■g niin................................. . | ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACTS |
with which to Test Critical Theories By m m jw m grov e k y le , d . d ., l l d .
piiiiiiinniiiHiiiiiniiiiiiimii ii [iiiiiii[iiiiiiiiiiiii H n«iiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilMliiiiilliilll lll l lllllll»lll llll lllui ll HlllllillMllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllinillllllllll
Note. —Thife following address by Dr. Kyle was delivered at the recent M inisterial In stitu te, held at Montrose, Pa., under the auspices of the Bible In stitu te of Los Angeles, and is a continuation of the subject, “Archaeology in Criticism',” which appeared in this magazine -for October.
there can be no antagonism between facts and truth in its broadest sense. There may be many things done, i.e., facts, which are against truth. All the existence of evil in the world attests that. But there can be no antagonism between facts and truth in the same field of thought, between the facts and the truth concerning the facts. There may be the most positive antago nism between moral truth and human con duct, but there can be no antagonism between the truth about the conduct of a certain person and the facts of his con duct; or between the truth about many per sons, i.e., history, and the facts of history; or between the truth about many statements of human thought and all the circumstances of those statements, i.e., literary criticism, and the material facts concerning the rec ords, i.e., archaeology. Critics and archae ologists seem to agree perfectly in the statement that there can be no antagonism between a correct literary criticism of trust worthy documents and the facts of archae ology. But it is, after all, a very ambigu ous agreement, for archaeologists mean, “you are certain in the end to come around to our way of thinking,” and the critics mean “You are certain in the end, when you get all the pieces put together, to reach the same conclusions that we have antici pated.” Who or where is the urripire? Who or what is to determine when the criticism is “a correct criticism?” When there is a conflict between the facts of archaeology and the conclusions of criti cism, which is to give way?
' » N the discussion of the func t i o n of “Archaeology in Crit- icism,” of which two parts, sgthe historical, setting and the guidance of methods, have
been discussed in preceding lectures, we come now to the third and last, and in all respects the most important part, which is to prove facts with which to . test critical theories. Archaeology supplies facts with which to test the theories of criticism. The simple statement of this part of the function of archaeology in criticism makes instantly apparent its far-reaching importance. The other parts of the function of archaeology in criticism which have already been men tioned, the furnishing of the true histori cal setting, and the guidance of methods concerning presuppositions, canons, literary form, and interpretation, are but prelimi nary and contributory, the function of ser vice : but the supplying of facts with which to test theories is final and dominant, the function of control. Wherever archaeol ogy has something definite to say, it claims the right to the last word. If it, as yet, only “bids fair to control criticism,” it boldly claims its right to control it now. Here is. heard the deciding voice of the monuments in Biblical criticism. Let us see upon how good ground archae ology makes this claim. It will be admit ted—-jt is admitted—that there can be no real antagonism between the facts of archaeology and a correct criticism of trust worthy documents. This is not to say that
Made with FlippingBook Annual report