16
THE KING’S ËÜSINESS
Egyptian will allow; 2—That the refer ence is to a people and not to their land, the accompanying determinative settling mat; 2 —That some evil has Been inflict ed on them, and 4—That this- has be reaved^ them of “fruit,”- “seed,” “off- sprmg,” or rendered Israel a eunuch, i. e. sterile, without males. The questions arise does this refer to an Israel in Palestine Before the Exodus? or, after the Exodus? or, to an Israel in Egypt’ According to (1), or (2), a change in the accepted date of the Exodus would be necessary, but this is hardly possible in the face °f the evidence that Merenptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the third alternative involves worse consequences, to them who would believe anything but Moses and the prophets, viz: That, here we have archaeological testimony to the oppression and its peculiarly anti-Christ ian direction, against the man-child Prof. Hommel thinks this stela cele brates a triumph over an allied horde who are known to have invaded Merenp tah s territory and are mentioned else where under the common term, “Liby ans.” He regards it as a reference to the oppression, and a confirmation of the * opinion that Merenptah was he whom Moses and Aaron confronted. Lie. Dr. Sellin takes the same view, pointing out that according to the tablet, the treat- ment of Israel is peculiar, as compared with that of other subject peoples men tioned elsewhere. The list is not one of conquest, but a statement of Pharaonic relations after the conquest of the Liby ans. Merenptah himself did not go to war. The reference to Israel is of some thing else than defeat. Prof. Sayce says that of the peoples mentioned Israel alone is without the determinative for country,” “district,” or land. “There was no special part of the world where the poet could localize them, unless, in deed, in Egypt itself. Either they must have been wanderers without any fixed home of their own, or else bondmen in Egypt. The first alternative is probable when the poem was written; the Israel ites were already lost in the wilderness.” Pharaoh recorded his injuries to Israel, but not their triumphant escape; he sang -his song on his side of the sea, they sang a better on their’s.* This identification of Israel on the monuments gives additional force to the •Some fix the Exodus about two centuries earlier. We need not here choose eithet; date; but since either of two periods fit the record, sceptical objections ar« doubly refuted.
arguments that the “Aperiu” of the in- scriptmns are no other than these same ebrews. In fact, these arguments were X L s u f f i c i e n t to prove anything but the Bible. Dawson says, “That it a® if even Christian students would rather take their views of nature from the uncertain theories of current forms of philosophy than from science properly so-called,” and it seems to be equally true of their views of the Bible There is strong temptation to describe the incidents of these remarkable dis- . there is stir and romance enough about them, to an appreciative ,1iPe1t1rie s . exoavati°ns at Daphnae are of thrilling interest, but time will not permit the story. Daphnae proves to Ta£?ahnes of Scripture (Jer. When the Professor in quired the name of the mound he was answered, “Kasr Bint el Ye hudi, the palace of the king’s daueh- wit’h n® remembered how Jeremiah with his fellow refugees and the “daugh- V h e king\ found refuge there. Excavations revealed the pavement un- * hor “ e morter and brick work of” which the prophet was told to hide the stones, and over which the king of Babylon Eavnf t f f t htif thi,°ne When he’invaded Egypt to gather the wages won but un- 29-17 201 Sief e °f Tyre (Ezek. 29.17-20). The identification of this large platform or pavement of brick work, suitable for outdoor • uj™es*’ such as loading goods, pitch- ®,tc” ’ A e th e r with a tablet of Nebuchadnezzar, just announced, re- , to ,bis Egyptian expedition pre- dicted by the prophets but nullified by ! r e fraws a very black line through the list of alleged, unfulfilled prophecies, and so this same Flinders knocksto flinders the objections, and petrifies the objectors to the tradi tional dates of Daniel, and other Scrip tures, based on the presence of Greek terms found in those writings, by dem onstrating that the Hebrews held inti mate intercourse with the Greeks cen turies before the Greek dispersion, and even before the captivity at Babylon, Mr; Df^hnae was an Egyptian outpost garrisoned by Greek mercenaries, in the r6,1?° tbe Pharaoh Psamtic I, with which the Hebrews were familiar. In the same manner the Tel El Amarna finds ba7e ,!.aid aJh eternal embargo on similar objections, based on the presence of Chal- aean terms in the earlier Scriptures Tkf latest important “find” is that at Elephantine, on the Nile, which corrobo-
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker