By Melvin H ot ®Kyle, Ba
U U . P= T h e o lo g ic a l S em in a ry , Z®aafla3O.
Note.—The address given below was delivered by Prof. Melvin Grove Kyle, D. D., LL.D., St the M inisterial In stitu te held a t Montrose, Pa., July 9th to July 27th, under the auspices of the Bible In stitu te of Los Angeles.
HE function of archaeology in criticism has only recently been given much attention. And, as is inevitable on all subjects of importance, and
Biblical Encyclopaedists generally, until the most recent, have not given this sub ject a place at all. A Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings), omits it entirely. Nor can the subject be said to be indirectly introduced, except it be in a very subor dinate way in the discussion'of other sub jects. Indeed, the very word “archaeology” is entirely omitted from the index. The Encyclopaedia Bíblica (Cheyne), has no article on either archaeology or antiqui ties, nor is there elsewhere in the work sufficient place given the subject that it should be indexed. The recentness with which the subject of archaeology in Bib lical criticism has come to the front could have no better illustration than the com plete omission from these two great Bibli cal encyclopaedias of any explicit reference to the subject. Such omission was scarcely noticed at the time the works were issued; today it would be inexcusable if an over sight, and a tacit confession if intentional. A subject that is engaging the keenest minds of the most radical as well as the most conservative critics cannot wisely be ignored.
especially where predilections are certain to play so large a part, opinions concerning the value of archaeology argument and thé cogency of archaeplogical evidence, when applied to the crucial questions of criticism, have varied greatly. Here, as elsewhere, caution generally corresponds to anticipa-- tion. Naturally, we approach more read ily and rapidly toward supposed friends than suspected enemies, and are less inclined to take account of a new field of investigation that does not promise much to our preconceptions. This is not to cast reflections upon the honesty and candor of all or any schools of criticism, but simply to recognize a very human characteristic. It is altogether probable that the solution of many of our critical and even theological problems would be found in a careful study of ourselves. But explain the phenomena as we will, the fact is, as stated, that few have given much attention to the function of archaeology in criticism.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker