backgrounds is also extremely helpful. F. F. Bruce said, “For the most part the service which archaeology has rendered to New Testament studies is the filling in of the contemporary background, against which we can read the record with enhanced comprehension and appreciation. And this background is a first century background.”

As an example of the benefits of archaeology, consider the Book of Mormon. It purports to portray the rise and development of two great civilizations. There are 38 cities catalogued in the Book of Mormon, evidence that these were indeed mighty civilizations which should, by all the laws of archaeological research into the culture of antiquity, have left vast amounts of “finds” to be evaluated. However, this has not been the case. The Mormons have yet to explain the fact that leading archaeological researchers not only have repudiated the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the existence of these civilizations, but have adduced considerable evidence to show the impossibility of the accounts given in the Mormon Bible.

Even though archaeology has never contradicted the Bible, a word of caution is necessary. All too often we hear the statement, “Archaeology proves the Bible.” Archaeology cannot “prove” the Bible, if by this you mean “proves it to be inspired and revealed by God.” However, if by “prove” one means “shows some biblical event or passage to be historical,” then archaeology does prove the Bible. Furthermore, archaeology can confirm events but it cannot tell us why. Millar Burrows wrote that archaeology “can tell us a great deal about the topography of a military campaign. It can tell us nothing about the nature of God.”

Archaeology is of great help in better understanding the Bible, in dealing with critical questions regarding the Bible, and in gaining an appreciation of the ancient world. This type of study is very faith-building. It assures us that the Bible is not legend and myth; it is history!

On pages 68-69 of the magazine in question is a large black section entitled, “Tales from The Bible That Are in Doubt”. Around this title are arrayed are some more artistic renditions of biblical events, each one with a question: Was Abraham a Myth?, Did the Exodus Happen?, Was There a Moses?, and Did Joshua Conquer the City of Jericho? In the cases of Abraham, Moses, and the Exodus, the point is that no direct archaeological evidence has yet been found to prove any of these. In typical fashion, “most scholars” agree that these things never happened, simply because there has not been found any direct proof of their existence outside of the Bible! This is nothing new; for generations, scholars have consistently refused to believe anything the Bible says until such time as some extra-biblical evidence forces them to admit that it happened. And even then they insist that the details of the biblical account are full of errors, whether or not they have any evidence to back up their assertions. But the claims Time makes regarding Jericho are somewhat bolder. In this instance, the claim is that the archaeological evidence actually contradicts the scriptural record:

“Historians generally agree that Joshua’s conquest would have taken place in the thirteenth century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time.” (page 68, center column)

This is interesting on at least two levels. First, if there is no archaeological evidence of Joshua’s campaign, and indeed historians don’t even believe it ever occurred, how can they all agree on when it would have happened? Secondly, it is interesting that this article, which repeatedly claims to be talking about new discoveries, cites Kathleen Kenyon’s research. Dame Kenyon excavated in Jericho from 1952 to 1958, and she died in 1978.

Kathleen Kenyon concluded that Jericho’s walls fell around 1550 B.C., some 150 years before the Bible has Joshua coming to the city. According to an article by Dr. Bryant Wood in the March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, her conclusion was apparently based solely on the lack of pottery from Cyprus in her sites. It seems that certain Cyprian pottery was common in the 1400′s B.C., and since she didn’t find any, she decided that the city must have been uninhabited during that time. But John Garstang, who excavated at Jericho from 1930 to 1936, had discovered some of this very pottery! Moreover, some of the local pottery which Dame Kenyon did find is unique to the period 1400-1450 B.C., when she said the city was unoccupied. So, the ceramic evidence actually confirms that the city was occupied until approximately 1400 B.C.

In addition to the ceramic evidence, there is much more archaeological evidence to show that the walls of Jericho fell somewhere around 1400 B.C. For a discussion of this evidence, see Dr. Wood’s article noted above. As to the Bible, I Kings 6:1 states that King Solomon began building the temple in Jerusalem in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt. Construction of the temple began in 966 B.C., so this places the exodus from Egypt at 1446 B.C. When we consider the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, this puts Joshua at Jericho pretty close to 1400 B.C. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that the authors cite Dame Kenyon’s conclusions, the time line on pages 66-67 of the Time article shows the destruction of Jericho at 1400 B.C.! If you ask me, things are looking pretty good for the biblical account so far as the date is concerned, “most historians” notwithstanding.

But Dr. Wood points out that the archaeological evidence indicates more than just the date of the destruction. For example, unusually large stores of grain were found in the ruins. The portions of the city which were excavated were fairly poor, and grain was quite valuable in those days, so there are several conclusions which may be drawn from the fact that the stores of grain were intact: 1. Since grain was stored after harvest, the people ate from the stored grain until the next harvest. Therefore, Jericho must have been destroyed fairly soon after harvest, which would be in the spring. According to scripture, the Israelites crossed over the Jordan during the harvest (Joshua 3:15), then observed the Passover (5:10), and then took Jericho according to the Lord’s command. 2. The city was not taken by means of a long siege, which would have been typical in that time. If it had, the food would have been depleted. Joshua only needed to surround Jericho for seven days (6:3-5, 8-20). 3. Because grain was so valuable to the point of being used as currency, most conquerors would take any grain stored in a vanquished city. The large intact stores of grain in Jericho are therefore an anomaly. But this again is consistent with scripture, which states that the Israelites took only silver, gold, bronze, and iron for the treasury of the Lord (6:24). They took no other plunder.

In addition to the grain, the archaeologists also determined that the walls of the city collapsed. They were not broken by some kind of battering ram, they fell down. Here, of course, is a part of the scriptural account with which many are familiar:

“And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat.” (Joshua 6:20)

Finally, after destroying the city with the sword, the Israelites burned the city and all that was in it with fire (6:24). This again is consistent with the archaeologists’ findings which indicate that after the walls fell down, the city was burned.

So then, we see that in point after point, the archaeology of the city of Jericho agrees perfectly with scripture. And this is not surprising. In fact, the same issue of Time which we have been discussing has an article on page 70 entitled, “The New Testament’s Unsolved Mysteries”, which states:

“Time and again, archaeological finds have validated scriptural references.”

This being the case, why do scholars still insist on doubting the historical accuracy of the scriptural accounts? That may be the real unsolved mystery of the Bible! However, regardless of its detractors, scripture continues to prove itself to be reliable and true. And those of us who put our trust in God’s word continue to find ourselves on solid ground.