The Fundamentals: Volume 2, Chapter 2: The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 2, Chapter 2: The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures

1/19

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER II. ,

•

•

•

TfIE RECENT T ES

1

TIM ,QNY OF ARCHAE

1

0LOGY TO

THE

SCRIPTURES. ·

• •

BY M ,. G. KYLE, D. D., LL. D., .

•

•

•

EGYPTOLOGIST •

•

•

•

PROFESSOR

1

0F BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGY,

XENIA

,S.EMINARY ,.

THEOLOGICAL

CONSULTING

.EDITOR OF THE RECORDS : OF

THE

PAST,

WASH-

•

•

•

INGTON, D. C •

· (The n·umber s in parenthese .s tl1r,ough ,out this article refer t,o the

notes at the end of the article.) ·

•

•

•

•

INTRODUCTI .ON•

Recent is a

dangerousl ,y capacious

Word

to intro.st

to an

- .

archaeologist.

Anything this

side of the Day

of

P entec_ost is

re ,c,ent ·in

·bib:(.i,ia:l a.rch,aieology.

For this

review, ho,wever, ,

anything ,since 1904

is

accepted

to be,

in

a

general

wa,y, the

meaning of the ,

word rec ,ent. · · ·

R

1

ecent. test ,imony of

arc ,ha

1

eologyt may be

either

the

testi

rnon,y of

recent discoveries o~

recent

testimony of

form~r

dis

c,overi1s: ·· new

interpr ,etation,

if it ·

be

established

t :0

1

be

a

true interpr ,etation,

i,s

a ,discovery. For to · uncover is

not

al

ways,

to discover; indeed, the real

value

of · a

di.scovery

is not

its

emergence, but its significance,

and the discovery ·of its

rea1

.significance

is the

re,al

disc9very. · ·

The most

i1nportant testimony

to

the

Scriptures

of

this

five,

year

arch ,aeolo

1

gical

period

admits of sonte

clas,sification : ·

. .

I~ THE HISTORICAL

S,ETTING

Q,F THE P ATRIAR,CHAL1RE-

, CEPTION IN EGYPT.

The ,reception in Egypt accord

1

ed to Abraham and to J acoh

and

bis sons<

1

,

and

tl1e

elevation

of

Joseph

the~e<

2,

per-

•

•

29

•

l

•

•

•


2/19

•

•

30

The Fu1idame 1tals.

•

emptori]y demand ,either

the

acknowledgment of a mythical

element in the stories,

0

1

r

the belief in

a

suitable historica 'l

set

ting therefor. Obscure, insignificant, p,rivate citizens are not

accorded such recognition .

at

a foreign and unfrien ,dly

c,ourt ..

While so

1

me have be,en

conceding

a mythical

el,ement

.in the

stories

cs>,

archae ,ology has uncovered to view such appropriate

historical setting that the

patriarchs .

are seen no.t to hav·e

been obscure, insignificant, private

citizens,

nor Zoan

a

foreign

and unfriendly court.

The , presence ,of the Sem:i.tic tongue in Hyksos' territory

•

has lo,ng been

known< );

from

still

earlier

than p,at.riarchal

times until much later, the Phoenicians, first cousins of the He-

•

brews,

di,d

the

forei,gn

b

1

usiness of the ,_ _ -ptians(

5

>, as

the

I

English,

t·h

1

e Germans, and

t.he

F ·rench do the foreign business

•

'

of the Chinese of today; and some familiarity, even sympa·

th,y,

with ·Semiti ,c religion has · been

strongl ,y

suspected from

the interview of

'the Hy'kso,s kings

with the

patriarchs<

1

>;

but

the discovery

in 1906'

7

',

by

Petrie,

0£ 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

Hyks ,os scarabs and

the

almost total

ab

senc.e of all others mark the camp as certairily

a a:yksos ·

ca1np; the original

charact ,er

of

the fo·rtifications,

be,for-e

the Hyksos learned the builders' craft from the Egyptians,

shows them to

have

,depended upon the

bow

for def

en.se

and,

finally,

the name Hyksos, in the Egyptian :Haq Shashu'

10

·i

''Be ,douin

princes,''

brings

out,

sharp and

cl,ear,

~he harmonious

pie.tare of which

we

have

had .

glimpses

for a long

time, of

the

Hyksos

as · wandering

tribe·s

of

the

desert, of ''Upper

and

Lower Rutben''<

11

>;

i.e. Syria and Pal

1

estine, northern and

western

Ar.abia,J

''Bow pe,ople''(

12

> ,

a.s the

E ,

tians called

them, their traditional enemies as fa·r back as pyramid

·times<

13

).

Why, then,

shoul.d

not

the,

pa,triarchs have

b.ad

a

roy.al

re-

• •

ceptien in Egypt? They were tl1emselves also

the

heads

of

•

•


3/19

I

•

•

•

Recent Testim.ony of A ·rchaeo.lo,gy

to

t,he

Scriptures.

