The Christian View of the Old Testament Part 6

Nevertheless, the states along the eastern sh.o.r.e of the Mediterranean Sea bore impatiently the a.s.syrian yoke, and in most cities there arose a party which, relying on the promised help of Egypt, was eager to free itself from a.s.syria. That this party gained a foothold also in Jerusalem is seen from the prophecy in Isa. 20, in which the prophet warns the people against trusting in Egypt and rebelling against a.s.syria. In the same direction points an inscription of Sargon describing an expedition against Ashdod: "The people of Philistia, _Judah_, Edom, and Moab, dwelling beside the sea, bringing tribute and presents to Ashur my lord, were speaking treason. The people and their evil chiefs, to fight against me, to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, a prince who could not save them, their presents carried and besought his alliance." In all probability, Judah did not become involved seriously at this time. But the death of Sargon in 705 seems to have been a signal for revolt in many parts of the a.s.syrian empire. His son and successor, Sennacherib, gave these rebellions his immediate attention; until 702 {138} he was kept busy in the East, but in that year he turned westward, and by 701 was ready to attack Judah. The campaign and the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem on that occasion are recorded at length in 2 Kings 18, 19, and Isa. 36, 37. The account of the same campaign by the a.s.syrian king is, from the standpoint of Old Testament history, perhaps the most interesting historical inscription left by an a.s.syrian ruler. It is found in the so-called Taylor Cylinder,[15] column 2, line 34, to column 3, line 41. The most interesting portion reads:

To the city of Ekron I went; the governors [and] princes, who had committed a transgression, I killed and bound their corpses on poles around the city.

The inhabitants of the city, who had committed sin and evil, I counted as spoil; to the rest of them who had committed no sin and wrong, who had no guilt, I spoke peace. Padi their king, I brought forth from the city of Jerusalem; upon the throne of lordship over them I placed him. The tribute of my lordship I laid upon him. But Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, I besieged 46 of his strong cities, fortresses, and small cities of their environs, without number, [and]

by the battering of rams and the a.s.sault of engines, by the attack of foot soldiers, mines, breaches, and axes, I besieged, I took them; 200,150 men, young [and] old, male and female, horses, mules, a.s.ses, camels, oxen and sheep without number I brought out from them, I counted them as spoil. [Hezekiah] himself I shut up like a caged bird in Jerusalem

{139}

his royal city; the walls I fortified against him [and] whosoever came out of the gates of the city, I turned back. His cities, which I had plundered, I separated from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to Sil-Bel, king of Gaza, and [thus] diminished his territory.

To the former tribute, paid yearly, I added the tribute and presents of my lordship and laid that upon him. Hezekiah himself was overwhelmed by the fear of the brightness of my lordship; the Arabians and his other faithful warriors whom, as a defense for Jerusalem his royal city he had brought in, fell into fear.

With 30 talents of gold [and] 800 talents of silver, precious stones, _gukhli dagga.s.si_ (?), large lapis lazuli, couches of ivory, thrones of ivory, ivory, _usu_ wood, box wood (?), of every kind, a heavy treasure, and his daughters, his women of the palace, the young men and young women, to Nineveh, the city of my lordship, I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his amba.s.sadors, to give tribute and to pay homage.

These are, perhaps, the most important historical inscriptions ill.u.s.trating specific events in the history of Israel and Judah. There are, however, many more that make important, though more or less indirect, contributions toward a better understanding of Old Testament history. Just to mention a few: Tirhaka of Egypt, who, temporarily at least, interfered with the plans of the a.s.syrians, {140} appears several times in the inscriptions; the real significance of the events recorded in 2 Kings 20. 12ff., and Isa. 39, can be understood only in the light of the inscriptions; an interesting sidelight is thrown by the inscriptions on the biblical account of Sennacherib's death. In one of the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, the son and successor of Sennacherib, we are told that among the twenty-two kings of the land of the Hitt.i.tes who a.s.sisted him in his building enterprises was Mana.s.seh, king of Judah. Ashurbanipal, the successor of Esarhaddon, includes Mana.s.seh in a similar list. Though this king is not mentioned in the Old Testament under his a.s.syrian name, it is very probable that he is the king referred to in Ezra 4. 10, where it is said that the "great and n.o.ble Osnappar" brought Babylonians, Susanians, Elamites, and men of other nationalities to Samaria. The inscriptions do not throw much light upon the closing years of Judah's history, but we can understand the events in which Judah played a part better because the inscriptions set into clearer light the general history of Western Asia. The advance of the Scythians, the revival of Egypt in the seventh century, the fall of Nineveh, the rise of the Chaldean empire, which reached its highest glory under Nebuchadrezzar, the conqueror of Judah--all these are described in the inscriptions, or, at least, illuminated by them.

{141} In a similar way the inscriptions, though not mentioning the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, illuminate the biblical records in many respects. Fortunately, also, the inscriptions furnish a good idea of the events leading to the downfall of Babylon, which resulted in the restoration of many exiles to Judah; and the restoration itself a.s.sumes a new significance in the light of the inscriptions; for the permission to return granted by Cyrus to the Jews is seen to be in accord with the general policy of the conqueror to secure the good-will of the peoples deported by the Babylonians by restoring them to their own homes. The historical situation of the age may suggest another reason for the kindly treatment of the Jews. It was inevitable that sooner or later Cyrus, or his successors, should come into conflict with Egypt. At such time it would be of immense value to him to have near the border of Egypt a nation upon whose fidelity and grat.i.tude he could rely.

Archaeology has not thrown any direct light on the condition of the Jews in Palestine under the Persian rule. On the other hand, we know a great deal about conditions in Babylonia during that period, and within the past decade several important doc.u.ments written on papyrus have been found in Egypt which furnish indisputable evidence that the island of Elephantine, opposite a.s.suan, a short distance north of the first cataract {142} of the Nile, was the seat of a Jewish colony at least as early as the reign of Cambyses, king of Persia (B.C. 529-521).[16]

This concludes the survey of the archaeological material of a historical nature. It is seen that during the period from the division of the kingdom subsequent to the death of Solomon to the reestablishment of the Jews in Palestine after the exile the inscriptions furnish most interesting and instructive ill.u.s.trations of events mentioned or alluded to in the Old Testament. As a result the history and also the prophecy of the Old Testament have been removed from the isolated position in which they previously seemed to stand. They are now seen to be connected by many links with the great movements taking place in the world without.

The question as to the bearing of the archaeological historical records on the historical records of the Old Testament remains to be considered. This question was asked as soon as the contents of the inscriptions became known. The answers have varied greatly. On the one hand, it has been claimed that the Old Testament records are confirmed in every detail; on the other, those have not been wanting who claimed that the inscriptions discredit the Old Testament. Here, as in other investigations, the true conclusion can be reached only after a careful examination of all {143} the facts in the case. In the study of the question there are several considerations and cautions which must not be lost sight of if we would reach a true estimate.

Some of these cautions are suggested by the nature of the inscriptions.

In the first place, it must be remembered that most of the archaeological material has come from lands outside of Palestine, and that the testimony is that of people not friendly to the Hebrews. We may expect, therefore, that at times personal bias may have colored the portrayal and caused the Hebrews to appear in a less favorable light than the facts would warrant, or that the events in which the Hebrews took part were described in a manner to make them favor the interests of the writers.

Again, not every period of Hebrew history is illuminated by the inscriptions. True, the earliest monuments found in Egypt and Babylonia antedate the birth of Jesus perhaps more than four thousand years; but it is not until the time of Ahab, king of Israel, that the important historical material begins. The references to Israel preceding the time of the a.s.syrian king, Shalmaneser III, c. B.C. 850, are few and more or less obscure. There is the monument of Shishak in the tenth century; but some are inclined to believe that the list of the cities alleged to have been conquered by Shishak was simply taken over by him from {144} an earlier doc.u.ment, and that, therefore, it is of little or no historical value. Israel is mentioned in the inscription of Merneptah, but, as has been seen, the significance of the brief reference is obscure; there is nothing concerning the stay in Egypt, nothing concerning the patriarchs, and nothing concerning the earlier period that can in any way be connected with the historical records of the Old Testament.

Furthermore, to get at the true value of the evidence from the monuments we must distinguish between facts and inferences from the facts. This distinction, obvious as it seems, has not always been maintained even by eminent archaeologists. For example, Professor Sayce, who is in just repute among a.s.syriologists, made a few years ago the statement: "The vindication of the reality of Menes [one of the early kings of Egypt] means the vindication also of the historical character of the Hebrew patriarchs." Surely, common sense says that facts proving the historicity of an early king of Egypt do not necessarily prove the historicity of men living many centuries later.

Many similar ill.u.s.trations might be given. Because bricks made without straw were found it has been claimed that every detail of the Old Testament narrative concerning the stay of Israel in Egypt was corroborated by archaeology. The finding of the walls of royal palaces in Babylon furnished {145} the claim that the story of the handwriting on the wall was established beyond doubt. The finding of images of deities has been interpreted as showing beyond a possibility of question the historicity of the narrative in Daniel concerning the image erected by Nebuchadrezzar, etc. There can easily be too much blind dependence on authority; an a.s.sumption of fact, upon the mere dictum of some presumably honest and competent scholar. About a generation ago a well-known investigator said, "a.s.syriology has its guesses and it has its accurate knowledge."[17] These words might be expanded to include the whole field of archaeology. Archaeology has its facts, and it has its inferences. The two must not be confused.

Moreover, the possibility of inscribing lies upon clay tablets must not be overlooked. Sometimes it has been claimed, and that most absurdly, that because an inscription has been engraved upon imperishable stone or clay it has a superior value. But the mere fact of a record being inscribed on a tablet of clay, perishable or imperishable, gives it no superiority over one written on papyrus or parchment or paper. Clay tablets were to the civilization of the Euphrates valley what print paper is to us. We all know that paper is patient, else the daily papers would be of smaller size and many books would remain unwritten.

The same is true of clay tablets. Clay tablets are {146} patient. It was recognized long ago by a.s.syriologists that the so-called historical inscriptions are not all unbiased statements of objective facts. In many cases the chief purpose seems to have been the glorification of the king; victories are recorded with the greatest care, but no mention is made of defeats. For example: in one of the earliest inscriptions mentioning a king of Israel, Shalmaneser III, king of a.s.syria, claims a great victory over the Western allies in the battle of Karkar in 854; but, strange to say, the victory resulted in a rather hasty retreat of the a.s.syrian army. Another evidence of the "absolute reliability" of the historical tablets is offered by the inscriptions of the same king.

In connection with the battle of Karkar, one inscription declares that the allies killed numbered 14,000; another, 20,500; while a third claims 25,000. We have, indeed, reason to say that "the evident uncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the clearness of the entire result. The claim of a great victory is almost certainly false."[18]

Once more: the translation of the inscriptions is not in every case beyond question. For example, in lines 7-9 of the Moabite Stone we read, according to the common translation, "Now Omri annexed all the land of Medeba, and Israel occupied it his days and half the days of his son, forty years." This rendering would imply that the {147} period from the conquest under Omri to the end of the first half of Ahab's reign was forty years. The chronology of Kings gives as the total of the full reigns of the two kings only thirty-four years, while the above translation of the inscription would require about sixty--a serious discrepancy. Now, it is generally conceded that the chronology of the Bible cannot be accepted as final in all its details, and that it must be checked by the chronology of the inscriptions wherever that is possible. Yet before we can make use of the monumental testimony we should be sure of its exact meaning. In cases such as the one mentioned this certainty is absent, and we should move very slowly.

Another translation of the pa.s.sage has been proposed: "Omri conquered the whole land of Medeba and held it in possession as long as he reigned and during half of my reign his son, in all forty years; but yet in my reign Chemosh recovered it."[19] This translation would bring the total of the two reigns to about forty years, and thus the chronological difficulty apparently offered by 2 Kings 3 would be removed.

The five considerations to which attention has been called must be observed if we would understand rightly the bearing of the monuments on the Old Testament, when viewed from the standpoint of the inscriptions.

Attention must now be called to certain considerations touching {148} primarily the Old Testament that must be regarded in forming an estimate of the value of its historical records.

We must remember, for example, that the purpose of the Old Testament is essentially and predominatingly religious. This is recognized by the Jews, for they do not call any of the so-called historical books by that name. The five books of the Pentateuch they designate as Law, because in these books practically all Hebrew legislation is embodied.

Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, they include in the list of prophetic books, because they recognize the essentially prophetic purpose of the authors. The other books belong to the third division of the Jewish canon, called the Writings. Concerning the books of Kings, which are the princ.i.p.al historical books of the Old Testament, it has been truly said: "Kings, by virtue of its contents, belongs as much to the prophetical books as to the historical. It is not a continuous chronicle; it is a book of prophetic teaching in which sometimes history, sometimes story, is employed as the vehicle of teaching. It enforces the principle that G.o.d is the controlling power and sin the disturbing force in the entire history of men and nations.[20] In a similar manner the religious purpose predominates in the other Old Testament historical books. They do not pretend to give a complete history even of {149} the Hebrew people. The writers embodied only such historical material as was thought to ill.u.s.trate the self-revelation of G.o.d in the history of individuals and of the nation, or to bear in some marked way upon the coming of the kingdom of G.o.d. A modern secular historian is disappointed at many omissions which would be unpardonable in a strictly historical production. Now, it is readily seen that the religious purpose may be served, and the didactic value of the narrative may remain, even though historical inaccuracies in details should be discovered.

Another fact to be remembered is the possible difference in the viewpoint of several narrators of one and the same event. In sacred, as in secular history, the viewpoint of the author determines to a considerable extent the character of the narrative. For example: the delineation of the events of the Civil War will not be the same in official doc.u.ments, in a secular history, in a church history, or in a work containing personal memoirs. Still other differences might be seen in narratives confined to special incidents. Such differences in viewpoint may be noticed also among the writers of the Old Testament historical books. Broadly speaking, part of the historical literature of the Old Testament is due to prophetic activity, part to priestly activity. In writing history the prophets, with their broad interest in all the {150} affairs of the nation, resemble the modern secular historian. They portray events more objectively than the priests, hence they are more reliable. The priestly writers resemble the modern ecclesiastical historian, who judges everyone and everything according to their att.i.tude toward the peculiar religious conceptions he represents. The Old Testament contains also some personal memoirs (in Ezra and Nehemiah) and some narratives of special incidents (Ruth, Esther), while the historical books in their present form embody also what may have been official doc.u.ments.

Moreover, in estimating the reliability of the Old Testament historical books we must not overlook certain unconscious references and indications which show that the authors exercised considerable care in producing the books. In the first place, historical statements appear to have been preserved with considerable care, at least so far as the substance is concerned. This may be seen from the retention of parallel narratives of the same events, without attempts at harmonizing minor disagreements. In the second place, history was written with some discrimination. This is evident especially in Kings, where the several degrees in which certain of the kings departed from the legitimate religion of Israel are carefully indicated. A clear distinction is made between the relatively pious kings, who simply did not {151} remove the high places (1 Kings 15. 14; 2 Kings 12. 3) and those who, in defiance of a fundamental principle (Exod. 20. 4, 5), desired to represent the spiritual G.o.d of Israel in images that would appeal to the senses (1 Kings 12. 28, 29; 14. 16, etc.), and those who, in defiance of the first requirement of the Decalogue (Exod. 20. 3), served other G.o.ds (1 Kings 16. 31-33; 18. 22, etc.). Once more: in the Old Testament records we find evidence of the historical consciousness of ancient Israel resting upon a very sure foundation. The Mosaic age was regarded as the supreme crisis in the national history. Moses was the great hero; yet his grandeur was not able to extinguish the consciousness of the glory of the pre-Mosaic period. Throughout the entire literature Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are also connected with the beginnings of the Hebrew nation and with the beginning of the religious mission of the people. The memory of the pre-Mosaic period seems indeed to have been securely founded.

What, then, are the results of this comparative study? The Old Testament world has become a new world. Dark regions were Egypt, a.s.syria, Elam, and other countries mentioned in the Old Testament before the explorers and excavators entered these lands. Now it is comparatively easy to trace with considerable accuracy the boundaries of empires that existed in the first {152} and second millenniums B.C.

In addition, we can fix with certainty the sites of some Old Testament cities whose location was previously unknown and, in some cases, whose very existence had been doubted. The topography of cities like Nineveh, Nippur, and Babylon has become quite definitely fixed.

The historical gains are even more remarkable. Whole nations have been resurrected. What did we know a century ago of Elam? Nothing but the name. What of a.s.syria? Only a few traditions, sometimes untrustworthy, preserved by cla.s.sical writers, and the statements of the Bible, some of which were unintelligible because of their fragmentary character. Now these and other nations pa.s.s one after the other in review, great and powerful in all their ancient glory. And, almost every day, new light is thrown on these early centuries. Only a few years ago it was thought that a.s.syrian history, as distinct from that of Babylon, began about B.C. 1800; now we know the names of many rulers who lived generations and centuries before that date.

The chronological gains are especially important. It is generally admitted that Hebrew chronology is not always reliable, and various expedients have been resorted to to remove the difficulties. It was very gratifying, therefore, to discover that the chronological system of the a.s.syrians was {153} more precise. Among the inscriptions are especially three cla.s.ses of public records in which the occurrences are carefully dated: (1) Records of the reigns of certain kings in which their activities are carefully arranged in chronological order; (2) business tablets in which transactions are definitely dated; and (3) the so-called eponym lists. According to a.s.syrian custom, each year was named after a prominent official. Lists of these were carefully made and kept, and, fortunately, large fragments of them have been preserved. Two recensions of these eponym lists have come down. In one only the names of the years are given; in the other references to important events are added to the names. If, now, any one of these events can be dated, it becomes possible to trace the dates designated by the names on either side of the one whose date is first determined.

By means of these lists and the other records the a.s.syrian chronology can be definitely fixed from about B.C. 900 on. This, in turn, enables us to bring order into the chaos of Hebrew chronology during the most important period of the nation's existence.

When we think of these and other gains, not the least of which is the discovery of the contemporaneous doc.u.ments, the absence of which was at one time made the basis for the rejection of many statements found exclusively in the Old {154} Testament, we may gratefully receive this new light and rejoice in the advance in Bible knowledge made possible through the excavations. What, now, is the general bearing of these discoveries on the trustworthiness of the Old Testament?

In the first place, it is well to remember that for many periods of Hebrew history we are still entirely dependent on the Old Testament for direct information. For example, Professor Clay's claim concerning the patriarchal age, that "the increase of knowledge gained through the inscriptions of this period has in every instance dissolved conclusions arrived at by those critics who maintain that the patriarchs are not to be regarded as historical,"[21] is not justified by the facts. In reality, no incident in the patriarchal story is referred to in any of the inscriptions read thus far. On the other hand, the age of the patriarchs has been wonderfully illuminated. "Formerly the world in which the patriarchs moved seemed to be almost empty; now we see it filled with emba.s.sies, armies, busy cities, and long lines of traders pa.s.sing to and fro between one center of civilization and another; but amid all that crowded life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers of the Hebrews; we listen in vain for any mention of their names; this is the whole change archaeology has wrought: it has given us an atmosphere and a background for the stories of Genesis; it is {155} unable to recall or certify their heroes."[22] All that can be said in this, as in other cases, is, that archaeology, by furnishing a broad historical background, has established the possibility of the princ.i.p.al events recorded in the biblical narratives being correct. It is silent concerning the events themselves, and, therefore, neither confirms nor discredits them.

A few cases there are, especially in connection with questions of chronology, where archaeology has modified and corrected biblical statements. According to the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, for example, Menahem of Israel paid tribute to the a.s.syrian king in B.C.

738, and there is reason for believing that this tribute was paid near the beginning of Menahem's reign for the purpose of securing the good will of a.s.syria. In 734 or 733 Pekah is said to have been slain and to have been succeeded by Hoshea. Now, according to the Old Testament, Menahem reigned ten years; his son, Pekahiah, two years, and Pekah twenty years, a total of thirty-two years. Even if we a.s.sume that the tribute was paid by Menahem during his last year--which is not at all likely--there would remain twenty-two years to be provided for between 738 and 734 or 733. Evidently, the Old Testament figures are too high.

A similar case is found in connection with events that took place only a few years later. In 2 Kings {156} 18. 10 the statement is found that Samaria was taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah. Then, verse 13 states that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of a.s.syria, came against Jerusalem. The date of the capture of Samaria is definitely fixed by the a.s.syrian inscriptions. The city fell either in the closing days of B.C. 722 or the opening days of B.C.

721. a.s.suming that it was 722, the fourteenth year of Hezekiah would be 714. But Sennacherib did not become king until 705, and the attack upon Jerusalem was not made until 701. Here, again, the biblical account seems to be inaccurate.

In many other cases, however, remarkable confirmations are seen. There are many persons and events mentioned in the Old Testament which are referred to also in the inscriptions. Think of the long list of Babylonian and a.s.syrian kings named in the Old Testament; Amraphel, king of Shinar, at one time considered a mythical figure, is shown to have been one of the greatest generals, wisest administrators, and fairest lawgivers among the early kings of Babylon. Sargon, whose very existence was once doubted, has in defiance risen from the dust. In these and numerous other cases, especially from the ninth century onward--as may be seen from a comparison of the inscriptions quoted above with the corresponding portions of {157} the Old Testament--the archaeological records furnish striking confirmations of the Old Testament narratives. To sum up this entire inquiry: It must be apparent to every unbiased student that the monuments, when read intelligently, neither set aside nor discredit the Old Testament doc.u.ments. On the contrary, they prove their substantial accuracy.

They may at times modify them, especially in questions of chronology; but they more frequently corroborate than impugn; thus they offer their services not as a subst.i.tute but as a supplement, by the aid of which we may study from without the history of the Hebrew people.

NOTES ON CHAPTER IV

[1] An excellent account of the explorations and excavations in Babylonia and a.s.syria, and of the decipherment of the inscriptions is found in R. W. Rogers, A History of Babylonia and a.s.syria, Vol. I, Chapters I-VIII; compare also H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during the Nineteenth Century, Part I.

[2] Preliminary reports of the results of the German excavations are given from time to time in the Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft.

[3] G. Steindorff, Excavations in Egypt, in H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 623-690.

[4] Opening words of I. Benzinger, Researches in Palestine, in Hilprecht, Explorations, pp. 579-622. A very complete discussion of explorations and excavations in Palestine may be found in F. Jones Bliss, Development of Palestine Exploration. The {158} progress of the excavations is reported in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

[5] Opening words of the first lecture on "Babel and Bible."

[6] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xlviii.

[7] A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, Chapter XI.

[8] The Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 97.

[9] Egypt and Israel, p. 35. Breasted also seems to think that the Israelites defeated by Merneptah had no direct connection with those who suffered in Egypt, A History of Egypt, p. 466; compare p. 410.

[10] The Expositor, 1908, p. 199.

[11] J. C. Ball, Light from the East, pp. 131, 132.

[12] W. H. Bennett, The Moabite Stone; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, art., "Moab, Moabites."

[13] Most of the inscriptions from this period on are found in D. G.

Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, Part I--Hebrew Authority, by S. R.

Driver. See also T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of a.s.syria and Babylonia; A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel; A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient Orient; R. F. Harper, a.s.syrian and Babylonian Literature; S. R. Driver, Modern Research as Ill.u.s.trating the Bible. The most recent and most complete collection of cuneiform inscriptions throwing light on Old Testament religion and history is contained in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, which appeared after this book had gone to press.

[14] Formerly called Shalmaneser II; see Expository Times, February, 1912, p. 238.