There are plenty of reasons to think the Old Testament is historical. Another one was added yesterday when The British Museum deciphered a 2600-year-old tablet. (worth a read)
The find is small in many ways: the tablet is just 5.5cm wide, it is just some kind of a receipt, and it names a person of small importance. That last reason is, for me, an interesting one. Quoting the article,
“The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim who, according to Jeremiah 39 was present in 587BC when Nebuchadnezzar “marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it”….
“Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary.” “
If the tablet provided support for an ‘important detail’, like a king or a battle, it would not rule out an author who, inventing a story, used well known facts to beef it up.
But to find a minor official and the date… thats different isn’t it?
“Dr Jursa… yesterday said the British Museum tablet was so well preserved that it took him just a couple of minutes to decipher.”
It’s not the only time archaeology has agreed with the Bible. Does it surprise you?