09/15/2026
When I was at Dartmouth in the 1980s, I was exposed to the biblical “higher criticism” that traces back to the 19th century.
These armchair skeptics from top universities, some in America, mostly in Europe, declared the Bible was written hundreds of years later than the events it purports to describe.
So naturally they presumed it was full of errors, embellishments and legends. Certainly not history!
These higher critics never did any research at the biblical sites. They never got out of their armchairs.
And now they have been embarrassed time and time again by the discoveries of biblical archaeology.
Example: We read in 2 Kings 24 about the Babylonian assault on Judah in the late 6th century B.C.
“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to the city while his servants were besieging it.”
Also, “The king of Babylon made Matthias, the uncle of Jehoiachin, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.”
Further, “He exiled Jehoiachin in Babylon,” where we learn in 2 Kings 25 that Jehoiachin “ate food continually…He had a regular allowance given him by the king every day.”
We know from administrative records discovered in the early 1900s in the royal archive at Babylon, near the Ishtar Gate, that this biblical account is precisely what happened.
But the clincher was the discovery of a tablet that is now known as the Jehoiachin Ration Tablet.
It specifies the ration of sesame oil for Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and his top men.
10 sila of oil to the king of Judah.
Two and a half sila to his 5 sons.
4 sila to eight men from Judah
Now, here’s the question: Let’s the armchair critics are right, and the Bible was written, say, 250 years later, during the Persian period.
Who would know this history down to its minor details?
Answer: Only someone who had access to information that had been meticulously handed down through the generations.
Or—more likely—the Bible was not written so late, and its writers had direct and first-hand knowledge of what was going on in their time.
Either way, the Bible comes out looking good and the armchair skeptics not so good.