31

•

wandering tribes of Upper and Lower Ruthen, in the

tongue

of

the ptians, Haq

S11as1u, Bedouin

princes ; and

,among

princes, a

prince i,s

a

prince,

however

small

his

principality.

So Abraham, the Bedouin princ

1

e, was accorded princely con- ·

si,deration at the Bedouin court in Egypt ; Joseph, the Bed.ouin

, ,s]a,ve,, became ag,ai:n the Be

1

douin prin

1

c,e,·

whe11

tl1e wis,dom of

God

with

him

and his rank by birtlt became

kno

1

wn.

And

I

Ja ,c

1

ob1

and his other

so11s

were

welcome,

with all their follow-

ers and their wealth, as a valuable acquisition to the court

i party, a,Jways harasse ,d by the re sti,ve ,and rebe llious native

, · Egyptians.

This does

not prove

racial identirf between.

the

1

Hykso .s an.d

the

patriarchs, but very close tribal reliati~nship ..

And thus every suspicion

o ·

a 1nythical element in the na~-.

rative of the reception accorded the patriarchs in Egypt dis

appears when archaeology has testified to tl1e true hi.storica1

•

setting.

II. THE HITTITE VINDICATION.

A second recent testimony of arcliaeologygiv,e·s us tlie'gr't lit

Hittite vindic,ation.

The Hittites

have

been,

in one

respect,

the

Trojans of Bible

his,to·ry·

i11

1

dee·d, the

inha ,bitants .

of

old ·

Troy

were scarcely more in need of a Schliemann to

vindica~e

their claim to reality than the Hittites of a Winckle,r.. .

In 1904 one

o,f

the foremost archaeologists of Europe saitl

to me: i,I do not believe there eve,r wer ,e s,uch people as .tne

· ~ittites, and I do not believe Kheta~ in the Egyptian inscrip

tions was meant for the

·name

Hittites ,,

We

will

allow

th.at

. archaeologist to be nameless now. But the ruins o,f Troy vin

dicated th,e right of her people to a place in

real

history, and

the ruins of Boghatz-KOi bid fair

to

afford a more striking

lindication of the Bible representation of the Hittites.

Only the preliminary announcement of Winckler s ~eat

treasury of

documents

from

Boghatz-Koi

has yet been ··

tnade.

T11e

complete unfo iding

1

0£

a I

ong-ec]ipsed gr·eat

national

history

is still awaited

impatiently.

But -enough has

•

•


4/19

J

,

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

32

•

The

F utidamentals.

,

•

..

•

been publishe

1

d

to

redeem , this

people completely from their

half-mythical plight,

,and give

them a

firm place

in sober history

greater

than

i.magination

ha

1

d

ever fancied

for

th,em under the

stimulus of a~Y

hint

contained in

the Bible .

•

There has, been .brougl1.t

·to

li.ght

a

Hittite empire<

15

>

in

•

Asia Mino

1

r,

with central

power

and vassal

1

dependencies

round

about and with

tr

1

eaty rights on equal te :rms with the greatest

•

nations of

antiquity,

thus making

t ·1e

Hittite power

a

third

great p

1

owe,r

with. Ba.byl.011ia

a·nd

Egyp

1

t, as,

·was,

i.ndee'.

d,, f

1

ore

shado,ved in the

great

treaty

of

the

Hittites

with

Rame,ses II _,

inscribed on . 'the pro ,j'ecting

wi11g

of ·the south wall of the

•

Temple of Amon at Karnak<

10

>, though Rameses l tried s.o hard

to obscure the

fact.

1

The ruins ,

at

the village

of

Boghatz-K9i

•

are shown

also

to mark

the

location ,of the Hittite capital<

11

>,

and the unknown language on the cunei forin tablets recov,ered

the1·e to be the Hittit ,e tonguec

1

s>, while the cuneifor1n met,hod

of writing, as already upon

the

Amarna ta 'bIets<

11

>,so still mo.re

clear .ly

here,

is seen to have been

the

diplomatic script, and

in

good measure th

1

e Babylonian to have been

the

diplomatic

Ian·

gu~ge of

the ,

Orient in that

age.<

0

>. And the large admixtu ,re

•

of Babylonian words and

f

o,1·rns in these Hittite inscriptioqs

,open.s

the way

for the, r·eal d

1

ecipherment

o(

the

Hittite lan--

guage, and imagination can scarcely promise too much to

our hopes for the light which s

1

ttch a decipherment will th·row'

upon tl1e historical and

cultural

backgr ·ound of

the Bjble.

1

0 nly

one important

point

remains to be cleared

up,

the

relation between the Hittite language of these cuneifo1·1ntab~

lets

and

the language o,f'

the Hittit ·e hieroglyp ,bic

inscrip

tion


5/19

Recent Testimo ny of Archaeology to the Scriptur es

33

III. THE PALESTI NIAN CIVILIZATION.

Other recent testimo ny of ar~haeology brings befor e us

the Palesti nian civilizatio n of the conquest period Palestinian

explorations within the last few years have yielded a start

ling

array of finds illustrating things 1nentioned in the Bible,

finds of the same things, finds of like things, and finds in har

tnony with thing s<

3

> Individual mention of them all is here

neither possible nor desirable. Of incomparably greater impor

tance than these individually intere sting relics of Canaanite

antiquity is the answer afforded by recent research to two

questions:

1. First in order, Does the Canaanite culture as revealed

by the excavations accord with the story of Israel at the con

quest as related in the Bible? How much of a break in culture

1

s required by the Bible account, and how much is revealed by

the excavations? For answer, we mu t find a standpoint

somewhere between that of the dilettante traveler in the land

of the microscopic scientist thousands of miles away. The

careful excavator in the field occupies that sane and safe mid

dle point of view. Petrie<

24

>

Bliss<

25

>

Macalister<

26

>, Schu

tnackerczn and Sellin<

8

>-the se are the men with whom to

Stand. And for light on the early civilization of Palestine, the

treat work of Macalister at Gezer stands easily first.

HISTORICAL VALUE OF POT TERY.

In determining this question of culture, too much impor

tance has been allowed to that e timate of time and chrono

logical order which is gained exclusively from the study of

Pottery. The pottery remain s are not to be undervalued, and

neither are they to be overvalued. Time is only one thing

that shows itself in similarit y or dissimilarity in pottery. Dif

ferent stages of civilization at different places at the same

titne,

and adaptation to an end either at the same tin1e or at

'Nidely different times, show them selves in pottery, and render

\tery uncertain any chronological deduction. And , still more,


6/19

•

•

34

•

TJie Fundame11tals

•

available

material may result

in

the production

of

similar

pot-

tet}7 in two

very

diff e1·eni: civilizations arising one thousand

)·ears or

more apart. This civilization

of

pots,

as a

deciding

criterion, is not quite adequate, and is safe as a criterion at

all only wl1en carefully compared witl1 the testimony of loca

tion, intertribal relations, governmental domination, and liter

ary attainments.

These are the things,

i11

addition to the pots, which help

to

dete1·1ninc

indeed, which do determine ho\v mucl1 of

a

break in culture is

required by the Bible

account of the Co11-

quest, and l1ow much is shown by excavations. Since the

Israelites occupied the cities and towns and vineyards and

olive orchards of the Canaanites,

and

their

houses full of

all

good

thing£ <

29

>, had the same materials and in the main

the same purposes for pottery and would adopt methods of

cooking

suited

to

tl1e cot111t1·y,poke

the language of Ca

naan ,

and

were of the sa111e

ace

as

1nany

of the

people

of Canaan, intermarried, thougl1 against their law<

31

>,

with

the

people of

the land, and were continually chided

for

lapses

into the idolatry and sttper

titious

practices of the Canaan

ites,

nd,

in

short, ,vere greatly different

from

them only in

religion,

it

is

evident that

tl1e

onl) n1arked, immediate change

to be expected at the Conqttest is a change in religion, and

that any othe1· break in c11lture occasioned

by

the devastation

of ,var will be only a b1·eak in continuance of the same kind

of culture, evirlence of demolition poliation, and reconstruc ,

tion.

Exactly

such change in religion and interr11ption in cttl·

tttre at the

Conquest

period excavations sho\\ r.

RELIGIO 1\ rn CULTURE.

(a ) Tl1e rubbish at Gezer sho, v l1istory in distinct layers j

and the layers themsel\·es are in distinct groups<

33

> At tl1e

bottom are layers Canaanite not Semitic; above these, layer s

Semitic,

orite giving place to Jewish; and higher still,

lay

er s of

Jewish

cultt1re of

the

monarchy

and

later ti1nes.


7/19

•

Rece1it

Testiniony

of A1 cJ1aeology

to t·lie Scriptitres. 35

•

(b) The closing up of tl1e great tunnel to tl1e spring with-

111

the fortifications at Gezer is placed

by

the layers of his-

tory

in the rubbish

heap at the period of

the

Conquest<

34

But when a great fortification is so ruined and the power it

represents so destroyed that it loses sight of its water-st1pply,

surely the

culture of the tin1e l1as

had

an interruption, thougl1

•

it

be not much changed. Then this tunnel, as a great engineer-

•

tng feat, is remarkable te timony to the advanced state of

ci,,ilization at the time of its con truction; but the more

ren1arkable the civilization it represents, the more terrible must

have been the disturbance of the ct1lture v.rhich caused it to

be ost and forgotten<

35

>.

( c) Again, tl1ere is appa1·ent a11 enlargement of tl1e popu

lated area of the city of Gezer by encroaching upon the Temple

area at the period of the Conquest <

6

>

showing at once tl1e

crowding into the

city

of the Israelites without

the

destruction

of tl1e Canaanites, as stated in the Bible, and a corresponding

decline in reverence for the saered inclosure of the High Place.

While, at a time corresponding to the early period of the Mon

arcl1y, there is a sudden decrease , of the populated area

co1·re

ponding to the destruction of the Canaanites in the city

b)

the

father

of

Solomon s

Egyptian wife<

38

>.

d) Of startling significance,

the

hypothetical Musri

Eg)

1)t

in N cr th Arabia concerning which it has been said <

39

>

the pat1·iarcl1s

descended thereto, the Israelites escaped

tl1ere

f rom, and a princess the1·eof Solomo11 mar1·ied, l1as been final

ly a11d

definitely discredited. For Gezer was

a

marriage

do\,yer of tl1at prince ss ,vhotn Solomon marr·ied

<

40

>, a por

tion of her

father s

dominion, and so a part of

the

supposed

Mttsri, if it ever existed, and if so, at Gezer, then, we shot1ld

fi11dso1ne evidence of this people and their civilizatio11. Of

St1cl1 there is not a trace. But, instead, we find from very

early times, but

especially

at this time,

Egyptian remains

in

great abundance<

41

>.

( e)

Indeed,

even

Egyptia11

refinement and luxuries were

•


8/19

•

•

36

Tlze

Fundanic1ztals

not incongruous in the Palestine of the Conquest period. The

great rock-hewn, and rock-buiit cisterns at Taa11nek<

42

>,

the

remarkable

engineering

on the

tunnel

at

Gezer<

43

>,

the

great

forty-£ oot city wall in an Egyptian pictt1re of Canaanite

war<

4

•>,

he list of ricl1est Canaa 11te booty given

by

Thoth1nes

•

III.

<

45

>, the fine ceramic and bronze ute.:.1ilS and weapons

recovered from nearly ever y Palestinia11 e_~cavation<

16

>, and

the literary revelations of the marna tablet sc

47

,

together

with the reign of law seen by a comparison of the sc riptura l

account

with the Code of

Hammurabi, sl1ow<

9

> Ca11aa11ite

civilization of that period to be

f

t1lly equal to that of Egypt .

( f) Then the Bible glimpses of Canaanite practices and

the produets of Canaanite religion no\V uncovered e;~actly

agree. The mystery of the High Place of the Bible narrative,

with its sacred cave s, lies bare at Gezer and Taan11ek.

1 '1c

sacrifice of infants, probably first-born, and the foundati on

. and other sacrifices of children, either inf ant or partly grow

11,

•

appear .in all their ghastliness in various places at Gezer ancl

''practicaily all over the hill'' at Taannel(C

49

>.

(g) But the most ren1arkable te stimony of archaeol ogy

of this period is to the Scripture representations of the spirit,

ual monotheism of Is1·ael in its co11flict with

tl1e

horrible idola-

trous polythei sm of the Ca11aanites, the final overthro\V of tl1e

latter and the ultimate triumph of the former. The historf

of that conflict is as plai11ly written at Gezer in the gradt1al

decline of the High Place and giving way of the revolting sac'

rifice of children to the bowl and lamp deposit as it is in tl1e

inspired account of Joshua, Judges and Samuel. And the line

that marks off the territory of divine revelation in religioJl

•

from tl1e impinging heatheni sm round about is as disti11.ct a -

that line off the coast of Ne\vfoundland where the cold ,vaters

of the North beat against the warm life-giving flow of the Gt1lf

Strean1. The revelation of the pade in Palestine is making to

tand out every day more clearly tl1e revelation that God made

Tl1ere is no evidence of a purer religion growing up ottt of

•


9/19

•

•

· I?ecent Testiniony of Archaeology to the Scriptures

37

• •

•

tl1at

vile

culture, but rather of a purer religion coming down

and overwhelming it.

2. Another

and still more important question concerning

Palestine

civilization

is, Wha t was the source and

course

of the

dominant civilization and especially the religious

culture

re

flected in the Bible accou11tof the .millennium preceding and tl1e

millennium succeeding the birth of .Abraham? Was it from

without toward Canaan or from Canaan

outward?

Did Pal-

•

estine in her civilization and culture of those days, in much

or in all, but I'eflect Babylonia, or was sl1e a luminary ?

•

PALESTINE AND BABYLONIA.

•

The

revision

oi

views concerning Palestinian civilization

forced

by

recent excavations at once

puts

a bold interrogation

point to the opinion long accepted by many of the source and

course of re]igious influence during this f ormative period of

patriarchal history, and the time of

the working

out of

the

principles of Israel's religion into the practices of Israel's

life.

If

the Palestinian civilization during this per iod was

equal

to

that

of

Egypt,

and so certainly not inferior to that of Baby

lonia, ,then the opinion t11at the flow of religious influence was

then from Babylonia to Pa lestine must stand for its defense.

Here

arises the

newest

probletn of biblical archaeology.

And one of the most expert cuneiform scholars of the day,

Albert T. Clay<

3

>,has essayed this problem and anno,unces

a revolutionary solution of it by a new interpretation of well

known material as well as

the

interpretation of newly acqttired

material.

~he

solut ion is nothing less, indeed, than that in

~tead of

the

source of religious influence being Babylonia, and

its early

course from Babylonia into Palestine, exactly

the

~everse is true.

i'That

the Semitic Baby lonian religion is an

importation from Syria and Palestine (Amurru), that the crea

tion,

< eluge, ante-diluvian patriarchs, etc., of

tl1e Bab,ylonian

came .from . urru, instead of the Hebraic stories having come

from Babylonia,

as held

by

nearly all Semitic scholars.''

•

•

•


10/19

38

•

T lze F t1ida1nc1itals

This is startling and far reaching in its consequences,

Clay s ,vork must be

put

to

tl1e

te t; and

so

it will be, before

it

can be finally accepted. It has, ho,vever, this initial advantage,

that it is in accord with the apparent self-consciousness of the

Scripture writers and, as ,ve have seen, exactly in the direction

i11 ,vhich recent discoveries in Palestinian civilization point.

IV. PALESTINE A ,.D EGYPT.

Again archaeology has of late fitr1iished illuminatioti of

certai1i

special qitestions

of

bot/1

Old atid New Testa1ne1it

•

•

•

criticism.

1. Light from Babylonia by L. W. King<

51

> of the

British Museum on the chronology of the first three dynasties

l1elps to deter·1nine the date of Harrunu .rabi, and so of Abra

I1am call and of the Exodtts, and, indeed, has introduced a

corrective element into the chronology of all subsequent his-

tory down to the time of David and exerts a far-reaching

influence upon many critical questions i~ which the chron-

ological element is vital.

SACRIFICE IN EGYPT.

2. Tl1e entire absence from the offerjngs of old Egyptian

religion of any of the great Pentateuchal ideas of sacrifice,

. ubstitution, atonement dedication, fellow hip, and, indeed,

of

almost every essential idea of real sacrifice, as clearly estab

lished by recent ,~ery exhaustive examination of the offering

scenes

<

52

>,

makes for the element of revelation in the Mosaic

ystem by delimiting the field of rationalistic speculation on the

Egyptian side. Egypt gave nothing to that system, for she

11adnothing to give. .

THE F UTURE LIFE I _ T H E PE TATEUCH.

3. Then

the grossly materiali tic character of

the E -

tian conception of the other ,vorld and of the future life, and

the fact, every day becoming clearer, that the so-called and

•


11/19

•

•

Recetit

Testimony

of Archaeology

to

the

Scriptiires 39

.~ s?-much-talked-about resurrection

in tl1e

belief of the Egyp

,

tians was not a resurrection at all, but a resuscitation

to

the

,e: sa~e old life on ''oxen, geese,

bread,

wine, beer, and al good

Pentateuchal documents. For, whether they came from Mose s

when he bad just come from Egypt or are by some later author

attributed to Mo

1

ses, ,when

11e

had

just

come

from

Egypt, the

problem is the same :

Why

is tl1e idea of tl1e resurrection so

tion the 1de,a of · the resurrection at

tl1at

time, be£01 .e tl1e

,growth

of s,piritual j,,deas

of

Go

1

d ~nd of worship here, of the

11

other world and the future life

the~e, and

before

tl1e

people

r,

tJ under th

1

e influence of these new ideas had outgrown their

r

~gyptian

training, wo,uld have carried

over

into

Israel's

relig~

1ous

thinking all the low, degrading materialism of Egyptian

S' belief on this subject. The Mosaic system made no use

of

1

hiy

it

usable, and it kept

away £1·om

open presentation of the

subject

altogether, because that was the only way to get the

peopi]e

away

from Egypt's concep

1

tion of the subject ..

•

WELLHAUSEN' ,S MISTAKE.

.

,I 4. Tl1e discovery of the Aramaic papyri at Syenec

53

>

1i

tnade possible a new chapter in Old Testament criticism, raised .

l

portant points. Tolerable, though not perfect, identifications

are

made

out .for Bagoas, Governor of the Jews;

of

Josephus

and Diodorus; Sanballat, . of

Nehemiah and

Josephus; and

Jochanan,

of Nehemiah and Josephus. But more important

than

all

thes

1

e identifications is the information th,at the Jews

had,

at that period, built a temple and o,ffered

sacrifice

far

I •

..

•

•

•

\

•

•


12/19

•

•

40

The utidame1ttals.

of

the

foundation of his Pentateuchal criticism in

these

words:

''The returning

exiles

,vere thoroughly

imbued

with

the ideas

of Josiah's

reformation

and had no

thought

of

worshiping

except in Jerusalem. It cost them no sacrifice of

their

feel

ings to

leave

the ruined High

Places unbt1ilt.

From this

date,

all Jews understood, as a matter of course, that the one

God

l1ad

only

one

sanctuary. So much We 'llhausen. But here

is this petition of the J ,vs at Syene in the year 407 B. C. after

Nehemiah's return declaring that

they

had

built a

temple there

and established a

system

of ,vorship and of sacrifices, and evi

dencing also that they expected the approval of the Jews at

Jerusalem in rebuilding tl1at temple and

re-establishing

that

sacrificial ~ orship, and, what is more, received from the gov

ernor of the Jews permission so to do, a thing which, had it

been opposed

by

the Jews at Jerusalem \\

1

as utterly incon

sistent with the Jewish policy of the Persian Empire in

the

days of Nehemiah.

NEW TESTAME T GREEK.

5. Then the redating of the Hermetic writings<

6

~>

whereby

they are thrown back from the Christian era to

500-300

B. C. opens up a completely new source of critical mate

rial for tracing the rise and progress of theological terms

in the Alexandrian Greek of the New Testament. In a recent

letter from Petrie, who has written a little book on the sub

ject, he sums up the whole case, as he sees it, in these words:

11y position simply is that the current religious phrases and

ideas

of the

B.

C.

age must be

grasped

in or(jer to

under

stand the usages of religious language in which the New Tes

tament is written. And we can never kno\v the real motive of

.. re,v Testament ,vritings untii we kno\v how much is new

thought and ho,v mucn is cu rrent theology in terms of which

the E1t angelos is expressed. Whether or not all the new

dates for the \vritings sha ll be permitted to stand, and ~etrie's

point of

view be justified,

a

discussion

of the dates

and

a criti-


13/19

•

•

1

•

•

Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures

41

•

cal examination of the Hermetic writings from the standpoint

of their corrected dates alone can determine ; but it is certain

that the products of the exa·mination cannot but be far-

reaching in their influence and in the il.lumination of the teach-

ings of Christ and the

Apo stles.

V. IDEN TIFICAT IONS ;

•

Last and more gener .ally, of recent testimony from arch

aeology to Scripture we mttst consider the identification .of

pl,aces, peop

1

les, and evients of the Bibl·e n.arrative.

For many

years archaeologists looked up helplessly

at

the

pinho ,]es in the pediment o,f the Parthenon, vainly speculating

about what might have

been

the important announcement

in·

bronze once fastened at those pinhole s. At last an ingenious

young

erican

student ca·ref

ull.Y

copied

the·

pinholes,

and

from -a study

of the collocation

divined at

last the

whole

im-

perial Roman decree

once

fastened there. So, isolated identi

fication of peoples, places, and events in the Bible may not

mea.n so

much; however

startling tl1eir

char.a

cter.,

they ·may

be.,

after all, only pinholes in the mosaic of Bible historyt but the

collocation of these identificatiotis, when many of them

have

been

found, indicates at last the whole pattern of the mosaic.

Now the progress of important identifications has of late

been very rapid. It will suffice oniy to mention those which

we have already studied for their intrinsic importance togeth

er with the long list of others within recent years. In 1874,

Cle1111ont-Ganneau discovered one

of

the boundary stones

of

Gezer<

1141

,

at which

place now

for

six.

years Mr.

R. A.

Stew ...

art Macalister has been uncovering the treasures of history

o

that Levitical city<

7

>; in 1906, Winckler discovered the Hit

tites at their capital city; in 1904-5, Schumacker explored

Megiddo; in 1900-02, Sellin, Taannek; Jericho has now

been

a~c1:1,ratelyocated .

by

Sellin

and the

foundations

of

her walls

laid

bare;

the Edotnites, long denied

existence in

patriarchal

times, have been given historical place in the time of Meremp ..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


14/19

•

42

Tlie F·z ndame1itals.

•

tah by tl1e papyrus Anasta sia ( j S) ; 11oab, for some time past

in

dispute, I identified beyond further

controversy

at Luxor

i11

1908, in an inscription of Rameses

II.,

before the time of tl1e

Exodus <

9

) ; while Hilprecht at ippur <

0

) , Glaser in Arabia

<

01

>

Petrie at Maghereh and along the route of the Exodus (

6 2

) ,

and

Reisner at Samaria have been adding a multitude of geograph

ical, ethnographical and historical identifications.

The completion of tl1e whole list of identifications i rap

idly approaching, and the collocation of these identifications

has given us anew, from entirely independent testimony of

archaeology, the ,vhole outline of the biblical narrative and

its surroundings, at

once

the

necessary

material for the his

torical imagination and the sure st foundation of apologetics ..

Fa11cy

for a moment that the peoples, places and events of the

wanderings of Ulys ses should be identified : all the strange

route

of

travel followed; ·the remarkable lands visited and

de

scribed, the curious creatures, half human and half monstrot1 s,

and even unmistakable traces of strange events, found, all jttst

as the poet imagined, what a tra11sformation in our views of

Homer 's great epic mu st take place Henceforth that romance

,vould be history. Let us reverse the process and fancy that

the peoples, places, and events of the Bible story were as lit

tle kno\vn from independent sources as the wanderings of

Uly sses; the intellectual temper of this age would unhesitat

ingly put the Bible story in the same mythical ategory in

which have always been the romance s of Homer. If it ,vere

po ssible to blot out biblical geography, biblical

ethnology, a11d

biblical history from the realm of

exact

knowledge, so

would

w·e fUt out the eyes of faith, hence£ orth our religion would be

blind, stone blind.

Thus the value of the rapid progress of · identificatio ns

appear s. It is the identificat ions which differentiate histo1·)r

from myth, geography from the ' 'land of nowhere," the rec

ord of event s from tale s of '' never ,vas," Scripture from

folk

lore,

and the Gospel of the Saviour of the world from the de-

•

•


15/19

•

Recent Testimony of Arcliaeology to the Scriptures 43

lus·i

1

ons of hope. Ev,ery i

dentificati ,o·n limits by slo ·much the •

field of historical criticism. When t.he progress of identifica

tion shall reach comple tion, the wo,rk of historical criticism

will be finished. ·

CONCLUSION.

The present status of the tes.timony from archaeology to

Scrip

1

tt1re, as t·hese latest discoveries mak

1

e it to be, may be

point,ed out in a

f

e·w w,ords.

,.

N OT E1VOLUTION.

1. T he hi.story of civilizati ,on as everywhere illuminated

is fou11d

to be only partially that

of

the evolutionary theory

of ,early Israelite history, but very exactly

tl1at

of the biblical

•

narrative; that is to say, this history,

like

all history sacred or

profane, , shows at times,

f

1

or even a century or two,

st.eady

P·t ·ogress,1b,ut the regular, orderly progress

f

r,om tl1e most

pritnitive state of

society

toward the highest degree of civiliza

tion, which the evolutionary theory imperatively demands,

if

: it fulfill its intended 1nissio11, ails utterly. The best ancient

. work at Taannek is the earliest. From the cave dwell ·ers to

the

city

builders

at

Gezer

is no long, gentle evolution;

the

, early Amorite civilization leaps with rapid strides to the great

engine,ering · feats on the de,£ens.es and the water-works.

I Wherever it has been possible to

institute

comparison between

Palestine and Egypt, the Canaanite civilization in handicraft,

art, en.gineering, architecture, .and education has been found

to suffer only by that which climate, materials and location

r impose; in ·genius and in practical execution it is equal to that

of Egypt, and only eclipsed, before Graeco-Roman times, by

: the brief glory of the Solomonic period. .

r

;

•

HARMON~Y WITH SCRIPTURE.

•

2

1

• When

w

1

e come to loo k more narrowly a.t the ,de·tails, of

archaeological testimony, the historical

setting

thus afforded ·

for ·the events of the Bib1e narrative is seen to be exactly in

•

•


16/19

•

•

t

•

•

•

, harmony

with

the narrative. This is very significant of

th«

· final

1

out ,come of res,ea1-.~h n early Bib,le hi,story. Be,cau · .

views of Scripture n1ust fina lly s.quare with the results o

archaeo logy; that is to say, with contemporaneous history, and

the archaeological

testi1nony

of these past five, years ,well in~

dica,tes

the present trend

toward the final

conclusion.

The;

. Bible narrative ·plainly interp ,r,et,ed at its f la~e value is e,very

where being

sustaine ,d, while,

of the

gr ,eat

critical theories

pr<

po

1

sing to take

Scripture

recording

events

of

that

ag

1

e at

,oth,e

than the face value, as

the illi.'e1.

,cy of early

Weste ,rn

Se·mitic

people, the rude nomadic barbarity of Palestin ,e and the De sert

in tl1,e patriarchal age, the patri ,archs not individual ,s bu't per~

J sonifications, the Desert ''Egypt, the gra~ual invasion of Pal-

estine, the naturalist ,ic origin of Is

1

rael's reli,gion,. the, incon·

sequence of Moses

as

a law-giver,

t'l1e

late authors ,hip

1

0£· tt1e

Pe ntateuch,

and a dozen others,

not

a single one

is being defi.

nitely

supported

b

1

y

t.he

results

of arcl1aeological re,search. In•

deed, reconstructing criticism hardly finds it worth while,

ot

th

1

e m,ost

part, to

look

to

archaeology fo :r

support. ·

. The recent testimony of archaeology to Scripture, like 311

such testimony that has gone before, is d,efinitely an

1

d unifontl'

ly f,avo,r·able. to th,e,Scriptures at their face ·,value, and not to the

Scriptures as recon structed by criticism,

•

AUTHORIT IES REFERRED 'TO ABOVE .

•

•

ABBREVI ATIONS US ,ED IN REFERENCES. ,

0. L. Z. Orientalistis ,chen Litterat11r-Zeitu ,ng.

Q. S. _ uarterly Stat ement o,f the Palestine Explora tion Sod.,

(.1)

(2)

(3)

ety, . .

REFERENCES.

Gep.

12

:10-20; 13 :1;

47 :1-12.

Gen. 41 :14-46.

•

Orr, ''Tl 1e Problem of the Old Testa1nent,''

p,p.

57-58,

quoting Schu ltz, Weilhausen, Kuenen,

W,

R.

Smith,

G. B. Gray, I-I. P.. Smith, F. H. Woods ,

•

•

•

• •

f

•


17/19


18/19

•

•

46

The Fundamental s.

•

(28) Sellin, T

1

el-Taannek, t'Denkschriften der Kaiserlicber,

Akademie in

Wien.''

(29) Deut. 6 :10-11;

Josh.

24

:13 ;· Neh.

9

:25.

(30) I,sa. 19:18,

( 31) E2ek. 16 :44-46; Det1t. 7 :3. .

( 32) Judges 2 :11-15; 3 :7; 8 :33-35; 1.8 :30-31~

(33) Macalis

1

ter, Q.

S.,

1903, pp. 8-9, 49.

(34) Macalister,Q.

S.,

1908,, p~ 17.

( 35) Vincent,

in

Q. S.,

1908, p. 228.

( 36) Macali lster, Q. s . 1903, p

1

• 49.

( 37) Ibid.

(38) I. Kings 9 :16.

•

•

I

•

(39) Winckler, Orientalistische Forsch ungen, Series I pp..

2:4-41.

(40) I. Kings 9 :1,6.

( 41) Macali5te·r,

Q.

S., 1903,

P-. .

309.

(42) Sellin., ''Tel-Ta ,annek,'' p. 92.

43,)

Macalister,

Q.

S., 1908,

Jan.-Apr.

(44) Petri

1

e,

''Deshasha,'' Plate I\ T.

.

(45) Birch, ''Records of the

Past, 1st

Series,

Vol.

IJ,

PI>

35-52, ''B ,att1e of Megid

1

do,.''

Also Lep .sius, ''Denk ...

maier.'' Abth. III.

Bl.

32, 31st, 30th, 30B, ''Aus

wahl,'' XII, L. 42-45. ·

( 46) Macalister-Vincent,

Q.

S., 1898-08. ·

(47) Budg ,e, '''Hist ,ory of Egypt,'' Vol. IV,

pp•.

184-241•

(48) Gen. 21-38. Ki11g, 'Code of Hammurabi_,, ,

( 49) Macalister, Q. S., 1903, ff. and ''Bible

Side

Lights g

Cl1ap.

III. Also Sellin,

''Tel-Taannek,''

pp.

96-97.

( 50) Clay, ''

Amurru, 'Th,e Ho1ne ,of the N or ·thern Semites.''

(51) King, ''Chronology of

the First

Three

Babylonian Dy

nasties .. '

( 52

1

)1

Kyle,

Recueil de Travaux, ''Egyptian Sacrifices~'' Vol .

.XXVII, ''Furth ,er Observations,'' Vol. XXXI. Bibli&-

theca Sacra, Apr., 190,5, pp. 3

1

23-33

1

6. .

•

( 53) Margoliouth,

''Expository Times,'' December,

1907.-

]


19/19

(54)

(55)

(56)

57)

(5,8)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

•

•

•

•

.

,

•

f

•

I

sephu ,s,

' Ant,iquiti)es,''

11 :7; D

1

1,adorns Siculus. Se

1

c. 3;

17-35. Neh. 13:28; 12:2,2; 2 Es dra s

,5:14.

Welll1ausen,

Ency.

Brit., Vol.

18,

p.

509

~

Petri

1

e, ''Person .al Religi

1

on

in Egyp ·t Be£ore

Chr.isti,an

ity. ' .

Clermont -Ganneau in ''Bible S.ide Lights, pil

22.

Macalister, ''Bible Side Light s.' Also Q. S., 1902-09.

MiiI]e,r, ''Asien un

1

d Europa.

•

Kyle,

Recueil

de .

Travaux,

\ T

ol.

XXX~

''Ethnic and

Geographical

Lists

of Ra1nese s II.

Hilp ·rech ,t, ' 'Exploratio

1

ns i11

B,,bylonia.

Weber, Forschungsre ,isen

Edo11ard

Glaser; also ''Stu

dien zur ·Siidarabiscl1en Altertun1 skunde,' ''

Webe,r·.

Petrie,

''R

1

esearch.es. in Sinai.' ''

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

Documents

The Fundamentals: Volume 2, Chapter 2: The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures