The Fundamentals

A Testimony to the Truth

Volume II

Compliments of Two Christian Laymen

T est im ony P ubl ish ing C ompany (Not Inc.) 808 La Salle Ave., Chicago, 111., U. S. A.

FOREWORD

This book is the second of a series which will be published and sent to every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological professor, theological stu dent, Sunday school superintendent, Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A. secretary in the English speaking world, so far as the addresses of all these can be obtained. Two intelligent, consecrated Christian laymen bear the expense, because they believe that the time has come when a new statement of the funda mentals of Christianity should be made. Their earnest desire is that you will carefully read it and pass its truth on to others. (See Publishers’ Notice, Page 127.)

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE k I. T he T estimony of the M onuments to the T ruth of the S criptures . .......................... 7 By Prof. George Frederick Wright, D. D., LL. D., Oberlin College: ,11 . T he R ecent T estimony of A rchaeology to the S criptures ................................................ By M. G. Kyle, D. D., LL. D., Egyptologist. Professor of Biblical Archaeology, Xenia Theological Seminary. Consulting Editor of the Records of the Past, Washington, D. C. 29

ilil. F allacies of the H igher C riticism .....................

■By Franklin Johnson, D. D., LL. D.

r fS i .. C hrist and C riticism .......... ...................................... By Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D. Author of “The Bible and Modern Criticism,” Etc., Etc., London, England.

M odern P hilosophy ............................. ................... 85 By Philip Mauro, Counsellor-At-Law, New York City. / «■VI. J ustification By F aith ................. ......................... 106

By H. C. G. Moule, D. D., Bishop of Durham, England.

^ 1 1 . T ributes to C hrist and the B ible by B rainy M en not K nown as A ctive C hristians ... 120

1'7

(►

:, ,,

V' ,.

.. '-,

-1 ..

THE FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME II.

CHAPTER I. THE TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS TO THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES.

BY PROF. GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D.pjj| OBERLIN COLLEGE.

All history is fragmentary. Each particular fact is the cen ter of an infinite complex of circumstances. No man has in telligence enough to insert a supposititious fact into circum stances not belonging to it and make it exactly fit. This only infinite intelligence could do. A successful forgery, therefore, is impossible if only we have a sufficient number of the orig inal circumstances with which to compare it. It is this prim ciple which gives such importance to the cross-examination of witnesses. If the witness is truthful, the more he is ques tioned the more perfectly will his testimony be seen to accord with the framework of circumstances into which it is fitted. If false, the more will his falsehood become apparent. Remarkable opportunities for cross-examining the Old Tes tament Scriptures have been afforded by the recent uncover ing of long-buried monuments in Bible lands and by decipher ing the inscriptions upon them. It is the object of this essay to give the results of a sufficient portion of this cross-examina tion to afford a reasonable test of the competence and honesty of the historians of the Old Testament, and of the faithfulness with which their record has been transmitted to us. But the prescribed limits will not permit the half to be told; while room 7

8 The Fundamentals, is left for an entire essay on the discoveries of the last, five years to be treated by another hand, specially competent for the task. • Passing by the monumental evidence which has removed objections to the historical statements of the New Testament, as less needing support, attention will be given first to one of the Old Testament narratives, which is nearest to us in time, and against which the harshest judgments of modern critics have been hurled. We refer to the statements in the Book of Daniel concerning the personality and fate of Belshazzar. THE IDENTIFICATION OF BELSHAZZAR. In the fifth chaper of Daniel Belshazzar is called the “son of Nebuchadnezzar,” and is said to have been “king” of Baby lon and to have been slain on the night in which the city was taken. But according to the other historians he was the son of Nabonidus, who was "then king, and who is known to have been out of the city when it was captured, and to have lived some time afterwards. Here, certainly, there is about as glaring an apparent dis crepancy as could be imagined. Indeed, there would seem to be a flat contradiction between profane and sacred historian.;, But in 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson found, while excavating in the ruins of Mugheir (identified as the site of the city of Ur, from which Abraham emigrated), inscriptions which stated that when Nabonidus was near the end of his reign he asso ciated with him on the throne his eldest son, Bil-shar-uzzur, and allowed him the royal title, thus making it perfectly credi ble that Belshazzar should have been in Babylon, as he is said to have been in the Bible, and that he should have been called king, and that he should have perished in the city while Na bonidus survived outside. That he should have been called king while his father was still living is no more strange than that Jehoram should have been appointed by his father, Je- hoshaphat, king of Judah, seven years before his father’s death

48 -

14 'S|(* A

IbSp ilk

">»«(

►

mi A 4 * 1 : j $ •

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 9 (see 2 Kings 1:17 and 8:16), or that Jotham should have been made king before his father, Uzziah, died of leprosy, though Uzziah is still called king in some of the references to him. That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchad nezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabo- nidus married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, while there is noth ing known to the contrary. But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of re lationship common among Oriental people “son” might be ap plied to one who was simply a successor. In the inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II., referred to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called the “son of Omri.” The status of Belshazzar implied in this explanation is confirmed incidentally by the fact that Daniel is promised in verse 6 the “third” place in the kingdom, and in verse 29 is given that place, all of which implies that Belshazzar was sec ond only. Thus, what was formerly thought to be an insuperable objection to the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel proves to be, in all reasonable probability, a mark of accuracy. The coincidences are all the more remarkable for being so evidently undesigned. THE BLACK OBELISK OF SHALMANESER. From various inscriptions in widely separated places we are now able to trace the movements of Shalmaneser II. through nearly all of his career. In B. C. 842 he crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time and carried his conquests to the shores of the Mediterranean. Being opposed by Hazael of Damascus, he overthrew the Syrian army, and pursued it to the royal city and shut it up there, while he devastated the territory surrounding. But while there is no mention of his fighting with the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Israelites, he is said

10 The Fundamentals. to have received tribute from them and “from Jehu, the son of Omri.” This inscription occurs on the celebrated Black Obelisk discovered many years ago by Sir Henry Rawlinson in the ruins of Nimroud. On it are represented strings of captives with evident Jewish features, in the act of bringing their tribute to the Assyrian king. Now, though there is no mention in the sacred records of any defeat of Jehu by the Assyrians, nor of the paying of tribute by him, it is most natural that tribute should have been paid under the circum stances ; for in the period subsequent to the battle of Karkar, Damascus had turned against Israel, so that Israel’s most likely method of getting even with Hazael would have been to make terms with his enemy, and pay tribute, as she is said to have done, to Shalmaneser. THE MOABITE STONE. One of the most important discoveries, giving reality to Old Testament history, is that of the Moabite Stone, discov ered at Dibon, east- of the Jordan, in 1868, which was set up by King Mesha (about 850 B. C.) to signalize his deliverance from the yoke of Omri, king of Israel. The inscription is valuable, among other things, for its witness to the civilized condition of the Moabites at that time and to the close simi larity of their language to that of the Hebrews. From this inscription we learn that Omri, king of Israel, was-compelled by the rebellion of Mesha to resubjugate Moab; and that after doing so, he and his son occupied the cities of Moab for a period of forty years, but that, after a series of battles, it was restored to Moab in the days of Mesha. Whereupon the cities and fortresses retaken were strengthened, and the country re populated, while the methods of warfare were similar to those practiced by Israel. On comparing this with 2 Kings 3 :4-27, we find a parallel account which dovetails in with this in a most remarkable manner, though naturally the biblical nar rative treats lightly of the reconquest by Mesha, simply stating

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 11 that, on account of the horror created by the idolatrous sacri fice of his eldest son upon the walls before them, the Israelites departed from the land and returned to their own country. THE EXPEDITION OF SHÌSHAK. In the fourteenth chapter of 1 Kings we have a brief ac count of an expedition of Shishak, king of Egypt, against Je rusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam. To the humiliation of Judah, it is told that Shishak succeeded in taking away the treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the kings house, among them the shields of gold which Solomon had made ; so that Rehoboam made shields of brass in their stead. To this simple, unadorned account there is given a wonderful air of reality as one gazes on the southern wall of the court of the temple of Amen at Karnak and beholds the great expanse of sculptures and hieroglyphics which are there inscribed to rep resent this campaign of Shishak. One hundred and fifty-six places are enumerated among those which were captured, the northernmost being Megiddo. Among the places are Gaza, Adullam, Beth-Horon, Aijalon, Gibeon, and Juda-Malech, in which Dr. Birch is probably correct in recognizing the sacred city of Jerusalem ,—Malech being the word for royalty. ISRAEL IN EGYPT. The city of Tahpanhes, in Egypt, mentioned by Jeremiah as the place to which the refugees fled to escape from Nebu chadnezzar, was discovered in 1886 in the mound known as Tel Defenneh, in the northeastern portion of the delta, where Mr. Flinders Petrie found not only evidences of the destruc tion of the palace caused by Nebuchadnezzar, but apparently the very “brick work or pavement” spoken of in Jer. 43:8. “Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying, Take great stones in thine hand, and hide them in mor tar in the brickwork, which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah,” adding that

12 The Fundamentals. Nebuchadnezzar would “set his throne upon these stones,” and “spread his royal pavilion over them.” A brick platform in partial ruins, corresponding to this de scription, was found by Mr. Petrie adjoining the fort “upon the northwest.” In every respect the arrangement corre sponded to that indicated in the Book of Jeremiah. Farther to the north, not a great way from Tahpanhes, on the Tanitic branch of the Nile, at the modern village of San, excavations revealed the ancient Egyptian capital Tanis, which went under the earlier name of Zoan, where the Pharaoh of the oppression frequently made his headquarters. According to the Psalmist, it was in the field of “Zoan” that Moses and Aaron wrought their wonders before Pharaoh; and, according to the Book of Numbers, “Hebron” was built only seven years before Zoan. As Hebron was a place of importance before Abraham’s time, it is a matter of much significance that Zoan appears to have been an ancient city which was a favorite dwelling-place of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, who pre ceded the period of the Exodus, and were likely to be friendly to the Hebrews, thus giving greater credibility to the precise statements made in Numbers, and to the whole narrative of the reception of the patriarchs in Egypt. The Pharaoh of the Oppression, “who knew not Joseph,” is generally supposed to be Rameses II., the third king of the nineteenth dynasty, known among the Greeks as Sesostris, one of the greatest of the Egyptian monarchs. Among his most important expeditions was one directed against the tribes of Palestine' and Syria, where, at the battle of Kadesh, east of the Lebanon Mountains, he encountered the Hittites. The en counter ended practically in a drawn battle, after which a treaty of peace was made. But the whole state of things revealed by this campaign and subsequent events shows that Palestine was in substantially the same condition of affairs which was found by the children of Israel when they occupied it shortly after, thus confirming the Scripture account.

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 13 This Rameses during his reign of sixty-seven years wa.s among the greatest builders of the Egyptian monarchs. It is estimated that nearly half of the extant temples were built in his reign, among which are those at Karnak, Euxor, Abydos, Memphis, and Bubastis. The great Ramesseum at Thebes is also his work, and his name is found carved on almost every monument in Egypt. His oppression of the children of Israel was but an incident in his remarkable career. While engaged in his Asiatic campaigns he naturally made his headquarters at Bubastis, in the land of Goshen, near where the old canal and the present railroad turn off from the delta toward the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez. Here the ruins of the temple referred to are of immense extent and include the frag ments of innumerable statues and monuments which bear the impress of the great oppressor. At length, also, his mummy has been identified; so that now we have a photograph of it which illustrates in all its lineaments the strong features of his character. THE STORE CITIES OF PITHOM AND RAMESES. But most interesting of all, in 1883, there were uncovered, a short distance east of Bubastis, the remains of vast vaults, which had evidently served as receptacles for storing grain pre paratory to supplying military and other expeditions setting out for Palestine and the far East. Unwittingly, the engineers of the railroad had named the station Rameses. But from the inscriptions that were found it is seen that its original name was Pithom, and its founder was none other than Rameses II., and it proves to be the very place where it is said in the Bible that the children of Israel “built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses” (Ex. 1:11,), when the Egyptians made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick. It was in connection with the building of these cities that the oppression of the children of Israel reached its climax, when they were compelled (after the straw with which the brick

The Fundamentals. were held together failed) to gather for themselves stubble which should serve the purpose of straw, and finally, when even the stubble failed, to make brick without straw (Ex. 5). Now, as these store pits at Pithom were uncovered by Mr. Petrie, they were found (unlike anything else in Egypt) to be built with mortar.. Moreover, the lower layers were built of brick which contained straw, while the middle layers were made of brick in which stubble, instead of straw, had been used in their formation, and the upper layers were of brick made without straw. A more perfect circumstantial confirma tion of the Bible account could not be imagined. Every point in the confirmation consists of unexpected discoveries. The use of mortar is elsewhere unknown in Ancient Egypt, as is the peculiar succession in the quality of the brick used in the construction of the walls. Thus have all Egyptian explorations shown that the writer of the Pentateuch had such familiarity with the country, the civilization, and the history of Egypt as could have been ob tained only by intimate, personal experience. The leaf which is here given is in its right place. It could not have been in serted except by a participant in the events, or by direct Di vine revelation. THE HITTITES. In Joshua 1 :4, the country between Lebanon and the Eu phrates is called the land of the Hittites. In 2 Sam. 24:6, according to the reading of the Septuagint, the limit of Joab’s conquests was that of “the Hittites of Kadesh,” which is in Coele Syria, some distance north of the present Baalbeck. Solomon is also said to have imported horses from “the kings of fhe Hittites” ; and when the Syrians were besieging Samaria, according to 2 Kings 7 :6, they were alarmed from fear that the king of Israel had hired against them “the kings of the Hittites.” These references imply the existence of a strong nation widely spread over the northern part of Syria and the regions beyond. At the same time frequent mention is made

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 15 of Hittite families in Palestine itself. It was of a Hittite (Gen. 23:10) that Abraham bought his burying-place at He bron. Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and Esau had two Hittite wives. Hittites are also mentioned as dwelling with the Jebusites and Amontes in the mountain region of Canaan. Until the decipherment of the inscriptions on the monu ments of Egypt and Assyria, the numerous references in the Bible to this mysterious people were unconfirmed by any other historical authorities, so that many regarded the biblical state ments as mythical, and an indication of the general untrust worthiness of biblical history. A prominent English biblical critic declared not many years ago that an alliance between Egypt and the Hittites was as improbable as would be one at the present time between England and the Choctaws. But, alas for the over-confident critic, recent investigations have shown, not only that such an alliance was natural, but that it actually occurred. From the monuments of Egypt we learn that Thothmes III. of the eighteenth dynasty, in 1470 B. C., marched to the banks of the Euphrates and received tribute from “the Greater Hit tites” to the amount of 3,200 pounds of silver and a ^ great piece of crystal.” Seven years later tribute was again sent from “the king of the Greater Hittite land.”. Later, Ame- nophis III. and IV. are said, in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, to have been constantly called upon to aid in repelling the at tacks of the Hittite king, who came down from the north and intrigued with the disaffected Canaanitish tribes in Pales tine; while in B. C. 1343, Rameses the Great attempted to capture the Hittite capital at Kadesh, but was unsuccessful, and came near losing his life in the attempt, extricating himself from an ambuscade only by most heroic deeds of valor. Four years later a treaty of peace was signed between the Hittites and the Egyptians, and a daughter of the Hittite king was given in marriage to Rameses.

16 The Fundamentals. The Assyrian monuments also bear abundant testimony to the prominence of the Hittites north and west of the Euphrates, of which the most prominent state was that with its capital at Carchemish, in the time of Tiglath-pileser I., about 1100 B. C. In 854 B. C. Shalmaneser II. included the kings of Is rael, of Ammon, and of the Arabs, among the “Hittite” princes whom he had subdued, thus bearing most emphatic testimony to the prominence which they assumed in his estimation. The cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia also speak of nu merous wars with the Hittites, and describe “the land of the Hittites” as extending far westward from the banks of the Euphrates. Hittite sculptures and inscriptions are now traced in abun dance from Kadesh, in Coelfe Syria, westward to Lydia, in Asia Minor, and northward to the Black Sea beyond Marsovan. Indeed, the extensive ruins of Boghaz-Keui, seventy-five miles southwest of Marsovan, seem to mark the principal capital of the Hittites. Here partial excavations have already re vealed sculptures of high artistic order, representing deities, warriors and amazons, together with many hieroglyphs which have not yet been translated. The inscriptions are written in both directions, from left to right, and then below back from right to left. Similar inscriptions are found in numer ous other places. No clue to their meaning has yet been found, and even the class of languages to which they belong has not been discovered. But enough is known to show that the Hit tites exerted considerable influence upon the later civilization which sprung up in Greece and on the western coasts of Asia Minor. It was through them that the emblem of the winged horse made its way into Europe. The mural crown carved upon the head of some of the goddesses at Boghaz-Keui also passed into Grecian sculpture; while the remarkable lions sculp tured over the gate at Mycenae are thought to represent Hittite, rather than Babylonian art. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this testimony

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 17 in confirmation of the correctness of biblical history. It shows conclusively that- the silence of profane historians regarding facts stated by the biblical writers is of small account, in face of direct statements made by the biblical historians. All the doubts entertained in former times concerning the accuracy of the numerous biblical statements concerning the Hittites is now seen to be due to our ignorance. I t was pure ignorance, not superior knowledge, which led so many to discredit these rep resentations. When shall we learn the inconclusiveness of neg ative testimony ? THE TEL EL-AMARNA TABLETS. In 1887 some Arabs discovered a wonderful collection of tablets at Tel el-Amarna, an obscure settlement on the east bank of the Nile, about two hundred miles above Cairo and about as far below Thebes. These tablets were of clay, which had been written over with cuneiform inscriptions, such as are found in Babylonia, and then burnt, so as to be indestructi ble. When at length the inscriptions were deciphered, it ap peared that they were a collection of official letters, which had been sent shortly before 1300 B. C. to the last kings of the eighteenth dynasty. There were in all about three hundred letters, most of which were from officers of the Egyptian army scattered over Pales tine to maintain the Egyptian rule which had been established by the preceding kings, most prominent of whom was Tahu- times III., who flourished about one hundred years earlier. But many of the letters were from the kings and princes of Babylonia. What surprised the world most, however, was that this correspondence was carried on, not in the hieroglyphic script of Egypt, but in the cuneiform script of Babylonia. All this was partly explained when more became known about the character of the Egyptian king to whom the letters were addressed. His original title was Amenhotep IV., in dicating that he was a priest of the sun god who is worshiped

18 The Fundamentals. at Thebes. But in his anxiety to introduce a religious reform he changed his name to Aken-Aten,—Aten being the name of the deity worshiped at Heliopolis, near Cairo, where Joseph got his wife. The efforts of Aken-Aten to transform the re ligious worship of Egypt were prodigious. The more perfectly to accomplish it, he removed his capital from Thebes to Tel el- Amarna, and there collected literary men and artists and archi tects in great numbers and erected temples and palaces, which, after being buried in the sand with all their treasures for more than three thousand years, were discovered by some wander ing Arabs twenty-two years ago. A number of the longest and most interesting of the let ters are those which passed between the courts of Egypt and those of Babylonia. It appears that not only did Aken-Aten marry a daughter of the Babylonian king, but his mother and grandmother were members of the royal family in Babylonia, and also that one of the daughters of the king of Egypt had been Sent to Babylonia to become the wife of the king. All this comes out in the letters that passed back and forth relat ing to the dowry to be bestowed upon these daughters and relating to their health and welfare. From these letters we learn that, although the king of Baby lon had sent his sister to be the wife of the king of Egypt, that was not sufficient. The king of Egypt requested also the daughter of the king of Babylon. This led the king of Babylon to say that he did not know how his sister was treated; in fact, he did not know whether she was alive, for he could not tell whether or not to believe the evidence which came to him. In response, the king of Egypt wrote: “Why don’t you send some one who knows your sister, and whom you can trust?” Whereupon the royal correspondents break off into discussions concerning the gifts which are to pass between the two in consideration of their friendship and intimate relations. Syria and Palestine were at this time also, as at the pres ent day, infested by robbers, and the messengers passing be-

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 19 tween these royal houses were occasionally waylaid. Where upon the one who suffered loss would claim damages from the other if it was in his territory, because he had not properly pro tected the road. An interesting thing in connection with one of these robberies is that it took place at “Hannathon,” one of the border towns mentioned in Josh. 19:14, but of which noth ing else was ever known until it appeared in this unexpected manner. Most of the Tel el-Amarna letters, however, consist of those which were addressed to the king of Egypt (Amenhotep IV.) by his officers who were attempting to hold the Egyptian for tresses in Syria and Palestine against various enemies who were pressing hard upon them. Among these were the Hit- tites, of whom we hear so much in later times, and who, com ing down from the far north, were gradually extending their colonies into Palestine and usurping control over the northern part of the country. About sixty of the letters are from an officer named Rib- addi, who is most profuse in his expressions of humility and loyalty, addressing the king as “his lord” and “sun,” and call ing himself the “footstool of the king’s feet,” and saying that he “prostrates himself seven times seven times at his feet.” He complains, however, that he is not properly supported in his efforts to defend the provinces of the king, and is constantly wanting more soldiers, more cavalry, more money, more pro visions, more everything. So frequent are his importunities that the king finally tells him that if he will write less and fight more he would be better pleased, and that there would be more hopes of his maintaining his power. But Rib-addi says that he is being betrayed by the “curs” that are surrounding him, who represent the other countries that pretend to be friendly to Egypt, but are not. From this correspondence, and from letters from the south of Palestine, it is made plain that the Egyptian power was fast losing its hold of the country, thus preparing the way for

20 The Fundamentals. the condition of things which prevailed a century or two later, when Joshua took possession of the promised land, and found no resistance except from a number of disorganized tribes then in possession. In this varied correspondence a large number of places are mentioned with which we are familiar in Bible history, among them Damascus, Sidon, Lachish, Asjikelon, Gaza, Joppa, and Jerusalem. Indeed, several of the letters are written from Je rusalem by one Abd-hiba, who complains that some one is slan dering him to the king, charging that he was in revolt against his lord. This, he says, the king ought to know is absurd, from the fact that “neither my father nor my mother appointed me to this place. The strong arm of the king inaugurated me in my father’s territory. Why should I commit an offense against my lord, the king?” The argument being that, as his office is not hereditary, but one which is held by the king’s favor and appointment, his loyalty should be above question. A single one of these Jerusalem letters may. suffice for an illustration: “To My Lord the King:—Abd-hiba, your servant. At the feet of my lord the king, seven and seven times I fall. Behold the deed which Milki-il and Suardata have done against the land of my lord the king—they have hired the soldiers of Gazri, of Gimti and of Kilti, and have taken the territory of Rubuti. The territory of the king is lost to Habiri. And now, indeed, a city of the territory of Jerusalem, called Bit-Ninib, one of the cities of the king, has been lost to the people of Kilti. Let the king listen to Abd-hiba, his servant, and send troops that I may bring back the king’s land to the king. For if there are no troops, the land of the king will be lost to the Habiri. This is the deed of Suardata and Milki-il * * * [defective], and let the king take care of his land.” The discovery of these Tel el-Amarna letters came like a flash of lightning upon the scholarly world. In this case the overturning of a few spadefuls of earth let in a flood of light

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 21 upon the darkest portion of ancient history, and in every way confirmed the Bible story. As an official letter-writer, Rib-addi has had few equals, and he wrote on material which the more it was burned the longer it lasted. Those who think that a history of Israel could not have been written in Moses’ time, and that, if written, it could not have been preserved, are reasoning without due knowledge of the facts. Considering the habits of the time, it would have been well nigh a miracle if Moses and his band of associates coming out of Egypt had not left upon imperisha ble clay tablets a record of the striking events through which they passed. ACCURACY OF GEOGRAPHICAL DETAILS. Many persons doubtless wonder why it is that the Bible so abounds in “uninteresting” lists of names both of persons and places which seem to have no relation to modern times or current events. Such, however, will cease to wonder when they come to see the relation which these lists sustain to our confidence in the trustworthiness of the records containing them. They are like the water-marks in paper, which bear in delible evidence of the time and place of manufacture. If, furthermore, one should contemplate personal explorations in Egypt, Canaan, or Babylonia, he would find that for his pur poses the most interesting and important portions of the Bible would be these very lists of the names of persons and places which seemed to encumber the historical books of the Old Tes tament. One of the most striking peculiarities of the Bible is the “long look” toward the permanent wants of mankind which is everywhere manifested in its preparation; so that it circulates best in its entirety. No man knows enough to abridge the Bible without impairing its usefulness. The parts which the reviser would cut out as superfluous are sure, very soon, to be found to be “the more necessary.” If we find that we have not any use for any portion of the Bible, the reason doubtless

22 The Fundamentals. is that we have not lived long enough, or have not had suffi ciently wide experience to test its merits in all particulars. Gezer was an important place in Joshua’s time, hut it after ward became a heap of ruins, and its location was unknown until 1870, when M. Clermont-Ganneau discovered the site in Tel Jezer, and, on excavating it, found three inscriptions, which on interpretation read “Boundary of Gezer.” Among the places conquered by Joshua one of the most im portant and difficult to capture was Lachish (Josh. 10:31). This has but recently been identified in Tel el-Hesy, about eighteen miles northeast of Gaza. Extensive excavations, first in 1890 by Dr. Flinders Petrie, and finally by Dr. Bliss, found a succession of ruins, one below the other, the lower founda tions of which extended back to about 1700 B. C., some time be fore the period of conquest, showing at that time a walled city of great strength. In the debris somewhat higher than this there was found a tablet with cuneiform inscriptions cor responding to the Tel el-Amarna tablets, which are known to have been sent to Egypt from this region about 1400 B. C. At a later period, in the time of Sennacherib, Lachish was as saulted and taken by the Assyrian army, and the account of the siege forms one of the most conspicuous scenes on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh. These sculptures are now in the British Museum. Among the places mentioned in the Tel el-Amama corre spondence from which letters were sent to Egypt about 1400 B. C., are Gebal, Beirut, Tyre, Accho (Acre), Hazor, Joppha, Ashkelon, Makkadah, Lachish, Gezer, Jerusalem; while men tion is also made of Rabbah, Sarepta, Ashtaroth, Gaza, Gath, Bethshemesh, all of which are familiar names, showing that the Palestine of Joshua is the Palestine known to Egypt in the preceding century. Two hundred years before this (about 1600 B. C.) also, Thothmes III. conquered Palestine, and gives in an inscription the names of more than fifty towns which can be confidently identified with those in the Book of Joshua.

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 23 Finally, the forty-two stations named in Num. 33 as camp ing places for the children of Israel on their way to Palestine, while they cannot all of them be identified, can be determined in sufficient numbers to show that it is not a fictitious list, nor a mere pilgrim’s diary, since the scenes of greatest interest, like the region immediately about Mount Sinai, are specially adapted to the great transactions which are recorded as taking place. Besides, it is incredible that a writer of fiction should have encumbered his pages with such a barren catalogue of places. But as part of the great historical movement they are perfectly appropriate. This conformity of newly discovered facts to the narrative of Sacred Scripture confirms our confidence in the main tes timony ; just as the consistency of a witness in a cross-examina tion upon minor and incidental points establishes confidence in his general testimony. The late Sir Walter Besant, in addi tion to his other literary and philanthropic labors, was for many years secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund. In reply to the inquiry whether the work of the survey under his direction sustained the historical character of the Old Testa ment, he says: “To my mind, absolute truth in local details, a thing which cannot possibly be invented, when it is spread over a history covering many centuries, is proof almost ab solute as to the truth of the things related.” Such proof we have for every part of the Bible. THE FOURTEENTH OF GENESIS. The fourteenth chapter of Genesis relates that “In the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim (na tions), they made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with Bersha, king of Gomorrah, and Shinab, king of Admah, and Shemeber, king of Zeboim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar).” The Babylonian kings were successful and the region about the Dead Sea was subject to them for twelve years, when

24 The Fundamentals. a rebellion was instigated and in the following year Chedor- laomer and the kings that were with him appeared on the scene and, after capturing numerous surrounding cities, joined battle with the rebellious allies in the vale of Siddim, which was full of slime pits. The victory of Chedorlaomer was complete, and after capturing Lot and his goods in Sodom he started home ward by way of Damascus, near which place Abraham over took him, and by a successful stratagem scattered his forces by night and recovered Lot and his goods. This story, told with so many details that its refutation would be easy if it were not true to the facts and if there were contemporary records with which to compare it, has been a special butt for the ridicule of the Higher Critics of the Wellhausen school, Professor Nol- deke confidently declaring as late as 1869 that criticism had forever disproved its claim to be historical. But here again the inscriptions on the monuments of Babylonia have come to the rescue of the sacred historian, if, indeed, he were in need of rescue. (For where general ignorance was so pro found as it was respecting that period forty years ago, true modesty should have suggested caution in the expression of positive opinions in contradiction to such a detailed historical statement as this is.) From the inscriptions already discovered and deciphered in the Valley of the Euphrates, it is now shown beyond rea sonable doubt that the four kings mentioned in the Bible as joining in this expedition are not, as was freely said, “etymo logical inventions,” but real historical persons. Amraphel is identified as the Hammurabi whose marvelous code of laws was so recently discovered by De Morgan at Susa. The “H” in the latter word simply expresses the rough breathing so well known in Hebrew. The “p” in the biblical name has taken the place of “b” by a well-recognized law of phonetic change. “Amrap” is equivalent to “Hamrab.” The addition of “il” in the biblical name is probably the suffix of the di vine name, like “el” in Israel.

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 25 Hammurabi is now known to have had his capital at Baby lon at the time of Abraham. Until recently this chronolgy was disputed, so that the editors and contributors of the New Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia dogmatically asserted that as Abra ham lived nearly 300 years later than Hammurabi, the bib lical story must be unhistorical. Hardly had these statements been printed, however, when Dr. King of the British Museum discovered indisputable evidence that two of the dynasties which formerly had been reckoned as consecutive were, in fact, contemporaneous, thus making it easy to bring Hammu rabi’s time down exactly to that of Abraham. Chedorlaomer is pretty certainly identified as Kudur-Laga- mar (servant of Lagamar, one of the principal Elamite gods). Kudür-Lagamar was king of Elam, and was either the father or the brother of Kudur-Mabug, whose son, Eri-Aku (Ari- och), reigned over Larsa and Ur, and other cities of southern Babylonia. He speaks of Kudur-Mabug “as the father of the land of the Amorites,” i. e., of Palestine and Syria. Tidal, “king of nations,” was supposed by Dr. Pinches to be referred to on a late tablet in connection with Chedor laomer and Arioch under the name Tudghula, who are said, together, to have “attacked and spoiled Babylon.” However much doubt there may be about the identifica tion of some of these names, the main points are established, revealing a condition of things just such as is implied by the biblical narrative. Arioch styles himself king of Shumer and Accad, which embraced Babylon, where Amraphel (Ham murabi) was in his early years subject to him. This furnishes a reason for the association of Chedorlaomer and Amraphel in a campaign against the rebellious subjects in Palestine. Again, Kudur-Mabug, the father of Arioch,. styles himself “Prince of the land of Amurru,” i. e., of Palestine and Syria. Moreover, for a long period before, kings from Babylonia had claimed possession of the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean, including the Sinaitic Peninsula.

The Fundamentals. In light of these well-attested facts, one reads with aston ishment the following words of Wellhausen, written no longer ago than 1889: “Tha t. four kings from the Persian Gulf should, ‘in the time of Abraham,’ have made an incursion into the Sinaitic Peninsula, that they should on this occasion have attacked five kinglets on the Dead Sea Littoral and have car ried them off prisoners,; and finally that Abraham should have set out in pursuit of the retreating victors, accompanied by 318 men servants, and have forced them to disgorge their prey,—all these incidents are sheer impossibilities which gain nothing in credibility from the fact that they are placed in a world which had passed away.” And we can.have little respect for the logic of a later scholar (George Adam Smith), who can write the following: “We must admit that while archaeology has richly illustrated the possibility of the main outlines of the Book of Genesis from Abraham to Joseph, it has not one whit of proof to offer for the personal existence or the characters of the patri archs themselves. This- is the whole change archaeology has’ wrought; it has given us a background and an atmosphere for the stories of Genesis; it is unable to recall or certify their heroes.” But the name Abraham does appear in tablets of the age of Hammurabi. (See Professor George Barton in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 28, 1909, page 153.) It is true that this evidently is not the Abraham of the Bible, but that of a small farmer who had rented land of a well-to-do land owner. The preservation of his name is due to the fact that the most of the tablets preserved contain contracts relating to the business of the times. There is little reason to expect that we should find a definite reference to the Abraham who in early life migrated from his native land. But it is of a good deal of significance that his name appears to have been a common one in the time and place of his- nativity. In considering the arguments in the case, it is important to

Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 27 keep in mind that where so few facts are known, and general ignorance is so great, negative evidence is of small account, while every scrap of positive evidence has great weight. The burden of proof in such cases falls upon those who dispute the positive evidence. For example, in the article above re ferred to, Professor Barton argues that it is not “quite cer tain” that Arioch (Eri-Agu) was a real Babylonian king. But he admits that our ignorance is such that we must admit its “possibility.” Dr. Barton further argues that “we have as yet no evidence from the inscriptions that Arad-Sin, even if he were called Iri-Agu, ever had anything to do with Ham murabi.” But, he adds, “Of course, it is possible that he may have had, as their reigns must have overlapped, but that re mains to be proved.” All such reasoning (and there is any amount of it in the critics of the prevalent school) reveals a lamentable lack in their logical training. When we have a reputable document containing positive historical statements which are shown by circumstantial evidence to be .possible, that is all we need to accept them as true. When, further, we find a great amount of circumstantial evidence positively showing that the state ments conform to the conditions of time and place, so far as we know them, this adds immensely to the weight of the tes timony. We never can fill in all the background of any his torical fact. But if the statement of it fits into the background so far as we can fill it in, we should accept the fact until posi tive contrary evidence is produced. No supposition can be more extravagant than that which Professor Barton seems to accept (which is that of the German critic, Meyer) that a Jew, more than 1,000 years after the event, obtained in Babylon the amount of exact information concerning the conditions in Babylonia in Abraham’s time, found in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, and interpolated the story of Chedorlaomer’s ex pedition into the background thus furnished. To entertain such

The Fundamentals. a supposition discredits the prevalent critical scholarship, rather than the Sacred Scriptures. But pfesent space forbids further enumeration of particu lars. I t is sufficient to say that while many more positive con firmations of the seemingly improbable statements of the sa cred historians can be adduced, there have been no discoveries which necessarily contravene their statements. The cases al ready here enumerated relate to such widely separated times and places, and furnish explanations so unexpected, yet natu ral, to difficulties that have been thought insuperable, that their testimony cannot be ignored or rejected. That this history should be confirmed in so many cases and in such a remarka ble manner by monuments uncovered 3,000 years after their erection, can be nothing else than providential. Surely, God has seen to it that the failing faith of these later days should not be left to grope in darkness. When the faith of many was waning and many heralds of truth were tempted to speak with uncertain sound, the very stones have cried out with a voice that only the deaf could fail to hear. Both in the writ ing and in the preservation of the Bible we behold the handi work of God.

CHAPTER II. THE RECENT TESTIMONY OF ARCHAEOLOGY TO THE SCRIPTURES. BY M. G. KYLE, D. D., LL. D., EGYPTOLOGIST. PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, XENIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. CONSULTING EDITOR OF THE RECORDS OF THE PAST, WASH INGTON, D. C. fc (The numbers in parentheses throughout this article refer to the notes at the end of the article.) INTRODUCTION. “Recent” is a dangerously capacious word to intrust to an archaeologist. Anything this side of the Day of Pentecost is “recent” in biblical archaeology. For this review, however, anything since 1904 is accepted to be, in a general way, the meaning of the word “recent.” “Recent testimony of archaeology” may be either the testi mony of recent discoveries or recent testimony of former dis coveries. A new interpretation, if it be established to be a true interpretation, is a discovery. For to uncover is not al ways to discover; indeed, the real value of a discovery is not its emergence, but its significance, and the discovery of its real significance is the real discovery. The most important testimony to the Scriptures of this five- year archaeological period admits of some classification: I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PATRIARCHAL RE CEPTION IN EGYPT. The reception in Egypt accorded to Abraham and to Jacob and his sons(1) and the elevation of Joseph there(2) per- 29

30 The Fundamentals. emptorily demand either the acknowledgment of a mythical element in the stories, or the belief in a suitable historical set ting therefor. Obscure, insignificant, private citizens are not accorded such recognition at a foreign and unfriendly court. While some have been conceding a mythical element in the stories(3), archaeology has uncovered to view such appropriate historical setting that the patriarchs are seen not to have been obscure, insignificant, private citizens, nor Zoan a foreign and unfriendly court. The presence of the Semitic tongue in6Hyksos’ territory has long been known'4’ ; from still earlier than patriarchal times until much later, the Phoenicians, first cousins of the He brews, did the foreign business of the Egyptians(5), as the English, the Germans, and the French do the foreign business of the Chinese of today; and some familiarity, even sympa thy, with Semitic religion has been strongly suspected from the interview of the Hyksos kings with the patriarchs'6’ ; but the discovery in 1906'7’, by Petrie, of the great fortified camp at Tel-el-Yehudiyeh set at rest, in the main, the biblical question of the relation between the patriarchs and the Hyksos. The abundance of Hyksos scarabs and the almost total ab sence of all others mark the camp as certainly a Hyksos camp(8); the original character of the fortifications, before the Hyksos learned the builders’ craft from the Egyptians, shows them to have depended upon the bow for defense'9’ ; and, finally, the name Hyksos, in the Egyptian Haq Shashu'10’ “Bedouin princes,” brings out, sharp and clear, the harmonious picture of which we have had glimpses for a long time, of the Hyksos as wandering tribes of the desert, of “Upper and Lower Ruthen” ' 11’ ; i. e., Syria and Palestine, northern and western Arabia, “Bow people” '18’, as the Egyptians called them, their traditional enemies as far back as pyramid times'13’. Why, then, should not the patriarchs have had a royal re ception in Egypt? They were themselves also the heads of

Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures. 31 wandering tribes of “Upper and Lower Ruthen,” in the tongue of the Egyptians, Haq Shashu, “Bedouin princes” ; 'and among princes, a prince is a prince, however small his principality. So Abraham, the Bedouin prince, was accorded princely con sideration at the Bedouin court in Egypt; Joseph, the Bedouin slave, became again the Bedouin prince when the wisdom of God with him and his rank by birth became known. And. Jacob and his other sons were welcome, with all their follow ers and their wealth, as a valuable acquisition to the (jourt party, always harassed by the restive and rebellious native Egyptians. This does not prove racial identity between the Hyksos and the patriarchs, but very close tribal relationship. And thus every suspicion of a mythical element in the nar rative of the reception accorded the patriarchs in Egypt dis appears when archaeology has testified to the true historical setting. II. THE H ITTITE VINDICATION. A second recent testimony of archaeology gives us the great Hittite vindication. The Hittites have been, in one respect, the Trojans of Bible history; indeed, the inhabitants of old Troy were scarcely more in need of a Schliemann to vindicate their claim to reality than the Hittites of a Winckler. In 1904 one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said to me: “I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites, and I do not believe ‘Kheta’ in the Egyptian inscrip tions was meant for the name Hittites.” We will allow that archaeologist to be nameless now. But the ruins of Troy vin dicated the right of her people to a place in real history, and the ruins of Boghatz-Koi bid fair to afford a more striking vindication of the Bible representation of the Hittites.- Only the preliminary announcement of Winckler’s great treasury of documents from Boghatz-Koi has yet been made(14). The complete unfolding of a long-eclipsed great national history is still awaited impatiently. But enough has

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker

The Fundamentals - 1910: Vol.2