{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31876/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31876","id":"gutenberg_31876","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31876","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN VIEW\n\nOF THE\n\nOLD TESTAMENT\n\n\n\nBY\n\nFREDERICK CARL EISELEN\n\nProfessor in Garrett Biblical Institute\n\n\n\n\nTHE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN\n\nNEW YORK ---- CINCINNATI ---- CHICAGO\n\n\n\n\n  Copyright, 1912\n  FREDERICK CARL EISELEN\n\n\n  Printed in the United States of America\n\n  First Edition Printed September, 1912\n  Second Printing, June, 1913\n  Third Printing, May, 1916\n  Fourth Printing, November, 1917\n  Fifth Printing, September, 1921\n  Sixth Printing, September, 1923\n  Seventh Printing, October, 1925\n  Eighth Printing, July, 1928\n\n\n\n\n{5}\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER                                                    PAGE\n\n       PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7\n   I.  THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . . . .    9\n  II.  THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE  . . . . . . .   38\n III.  THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN CRITICISM  . . . . . .   66\n  IV.  THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . .  110\n   V.  THE OLD TESTAMENT AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION  . . . .  160\n  VI.  THE PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . .  227\n       INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  264\n\n\n\n\nOTHER WORKS BY PROFESSOR EISELEN\n\n  PROPHECY AND THE PROPHETS\n  THE MINOR PROPHETS\n  THE WORKER AND HIS BIBLE\n  THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH\n  THE PSALMS AND OTHER SACRED WRITINGS\n  THE PROPHETIC BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Two Volumes)\n\n\n\n\n{7}\n\nPREFACE\n\nDuring the past half century the attitude of many men toward the Bible\nhas undergone a decided change.  The old confidence seems to be gone; a\nfeeling of uncertainty and of unrest has taken its place.  This small\nvolume is intended to set forth the Christian view of the Old\nTestament, and to furnish answers to some of the questions men are\nasking concerning the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrews, which the early\nChristians included in the canon of Christian sacred writings.  The old\nfoundations are not shaken.  The Old Testament has stood the tests of\nthe past, which have been severe and often merciless; and there is\nto-day stronger ground than ever for believing that in its pages \"men\nspake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.\"\n\nFREDERICK CARL EISELEN.\n\nEvanston, Illinois.\n\n\n\n\n{9}\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nThe Christian Church has always assigned to the Bible a unique place in\ntheology and life.  What is true of the Bible as a whole is equally\ntrue of that part of the Bible which is known as the Old Testament.\nIndeed, until the middle of the second century of the Christian era,\nthe only Scriptures accepted as authoritative were those of the Old\nTestament.  Even then, only gradually and under the pressure of real\nneed, different groups of Christian writings were added and received an\nauthority equal to that of the older Scriptures.  And though in the\ncourse of the centuries there have been some who denied to the Old\nTestament a rightful place in Christian thought and life, the Church as\na whole has always upheld the judgment of the early Christians in\nmaking the Old Testament a part of the canon of Christian sacred\nwritings.\n\nIt is worthy of note that the Old Testament played an important part in\nthe religious life of Jesus.  No one can study the records of his life\nwithout seeing that he gathered much of his {10} spiritual nourishment\nfrom its pages.  Even in the moments of severest temptation, greatest\ndistress, and bitterest agony the words of these ancient writings were\non his lips, and their consoling and inspiring messages in his heart\nand mind.  This attitude of Jesus toward the ancient Hebrew Scriptures\nin itself explains the high estimate placed upon them by his followers.\nFor, in the words of G. A. Smith, \"That which was used by the Redeemer\nhimself for the sustenance of his own soul can never pass out of the\nuse of his redeemed.  That from which he proved the divinity of his\nmission and the age-long preparation for his coming must always have a\nprincipal place in his Church's argument for him.\"[1]\n\nThe attitude of Jesus is reflected in his disciples and those who have\ngiven to us the New Testament books.  Nearly three hundred quotations\nfrom the Old Testament are scattered throughout the Gospels and\nEpistles, and in a number of passages is the value of Old Testament\nstudy specifically emphasized.  Perhaps nowhere is this done more\nclearly than in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17, in words written primarily of the Old\nTestament: \"The sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto\nsalvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  Every scripture\ninspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for {11}\ncorrection, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of\nGod may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.\"\nEvidently the writer of these words considers the sacred writings of\nthe Hebrews able to inspire a personal saving faith in Jesus, the\nChrist; to furnish a knowledge of the things of God; and to prepare for\nefficient service.  And these are the elements which enter into the\nlife advocated and illustrated by the Founder of Christianity.\n\nAn attempt will be made in this chapter to determine the New Testament\nview of the Old Testament for the purpose of discovering what is the\nproper Christian view of that part of the Bible.  For, if the teaching,\nspirit, and example of Jesus have a vital relation to Christian belief,\nand if his immediate followers have preserved an essentially accurate\nportrayal of him, then the modern Christian view of the Old Testament\nshould be a reflection of the view of Jesus and of those who, as a\nresult of their intimate fellowship with him, were in a position to\ngive a correct interpretation of him and his teaching.\n\nWe may inquire, in the first place, what is the New Testament view of\nthe purpose of the Old Testament Scriptures?  The answer to this\ninquiry is furnished by the passage in the Second Epistle to Timothy\nquoted above.  Neither this nor any other passage in the whole Bible\nwarrants {12} the belief that the Old Testament ever was meant to teach\nphysical science, or history, or philosophy, or psychology.  Everywhere\nit is stated or clearly implied that the purpose of all biblical\nteaching is to make man morally and spiritually perfect, and to furnish\nhim \"unto every good work.\"  Therefore we may expect that where the Old\nTestament writers touch upon questions of science and history they\ndevelop them only in so far as they serve this higher religious and\nethical purpose.  This being the biblical view of the purpose of the\nScriptures, any theory of the Old Testament which makes no distinction\nbetween scientific and historical statements on the one hand, and\nreligious and ethical statements on the other, is inadequate and\nerroneous, because it is not in accord with the New Testament teaching\non that point.\n\nThe purpose of the Bible is intimately connected with its nature and\ncharacter.  The New Testament view of the nature and character of the\nOld Testament is suggested in Heb. 1. 1, 2: \"God, having of old time\nspoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in\ndivers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son.\"\nFour great truths concerning the Old Testament dispensation are\ndefinitely indicated in these words, with a fifth one implied: (1)\n_God_ spoke; (2) God spoke in the prophets, {13} that is, in or through\n_human agents_; (3) God spoke _in divers portions_; (4) God spoke _in\ndivers manners_; (5) the words imply that _the Old Testament\ndispensation was incomplete_; it had to be supplemented and perfected\nby a revelation in and through a Son.  The truths expressed here\nconstitute the essential elements which enter into the New Testament\nview of the Old Testament.\n\nThe two expressions, \"in divers portions\" and \"in divers manners,\"\nconcern largely the external form of divine revelation.  The former\nmeans that the revelations recorded in the Old Testament were not given\nat one time, through one channel or by one man, but at many times,\nthrough many channels, by many men, scattered over a period of many\ncenturies, in places hundreds of miles apart.  One result of this is\nseen in the fact that the Old Testament contains many books written by\ndifferent authors in successive periods of Hebrew history.\n\nThe latter expression has to do with the different kinds of literature\nin the Old Testament, but it goes deeper than mere literary form.  It\nmeans that in giving revelations of himself during the Old Testament\nperiod God used various methods and means, the different kinds of\nliterature being simply the outgrowth of the various modes of\nrevelation.\n\nIt is a universal Christian belief that God {14} reveals himself to-day\nin divers manners and modes.  Every Christian believes, for example,\nthat God reveals himself in the events of history, be it the history of\nindividuals or of nations.  Again, to many devout persons, God speaks\nvery distinctly through the outward acts and ceremonies of worship.  To\nthousands of earnest and sincere Christians connected with churches\nusing an elaborate ritual, this ritual is no mere form; it is a means\nof blessing and grace through which God reveals himself to their souls.\nMoreover, God selects certain persons, especially well qualified to\nhear his voice; these he commissions as ambassadors to declare him and\nhis will to the people.  The belief in this method of revelation is the\nphilosophical basis for the offices of the Christian preacher and the\nChristian religious teacher.  Once more, in his attempt to reach the\nhuman heart God may dispense with all external means; he may and does\nreveal himself by working directly upon and in the mind and spirit of\nthe individual.  These are some of the \"manners\" in which God reveals\nhimself to his children to-day, and these are some of the means and\nmanners in which God made himself known during the Old Testament\ndispensation.  Then, as he does now, he revealed himself in nature, in\nthe events of history, in the ritual, and by direct impressions; and at\ntimes he selected certain individuals to whom he might {15} make\nhimself known in all these various ways and who could transmit the\nvarious revelations to others.  The Old Testament contains records and\ninterpretations of these manifold revelations.  It is self-evident that\nwhen attempts were made to record these various manifestations of God\ndifferent kinds of literature must be used in order to express most\nvividly the truth or truths gathered from the divine revelations.  The\nseveral kinds of literature, therefore, are the natural outgrowth of\nthe manifold modes of divine revelation.  In the Old Testament five\nkinds of literature may be distinguished: the prophetic, the wisdom,\nthe devotional, the legal or priestly, and the historical.  In their\nproduction four classes of religious workers who observed, interpreted,\nand mediated the divine revelations, were active: the prophets, the\nwise men, the priests (compare Jer. 18. 18), and the psalmists.\n\nThe prophetic literature owes its origin to prophetic activity.  The\nprophets towered above their contemporaries in purity of character,\nstrength of intellect, sincerity of purpose, intimacy of communion with\nGod, and illumination by the divine Spirit.  As a result of these\nqualifications they were able to understand truth hidden from the eyes\nand minds of those who did not live in the same intimate fellowship\nwith Jehovah.  Their high conceptions of the character of God enabled\n{16} them to appreciate the divine ideals of righteousness, and they\nsought with flaming enthusiasm to impress the truths burning in their\nhearts upon their less enlightened contemporaries.  In carrying out\nthis purpose they became statesmen, social reformers, and religious and\nethical teachers.  No records have been preserved of the utterances of\nthe earliest prophets.  But when, with the general advance in culture,\nreading and writing became more common, the prophets, anxious to reach\na wider circle, and to preserve their messages for more willing ears,\nput their utterances into writing, and to this new departure we owe the\nsublime specimens of prophetic literature in the Old Testament.\n\nIn his direct appeal to heart and conscience the ancient prophet\nresembles the modern preacher.  The wise man, like the prophet, sought\nto make the divine will known to others, but in his method he\nresembles, rather, the modern religious teacher.  His ultimate aim was\nto influence conduct and life, but instead of appealing directly to the\nconscience he addressed himself primarily to the mind through counsel\nand argument, hoping that his appeal to the common sense of the\nlistener would make an impression, the effects of which might be seen\nin transformed conduct.  The prophet would have said to the lazy man,\n\"Thus saith Jehovah, Go to work, thou indolent man.\" {17} Prov. 24.\n30-34 may serve as an illustration of the method of the wise man:\n\n  I went by the field of the sluggard,\n  And by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;\n  And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns,\n  The face thereof was covered with nettles,\n  And the stone wall thereof was broken down\n  Then I beheld, and considered well;\n  I saw, and received instruction:\n  Yet a little sleep, a little slumber,\n  A little folding of the hands to sleep;\n  So shall thy poverty come as a robber,\n  And thy want as an armed man.\n\nNothing escaped the observation of these men, and from beginning to end\nthey emphasized the important truth that religion and the daily life\nare inseparable.  From giving simple practical precepts, the wise men\nrose to speculation, and the books of Job and Ecclesiastes bear witness\nthat they busied themselves with no mean problems.\n\nOf profound significance is also the devotional literature of the Old\nTestament.  In a real sense the entire Old Testament is a book of\ndevotion.  It is the outgrowth of a spirit of intense devotion to\nJehovah, and it has helped in all ages to nurture the devotional spirit\nof its readers.  Here, however, the term \"devotional\" is used in the\nnarrower sense of those poetic compositions which are primarily the\nexpressions of the religious experience or emotions of the authors,\ngenerated {18} and fostered by their intimate fellowship with Jehovah.\nThe chief representative of this literature is the book of Psalms,\nwhich is aptly described by Johannes Arnd in these words: \"What the\nheart is in man, that is the Psalter in the Bible.\"  The Psalms contain\nin the form of sacred lyrics the outpourings of devout souls--prophets,\npriests, kings, wise men, and peasants--who came into the very presence\nof God, held communion with him, and were privileged to hear the sweet\nsound of his voice.  No other literary compositions lift us into such\natmosphere of religious thought and emotion.  Because these lyrics\nreflect personal experiences they may still be used to express emotions\nof joy, sorrow, hope, fear, anticipation, etc., even by persons who\nlive on a higher spiritual plane than did the original authors.\n\nThe legal literature differs from the other kinds in that it does not\nform separate books, but is embodied in other writings, principally in\nthe books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  All the\nrepresentatives of Jehovah--prophets, priests, wise men, and even\npsalmists--were thought competent to make known the law of Jehovah, but\nthe Old Testament makes it clear that at a comparatively early period\nthe giving of law came to be looked upon as the special duty of the\npriests.  These priests constituted a {19} very important class of\nreligious workers among the ancient Hebrews.  During the greater part\nof the national life their chief functions were the care of the\nsanctuary and the performance of ceremonial rites.  But in addition to\nthese duties they continued to administer the law of Jehovah,\nconsisting not only of ceremonial regulations but also of moral and\njudicial precepts and directions.  For centuries these laws may have\nbeen transmitted by word of mouth, or were only partially committed to\nwriting, but when circumstances made it desirable to codify them and\nput them in writing the priests would be called upon to take this\nadvance step.  Thus, while it is quite probable that other\nrepresentatives of Jehovah helped to formulate laws, the legal\nliterature embodied in the Old Testament reached its final form under\npriestly influence.\n\nThe historical literature furnishes an interpretation of the movements\nof God in the events of history.  It owes its origin in part to\nprophetic, in part to priestly, activity.  The prophet was an\nambassador of Jehovah appointed to make known the divine will\nconcerning the past, the present, and the future.  Of the present he\nspoke as a preacher; when his message concerned the future it took the\nform of prediction; but the case might arise that the people failed to\nunderstand the significance of events in their own history, and {20}\nthus failed to appreciate the lessons which the events were intended to\nteach.  If these lessons were not to be lost, some one must serve as an\ninterpreter, and who would be better qualified to furnish the right\ninterpretation than the prophet?  This demand made of him, in a sense,\nan historian, not for the purpose of merely recording events but of\ninterpreting them at the same time, and these prophetic interpretations\nare embodied in the historical literature originating with the prophets.\n\nBut not all Old Testament history comes from the prophets.  As already\nindicated, the legal and ceremonial literature is due to priestly\nactivity.  Now, in connection with the recording of the laws, customs,\ninstitutions, and ceremonial requirements, the origin of these laws and\ncustoms became a matter of interest and importance.  This interest, and\nthe demand for information arising from it, led the priests also to\nbecome historians.  And to these priestly writers we are indebted for\nnot a small part of sacred history.\n\nThe third truth taught by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is\nthat God spoke unto the fathers in or by the prophets, which means,\nthat he used _human agents_ to mediate his revelations.  The Old\nTestament may be more than a human production; nevertheless, it will be\n{21} impossible to appreciate it adequately unless it is borne in mind\nthat it contains a human element.  In the first place may be noted the\ndifferences in style between various writers.  These are frequently the\noutgrowth of differences in temperament and early training.  Even the\nEnglish reader can notice such differences between Amos and Hosea, or\nbetween Isaiah and Jeremiah.  Evidently, whatever divine cooperation\nthe biblical writers enjoyed, they retained enough of their human\nfaculties and powers to make use of their own peculiar styles.\n\nAgain, the hand of man may be seen in the manner of literary\ncomposition.  Most Bible students are familiar with the opening words\nof the Gospel of Luke: \"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up\na narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among\nus, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were\neyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,\nhaving traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to\nwrite unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest\nknow the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.\"\nEvidently, the evangelist carefully sifted the material at hand before\nhe wrote the Gospel, just as a modern writer would do.  In the Old\nTestament even clearer evidence is found {22} that the authors of the\nseveral books were guided in the process of composition by the same\nprinciples as writers of extra-biblical productions.  The most\nsuggestive illustrations of this fact are found in the books of\nChronicles, in which reference is made again and again to the sources\nfrom which the compiler gathered his material.  In 1 Chron. 29. 29, for\nexample, mention is made of the \"words of Samuel the seer, ... the\nwords of Nathan the prophet, and ... the words of Gad the seer\"; 2\nChron. 9. 29 refers to \"words of Nathan the prophet, ... the prophecy\nof Ahijah, ... the visions of Iddo the seer.\"  These are only a few of\nthe references scattered throughout Chronicles, but they are sufficient\nto show that in their composition methods employed by secular writers\nwere used.  The same characteristic appears in the book of Proverbs.\nAccording to its own testimony, it contains several separate\ncollections.  After the general title, \"Proverbs of Solomon,\" in 1. 1,\nthe following additional headings are found: 10. 1, \"Proverbs of\nSolomon\"; 22. 17, \"The words of the wise\"; 24. 23, \"These also are the\nsayings of the wise\"; 25. 1, \"These also are the proverbs of Solomon,\nwhich the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out\"; 30. 1, \"The\nwords of Agur\"; 31. 1, \"The words of King Lemuel\"; 31. 10-31 is an\nanonymous alphabetic acrostic.  Similar more or less clearly marked\nphenomena may {23} be noted in other Old Testament books, all of them\nbearing witness to the presence of a human element in these writings.\n\nMore significant are the historical inaccuracies found here and there\nin the books.  They may not be serious; the substantial accuracy of the\nwritings may be established, but even the slightest inaccuracy\nconstitutes a blemish which one would not expect in a work coming\ndirectly from an all-wise God.  For example, 2 Kings 18. 10 states that\nSamaria was taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah; verse\n13 contains the statement that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah,\nSennacherib, king of Assyria, came against Jerusalem.  Now, the date of\nthe capture of Samaria is definitely fixed by the Assyrian\ninscriptions.  The city fell either in the closing days of B.C. 722, or\nthe beginning of B.C. 721.  Assuming that it was in 722, the fourteenth\nyear of Hezekiah would be B.C. 714.  But Sennacherib did not become\nking of Assyria until B.C. 705, while his attack upon Judah and\nJerusalem was not undertaken until B.C. 701, hence there would seem to\nbe an inaccuracy somewhere.  Certainly, since the primary purpose of\nthe writings is not historical, but religious, these inaccuracies do\nnot affect the real value of the book.  Nevertheless, their presence\nshows that the writings cannot be looked upon as coming in all their\nparts directly from {24} God.  At some point man must have stepped in\nand left marks of his limitations.\n\nMore serious perhaps may appear the incompleteness and imperfection of\nthe religious and ethical conceptions, especially in the older\nportions.  Read, for example, the twenty-fourth chapter of Second\nSamuel.  Jehovah is there represented as causing David to number the\npeople, and when he carried out the command Jehovah was angry and sent\na pestilence which destroyed, not David, but seventy thousand innocent\nmen.  Can any Christian believe that the God of love revealed by Jesus\never acted in such arbitrary manner?  No!  The trouble lies with the\nauthor of the passage, who, on account of his relatively low conception\nof the character of Jehovah, gave an erroneous interpretation of the\nevents recorded.  A later writer, who had a truer conception of the God\nof Israel, saw that a mistake had been made; therefore he introduced\nSatan as the one who caused the numbering (1 Chron. 21. 1).  Or take\nthe twenty-second chapter of First Kings, especially verses 19 to 23.\nFour hundred prophets of Jehovah urge Ahab to go up against\nRamoth-gilead.  On the advice of the king of Judah, Micaiah is called,\nwho announces, after some hesitation, that the expedition will end\ndisastrously.  He then explains how it happened that the other prophets\ntold a falsehood: {25} \"Therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: I saw\nJehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by\nhim on his right hand and on his left.  And Jehovah said, Who shall\nentice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?  And one said\non this manner; and another said on that manner.  And there came forth\na spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him.  And\nJehovah said unto him, Wherewith?  And he said, I will go forth, and\nwill be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.  And he said,\nThou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.\n_Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of\nall these thy prophets_; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.\"\nCan any Christian believe that our God who is infinitely pure and holy\never did persuade anyone to tell a lie?  God never changes; he has\nalways been pure and holy; but man was not able in the beginning to\ncomprehend him in his fullness.  The human conceptions of the divine\nwere imperfect and incomplete, and these imperfect conceptions are\nembodied in some of the Old Testament writings.  True, as Bowne\nsuggests, \"God might conceivably have made man over all at once by\nfiat, but in that case it would have been a magical rather than a moral\nrevelation.\"[2]\n\nThroughout the entire book these and other {26} indications of the\npresence of a human element may be seen, which the reader cannot afford\nto overlook if he would estimate rightly the Old Testament Scriptures.\nBut while they are there, they must not blind the eyes of the student\nto the fourth great truth expressed by the writer of the Epistle to the\nHebrews, namely, that God spoke through these men; in other words, that\nthere is also a divine element in the Old Testament.  In the words of\nS. I. Curtis: \"While it seems to me that we find abundant evidences of\ndevelopment in the Old Testament from very simple concrete\nrepresentations of God to those which are profoundly spiritual, I am\nnot able to account for this development on naturalistic principles.\nIn it I see God at all times and everywhere coworking with human\ninstruments until the fullness of time should come\"[3].  The presence\nof this divine element was recognized by Jesus and by all the New\nTestament writers, and surely it is a significant fact that in the\nfirst outburst of Christian enthusiasm, and under the living impression\nof the unique personality of the Master, no doubt arose concerning the\ninspiration and permanent value of the Old Testament.  With the\nChristian the testimony of Jesus and his disciples carries great\nweight.  But without appealing to his authority every unbiased reader\nmay convince himself of the nature and character {27} of the Book; it\nis not necessary to depend upon the testimony of men who lived\ncenturies ago, though they were inspired men.  The Book is an open\nbook, ready for examination, and inviting the closest scrutiny on the\npart of every reader.\n\nFormer generations found the principal arguments in favor of the belief\nin a divine element in the Old Testament in the presence of miracles in\nits records and in the fulfillment of prophecy.  The present generation\ncannot depend upon these arguments exclusively.  The whole question of\nmiracles in the Old Testament has assumed a different aspect within\nrecent years.  In the first place, it is seen that in some places where\nformerly a miracle was thought to have been wrought natural causes may\nhave played a prominent part, as, for example, in the crossing of the\nRed Sea and the Jordan.  In other cases language which used to be\ninterpreted literally is now seen to be poetic and imaginative.  In\nstill other cases the absolute historical accuracy of certain\nnarratives has come to be questioned.  All this has resulted in a\nweakening of the evidence relied upon by former generations.\nApproaching the subject of miracles from another side, a better\nacquaintance with the uniformity of nature and the laws of nature has\nled some to question even the possibility of miracles, while the\ngreater emphasis upon the immanence of God has resulted {28} in altered\nconceptions of the natural and supernatural, if not in an almost\ncomplete obliteration of any distinction between the two.  Since\nmiracles are involved in so much uncertainty, they do not at present\nconstitute a very strong argument to prove the presence of a divine\nelement in the Old Testament to one who is at all skeptically inclined;\nindeed, there are many sincere Christians who find miracles useless as\nan aid to faith.\n\nIn a similar manner, one cannot appeal with the same assurance as\nformerly to the fulfillment of prophecy.  It is undoubtedly true that\nmany prophetic utterances were fulfilled; it is equally true that some\nwere not fulfilled.  If, however, the apologist depends upon the\nfulfillment of prophecy as a proof, the nonfulfillment of even a single\none weakens his position.  Moreover, it is recognized at present that\nprophecy in the sense of prediction occupies a relatively insignificant\nplace in the Old Testament.  Besides, scientific methods of study have\nshown that some passages interpreted formerly as predictions can no\nlonger be so interpreted, while in the case of others the\ninterpretation is more or less doubtful.  Here, again, the difficulties\nconnected with the use of the argument have become so perplexing that\nmany consider it wise not to use it at all.  If used with caution,\nprophecy, especially Messianic {29} prophecy, possesses great\nevidential value; but the argument from the fulfillment of prophecy as\nused formerly has lost much of its worth as a proof of inspiration.\nThe arguments relied upon at the present time are simpler than those of\nthe past, and are of such a nature that any fair-minded student can\ntest them.\n\nIn the first place, attention may be called to the essential unity of\nthe book.  There are in the Old World great and magnificent cathedrals,\nsome of which have been centuries in building, yet in all of them may\nbe found unity and harmony.  How is this to be explained?  Although\ngeneration after generation of workmen have labored on the enterprise,\nback of all the efforts was a single plan, evolved in the mind of one\nman, which mind controlled all the succeeding generations of workmen.\nThe result is unity and harmony.  The Bible has been likened to a\nmagnificent cathedral.  The phenomenon to which reference has been made\nin connection with ancient cathedrals may be seen in the Bible as a\nwhole, as also in the Old Testament considered separately.  The latter\ncontains thirty-nine books, by how many authors no one knows, scattered\nover a period of more than a thousand years, written, at least some of\nthem, independently of one another, in places hundreds of miles apart.\nAnd yet there is one thought running through them all--the {30} gradual\nunfolding of God's plan of redemption for the human race.  There must\nbe an explanation of this unity.  Is it not natural to find it in the\nfact that one and the same divine spirit overshadowed the many men who\nmade contributions to the Book?\n\nThe proof of the presence of a divine element in the Old Testament\nwhich is derived from the essential unity of the book, is confirmed by\nthe response of the soul to its message, and the effect which it\nproduces in the lives of those who yield themselves to its teachings.\nJesus and his disciples observed that its message rightly applied would\nawaken a response in the human heart; sometimes, indeed, it produced a\nsense of indignation, because it carried with it a sentence of\ncondemnation; at other times it led to loving obedience.  And they\nthemselves experienced the effects of its teaching upon life and\ncharacter: it was with truths proclaimed in the Old Testament that\nJesus overcame temptation, and the quotations used in the darkest hours\nof his earthly life are an indication that at all times he found the\nmost refreshing soul food in its pages.  The same is true of the early\ndisciples of Jesus.  Undoubtedly, the statement in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17 is\nthe expression of a living experience; and ever since these words were\nwritten millions of Christians have experienced the uplifting influence\nof many portions of the {31} Old Testament Scriptures.  They may not\nenjoin the finer graces of Christianity, but they insist most strongly\nand persistently upon the fundamental virtues which go to make up a\nsturdy, noble, righteous, uncompromising character.  A message which\nproduces such divine results bears witness to itself that it embodies\ntruth which in some sense proceeded from God.  This is aptly stated by\nColeridge in these words: \"Need I say that I have met everywhere more\nor less copious sources of truth and power and purifying impulses, that\nI have found words for my inmost thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances\nfor my hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame and feebleness?  In\nshort, whatever finds me, bears witness for itself that it has\nproceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit which remaining\nin itself, yet regenerateth all other powers, and in all ages entering\ninto holy souls, maketh them friends of God and prophets.\"[4]\n\nAs long as the Old Testament is able to awaken this response and\nproduce these effects men will believe that it contains a divine\nelement; and it will accomplish these things whenever men are willing\nto study it intelligently and devoutly.  What the Old Testament calls\nfor is not a defense but earnest and devout study.  The words of\nRichard Rothe concerning the Bible as a whole are applicable also to\nthe Old Testament Scriptures: {32} \"Let the Bible go forth into\nChristendom as it is in itself, as a book like other books, without\nallowing any dogmatic theory to assign it to a reserved position in the\nranks of books, let it accomplish of itself entirely through its own\ncharacter and through that which each man can find in it for himself,\nand it will accomplish great things.\"[5]  The words of Professor\nWestphal are also worthy to be remembered: \"The only thing for our more\nenlightened religion to bear in mind is that the proof of revelation is\nnot necessarily to be found in the formula which claims to herald it,\nbut, above all, in the specific value of the thing revealed, in the\ndivine character of the inspired Word which forces our conscience to\nrecognize in it the expression of God's will itself.\"[6]\n\nThe value and significance of the above argument cannot be\noverestimated.  But during the past century other proofs have become\navailable as a result of the careful, painstaking study of the Bible by\nscholars in many lands and from various points of view.  These\ninvestigations have shown the Old Testament to be a peculiarly unique\nbook when compared with other sacred literatures of antiquity.  This\nuniqueness consists principally in the pure and lofty atmosphere which\npermeates the whole from beginning to end.  One may read its stories of\nprehistoric times, its records {33} of history, its law, its poetry,\nits prophecy, and everywhere he will find a religious tone and spirit\nwhich, if present at all, is much less marked in the similar\nliteratures of other nations.  The modern scientific student has\napproached the Old Testament chiefly from four directions, and in the\npursuit of his work four distinct tests have been applied to the Old\nTestament: the tests of science, of criticism, of archaeology, and of\ncomparative religion.  These four tests and their bearing upon the New\nTestament, or Christian, view of the Old Testament are considered in\nthe succeeding pages.\n\nBefore closing this chapter one important question remains to be\nconsidered.  It may be formulated in this wise: If there are\nlimitations and imperfections in the Old Testament, or anywhere else in\nthe Bible, how may they be distinguished from the truth?  In the case\nof historical or scientific errors the method of procedure may appear\nclear to those who hold the New Testament view as to the purpose of the\nOld Testament writers; but the situation seems more troublesome in the\ncase of religious and ethical imperfections, because religion and\nethics are the rightful sphere of the biblical writings.  If the Bible\nis not the final authority, where can be found a criterion by which the\nbiblical, or Old Testament, statements may be judged?  Startling as the\nsuggestion {34} to judge scriptures may seem in theory, a moment's\nthought will show that it is being done every day by practically every\nChristian who seeks spiritual nourishment in the Sacred Book.  Who has\nnot passed through experiences such as are suggested in these words of\nMarcus Dods?--\"Who is at the reader's elbow as he peruses Exodus and\nLeviticus to tell him what is of permanent authority and what is for\nthe Mosaic economy only?  Who whispers as we read Genesis and Kings,\n'This is exemplary; this is not'?  Who sifts for us the speeches of\nJob, and enables us to treasure up as divine truth what he utters in\none verse, while we reject the next as Satanic ravings?  Who gives the\npreacher authority and accuracy of aim to pounce on a sound text in\nEcclesiastes, while wisdom and folly toss and roll over one another in\nconfusingly rapid and inextricable contortions?  What enables the\nhumblest Christian to come safely through the cursing Psalms and go\nstraight to forgive his enemy?  What tells us that we may eat things\nstrangled, though the whole college of apostles deliberately and\nexpressly prohibited such eating?  Who assures us that we need not\nanoint the sick with oil, although in the New Testament we are\nexplicitly commanded to do so?  In a word, how is it that the simplest\nreader can be trusted with the Bible and can be left to find his own\n{35} spiritual nourishment in it, rejecting almost as much as he\nreceives?\"[7]  These questions call attention to a common Christian\npractice.  But, if the practice can be justified as Christian, the\nprinciple underlying the practice may be Christian also; and so it is,\nfor it is recognized as legitimate in the New Testament.\n\nA single sentence from a New Testament book suggests the answer to the\nabove questions: \"He that is spiritual judgeth all things.\"[8]  The\nScriptures are included among the \"all things.\"  But notice, Paul does\nnot say that anyone may set himself up as judge, but \"he that is\nspiritual\"; that is, the man who is controlled by the spirit of the\nChrist.  If Jesus has given to the world the highest revelation of God\nand truth, then the expressions of all other revelations must be\nmeasured by his revelation, either as an external standard, or as an\ninner criterion by him who, in his own experience, has appropriated the\ncharacter, spirit, and life of Jesus.  He who has thus appropriated the\nChrist in his fullness will be able to judge all things.  But until he\nhas reached that standard man's judgment will remain imperfect and more\nor less unreliable, and though for his own guidance he is still\ndependent upon it, he must guard against the error of setting up his\nown imperfect Christian consciousness as the ultimate criterion for all.\n\n{36}\n\nUp to the present time no individual has reached the stage of\nexperience where he may be appealed to as final authority for all.\nPerhaps the sum total of the general Christian consciousness would\nprove a more reliable guide, or the Church in so far as it embodies\nthis consciousness.  But it also still falls short of its final glory.\nIt is in the process of development toward perfection, but it has not\nyet reached that stage, and will not reach it until the consciousness\nof every individual contributing to it reflects the consciousness of\nJesus himself.  Then, and then only, can it be appealed to as an\nultimate criterion in matters religious or Christian, including the\nspecific question under consideration: What in the Old Testament is\nfrom God, and so, permanent, and what is due to the human limitations\nof the authors, and so, temporary and local?\n\nIt seems, therefore, necessary to appeal at the present time to what\nmay be called, in a sense, an external standard: the spirit, the\nteaching, and the life of Jesus as it may be determined objectively\nfrom the gospel records.  The supreme position occupied by Jesus the\nChrist in Christian thinking is well described by W. N. Clarke: \"He\n[Jesus Christ] has shown God as he is in his character and relations\nwith men.  He has represented life in its true meaning, and opened to\nus the real way to genuine welfare and success in existence.  {37} What\nhe has made known commends and proves itself as true by the manner in\nwhich it fits into the human scheme, meets human needs, and renders\nthought rational and life successful.  God eternally is such a being as\nJesus represents him to be--this is the heart of Christianity, to be\napprehended, not first in thought but first in life and love, and this\nis forever true.  And it is a revelation never to be superseded, but\nforever to be better and better known.\"[9]  By this standard, called by\nClarke the Christian element in the Bible, the Old Testament teaching\nmust be measured; and by the application of this standard alone is it\npossible to separate the human from the divine and to estimate rightly\nthe permanent value of Old or New Testament teaching.  Whatever in the\nScriptures endures this test may be received as of permanent religious\nvalue, because it is divine in the deepest sense.\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER I\n\n[1] Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 19.\n\n[2] Studies in Christianity, p. 73.\n\n[3] Primitive Semitic Religions To-day, p. 14.\n\n[4] Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, Letter I.\n\n[5] Quoted in the Old Testament Student, Vol. VIII, p. 84.\n\n[6] The Law and the Prophets, p. 16.\n\n[7] The Bible, Its Origin and Nature, pp. 160, 161.\n\n[8] 1 Cor. 2. 15.\n\n[9] The Use of the Scriptures in Theology, pp. 51, 52.\n\n\n\n\n{38}\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE\n\nFor many centuries during the Christian era science was almost\ncompletely dominated by theology.  Whenever, therefore, a scientific\ninvestigator proposed views not in accord with the theological notions\nof the age he was considered a heretic and condemned as such.  During\nthese same centuries theology was dominated by a view of the Bible\nwhich valued the latter as an infallible authority in every realm of\nhuman thought.  The view of the Bible held then was expressed as late\nas 1861 in these words: \"The Bible is none other than the voice of Him\nthat sitteth upon the throne.  Every book of it, every chapter of it,\nevery verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it (where are we\nto stop?), every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most\nHigh.  The Bible is none other than the word of God; not some part of\nit more, some part of it less, but all alike, the utterance of Him who\nsitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.\"[1]  A book\nwhich came thus directly from the mind of God must be inerrant and\ninfallible; hence closely associated with this mechanical view of {39}\nthe divine origin of the Bible was the belief in its absolute inerrancy\nand infallibility.  This is clearly recognized in the words of two\neminent American theologians: \"The historical faith of the Church has\nalways been that the affirmations of the scriptures of all kinds,\nwhether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical\nfact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any\nerror, when the _ipsissima verba_ of the autographs are ascertained and\ninterpreted in their natural and intended sense.\"[2]\n\nWith such an estimate of the Bible it is only natural that theology\nshould bitterly resent any and all scientific conclusions which seemed\nto be contrary to the statements of the Bible.  However, a study of the\nhistory of Bible interpretation creates a serious perplexity.  The\nprinciples upon which the interpretations rested were not the same in\nall ages.  As a result, the \"natural and intended sense\" of biblical\nstatements was variously apprehended.  What was considered the clear\nteaching of Scripture in one age might be condemned as unscriptural in\nanother.  Moreover, some of the methods of interpretation are not\ncalculated to inspire confidence in the results.  When, for example,\nthe poetic passage,\n\n  Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,\n  And thou, moon, in the valley of Aijalon.\n  And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,[3]\n\n{40} is considered sufficient to discredit the scientific claim that\nthe earth moves around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth,\none's confidence in the truth of the theological view is somewhat\nshaken.  It may be insisted, then, that much of the so-called conflict\nbetween science and the Bible was in reality a conflict between science\nand a misinterpreted Bible.\n\nThis, even theology seems to have recognized, for again and again it\nchanged its interpretation of the Bible so as to bring it into accord\nwith the persistent claims of science.  \"The history of most modern\nsciences,\" says Farrar, \"has been as follows: their discoverers have\nbeen proscribed, anathematized, and, in every possible instance,\nsilenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed the\nchampions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their\ninterpretations were erroneous; and--for the most part without an\napology and without a blush--have complacently invented some new line\nof exposition by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into\nsemblable accordance with the now acknowledged fact.\"[4]\n\nThe so-called historical method of Bible study, which has gradually won\nits way, at least in Protestant Christianity, has established Bible\ninterpretation upon a firmer foundation, so that at present much less\nuncertainty exists as to the {41} meaning of the Bible than at any\npreceding age.  In the same way scientific investigation has made\nremarkable strides during the nineteenth century; Twentieth century\nscience is far different from that of the early years of the preceding\ncentury.  And as scientists have had to surrender many of their\npositions in the past it is very probable that, as the result of\nfurther investigation, some views held at present will be superseded by\nothers.  Nevertheless, though science cannot as yet dispense with\nworking hypotheses which may or may not prove true, and though\nmodifications in certain widely accepted views may be expected, there\nare many conclusions which may be considered firmly established.  This\nbeing the case, if at the present time the conflict between science and\nthe Bible is discussed, it is a conflict between scientific conclusions\nreached after prolonged, careful study and investigation and the\nteaching of the Bible as determined by the scientific use of all\nlegitimate means of interpretation.\n\nDoes such conflict exist?  Many geologists, astronomers, biologists,\nand other scientists have claimed for some time that they have reached\nconclusions not in accord with certain statements of the Bible.  Take\nas an illustration the biblical and scientific statements concerning\nthe age of the earth, or creation in general.[5]  The general\nconclusion reached by an overwhelming majority {42} of the most\ncompetent students of the Bible has been that according to the\ninformation furnished by the Scriptures, the date of creation was, in\nround numbers, four thousand years before the opening of the Christian\nera.[6]  At that time, in the words of the Westminster Confession,[7]\n\"It pleased God ... to create or make of nothing the world and all\nthings therein whether visible or invisible in the space of six days\nand all very good.\"  This was accepted as the plain teaching of the\nfirst chapter of Genesis even after scientific methods had been\nintroduced in the study of the Bible.  Then came geology, pushing back\nthe \"beginnings,\" adding millions of years to the age of the globe, and\ninsisting that there is abundant evidence to prove the existence of\nlife upon earth many millenniums before B.C. 4,000.  Other sciences\nreached conclusions pointing in the same direction, until it became\nperfectly evident that Bible students must reckon with what seemed a\nreal conflict between the conclusions of science and the teaching of\nthe Bible.\n\nNo wonder Bible lovers were troubled when scientists in ever-increasing\nnumbers advanced claims that appeared to involve a charge of scientific\ninaccuracy against the Sacred Scriptures.  Many were convinced that\nthis could not be, for they feared that if the Bible contained\ninaccuracies of any sort, its value would be {43} completely destroyed,\nand with the Bible Christianity must fall into ruins.  In Brother\nAnthony, intended to picture the perplexed soul of a monk in the days\nof Galileo, Mark Guy Pearse gives a vivid portrayal of the doubts and\nperplexities of many devout Bible students in the nineteenth century:\n\n  But on my fevered heart there falls no balm;\n  The garden of my soul, where happy birds\n  Sang in the fullness of their joy, and bloomed\n  The flowers bright, finds only winter now;\n  And bleak winds moan about the leafless trees,\n  And chill rains beat to earth the rotting stalks.\n  Hope, Faith, and God, alike are gone, all gone--\n  If it be so, as this Galileo saith.\n  \"_The earth is round and moves about the sun;\n  The sun,_\" he saith, \"_is still, the axle fixed\n  Of nature's wheel, center of all the worlds_.\"\n  Galileo is an honest soul, God knows--\n  No end has he to serve but only truth,\n  By that which he declares, daring to risk\n  Position, liberty, and even life itself.  He knows.\n  And yet the ages have believed it not.\n  Have they not meditated, watched, and prayed--\n  Great souls with vision purged and purified?\n  Had God no messenger until arose\n  Galileo!  Long years the Church has prayed,\n  Seeking His grace who guided into truth,\n  And weary eyes have watched the sun and stars,\n  And heard the many voices that proclaim\n  God's hidden ways--did they believe a lie?\n  The Church's holy fathers, were they wrong?\n  Yet speaks Galileo as one who knows.\n\n  Shrinks all my soul from breathing any word\n  That dares to question God's most holy Book,\n\n{44}\n\n  As men beneath an avalanche pass dumb\n  For fear a sound should bring destruction down.\n  If but a jot or tittle of the Word\n  Do pass away, then is all lost.  And yet\n  If what Galileo maintains be true!--\n  \"_The sun itself moves not_.\"  The Scripture tells\n  At Joshua's command the sun stood still.\n  Doth scripture lie?  The blessed Lord himself,\n  Spake he not of the sun that rose and set!\n  So cracks and cleaves the ground beneath my feet.\n\n  The sun that fills and floods the world with light\n  My darkness and confusion hath become!\n  O God, as here about the old gray walls\n  The ivy clings and twines its arms, and finds\n  A strength by which it rises from the earth\n  And mounts toward heaven, then gladly flings\n  Its grateful crown of greenery round the height,\n  So by thy Word my all uncertain soul\n  Hath mounted toward thy heaven, and brought\n  Its love, its all, wherewith to crown my Lord.\n  Alas, the wall is fallen.  Beneath it crushed\n  The clinging ivy lies; its stronghold once\n  Is now the prison house, the cruel grave.[8]\n\n\nSince the scientific position seemed to many devout believers to\nundermine the Christian faith, it is not altogether strange that they\nshould set themselves against these claims with all their might, though\nit may be difficult to justify the bitterness displayed by many\nChristian ministers in the denunciation of even devout Christian\nscientists, as \"infidels,\" \"impugners of the sacred records,\"\n\"assailants of the Word of God,\" etc.  It is hardly credible that\nduring the enlightened {45} nineteenth century geology should be\ndenounced as \"not a subject of lawful inquiry,\" \"a dark art,\"\n\"dangerous and disreputable,\" \"a forbidden province,\" \"infernal\nartillery,\" \"an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation.\"\n\nBut the progress of science could not be blocked by denunciation, and\ngradually the claims of geology, astronomy, and other sciences\nrespecting the great age of the earth came to be accepted as well\nestablished.  Is, then, the scientific teaching of the Bible false?  By\nno means, said many defenders of the faith; on the contrary, there is\nperfect agreement between science and the Bible, provided the latter is\nrightly interpreted.  The first problem was to extend what was commonly\ntaken to be the biblical teaching respecting the age of the earth so as\nto meet the demands of geology.  This was readily done by interpreting\n\"day\" figuratively as meaning an indefinite period.  It could easily be\nshown that in some passages \"day\" did not mean a day of twenty-four\nhours.  Hence, why not interpret the word metaphorically in Gen. 1?  It\nis safe to say that, had it not been for a desire to harmonize the\nbiblical account with the conclusions of science, no Bible student\nwould ever have thought of this interpretation in connection with the\nacts of creation, for a natural interpretation of the writer's language\nmakes it evident that when the author of Gen. 1 speaks {46} of the\nsuccessive events of creation he is thinking of days of twenty-four\nhours, each consisting of day and night.[9]  Marcus Dods is right when\nhe says, \"If the word 'day' in these chapters does not mean a period of\ntwenty-four hours, the interpretation of scripture is hopeless.\"[10]\nNo permanent good can come from doing violence to plain statements of\nthe Bible by the use of methods of interpretation that would be\nconsidered illegitimate in the study of other literary productions.  In\nall the harmonizing efforts this caution has been overlooked.  The\nbeliever in revelation, thinking that the agreement between science and\nthe Bible must be minute, has yielded to the temptation to twist the\nbiblical record into a new meaning with every fresh discovery of\nscience.  Many scientists were repelled by this arbitrary method, and\nwhen they saw that agreement could not be had by legitimate methods,\nand knew of no other way out of the difficulty, they too frequently\nassumed a hostile attitude toward revelation.  A method leading to such\ndisastrous results cannot be considered altogether satisfactory.\n\nGranting, however, for the sake of argument, the possibility of\ninterpreting \"day\" metaphorically, the troubles are by no means ended,\nfor it is impossible to discover clearly defined periods in the\ngeological records such as are presupposed in the biblical record.  But\nthere is a more serious {47} difficulty.  The order in which the\ndifferent living beings and the heavenly bodies are said in Genesis to\nhave been created does not seem to be the same as that suggested by\ngeology and astronomy.  For example, according to Genesis, fishes and\nbirds appeared together on the fifth day, preceding all land animals,\nwhich are said to have been created on the sixth day.  According to\ngeology, fish and numerous species of land animals, especially reptiles\nliving on land, preceded birds.[11]  Moreover, according to Genesis,\nthe sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth, a view which is\naltogether inconsistent with the modern scientific view of the\nuniverse, and of the part the sun plays in plant and animal life upon\nearth.  True, this last difficulty is avoided by some by giving to\ncertain Hebrew words a meaning which they do not ordinarily have.  For\nexample, it is said, \"Let there be\" (verse 14) means \"Let there\nappear\"; \"God made\" (verse 16) means \"God made to appear,\" or \"God\nappointed,\" to a specific office.  With this interpretation, it is\nstated, Genesis says nothing about the formation or creation of the\nluminaries.  They may have existed for a long time, only on the fourth\nday they were made to appear--the vapor around the earth having\npreviously hidden them--and were appointed to the offices mentioned in\nverses 14 to 18.  No one will claim that this is a natural {48}\ninterpretation of the biblical language.  If the writer meant \"Let\nthere appear,\" he could have found a suitable word in Hebrew, as also\nto express the idea \"appoint.\"  The language of Driver is not too\nstrong: \"Verses fourteen to eighteen cannot be legitimately interpreted\nexcept as implying that in the conception of the writer luminaries had\nnot previously existed, and that they were made and set in their places\nin the heavens after the separation of sea and land and the appearance\nof vegetation upon the earth.\"[12]\n\nVarious attempts have been made to escape the difficulty caused by the\nconclusions of geology as to the order in which different forms of life\nhave appeared upon earth.  These conclusions are based chiefly upon the\npresence of fossil remains imbedded in the different strata of the\nearth's surface.  Passing by the earlier explanations--for example,\nthat these fossil remains were placed there by a direct act of God on\none of the creative days for some mysterious purpose, perhaps for the\ntrial of human faith, or that they were due to the ravages of the\nDeluge--reference may be made to two or three of the more recent\n\"scientific\" attempts to harmonize the facts of science with the\nstatements of Genesis.  There is, first of all, the _restitution_\ntheory advocated by J. H. Kurtz and Thomas Chalmers.[13]  Admitting\nthat the fossil remains are important for the determination {49} of the\nage of the earth and the order in which different forms of life\nappeared upon the globe, Kurtz writes: \"The animal and vegetable world\nwhich lies buried in the stratified formations was not that which,\naccording to the Bible, was created respectively on the third, fifth,\nand sixth days.  Its origin must belong to an earlier period.\"[14]  In\nother words, his view is that \"the main description in Genesis does not\nrelate to the geological periods at all; that room is left for these\nperiods between verse one and verse two; that the life which then\nflourished upon the earth was brought to an end by a catastrophe, the\nresults of which are alluded to in verse two; and that what follows\n(verses 3ff.) is the description of a second creation immediately\npreceding the appearance of man.\"  That this view is due to a desire to\nharmonize the biblical account with science is clearly implied in the\nwords of Kurtz intended to meet the charge of Delitzsch that his view\nis \"pure delusion.\"  \"It is,\" says Kurtz, \"merely a delusion to attempt\nidentifying the creation of the primeval fossil flora and fauna with\nthose of the third, fifth, and sixth days, _and at the same time to\nendeavor harmonizing geology and the Bible_.\"  Not to speak of the\nastronomical difficulty referred to above, which remains, science has\nnothing whatever to offer in support of this theory, while, on the\nother {50} hand, the tenor of the Genesis narrative implies such close\nconnection between verse one and verse two that there is no room for\nthe alleged catastrophe.  It is not strange, therefore, that modern\napologists have discarded the restitution hypothesis.\n\nThe _vision_ theory has been presented most forcefully by Hugh\nMiller.[15]  According to this view \"the narrative was not meant to\ndescribe the actual succession of events, but was the description of a\nseries of visions presented prophetically to the narrator's mental eye,\nand representing, not the first appearance of each species of life upon\nthe globe, but its maximum development.  The 'drama of creation,' it is\nsaid, is not described as it was enacted historically, but _optically_,\nas it would present itself to a spectator in a series of pictures or\ntableaux embodying the most characteristic and conspicuous feature of\neach period, and, as it were, summarizing in miniature its results.\"\n\nThough this view was presented with much eloquence and skill, it has\nbeen unable to maintain its position, simply because it is based upon\nan unnatural interpretation of the biblical record.  No one approaching\nGenesis without a theory to defend would think for a moment that he is\nreading the description of a vision.  The only natural interpretation\nis that the author means to record what he considers actual fact.\nMoreover, {51} where in Scripture could there be found an analogy to\nthis mode of procedure?  The revelation of an unknown past to a\nhistorian or prophet seems not in accord with the ordinary method of\nGod's revelations to men.  But, admitting the possibility of this\nmethod of divine communication, why should the picture thus presented\nto the mind of the author differ so widely from the facts uncovered by\ngeologists?\n\nSimilar attempts to harmonize Genesis with geology have been made by\nother geologists, among them Professor Alexander Winchell,[16] Sir J.\nW. Dawson,[17] and Professor J. D. Dana.[18]  The results are perfectly\nsatisfactory to these writers, but they fail to see that in order to\naccomplish their purpose they must have recourse to unnatural\ninterpretations of the Genesis account, which in itself is sufficient\nevidence to show the hopelessness of the task.  A similar judgment must\nbe passed on the more recent attempt by F. H. Capron[19] to bring the\nbiblical account into harmony with the modern theory of evolution.\nCapron is fully convinced that \"the most rudimentary knowledge of\ngeology is sufficient to satisfy any candid critic that the Genesis\nnarrative as interpreted by any one of them[20] cannot be brought into\nharmony with the admitted facts of science.\"  He, therefore, attempts a\nnew harmony by trying to show that the first chapter of Genesis {52}\ngives only the order in which the creative words were uttered, not the\norder in which the resulting effects were produced.  Unfortunately, in\naccomplishing this purpose, he, like his predecessors, reveals an\nalmost complete disregard for the obvious meaning of the Genesis\nnarrative.\n\nAfter a close study of the Genesis narrative and the numerous attempts\nof harmonizing it with science, the present writer has become\nthoroughly convinced that it is impossible to establish a complete,\ndetailed harmony between the Genesis account of creation and the\nestablished facts of science without doing violence to the Bible or to\nscience or to both.  The only harmony possible is what has been called\nan \"ideal harmony,\" that is, a harmony not extending to details, but\nlimited to salient features.  But this gives away the very position for\nwhich the \"harmonists\" have contended.  As Driver says, \"If the\nrelative priority of plants and animals, or the period at which the sun\nand moon were formed, are amongst the details on which harmony cannot\nbe established, what other statement (in the account of creation) can\nclaim acceptance on the ground that it forms part of the narrative of\nGenesis?\"[21]\n\nAdmitting now the presence of discrepancies between science and the Old\nTestament, what becomes of the Old Testament?[22]  Must it be {53}\ndiscarded as no longer \"profitable for teaching, for reproof, for\ncorrection, for instruction which is in righteousness\"?  Some there are\nwho seem to fear such fate for the book they dearly love.  On the other\nhand, there are multitudes who calmly admit the claims of science, and\nat the same time continue to read and study the pages of the Old\nTestament, assured that it can still furnish nourishment to their\nspiritual natures.  This attitude of confidence has been made possible,\non the one hand, by a broader and truer conception of divine\nrevelation, and, on the other, by a more adequate interpretation of the\npurpose of the Bible and of the biblical writers.\n\nBelievers in God have come to realize as never before that God has\nspoken and still speaks in a variety of ways.  Manifestations of God\nmay be seen on every hand:\n\n  The heavens declare the glory of God;\n  And the firmament showeth his handiwork.\n  Day unto day uttereth speech,\n  And night unto night showeth knowledge.[23]\n\nWhat is the universe but a manifestation of God?  The whole realm of\nnature is in a real sense a record of divine revelations, which science\nseeks to interpret.  \"Now,\" says A. H. McNeile,[24] \"If God created all\nthings and carries the universe along by the utterance of his power, it\nis clear that every fresh item of knowledge gained by {54} scientific\ninvestigation is a fresh glimpse into the will of God.  Strictly\nspeaking, there is no such thing as secular knowledge.  A man only\nmakes his studies secular for himself as he divorces them from the\nthought of God, so that all the scientific experiments in the world\nform part of the study of one aspect of God's Word.\"\n\nOn the other hand the purpose of scripture has come to be more\nadequately apprehended.  The New Testament makes it perfectly clear\nthat the aim of the Old Testament Scriptures is to bring man into\nharmony with God, to make him morally and spiritually perfect, and to\npoint to the consummation of the redemptive purpose of God in and\nthrough the Christ.[25]  There is no warrant anywhere for the belief\nthat the Old Testament writers meant to teach science of any kind.\nThis is admitted even by some who insist upon the accuracy of the\nscientific teaching of the Bible.  \"It is true that the Scriptures were\nnot designed to teach philosophy, science, or ethnology, or human\nhistory as such, and therefore they are not to be studied primarily as\nsources of information on these subjects.\"[26]  Evidently, then,\nwherever the Old Testament touches upon questions of science it treats\nthem only in so far as they serve a higher ethical or spiritual\npurpose.  Is it necessary to have absolute scientific accuracy in every\ndetail in order to do this {55} effectively?  A moment's thought will\nshow that it is not.  The writer heard not long ago a powerful appeal\non behalf of the boys in a certain community, in which the speaker\nreferred to the \"Gracchi, the most renowned citizens of Athens.\"  The\nhistorical inaccuracy in no wise affected the moral force of the\nappeal.  No one would be foolish enough to assume that the spiritual\nand ethical value of sermons preached by the early Church fathers is\ninvalidated by the fanciful science mixed with their gospel message.\nWho has not heard sermons that created a profound spiritual impression,\nthough their science and history were not altogether faultless?  It\nwould seem, then, that in estimating extra-biblical utterances the\nprinciple is recognized that \"ignorance of some departments of truth\ndoes not disqualify a man for knowing and imparting truth about God;\nthat in order to be a medium of revelation a man does not need to be in\nadvance of his age in secular learning; that intimate communion with\nGod, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect\nunderstanding of and zeal for God's purpose are qualities quite\nindependent of a knowledge of the discoveries of science.\"[27]\n\nIs it right to raise a different standard for the Scriptures?\n\"Certainly,\" say many, \"because the Bible is inspired; it is the Word\nof God, and God cannot inspire an untruth of any kind.\" {56} Now, it\nmay be readily admitted that God cannot inspire an untruth; but have we\nany right to argue as if we knew exactly how God ought to convey a\nrevelation to man?  Without entering upon a discussion of the entire\nsubject of inspiration, the question may be raised whether or not\ninspiration covers purely scientific information.  The claim has been\nput forth by some who believe that the Bible and science are in perfect\nagreement that this agreement \"proves that the scientific element of\nscripture as well as the doctrinal was within the scope of\ninspiration.\"[28]  Consistency might seem to require the admission that\ndisagreement would prove that the scientific element does not fall\nwithin the scope of inspiration.  At any rate, it is of enormous\nimportance to remember, what should be a perfectly obvious principle,\nthat the facts presented in the Bible must determine the answer to the\ninquiry.  In other words, \"We can learn what the Bible is only from\nwhat the Bible itself says.\"[29]\n\nOne thing is quite certain, namely, that the Bible makes not the\nslightest claim of being a scientific treatise complete and\nup-to-date.[30]  It is equally true that it does not deny being such a\ntreatise, hence the inquirer is thrown back upon a study of the facts\npresented in the Bible; and upon the basis of these he must determine\nwhether or not there is reason for believing that scientific {57}\nknowledge comes within the scope of inspiration.  Now, the abstract\npossibility of God communicating to man a knowledge of exact scientific\nfacts in a prescientific age need not be denied.  It is, however, a\nquestion whether God could have communicated such facts to man three\nthousand years ago without robbing him of his personality and changing\nhim into a mechanism.  So far as the ways of God are known from\nexperience, observation, history, and other sources, he has always\ntreated with respect and consideration the powers and faculties of his\nchief creature.  \"Had inspired men,\" says Dods,[31] \"introduced into\ntheir writings information which anticipated the discoveries of\nscience, their state of mind would be inconceivable, and revelation\nwould be a source of confusion.  God's methods are harmonious with one\nanother, and as he has given men natural faculties to acquire\nscientific knowledge and historical information, he did not stultify\nthis gift by imparting such knowledge in a miraculous and\nunintelligible manner.\"  The same truth is expressed by H. E. Ryle in\nthese words: \"We do not expect instruction upon matters of physical\ninquiry from revelation in the written Word.  God's other gifts to men,\nof learning, perseverance, calculation, and the like, have been and are\na true source of revelation.  But scripture supplies no short cut for\nthe intellect.  Where {58} man's intellectual powers may hope to attain\nto the truth, be it in the region of historical, scientific, and\ncritical study, we have no warrant to expect an anticipation of results\nthrough the interposition of supernatural instruction in the letter of\nscripture....  Scripture is divinely inspired, not to release men from\nthe toil of mental inquiry, but to lead and instruct their souls in\nthings of eternal salvation.\"[32]  This is not an arbitrary limitation\nof the scope of inspiration; it is a conclusion based upon a careful\nconsideration of the facts of science and of the Bible, which seem to\nfurnish sufficient evidence that the biblical writers were not in any\nmarked degree in advance of their age in the knowledge of physical\nfacts or laws.  In other words, the Bible is primarily a book of\nreligion, hence religion, and not science, is to be looked for in its\npages.  Altogether too much time has been spent in an effort to find in\nit scientific truth in a scientific form.  Such attempts clearly\ndisregard the purpose of the biblical writers as interpreted in the New\nTestament.\n\nAnd could a Divine Providence have chosen a different method?  Even now\ndiscoveries follow one another so fast in the realm of science that no\nbook remains a standard work for more than a few years.  It seems\nobvious, therefore, that a book written thousands of years ago could\nnot remain a standard scientific work for all times.  {59} But assuming\nfor the sake of argument that God had communicated the knowledge of\nscientific facts to these writers--evidence for which is entirely\nlacking--what would have been the result?  Later occurrences suggest\nwhat might have happened.  The great mass of people would have looked\nupon teachers of strange science as heretics and madmen, and would have\nrejected not only their scientific teaching but their religious\nteaching as well.  What a loss that would have been to mankind!  No\nserious loss would come to men if they were left a while longer in\nignorance concerning scientific matters, but very serious loss would\ncome to them by continuing in their lower religious and ethical beliefs\nand practices.  The only way to make the higher religious truth\nunderstood was to present it in a form easily apprehended by the\npeople.  To do this is the chief purpose of the primitive,\n_prescientific science_ of the Old Testament Scriptures.\n\nThe peculiar element in scripture is the spirit and religious\natmosphere which permeate all its parts and give to the Bible a unique\nplace among the literatures of the world.  This is the divine element\ndue to inspiration.  It is this element which establishes a gulf\nbetween the Hebrew account of creation and the cosmologies of other\nnations.  Though the biblical writers had very much the same idea about\nthe form and general {60} arrangement of the visible world as we find\namong other peoples--ideas that have satisfied at all times the\nmajority of men even among nations with a pretense to culture, namely,\nthe cosmology of appearances--these ideas were all connected with their\nsublime faith in Jehovah: to his omnipotence they referred the\nexistence of the world, and they made all its changes depend entirely\non his will.  In their monotheistic religion they secured the\nfoundation of a clear and simple cosmology different from the grotesque\ncosmologies of other nations and yet not beyond the demands of men of a\nprimitive type and of simple mind, who were full of a lively\nimagination, but not much accustomed to analyze phenomena or their\ncauses.\n\nIn this connection it may prove helpful to remember what, according to\nthe biblical viewpoint and in the light of history, was the\ncontribution of Israel to the development of the human race.  \"Israel,\"\nsays G. W. Jordan,[33] \"is comparatively young, politically it is\nprovincial, socially it is not brilliant, in the realm of science it is\nnarrow and dependent; yet when we lay stress on these limitations we\nonly cause the peculiar glory of this nation's life to stand out more\nclearly; it has its own individuality; its real leaders are men of\ngenius, their ambition is to speak in the name of the eternal king;\nthey {61} hear the divine message and claim for it the supreme\nsignificance.\"  This is the judgment of a Bible student.  The same\ntruth is expressed in the words of one who approaches the Bible from\nthe viewpoint of the scientist, namely, the eminent Italian astronomer,\nSchiaparelli[34]: \"Their [the Hebrews] natural gifts, as well as the\ncourse of events, carried them to a different mission [from that of\nGreece and Rome] of no smaller importance--that of purifying the\nreligious sentiment and of preparing the way for monotheism.  Of this\nway they mark the first clear traces.  In the laborious accomplishment\nof this great task Israel lived, suffered, and completely exhausted\nitself.  Israel's history, legislation, and literature were essentially\ncoordinated toward this end; science and art were for Israel of\nsecondary importance.  No wonder, therefore, that the steps of the\nJews' advance in the field of scientific conceptions and speculations\nwere small and feeble; no wonder that in such respects they were easily\nvanquished by their neighbors on the Nile and the Euphrates.\"\n\nIn conclusion: Permanent harmony between science and the Bible will be\nsecured when each is assigned to its legitimate sphere.  Science has a\nright to ask that, if men are seeking purely scientific information,\nthey should turn to recent text-books in geology, astronomy, or the\nother {62} sciences.  But in the sphere to which Jesus and the New\nTestament writers assigned the Old Testament science cannot deny or\nseriously question its inspiration or permanent value.  Unprejudiced\nscience has never done this.  It is perfectly ready to recognize the\ninestimable religious and ethical value of even those Old Testament\nnarratives which refer to scientific facts, not because of their\nscientific teaching, but because of the presence of eternal truth in\nthe crude form of primitive science.  Fair-minded scientists readily\nadmit that if anyone wishes to know what connection the world has with\nGod, if he seeks to trace back all that now is to the very fountain\nhead of life, if he desires to discover some unifying principle, some\nilluminating purpose in the history of the world, he may still turn to\nthe early chapters of Genesis as a safe guide.\n\nWhat, then, is the bearing of the conclusions of modern science upon\nthe permanent value of the Old Testament?  Science has compelled the\nBible student to withdraw the attention from the nonessential and\nsecondary, and to concentrate it upon the heart and substance.  In\ndoing this it has established upon a much firmer basis the conviction\nthat, whatever the scientific value of scripture may be or may not be,\nthe apostle was right when he wrote that \"the sacred writings ... are\nable to make wise unto salvation through {63} faith which is in Christ\nJesus.  Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for\nteaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in\nrighteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished\ncompletely unto every good work.\"[35]\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER II\n\n[1] Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 89.\n\n[2] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 238.\n\n[3] Josh. 10. 12.\n\n[4] The Bible--Its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 160.\n\n[5] In a brief treatment it seems preferable to confine the discussion\nto a specific concrete case; therefore this chapter deals almost\nexclusively with questions centering around the subject of cosmogony.\n\n[6] The margin of the Authorized Version still gives the chronology of\nArchbishop Ussher to that effect.\n\n[7] Chapter IV, 1.\n\n[8] The Expositor, 1902, pp. 159, 160.\n\n[9] It requires but a reading of the \"proofs\" of the opposite view to\nunderstand their weakness.  Compare Expositor, 1886, pp. 287-289.\n\n[10] The book of Genesis, p. 4.\n\n[11] Another difficulty has been found in the statement of Genesis that\n\"vegetation\" was complete two days before animal life appeared, but the\ndisagreement is more apparent than real.  The geological record, it is\ntrue, shows many more animal than plant remains in the very ancient\nrocks.  It was not until Devonian and Carboniferous times that the\nplants became very abundant, as far as the geological records go.\nIndeed, in the oldest rocks in which animal remains occur, no plant\nremains have been discovered.  However, this is not to be {64} taken as\nproving that animals existed before plants, because low forms of the\nlatter, having no hard parts, would be preserved with difficulty.\nMoreover, in some of the primitive forms, it is not easy to distinguish\nplants from animals.  But, apart from the records in the rocks, both\nbiologists and geologists believe that plants existed as early as\nanimals, if not earlier, for the latter needed the former to live upon.\nAn eminent geologist, Professor U. S. Grant, of Northwestern\nUniversity, has expressed his opinion to the writer in these words: \"It\nseems to me that, viewed in an abstract way, the Genesis statement of\nvegetation appearing before animal life is not far from correct.\"\n\n[12] The Book of Genesis, p. 25.\n\n[13] Natural Theology, Vol. I, pp. 229, 230.\n\n[14] History of the Old Covenant, Vol. I, p. cxxix.\n\n[15] The Testimony of the Rocks, Lecture IV.\n\n[16] Reconciliation of Science and Religion, pp. 356ff.; compare also\nPre-Adamites, _passim_.\n\n[17] Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, _passim_.\n\n[18] Bibliotheca Sacra, 1885, pp. 201ff.\n\n[19] The Conflict of Truth, pp. 162ff.\n\n[20] Kurtz, Miller, Dawson, Dana, and the rest.\n\n[21] Expositor, 1886, p. 38.\n\n[22] The writer wants it clearly understood that an \"ideal,\" harmony,\nas described above, can be established.  He is equally certain,\nhowever, that the harmony cannot be carried into details.\n\n[23] Psa. 19. 1, 2.\n\n[24] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.\n\n[25] See above, Chapter I, p. 12.\n\n[26] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.\n\n[27] Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, pp. 4, 5.\n\n[28] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.\n\n[29] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.\n\n{65}\n\n[30] Surely, there is not the slightest claim in Scripture that Moses\nor any other biblical writer received divine information concerning the\nbeginnings of the universe; nor is there anything to support the\nassumption that the account of creation was supernaturally revealed to\nAdam, and that from him it was transmitted word for word through the\nfamilies of the pious antediluvians, of Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob, etc., until it was finally received and committed to writing by\nMoses.\n\n[31] The Book of Genesis, p. 5.\n\n[32] H. E. Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, pp. 5, 6.\n\n[33] Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 90.\n\n[34] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 1.\n\n[35] 2 Tim. 3. 15-17; on the permanent value and significance of the\nGenesis narratives; see also below, pp. 234ff.\n\n\n\n\n{66}\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN CRITICISM\n\nNo careful observer can doubt that modern criticism has exerted a\nmarked influence upon the attitude of many Christian people toward the\nBible.  Both those in sympathy with new ideas and those opposed to them\nfrequently speak of the crisis which this criticism has brought about.\n\"It does seem,\" says John E. McFadyen, a believer in the methods and\nresults of modern criticism, \"that the Church to-day in all her\nbranches is face to face with a crisis of the most serious kind.\"[1]\nOn the other hand, John Smith, a determined opponent of criticism,\nwrites concerning the conclusions of the latter: \"They conflict with\nthe profoundest certitudes of the faith, must inevitably alter the\nfoundation on which from the beginning our holy religion has stood\nbefore the world, and, consequently, so far as a theory can, must\nobstruct her mission and abridge her influence.\"[2]  Whether the crisis\nis as acute as is here implied or not, there seems to be much concern\namong devout believers in the Bible about the bearing of modern\ncriticism upon the value of the book they dearly love.  In the nature\n{67} of the case, limitation of space forbids an exhaustive discussion\nof this interesting subject here.  There are, however, three questions\nwhich are worthy of serious consideration: (1) What is modern\ncriticism?  (2) What are the more important conclusions of criticism\nthat have secured wide recognition?  (3) What is the bearing of these\nconclusions, if true, upon the Christian view of the Old Testament?\n\nWhat, then, is biblical criticism?  It is defined by Nash as \"the free\nstudy of all the facts,\"[3] which definition McFadyen expands so as to\nread, \"the free and reverent study of all the biblical facts.\"[4]\nCriticism is _study_, which means careful investigation rather than\nsuperficial reading followed by hasty or unfounded conclusions.  The\ninvestigation is _free_ in the sense that though it is not\ndisrespectful to traditional beliefs, it is not prevented by them from\nmarking out new paths if the facts so demand.  It is _reverent_ because\nit deals with a book that has played a unique part in the religious\nlife and thought of many centuries, and has been received as a book in\nwhich the voice of God may be heard.  It is primarily a study of the\n_facts_ presented by the book, not of theories or speculations, though\nin the study of these facts much may be learned from the theories of\nthe past, and the study may give rise to new theories.  In order to be\n{68} thoroughly scientific, it must have due regard for all the facts\nin the case.  For convenience sake it has become customary to\ndistinguish four phases of Old Testament, or biblical, criticism: (1)\nTextual Criticism; (2) Linguistic Criticism; (3) Literary Criticism;\nand (4) Historical Criticism.\n\nClose students of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have been\ncompelled to admit that even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts now known\nare not free from errors and blemishes, and it is the office of textual\ncriticism to remove such errors by the use of all legitimate methods\nand means and to restore the _ipsissima verba_ of the author.  The\npresence of corruptions in the text is established by facts like these:\n(1) There are passages in which the text as it stands cannot be\ntranslated without violence to the laws of grammar, or, which are\nirreconcilable with the context or with other passages.  For example,\nin 1 Sam. 3. 1 the Authorized Version reads, \"Saul reigned one year,\nand when he had reigned two years over Israel.\"  This translation does\nviolence to the laws of Hebrew grammar.  The Hebrew reads, literally,\n\"The son of a year was Saul in his reigning,\" which may be rendered,\n\"Saul was a year old when he began to reign.\"  The narratives\nconcerning events in the life of Saul before he became king make it\nclear that this statement is not correct.  Perhaps the scribe, in\nwriting the {69} formula, which is the usual formula for stating a\nking's age at his accession, left a space for the numeral to be filled\nin later, and forgot the omission; or the numeral has accidentally\ndropped out.  In this case, it is the duty of textual criticism to\nsupply, if possible, the age of Saul when he was made king.  In the\nabsence of all external evidence the textual critic must fall back upon\nconjecture.  This the translators of the Revised Version did, for in\nthe English Revised Version we find in brackets the word \"thirty,\" in\nthe American Revised Version \"forty.\"  In this special case the assured\nresults of textual criticism are purely negative, in that they have\nestablished the fact that the present text cannot be correct.  The\nattempt to restore the original text rests upon conjecture.  (2)\nParallel passages differ in such a manner as to make it certain that\nthe variations are largely due to textual corruption.  A good\nillustration is seen in Psa. 18, when compared with 2 Sam. 22.  These\ntwo passages were undoubtedly identical in the beginning; but even the\noldest existing manuscripts show more than seventy variants between the\ntwo chapters.  (3) Some of the ancient versions contain readings which\noften bear a strong stamp of probability and remove or lessen the\ndifficulties of the Hebrew text.  For example, in Josh. 9. 4, where the\nHebrew reads, \"And they {70} went and made as if they had been\nambassadors,\" the Septuagint reads, \"And they went and provisioned\nthemselves.\"  The latter reading is supported by nearly all the ancient\nversions, and seems more probable than that of the Hebrew text.\nAnother illustration of a similar character is found in Psa. 22. 16c,\nwhich is translated by both the Authorized and the Revised Version,\n\"They pierced my hands and my feet.\"  This, however, is not a\ntranslation of the Hebrew at all, for it reads, \"Like a lion, my hands\nand my feet.\"  In this case the New Testament, as well as the Latin and\nSyriac translations, supports the reading of the Septuagint.  Passages\nlike these, in which the text has evidently suffered in the course of\ntransmission, might be multiplied a hundredfold, and it is generally\nconsidered a legitimate ambition to attempt the restoration of the\nHebrew text to its original form.\n\nLinguistic criticism deals with difficult and obscure passages.\nSometimes the meaning of single words or phrases is uncertain, as, for\nexample, in Isa. 53. 1, which reads, in the Authorized Version, \"Who\nhath believed our report?\"  The margin gives as alternatives for\n\"report\" the words \"doctrine\" and \"hearing.\"  The Revised Version\nreads, \"Who hath believed our message?\" with a marginal note, \"Or,\n_that which we have heard_.\"  In form the word translated \"message\"\n{71} is a passive participle, meaning, literally, \"that which has been\nheard.\"  Surely, no one would consider \"report,\" \"doctrine,\" \"hearing,\"\n\"message,\" etc., synonymous.  It is the duty of linguistic criticism to\ndetermine the exact meaning of the word.  Sometimes grammatical\nconstructions are ambiguous.  Very familiar are the words in Isa. 6. 3,\n\"Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his\nglory.\"  The margin suggests as an alternative for the last clause,\n\"the fullness of the whole earth is his glory,\" which might mean\nsomething entirely different from the ordinary rendering.  There are\nother passages, some among the sublimest prophetic utterances, in which\nit is by no means clear whether the reference is to the past or to the\npresent or to the future.  There is, indeed, plenty of room for the\nmost painstaking work of the linguistic critic.\n\nThe literary criticism concerns itself with the literary history of Old\nTestament books.  The Bible may be more than a human production, but in\noutward form it has the appearance of an ordinary work of literature;\nand, so far as its history as a collection of literary productions is\nconcerned, it has not escaped the fortunes or misfortunes of other\nancient literary works.  It is a well-known fact that extra-biblical\nbooks, religious and secular, have come down from the {72} distant past\nbearing the names of men who cannot have been their authors; for\nexample, the Gospel of Peter, or the Ascension of Isaiah.  Some ancient\nbooks have been interpolated and added to from time to time; for\nexample, the Sibylline Oracles, the religious books of the Hindus.\nSome ancient books are compilations rather than original productions;\nfor example, the Diatessaron of Tatian, or the religious books of the\nBabylonians, which give abundant evidence of compilation.  The\ndiscoveries of these phenomena in extra-biblical books naturally raised\nthe question whether similar phenomena might not be found in the books\nof the Old Testament.  It is the duty of literary criticism to throw\nlight on these questions; to decide whether all the Old Testament books\nare rightly ascribed to the men whose names they bear, whether they are\noriginal productions or compilations from earlier material, and whether\nany of the books have received additions or interpolations in the\ncourse of their literary history.\n\nHand in hand with literary criticism goes historical criticism.  The\nstudent of Old Testament history seeks to trace the development of the\nhistory of Israel by combining in a scientific manner the historical\nmaterial scattered throughout the Old Testament.  In doing this he is\ncompelled to determine the value of the sources {73} from which he\ngathers information.  To do this is the duty of historical criticism.\nIt inquires, for example, whether the records are approximately\ncontemporaneous with the events they record; if so, whether the writers\nwere qualified to observe the events accurately, or to record and\ninterpret them correctly; and, if the accounts were written a\nconsiderable time subsequent to the events recorded, whether they were\ncolored in any way by the beliefs and practices of the time in which\nthey were written or compiled.  This line of investigation is almost\nthrust upon the Bible student by a comparison of the books of Kings\nwith the books of Chronicles, which in many portions cover the same\nground; and yet, there are marked differences between the descriptions\nof the two.\n\nThese are the different phases of criticism.  Ordinarily, however, only\ntwo kinds are distinguished: the lower, or textual criticism, and the\nhigher criticism.  The aims of textual criticism are described above.\nThe higher criticism combines the functions of literary and historical\ncriticism, while linguistic criticism is considered a part of exegesis\nor interpretation, not a separate branch of Bible study.  The\nlegitimacy of textual criticism is universally recognized.  Its\nimportance in a comprehensive study of the Bible is clearly implied in\nthese words of W. H. Green, a {74} generation ago the best known\ndefender of the traditional view of the Old Testament: \"Its function is\nto determine, by a careful examination of all the evidence bearing upon\nthe case, the condition of the sacred text, the measure of its\ncorrespondence with, or divergence from, the exact language of the\ninspired penman, and by means of all available helps to remove the\nerrors which may have gained admission to it from whatever cause, and\nto restore the text to its pristine purity as it came from the hands of\nthe original writers....  It is not an arbitrary but a judicial\nprocess, based on fixed and intelligible principles and conducted in a\ndeterminate manner, in which all the evidence is diligently collected,\nthoroughly sifted, and accurately weighed, and the decision given in\naccordance with the ascertained facts.\"[5]\n\nNo exception is taken to linguistic criticism as a legitimate part of\nexegesis, but at the mention of higher criticism many good men and\nwomen become greatly disturbed, for they seem to look upon it as a\nhandmaid of Satan.  A few expressions will illustrate the feeling with\nwhich some regard this kind of study: One writer says, \"Neither hard\ntimes nor higher criticism nor infidelity ... has any effect upon the\nsale of the Divine Scriptures.\"  He evidently places higher criticism\non a par with infidelity.  Again: \"The so-called higher critics, it is\nwell known, are constantly {75} trying to shake the faith of the\nChristian by telling him that the books of the Bible were not written\nby the men whose names are usually given as the human authors.\"\nAnother writer declares that the higher critics allege that the Bible\nis \"the off-spring of incompetence and fraud.\"  One more quotation may\nsuffice: \"Higher criticism tends invariably ... to absolute rationalism\nand the discrediting of inspiration.\"  Now, if higher criticism is on a\npar with infidelity, if it declares the Bible to be the \"offspring of\nincompetence and fraud,\" if it constantly tries to shake the faith of\nChristians, if it tends invariably to absolute rationalism and\ndiscredits inspiration--if it does these things, then the Christian\nChurch may well look upon it with dread and alarm.  Whether or not\nhigher criticism is guilty of the things charged against it will\nprobably appear in the further discussion, for from now on chief\nemphasis will be placed upon the bearing of the higher criticism on the\nChristian view of the Old Testament.\n\nFirst of all, it may be well to define, if possible, the term \"higher\ncriticism.\"  It is too often assumed by those who should know better,\nthat the adjective \"higher\" exhibits the arrogance of those using it,\nwho claim thereby an unwarranted precedence for their methods.  This\nassumption is erroneous, for the adjective is used {76} simply to\ndistinguish this kind of criticism from the lower or textual criticism,\nwhich, since its purpose is to fix the exact text of a book,\nnecessarily precedes the application of the processes of the higher\ncriticism.  The designation may be unfortunate, but thus far no clearer\nor less objectionable substitute has been found.  But what is higher\ncriticism?  Higher criticism may be defined as a process of scientific\ninvestigation for the purpose of determining the origin, original form,\nand intended value of literary productions.  It cannot be emphasized\ntoo strongly that higher criticism is nothing more than a process of\nstudy or investigation.  It is not a set of conclusions respecting the\nbooks of the Bible; it is not a philosophical principle underlying the\ninvestigation; it is not a certain attitude of mind toward the Bible;\nit is not a theory of inspiration nor a denial of inspiration.  Higher\ncriticism is none of these things.  It is simply a process of study to\ndetermine certain truths concerning literary productions.\n\nAgain, higher criticism, as a process of study, is not confined to the\nstudy of the Bible.  It was applied to extra-biblical books long before\nthere was any thought of applying it to the Old or New Testament.\nEichhorn, who first applied the term to Old Testament study, has this\nto say: \"I have been obliged to bestow the greatest {77} amount of\nlabor on a hitherto entirely unworked field: the investigation of the\ninner constitution of the separate books of the Old Testament by the\naid of the higher criticism, _a new name to no humanist_.\"[6]\n\nOnce more: the higher criticism as such is not opposed to traditional\nviews.  In the words of Professor Zenos: \"Its relation to the old and\nthe new views respectively is one of indifference.  It may result in\nthe confirmation of the old, or in the substitution of the new for the\nold....  It is no respecter of antiquity or novelty; its aim is to\ndiscover and verify the truth, to bring facts to light whether these\nvalidate or invalidate previously held opinions.\"[7]  It is a grave\nmistake, therefore, to attribute to higher criticism an essentially\ndestructive purpose.  In reality, it has confirmed traditional views at\nleast as often as it has shown them to be untenable.  It does not\napproach its investigations even with a suspicion of the correctness of\ntradition; it starts out with the tradition, it accepts it as correct\nuntil the process of investigation has brought to light facts and\nindications which cannot be harmonized with tradition.  In such a case\ncriticism believes itself bound to supply a satisfactory explanation of\nthe facts, though such explanation may be contrary to the claims of\ntradition.  Any student Who approaches the inquiry in a spirit {78}\ndifferent from that here indicated introduces into his investigation\nelements that are not a part of higher criticism as such, and the\nlatter cannot and should not be held accountable for them.\n\nThat it is desirable to answer questions concerning the origin, form,\nand value of biblical books no one will dispute.  C. M. Mead,\nexceedingly cautious and conservative, says: \"I regard the higher\ncriticism as not only legitimate but as useful, and indiscriminate\ncondemnation of it as foolish.  Genuine criticism is nothing but the\nsearch after truth, and of this there cannot be too much.\"[8]  No\nliterary production in the Bible or outside of the Bible can be fully\nunderstood unless the interpreter has a full knowledge of its origin,\nits author, and its first readers.  When, where, by whom, to whom,\nunder what circumstances, for what purpose?--an answer to these and\nsimilar questions will wonderfully illuminate the message of a book.  A\nknowledge of the form of the writing is also essential to a proper\nunderstanding of the same.  Is it history or poetry? is it narrative or\nprediction? or any one of the various kinds of literature?  In a\nsimilar manner it is important, though not always easy, to know the\nvalue a given literary work was intended to have.  Is it to be\nunderstood as literal history?  Is its essential purpose didactic,\nwithout special regard for historic accuracy in {79} every detail?  Are\nthe religious and ethical truths taught intended to be final, or do\nthey mark a stage in the development toward perfection and finality?\nThese and other important questions of a similar nature the higher\ncriticism seeks to answer.\n\nSome one may say, \"Scholars in all ages have sought to answer these\nquestions; why is it, then, that modern higher criticism reaches\nconclusions concerning the origin, form, and value of Old Testament\nwritings not dreamed of a few centuries ago?\"  This is a legitimate\nquestion, but the answer is not far to seek.  It may best be answered\nby asking another question: Men in all ages have studied the earth, the\nsun, the stars, and other phenomena of nature; how is it that modern\nscientists have reached conclusions unknown and undreamed of a few\ncenturies ago?  The modern higher criticism, like all modern science,\nis the outgrowth of the awakening during the Middle Ages which\nrevolutionized the whole world of science, literature, and religion.\nThe Renaissance aroused men's interest in literature and science, the\nReformation aroused men's interest in religion as a personal\nexperience.  In the Renaissance men began to think for themselves in\nmatters of science and literature; in the Reformation they began to\nthink for themselves in matters of religion.  It was inevitable that\n{80} the awakening of thought and the substitution of reason for\nauthority in science, secular literature, and secular history should\nultimately affect sacred history and sacred literature as well.[9]\n\nChronologically, it is true, the work of higher criticism began even\nbefore the time of the Renaissance among Spanish Jews.  But this Jewish\ncriticism did not at the time exert any influence in the Christian\nChurch.  Only after criticism had secured a foothold among Christian\nscholars were the results of Jewish investigation made use of.  In the\nsame way the purely negative conclusions of some of the early Christian\nheretics, based upon dogmatic considerations rather than historical\ninvestigations, have no organic connection with the investigations and\nresults of modern criticism.  It is perfectly correct, therefore, to\nstate that the modern higher criticism had its birth in the great\nawakening of the Renaissance and the Reformation.  They gave to it a\nlife and an impetus which from that day to this have not abated in the\nleast.  Some of the reformers themselves and their coworkers advanced\nviews which later investigation has confirmed and expanded.  Carlstadt,\nfor example, the friend and coworker of Luther, published in 1520 an\nessay in which he argued, on the ground that the style of narration in\nthe account of Moses's death which, he believed, was not written by\nMoses, was {81} the same as in the preceding chapters, that it might be\nheld that Moses did not write the entire Pentateuch.  The freedom with\nwhich Luther criticized both the Old and the New Testament books is\nwell known.  Concerning the Old Testament, he admitted that the books\nof Kings were more credible than Chronicles.  \"What would it matter,\"\nhe asks, \"if Moses did not write the Pentateuch?\"  He thinks it\nprobable that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ecclesiastes received their\nfinal form at the hands of redactors.  The testimony of the psalm\ntitles he does not regard as conclusive.  He admits chronological\ndifficulties and contradictions in the statements of historical facts.\nHe concedes that we do not always hear God himself speaking in the Old\nTestament.  Esther might well have been left out of the canon, and\nFirst Maccabees might have been included.  If this is not criticism,\nwhat is?\n\nThe case of Luther has been mentioned simply to show the absurdity of\nthe claim that modern higher criticism is the outgrowth of German\nrationalism or English deism or infidelity; or that a man who pursues\nOld Testament study on the line of the higher criticism is necessarily\nan infidel, a rationalist, or a fool.  True, there have been and are\nthose out of sympathy with Christianity or the Bible who have employed\ncritical methods in carrying on their anti-Christian warfare; but {82}\nsuch misuse of critical methods no more proves the illegitimacy of this\nprocess of investigation than the employment of a surgical instrument,\nwhich, in the hands of a skillful surgeon, may be the means of saving a\ndiseased organism, by a murderer to carry out his destructive aim,\nwould prove that the use of all surgical instruments is unscientific or\ncriminal.  The vast majority of the so-called higher critics do not\ndeserve the denunciations heaped upon them by some who consider\nthemselves sole defenders of the faith.  Most of them are Christian men\nwhose loyalty to Christ, whose devotion to the truth, and whose\nsincerity of motive no one has reason or right to question or doubt.\nIt is exceedingly unfortunate that many writers have failed to\nrecognize this fact.  No one acquainted with the history of biblical\ncriticism can accept the following as a true characterization of\nserious critics: \"I mean by professional critic, one who spends his\ntime and strength in trying to find some error or discrepancy in the\nBible; and, if he thinks he does, rejoiceth as 'one who findeth great\nspoil'; who hopes, while he works, that he may succeed, thinking\nthereby to obtain a name and notoriety for himself.\"[10]  In a similar\nspirit Sir Robert Anderson speaks of \"the foreign infidel type of\nscholar ... as ignorant of man and his needs as a monk, and as ignorant\nof God and his ways as a monkey.\"[11] {83} Such abuse is unchristian,\nand no good can be accomplished by it.  The truth of the matter is more\nadequately expressed by James Orr when he says: \"There are, one must\nown, few outstanding scholars at the present day on the Continent or in\nBritain--in America it is somewhat different--who do not in greater or\nless degree accept conclusions regarding the Old Testament of the kind\nordinarily denominated critical.  Yet among the foremost are many whom\nno one who understands their work would dream as classing as other than\nbelieving, and defenders of revealed religion.\"[12]  Then, after\nmentioning a number of scholars, he describes them as \"all more or less\ncritics, but all convinced upholders of supernatural revelation.\"  But\neven among these Christian, evangelical, higher critics a distinction\nmust be made between two classes.  The one may be called, for want of a\nbetter name, traditional, because its adherents insist that their\ninvestigations on the line of the higher criticism have confirmed in\nall essentials the positions held during many centuries.  It should be\nnoted, however, that many scholars who are sometimes quoted as\nupholders of the traditional view are ready to make many concessions to\nthose who believe that the traditional views are no longer tenable.[13]\nOn the other hand is a class of critics which may be called\nnontraditional, critics who claim that {84} their investigations, while\nconfirming the truth of many traditional positions, compel them in\nother cases to set aside the traditional views in favor of some more in\naccord with the facts in the case.  It may be difficult to state all\nthe causes responsible for the differences in the conclusions of these\ntwo classes of critics.  However, the writings of some scholars in the\nformer class seem to show that the authors are influenced, to some\nextent at least, by the fear that further concessions would affect the\nChristian theory of inspiration.  Another cause may be found in the\nfact that the present generation of Old Testament scholars received its\ntraining largely at the hands of those accustomed to the traditional\nviewpoint; the influence of this early training manifests itself to\nsome extent in the present attitude.  A more important cause, however,\nis supplied by the nature of the evidence upon the basis of which these\ncritical questions must be settled.  Mathematical demonstration is\nimpossible in very many cases.  The critic must be qualified to\nestimate probabilities, and various degrees of probability, depending\nupon the nature of the grounds on which it rests.  In the nature of the\ncase, the personal element enters into the estimate of the degree of\nprobability.  What to some may appear a high degree of probability, or\namount to practical certainty, may to another investigator, perhaps\nless familiar with {85} the facts in the case, appear of less value and\nlead him to reject the conclusion entirely.  As long as this condition\nof affairs continues--and there is no reason to suppose that it ever\nwill be otherwise--perfect agreement among critical investigators need\nnot be expected; but a fair and thorough examination of the facts by\nall must be insisted upon.\n\nIt is not necessary to enlarge upon the views of the traditional class\nof critics, for theirs are the views with which most Christians now\nliving have been familiar since their childhood.  In order to\nunderstand, however, the bearing of the nontraditional criticism upon\nthe Christian view of the Old Testament it is necessary to consider the\nmost important conclusions of the nontraditional class of evangelical\ncriticism; and to these conclusions we may now turn our attention.\n\n1.  Modern criticism has placed into clearer light the progressive\ncharacter of Old Testament revelation.  God is the same yesterday,\nto-day, and forever, but man has taken many advance steps; and as he\nadvanced his spiritual capacities and powers of apprehension increased.\nThis growth enabled him to secure, from generation to generation and\nfrom century to century, during the Old Testament dispensation, an\never-broadening and deepening conception of the nature and character of\nGod and of his will.  The Old {86} Testament books, says Kent, are \"the\nharmonious and many-sided record of ten centuries of strenuous human\nendeavor to know and to do the will of God, and of his full and\ngracious response to that effort.\"[14]\n\n2.  Formerly the beginning of the Old Testament canon was traced to\nMoses.  He was thought not only to have written the books of the\nPentateuch but to have given to them official sanction as canonical\nbooks.  To these books were gradually added the other sacred writings\nof the Old Testament on the authority of the divinely chosen successors\nof Moses, like Joshua, Samuel, and the prophets.  The close of the\ncanon was ascribed to Ezra, who, according to later views, had to share\nthe honor with the men of the Great Synagogue.  Modern criticism\nassigns new dates to some of the Old Testament books; it believes that\nthe exile was a period of great spiritual and intellectual activity,\nand a number of books are placed subsequent to Ezra and Nehemiah, which\nin itself would imply a denial of the view that the canon was finally\nclosed in the days of Ezra.  The modern critical view is that the Old\nTestament books were canonized--whatever the dates of their\nwriting--gradually and at a comparatively late period.  The\ncanonization of the Law is placed at about B.C. 400, that of the\nProphets between B.C. 250 and B.C. 180, while the third {87} division\nof the Jewish canon, the Writings, is believed to have acquired\ncanonical authority during the second and first centuries B.C.\n\n3.  Formerly the order of the Old Testament books determined largely\nthe view of the development of Hebrew religion.  Just as in the New\nTestament the Gospels occupy first place, the Epistles being\nexpositions of the principles laid down in the Gospels, so it was\nthought that the Law of the Pentateuch, coming from the hands of Moses,\nserved as the basis of the religious development of the Hebrews during\nsubsequent centuries.  The prophets were looked upon chiefly as\nexpounders and interpreters of this Law.  Modern criticism has\nintroduced a change of viewpoint.  It does not deny the pre-exilic\nexistence of all law, or of sacrifice, or of a ceremonial, or of other\npriestly elements, but it believes that in the religious development of\nIsrael, the pre-exilic period was preeminently the period of the\nprophets, while the religious life during the post-exilic period was\ndominated by the priests, the priestly type of religion finding\nliterary expression in the ceremonial system embodied in the Pentateuch.\n\n4.  According to modern criticism, compilation had a prominent place in\nthe production of Old Testament books.  The composite character of the\nPentateuch is touched upon in the next paragraph, but, in addition, it\nis believed that {88} there is sufficient evidence to establish the\ncomposite character of practically all the other historical books.\nMcFadyen accurately represents the modern viewpoint when he says, \"In\nthe light of all these facts the general possibility, if not the\npractical certainty, of the compositeness of the historical books may\nbe conceded.\"[15]  Evidences of compilation are seen also in several of\nthe prophetic books.  The assignment of Isaiah and Zechariah to more\nthan one author each furnishes perhaps the best known examples, but\nother prophetic books are similarly divided.\n\n5.  The Pentateuch is no longer assigned in its entirety to Moses; it\nis thought, rather, to contain material selected from four different\nsources, which the compiler had before him in writing.[16]  These\ndocuments did not reach their final form until some time subsequent to\nMoses, but all of them contained ancient material, much of it going\nback to the time of Moses, some of it even to pre-Mosaic days.  Among\nthe contents of the Pentateuch special attention is called to three\nlegal codes--the Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomic Code, and the\nPriestly Code--belonging to different periods in Hebrew history, and\nreflecting different stages in the religious and social development of\nthe nation.  The Deuteronomic Code, in some form, is believed to have\nbeen the basis of the reforms instituted by Josiah {89} and to have\nbeen written most probably during the early part of the seventh\ncentury.  On these general questions respecting the Pentateuch there\nseems to be general agreement among critical scholars; on the other\nhand, there is wide divergence of opinion concerning points of detail,\nsuch as the chronological order in which the several documents reached\ntheir final form, their exact dates, the manner and time of their\ncompilation, the detailed distribution of the material among the\nseveral sources, etc.  The differences of opinion on these points are\ndue to the fact that the data upon the basis of which the problems must\nbe solved are not sufficiently numerous or decisive.\n\n6.  Doubt is thrown upon the authorship of a number of Old Testament\nbooks, or parts of books, which have been assigned to certain authors\nby both Jewish and Christian tradition.  As already stated, the Mosaic\nauthorship of the Pentateuch is denied; the book of Lamentation is\ntaken away from Jeremiah; parts of Isaiah and Zechariah and the whole\nof Daniel are assigned to persons other than the prophets bearing these\nnames.  The accuracy of the psalm titles is questioned; few of the\npsalms, if any, are assigned to David or his age; and most of the\npsalms--by some scholars all--are placed in the post-exilic period.  A\nconservative scholar, like W. T. Davison, is not willing to say more\nthan \"that {90} from ten to twenty psalms--including 3, 4, 7, 8, 15,\n18, 23, 24, 32, and perhaps 101 and 110--may have come down to us from\nDavid's pen, but that the number can hardly be greater, and may be\nstill less.\"[17]  The same uncertainty is believed to exist respecting\nthe authorship of Proverbs and of Ecclesiastes, which is considered one\nof the latest books in the Old Testament canon.  Other books, like Job,\nwhich in the absence of external testimony were formerly assigned to an\nearly date, are now placed in the later period of Hebrew history.\n\nIn addition to these results touching upon matters practically\nunrecognized before, the higher criticism has emphasized some truths\nwhich, though known, exerted little, if any, influence upon the\nconception or study of the Old Testament.  Of these perhaps the most\nimportant are, first, that the Old Testament is not so much a single\nbook as a library consisting of many books of different dates and\nauthorship, though all these books may be held together by one common\nspirit and purpose;[18] and, second, that in these books are\nrepresented practically all the various forms and kinds of literary\ncomposition that can be found in the literatures of other nations.\n\nThese are perhaps the most important conclusions reached by the\nnontraditional higher critics.  Some may not be willing to admit that\n{91} these conclusions are well founded, and, indeed, the cautious\namong the critics very candidly state that in most cases scientific\ndemonstration is impossible, that probability of varying degrees is an\nimportant element in the conclusions; but unless one has followed those\nwho have reached the conclusions into every detail of their\ninvestigation, he is hardly competent to pass a valid judgment.  And it\nis well to remember what seems to be an indisputable fact, that with\nvery few exceptions Old Testament experts everywhere agree essentially\non these results, and that an ever-increasing number of serious Old\nTestament students whose competency and sincerity cannot be doubted\nfeel compelled to accept these conclusions, convinced that the\ntraditional views cannot be maintained without numerous modifications.\nThis fact may not establish the truth of these conclusions;\nnevertheless, it may serve as a sufficient reason for the consideration\nof another question: Should the truth of the conclusions enumerated be\nestablished beyond a possibility of doubt, what would be the effect\nupon the Christian conception of the Old Testament?  What would become\nof its inspiration or authority, of the supernatural in its history, of\nthe work and character of Moses, Isaiah, or David; and, perhaps most\nimportant of all, what effect would this have upon the authority of\nJesus Christ himself?\n\n{92}\n\nThe most important and vital of these questions may be considered\nfirst.  How do the conclusions of the nontraditional higher criticism\naffect the authority of Jesus Christ?  This question arises chiefly in\nconnection with investigations into the authorship of Old Testament\nbooks, especially of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Isaiah.  It is\nasserted that since Christ quotes and refers to passages from the books\nbearing the names of Moses, David, and Isaiah, apparently as if they\nhad been written by these men, any claim that these passages were not\nwritten by the authors mentioned is an indication of unbelief, an\ninsult to Christ, and a denial of his authority.  \"If Moses did not\nwrite the Pentateuch,\" says L. W. Munhall, \"or any portion of it, and\nthe highest critics (Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit) declare he did,\nit would be a lie.  It would be none the less a lie, even though the\nJews held traditionally that Moses was the author of these books.  The\ntestimony of the _Highest Critics_ is absolutely unerringly and\neternally true, and he who hesitates to receive it as against all other\ntestimonies is disloyal to the truth.\"[19]  Clearly, this statement is\nbased upon the assumption that Jesus gave deliberate decisions on\nquestions of authorship, which assumption cannot be substantiated.  In\nthe first place, it is well to note that in less than one fifth of the\nNew Testament {93} quotations from the Old Testament is a personal name\nconnected with the quotation; Jesus himself, in quoting from the\nPentateuch and other Old Testament books, frequently omits all\nreference to the alleged author, which shows that he considered the\nquestion of authorship of no special significance in comparison with\nthe truth taught.  Moreover, in some cases at least, the exact form of\nquotation is doubtful.  Compare, for example, Matt. 15. 4, \"God said,\"\nwith Mark 7. 10, \"Moses said\"; and Luke 20. 37, \"Moses showed, in the\nplace concerning the Bush,\" with Mark 12. 26, \"Have ye not read in the\nbook of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush how God spake unto\nhim,\" with Matt. 22. 31, which, referring to the same statement,\nintroduces it by, \"Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by\nGod?\"  Which one of the evangelists has preserved the actual words of\nJesus?\n\nBut even admitting that Jesus used in these and other passages a\npersonal name, does this imply a decision respecting authorship?  In\nextra-biblical literature no one would raise serious objection to the\nuse of the name of a man to designate a book without implying that the\nman named was the author of the entire book.  This is done also in the\nNew Testament.  In the sermon of Peter, \"Samuel\" evidently is used in\nthe sense of \"book of Samuel,\" for the reference {94} is not to an\nutterance of Samuel but of Nathan,[20] and it cannot imply authorship,\nfor some of the events recorded in First Samuel and those in Second\nSamuel occurred after Samuel's death.  In the Epistle to the\nHebrews,[21] a psalm is referred to as \"David,\" which is not even by\nthe title assigned to the great king of Israel.[22]  Might it not be,\ntherefore, that \"Moses\" was used as a designation of a book, without a\nthought of authorship.  This seems to be the case in 2 Cor. 3. 15:\n\"Whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart.\"[23]  All\nthese facts suggest that while Jesus frequently quotes the Pentateuch,\nand in some cases connects the name of Moses with it, _he never does so\nto prove that Moses wrote it_.  W. T. Davison describes the situation\ncorrectly when he writes, \"A study of the whole use of the Old\nTestament made by Christ in his teaching shows that the questions of\ndate and authorship with which criticism is chiefly concerned were not\nbefore the mind of our Lord as he spoke, nor was it his object to\npronounce upon them.\"[24]\n\nBut even admitting that the references of Jesus imply in some cases a\nrecognition of authorship, the question still remains whether the few\npassages quoted carry with them the authorship of the entire book from\nwhich the quotations are made.  There are even some conservative\nscholars who {95} answer this question in the negative.  After\nenumerating some of the passages referred to by Jesus as coming from\nMoses, C. H. H. Wright continues: \"All, however, that can be fairly\ndeduced from such statements is, the Pentateuch contains portions\nwritten by Moses.  It does not follow that the five books as a whole\nwere written by that lawgiver.\"[25]  Though this explanation seems\nsatisfactory to some, others consider it somewhat forced and unnatural,\nand they are inclined to give different interpretations of the words of\nJesus.\n\nMany hold that in his references to Old Testament books Jesus\naccommodated himself to the usage of the Jews without indorsing their\nviews or giving expression to his own, even though he knew that the\ncommonly held opinions as to the authorship of certain Old Testament\nbooks were erroneous.  Those who advocate this view believe that their\nattitude in no wise dishonors the Master.  Indeed, they say, one cannot\neasily see what other course he could have taken.  Jesus had come to\nreveal the Father, to bring a fallen race into harmony with a holy God.\nSurely, the task was great, and there was but little time in which to\naccomplish it.  If he had turned aside from his chief purpose to settle\nscientific and literary questions which were not under discussion among\nthe people, he would have aroused popular {96} opposition and thus have\nhindered his chief work.  In no case do his references imply that he\ndesired to pronounce an authoritative critical judgment, and in no case\ndoes the value of the quotation depend upon its authorship.  Looking at\nthe matter, therefore, from a pedagogical standpoint, it would seem\nthat, in view of his important mission in the world, he was compelled\nto accommodate himself to the views of the people in all matters not\nessential to his work.\n\nThis view seems entirely satisfactory to many sincere Christian\nbelievers.  There are, however, those who maintain that it would not\nhave been legitimate for Jesus thus to accommodate himself to the usage\nof the people if he had known that their views were not in accord with\nthe facts; nevertheless, they insist that his utterances do not settle\npurely literary questions.  They believe that Jesus shared the views of\nthe people, that he actually thought that Moses wrote the entire\nPentateuch, and Isaiah, the whole of the book bearing his name; but\nthat this was a limitation of knowledge on his part.  And they further\ninsist that this attitude toward Jesus in no wise affects the supreme\nand final authority of the Christ over the lives of men.  The entire\nlife of the Master, they say, shows that he regarded his mission as\nspiritual; he did not come to correct all errors, but merely those\ntouching religion and {97} ethics; and even here he did not give\ndetailed specific rules.  In many cases he simply laid down great\nprinciples, which in time might be worked out and applied to the\ndetails of human activity.  He did not abolish slavery, he made no\nefforts to correct errors in science; why should he correct erroneous\nviews respecting literary and critical questions?  These were outside\nof his immediate sphere of interest.  His knowledge or ignorance in\nthese secondary matters does not necessarily involve his knowledge or\nauthority in essentials.[26]  Again, while Christ was God, he was also\ntruly man.  This union of the divine with the human, if real, must have\nbrought some limitations.  And the New Testament clearly teaches that\nin some respects the powers of Christ were limited.  His omnipotence\nwas limited, else he could not have felt hunger, weariness, pain, etc.\nAs strength was needed, it was supplied.  It may have been there\npotentially, but not actually.  Might it not have been the same with\nomniscience?  In one case, at least, Jesus admits that his knowledge\nwas limited: \"But of that day or hour knoweth no one, not even the\nangels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.\"[27]  And, surely,\nthat which, according to this admission, was hidden from Jesus was, as\ncompared with a question of the authorship of a biblical book, of\ninfinitely greater importance.  It would seem, therefore, {98} that B.\nP. Raymond is right when he says: \"To affirm that he had knowledge of\nthe critical questions which agitate Christian scholars to-day is to\ndeny that he was made like unto his brethren.  It is to compromise the\nreality of his humanity and to start on the road that leads to\ndocetism.  Fairbairn's conclusions are just; 'The humanity of the\nSaviour must be absolutely real.'\"[28]\n\nThere are, then, three explanations of the references of Christ to the\nauthorship of Old Testament books, each one of which seems perfectly\nfair, natural, and, above all, scriptural; and each one shows that his\nutterances do not finally settle purely literary questions.  This\nconclusion, since it is in perfect accord with the New Testament, can\nin no wise be construed as an insult to the Christ, nor does it affect\nin the least the authority of Jesus in matters religious and ethical.\nWhat is said here of the words of Jesus is equally true, with some\nslight modifications, of similar New Testament references coming, not\nfrom Jesus directly, but from the authors of the New Testament books.\n\nFrom the consideration of this question of vital interest we may turn\nto another, also of great importance, namely, what is the effect of\ncritical conclusions upon the belief in the inspiration of the Old\nTestament, in the supernatural in its history, and in its authority?\nAll these questions {99} center in one, for inspiration implies the\npresence of a supernatural element, and the authority of the Old\nTestament depends upon the reality of its inspiration.  Hence the real\nquestion is, Have the conclusions of the higher criticism disproved, or\nin any serious way affected, the reality of the inspiration of the Old\nTestament writers?  This inquiry must be answered with an emphatic\n\"No.\"  Inspiration does not depend upon the fact that a certain\ndefinite individual is responsible for a writing.  A book is inspired\nbecause God is back of it and in it, and not because a certain man\nwrote it.  Nor does belief in inspiration depend upon the knowledge of\nthe human author, else how could Christians believe in the inspiration\nof the men who wrote books like the Epistle to the Hebrews, the book of\nJob, the books of Samuel, and other biblical books whose authors are\nnot named?  Moreover, an inspired book does not lose its inspiration\nbecause it is discovered that the human agent inspired is one different\nfrom the man to whom tradition has been accustomed to assign the book.\nWould the laws of the Pentateuch be any less divine if it should be\nproved that they were the product of the experience of the chosen\npeople from the time of Moses to the exile?  Would the Psalms cease to\nlift us into the presence of God, if it should be demonstrated that\nmost of them came {100} from a period later than David?  Is the book of\nJob less majestic and sublime because we know not the time or place of\nits birth?  Are the Proverbs less instructive because criticism claims\nthat they do not all come from the son of David?[29]\n\nOnce more: inspiration is not confined to any form of literature; a\nparable may be as truly inspired as history; and the inspiration of a\nbook does not vanish when it is assigned to one form of literature\nrather than to another.  The conclusions of the legitimate higher\ncriticism in no wise tend toward a denial of the inspiration of the Old\nTestament.  Inspiration, the special divine providence over Israel,\nGod's interference in the history of the chosen people, would stand out\nas prominently as ever if every claim of the higher criticism should be\nproved true.  Most critical scholars are ready to indorse the words of\nProfessor Sanday: \"My experience is that criticism leads straight up to\nthe supernatural, and not away from it.\"[30]  But if this be true, how\ncan any authority which rightly belongs to the Old Testament be\naffected by criticism?  This authority belongs to it by virtue of its\ninspiration, and the voice of God is not silenced by the conclusions of\nmodern criticism.\n\n\"But,\" some one will say, \"if this is true how is it that criticism has\nbeen and still is condemned unsparingly by many men whose sincerity\n{101} and love for the truth cannot be called into question?\"  There\nare several reasons for this.  In the first place even some very\nintelligent men seem to misunderstand both the purpose and the claims\nof the higher criticism.  Another reason is that there are even among\nthe evangelical critics those who lack judgment, and who permit\nthemselves to draw inferences unwarranted by the facts in the case.  As\na consequence, ill-informed persons have concluded that all the results\nof criticism are unwarranted by the facts.  A third reason is that some\ncritics are arrogant and obnoxious in the presentation of their views,\nand, therefore, bring the entire process into disrepute.  A fourth, and\nperhaps the most important, reason is that in addition to the\nlegitimate higher criticism discussed in the preceding pages there is\nan illegitimate criticism which very frequently, though erroneously, is\nthought to be the only kind of criticism practiced.  This criticism\nalso studies the facts, but--and this is its distinguishing\nfeature--its investigations are colored by certain presuppositions,\nsuch as the belief in a materialistic or deistic evolution, in the\npresence of which there is no room for inspiration, or for the\nsupernatural, or for miracles, in the Christian sense of these terms.\nThis kind of criticism is not legitimate, because it is not scientific,\nproceeding as it does on the basis of an unestablished, {102}\nunchristian, and impossible view of the universe.  But higher critics\nbelonging to this class are few in number, and fairness and Christian\ncourtesy demand that in any discussion of the subject clear\ndistinctions should be made between this criticism and that process of\ninvestigation which is not only legitimate, but indispensable.  It is\nalso well to bear in mind that the conclusions of the illegitimate\ncriticism will never be disproved by denunciation, but, rather, by the\ncareful and painstaking labors of those critics who approach their\nstudies without these unwarranted assumptions.\n\nOne more question remains to be considered, namely, What becomes of the\nmen from whom criticism takes away at least part of the writings\ntraditionally connected with their names?  Preeminent among these are\nMoses, Isaiah, and David.  Moses is not, as is sometimes erroneously\nasserted, removed to the realm of myths.[31]  To prove this assertion\nit is only necessary to quote the words of one who accepts the results\nof the higher criticism as set forth above: \"Moses was the man who\nunder divine direction 'hewed Israel from the rock.'  Subsequent\nprophets and circumstances chiseled the rough bowlder into symmetrical\nform, but the glory of the creative act is rightly attributed to the\nfirst great Hebrew prophet.  As a leader he not only created a nation\nbut guided them through infinite {103} vicissitudes to a land where\nthey might have a settled abode and develop into a stable power; in so\ndoing he left upon his race the imprint of his own mighty personality.\nAs a judge he set in motion forces which ultimately led to the\nincorporation of the principles of right in objective laws.  As a\npriest he first gave definite form to the worship of Jehovah.  As a\nprophet he gathered together all that was best in the faith of his age\nand race, and, fusing them, gave to his people a living religion.\nUnder his enlightened guidance Israel became truly and forever the\npeople of Jehovah.  Through him the Divine revealed himself to Israel\nas their Deliverer, Leader, and Counselor--not afar off, but present; a\nGod powerful and willing to succor his people, and, therefore, one to\nbe trusted and loved as well as feared.  As the acorn contains the\nsturdy oak in embryo, so the revelation through Moses was the germ\nwhich developed into the message of Israel to humanity.\"[32]\n\nIsaiah, though losing some of the sublimest passages in the book, is\nstill the king among the prophets.  In the words of Ewald, a pronounced\nadvocate of the conclusions of modern criticism: \"Of the other prophets\nall the more celebrated ones were distinguished by some special\nexcellence and peculiar power, whether of speech or of deed; in Isaiah\nall the powers and all the beauties {104} of prophetic speech and deed\ncombine to form a symmetrical whole; he is distinguished less by any\nspecial excellence than by the symmetry and perfection of all his\nparts.  There are rarely combined in one individual the profoundest\nprophetic emotion and purest feeling, the most unwearied, successful,\nand consistent activity amid all the confusions and changes of life;\nand, lastly, true poetic genius and beauty of style, combined with\nforce and irresistible power; yet this triad of powers we find realized\nin Isaiah as in no other prophet.\"[33]\n\nDavid, indeed, loses some of his halo, if many of the most beautiful\npsalms are taken from him, yet he remains the man after God's own\nheart.  \"According to his light, he served the Jehovah whom he knew\nwith marvelous fidelity and constancy....  He ruled over the united\nHebrew tribes as Jehovah's representative.  In his name he fought the\nbattles against Israel's foes, whom he regarded as Jehovah's also....\nFrom the spoils which he won in his wars he provided the means\nwherewith to build a fitting dwelling place for the God of his nation.\nThe priests found in him a generous patron, and prophets like Nathan\nwere among his most trusted counselors.  To do the will of Jehovah as\nit was revealed to him was the dominating principle of his life.  More\ncannot be said of any one.\"[34]\n\n{105}\n\nA splendid summary of the bearing of modern evangelical criticism upon\nthe Christian view of the Old Testament is given by Canon Driver: \"It\nis not the case that critical conclusions are in conflict either with\nthe Christian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith.\nThose conclusions affect not the _fact_ of revelation but only its\n_form_.  They help to determine the stages through which it passed, the\ndifferent phases which it assumed, and the process by which the record\nof it was built up.  They do not touch either the authority or the\ninspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  They imply no\nchange in respect to the divine attributes revealed in the Old\nTestament, no change in the lessons of human duty to be derived from\nit, no change as to the general position (apart from the interpretation\nof particular passages) that the Old Testament points forward\nprophetically to Christ.  That both the religion of Israel itself and\nthe record of its history embodied in the Old Testament are the work of\nmen whose hearts have been touched and minds illuminated, in different\ndegrees, by the Spirit of God is manifest.\"[35]\n\nBut not only has criticism not taken away anything essential from the\nBible; on the contrary, it has resulted in some distinct gains.  The\ntextual criticism has furnished the modern {106} student with a much\nmore accurate text of the biblical books, while the linguistic\ncriticism has established the interpretation of this text upon a firmer\nbasis.  The higher criticism also has made invaluable contributions\ntoward a more adequate understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures.\nIt has made impossible the arbitrary and, sometimes, unreasonable\ninterpretations of scripture which in former ages have proved a serious\ndetriment to religion and theology.  It has restored to religious use\nsome of the biblical books almost forgotten before, and endowed them\nwith flesh and blood by throwing bright light upon the circumstances\nconnected with their origin.  It has made it possible to secure a\n\"reasonable, probable, and even thrilling\" view of the history and\nreligion of Israel and of the steps by which the records of these grew\nup.  Many of the moral, religious, and historical difficulties which\nserved as effective weapons to skeptics in all ages have disappeared,\nand the weapons have been snatched from the enemies of the Bible.  Many\nof the confusions and apparent discrepancies, which according to former\ntheories presented insurmountable difficulties, have found a\nsatisfactory explanation.  \"Higher criticism,\" says R. F. Horton, \"so\nmuch dreaded by pious souls, is furnishing a conclusive answer to the\nuntiring opponents of revelation.\"[36]  Everyone knows {107} that the\nBible has been bitterly attacked in the past, and that such attacks\nhave not altogether ceased even now; but it is sometimes overlooked\nthat in the majority of cases these attacks are made by men who are, or\nseem to be, lamentably ignorant of the attitude and results of modern\ncritical study.  Their arguments become \"absolutely powerless against\nthe modern historical interpretation of the Bible; and the more that\ninterpretation underlies the teaching of the young, the more certain\nare those attacks to die a natural death.\"[37]\n\nThere are, indeed, few Old Testament scholars who would not indorse the\ntestimony of Professor A. S. Peake, given in a paper on \"Permanent\nResults of Biblical Criticism,\" read before the Fourth Methodist\nEcumenical Conference: \"Speaking for myself, I may truthfully say that\nmy sense of the value of Scripture, my interest in it, my attachment to\nit, have been almost indefinitely enhanced by the new attitude and new\nmode of study which criticism has brought to us.\"\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER III\n\n[1] Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 1.\n\n[2] The Integrity of Scripture, p. 1.\n\n[3] The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament, p. 85.\n\n[4] Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 47.\n\n{108}\n\n[5] General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Text, pp. 162, 163.\n\n[6] J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Preface to Second\nEdition.\n\n[7] The Elements of the Higher Criticism, pp. 12, 13.\n\n[8] Christ and Criticism, Preface.\n\n[9] J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the New Scholarship, p. 87.\n\n[10] L. W. Munhall, Anti-Higher Criticism, p. 9.  For a discriminating\nstudy of the theological and philosophical bias of the more\nrepresentative Old Testament critics, see Bibliotheca Sacra, January,\n1912, pp. 1ff.\n\n[11] The Bible and Modern Criticism, p. 19.\n\n[12] The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 7, 8.\n\n[13] Some of these concessions are enumerated in J. E. McFadyen, Old\nTestament Criticism and the Christian Church, pp. 15ff.  The Problem of\nthe Old Testament, by James Orr, is often quoted as overthrowing\nentirely the positions of modern criticism regarding the authorship of\nthe Pentateuch.  If, however, one reads Orr's summary of the chief\nresults of his own critical investigation (pp. 371ff.), the question\nmay well be asked, Why should he be considered less of a higher critic\nthan, for example, Wellhausen?\n\n[14] The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament, p. 30.\n\n[15] Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 143.\n\n[16] Even those who question the existence of four independent\ndocuments assume the activity of at least four different hands.\n\n[17] James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, p. 151.\n\n[18] See above, pp. 30ff.\n\n[19] The Highest Critics vs. The Higher Critics, pp. 7, 8.\n\n{109}\n\n[20] Acts 3. 24.  The passage in the mind of the apostle seems to be 2\nSam. 7. 11-16.\n\n[21] Heb. 4. 7.\n\n[22] Psa. 95.\n\n[23] The origin of the designations Moses = Pentateuch, Samuel = books\nof Samuel, David = book of Psalms, must be explained, and can be\nexplained; but as the mention of Samuel and David shows, it cannot\nalways rest upon the fact of authorship, whatever the popular idea may\nhave been.\n\n[24] James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, p. 151.\n\n[25] Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 76.\n\n[26] See above, p. 55.\n\n[27] Mark 13. 32.\n\n[28] M. S. Terry, Moses and the Prophets, p. 194.\n\n[29] C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture,\np. 26.\n\n[30] Quoted in J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the\nChristian Church, p. 253.\n\n[31] Moses has, indeed, been removed by some investigators to the realm\nof myth, but not upon the basis of conclusions reached by the\nlegitimate modern criticism.\n\n[32] C. F. Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, Vol. I, pp. 44, 45.\n\n[33] Prophets, English translation, Vol. II, p. 1.\n\n[34] C. F. Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, Vol. I, p. 167.\n\n[35] Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. viii, ix.\n\n[36] Revelation and the Bible, p. 61.\n\n[37] J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church,\np. 136.\n\n\n\n\n{110}\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ARCHEOLOGY\n\nA century ago the student of the world's history found it exceedingly\ndifficult, if not impossible, to paint for himself a clear picture of\nevents antedating B.C. 400.  Concerning earlier periods, he was, aside\nfrom the Old Testament, practically without records that could claim\ncontemporaneousness with the events recorded.  But, one hundred years\nago, men had commenced to test every statement, be it historical, or\nscientific, or theological, by severe canons of criticism, and if it\ncould not stand the test, it was speedily rejected.  One result of this\ntendency was to reject historical statements of the Bible when they\ncould not be corroborated by reliable extra-biblical records.  The\nnineteenth century has wrought a marvelous change.  The Old Testament\nis no longer the \"lone Old Testament,\" at the mercy of the scientific\ninvestigator.  The historian and the Bible student now have at their\ncommand literary treasures almost without number, partly\ncontemporaneous with the Old Testament, partly older by many centuries.\nThese rich treasures have been brought to light by the {111}\nperseverance and painstaking toil of archaeologists, whose discoveries\nhave shed light on human history during a period of more than four\nthousand years before the opening of the Christian era.\n\nThe historical movements recorded in the Old Testament, in which the\nHebrews had a vital interest, were confined chiefly to the territory\nbetween the four seas of western Asia: the Mediterranean Sea, the Black\nSea, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf.  In the East the territory\nmight be extended to include Persia; in the West, to include Asia\nMinor; and in the South or Southwest, to include Egypt, in North\nAfrica.  All these districts, which may be designated Bible lands, have\nbeen more or less thoroughly explored, and in most of them excavations\nhave been carried on.  The countries in which the most valuable finds,\nso far as Bible study is concerned, have been made are Palestine,\nBabylonia-Assyria, Egypt, Northern Syria, Phoenicia, Moab, and Asia\nMinor.\n\nEven before excavations were undertaken travelers had visited these\ndifferent countries and had reported their observations, but the\ninformation thus gained was more or less vague, and in many cases of no\npractical scientific value.[1]  They saw many strange mounds and ruins,\nand noticed and occasionally picked up fragments of inscriptions and\nmonuments; but no one could {112} decipher the inscriptions; hence the\nfinds were preserved simply as mementoes and relics of an unknown age,\nfrom which nothing could be learned concerning the history and\ncivilization of the people that once occupied these lands.  The mounds\nand heaps of ruins which contained the real treasures were left\nundisturbed until the nineteenth century.\n\nThe pioneer in the work of excavation in the territory of Babylonia and\nAssyria was Claudius James Rich, who, while resident of the British\nEast India Company in Bagdad, in 1811, visited and studied the ruins of\nBabylon, and a little later made similar investigations in the mounds\nmarking the site of the ancient city of Nineveh.  In the gullies cut by\ncenturies of rain he gathered numerous little clay tablets, covered on\nevery side with the same wedge-shaped characters as those seen on the\nfragments found by earlier travelers.  These he saved carefully, and in\ntime presented them to the British Museum.\n\nNo systematic excavations were carried on until 1842, when P. C. Botta\nwas sent by the French government as vice-consul to Mosul on the upper\nTigris.  He noticed across the river from Mosul extensive artificial\nmounds which were supposed to mark the site of the city of Nineveh.\nThese so aroused his curiosity that he began digging in the two most\nprominent mounds.  Failing to make {113} any discoveries, he\ntransferred, the following year, at the suggestion of a peasant, his\nactivities to Korsabad, a few miles to the northeast, where the digging\nproduced, almost immediately, startling results.  In the course of his\nexcavations he laid bare a complex of buildings which proved to be the\npalace of Sargon, king of Assyria from B.C. 722 to B.C. 705, a palace\ncovering an area of about twenty-five acres.  The walls of the various\nbuildings were all wainscotted with alabaster slabs, upon which were\nrepresentations of battles, sieges, triumphal processions, and similar\nevents in the life of ancient Assyria.  He also found, in the course of\nthe excavations, scores of strange figures and colossi, and numerous\nother remains of a long lost civilization.  Botta's discoveries filled\nthe whole archaeological world with enthusiasm.\n\nEven before Botta reached Mosul, a young Englishman, Austin Henry\nLayard, visited the territory of ancient Assyria, and was so impressed\nby its mounds and ruins that he resolved to examine them thoroughly\nwhenever it might be in his power to do so.  This resolution was taken\nin April, 1840, but more than five years elapsed before he began\noperations.  It would be interesting to follow Layard's work as\ndescribed by him in a most fascinating manner in Nineveh and Its\nRemains, and other writings, which give {114} complete records of the\nwonderful successes he achieved wherever he went.\n\nNever again did the labors entirely cease, though there were periods of\ndecline.  Layard's operations were continued under the direction of\nRassam, Taylor, Loftus, and Henry C. Rawlinson; the French operations\nwere in charge of such men as Place, Thomas, Fresnell, and Oppert.\nHowever, it was not until 1873 that other startling discoveries were\nmade, chiefly under the direction of George Smith, who was sent by the\nDaily Telegraph, of London, to visit the site of Nineveh for the\npurpose of finding, if possible, fragments of the Babylonian account of\nthe Deluge, parts of which he had previously discovered on tablets that\nhad been shipped to the British Museum.  In 1877 France sent Ernest de\nSarzec as consul to Bosra in Lower Babylonia.  His interest in\narchaeology led him to investigate some of the mounds in the\nneighborhood, and he soon began work at one called Telloh.  In the\ncourse of several campaigns, which continued until 1894, he unearthed a\ngreat variety of material illustrative of primitive ages, among his\ntreasures being palaces, statues, vases, thousands of tablets, and\nvarious other articles of interest.\n\nThe first steps toward sending out an American expedition for\nexcavation were taken at a meeting of the American Oriental Society in\nthe spring of {115} 1884.  In the fall of the same year a preliminary\nexpedition of exploration was sent out, which completed its labors\nduring the winter and spring, returning in June, 1885.  But the means\nfor excavation were not forthcoming until 1888, when a well-equipped\nexpedition was sent out under the auspices of the University of\nPennsylvania.  Four successive campaigns were carried on upon the great\nmounds of Nuffar, the site of Nippur, a center of early Babylonian\nlife.  Each expedition brought to light architectural and artistic\nremains and many thousands of tablets, throwing light upon all sides of\nthe ancient life and civilization, over which hitherto there had lain\nalmost complete darkness.  In 1899 Germany sent its first expedition to\nBabylon and, during successive seasons, extensive excavations have been\ncarried on, which have resulted in the discovery of many interesting\nfinds.  At a later date excavations were begun and, like those of\nBabylon, are still continued, on the mound covering the site of the\nancient capital city of Assyria, Asshur, where inscriptions of great\nvalue have been uncovered.  At the present time the Germans are perhaps\nthe most active excavators in Assyria-Babylonia, and by their\npainstaking care to record every new discovery they are bound to\nincrease the knowledge of the early history and civilization of these\nancient empires.[2]\n\n{116}\n\nReference may be made also to the later excavations of the French at\nSusa, the scene of the book of Esther, where they have uncovered much\nvaluable material.  The most important find, made in the winter of\n1901-1902, is the monument upon which is inscribed the legal code of\nHammurabi, king of Babylon, generally identified with the Amraphel of\nGen. 14. 1.  For a short time the University of Chicago carried on\nexcavations at Bismiyah, in southern Babylonia, which have brought to\nlight many objects of interest, if not of great historical importance.\nThe Turkish government, under whose rule the territory of Babylonia and\nAssyria now is, stimulated by the example of other nations, is taking\nan active interest in these excavations, granting the privilege of\nexcavating to an ever-increasing number of scholars, and giving them\nprotection while engaged in their work.  The Sultan has erected in\nConstantinople a magnificent museum, where the valuable antiquities are\naccessible to the scholarship of the world.\n\nThe credit of having first turned the attention of the West toward the\nmonuments of Egypt, and of having brought them within the reach of\nscience, belongs to the military expedition of Napoleon Bonaparte,\nundertaken in the summer of 1798.[3]  In August, 1799, a French\nartillery officer, Boussard, unearthed at the Fort Saint Julien, near\n{117} Rosetta, in the Nile Delta, a stone of black granite, three feet\nfive inches in height, two feet four and one half inches in width, and\neleven inches in thickness.  It is thought to have been at least twelve\ninches higher and to have had a rounded top.  On the upper portion of\nthis block could be seen parts of fourteen lines of characters,\nresembling those seen everywhere on the obelisks and ruined temples of\nthe land; adjoining these below are thirty-two lines of another species\nof script, while at the bottom are fifty-four lines, twenty-eight of\nthem complete, in Greek uncial letters.  The Greek was easily read, and\ntold the story of the stone: It was set up in B.C. 195, by the priests\nof Egypt, in honor of Ptolemy Epiphanes, because he had canceled\narrearages of certain taxes due from the sacerdotal body.  The grateful\npriests ordered the memorial decree to be inscribed in the sacred\ncharacters of Egypt, in the vernacular, and in Greek.  The Greek\nportion having been read, it was conjectured that the two inscriptions\nabove the Greek told the same story.  Such being the case, the value of\nthe document for the decipherment of the Egyptian inscriptions was at\nonce perceived, and scholars immediately set to work on the task of\ndeciphering the unknown script.  The honor of having solved the mystery\nbelongs to Francois Champollion, who by 1822 had succeeded in fixing\nthe value of a considerable {118} portion of the ancient Egyptian\nsigns, and at the time of his death, ten years later, left behind in\nmanuscript a complete Egyptian grammar and vocabulary.\n\nThrough the discovery of Champollion the interest in ancient Egypt grew\nin all learned circles, and from his day until now efforts at bringing\nto light the remains of the Egyptian civilization have never ceased.\nThe French have been especially active; but other nations also have\nbeen in the field and have greatly added to our knowledge of ancient\nEgypt.  Since 1883 the Egyptian Exploration Fund has been at work in\nvarious parts of the Nile valley; private subscriptions have enabled\nthe investigation of certain places of special interest; and now every\nyear new finds are made, which constantly enrich our knowledge of the\nhistory, art, and civilization of the land of the Pharaohs.\n\n\"Palestine,\" says Dr. Benzinger, \"became the object of most general\ninterest earlier than any other Oriental country....  Nevertheless,\nPalestine research is but a child of the century just closed, the\nsystematic exploration of the land, in all its aspects, beginning\nproperly speaking with the foundation of the English Palestine\nExploration Fund in 1865.\"[4]  The reason for this delay is not far to\nseek.  From the time that Christians first began to visit Palestine to\na comparatively {119} recent date all pilgrimages were prompted by\nreligious, not by scientific motives.  The interest of the pilgrims was\nexcited only by those places which were pointed out to them as the\nscenes of sacred events, and the knowledge they brought home consisted\nchiefly of descriptions of the places held in special veneration.  In\n1841 there appeared in three volumes a work entitled Biblical\nResearches, in which Professor Edward Robinson recorded the results of\nhis travels in Palestine during the year 1838.  In 1852 Robinson made a\nsecond journey.  During these two trips he and his companions worked\nwith ceaseless industry, always accurately measuring the distances, and\ndescribing the route, even to the smallest detail.  This painstaking\ncare made the accounts so valuable that his books marked a turning\npoint in the whole matter of Palestinian research, and could serve as a\nfoundation upon which all future researches might rest.\n\nAmong other travelers who have made valuable contributions to our\nknowledge of Palestine, the most important are Titus Tobler, H. V.\nGuerin, E. Renan, and G. A. Smith.  But the better the land came to be\nknown, the more fully was it realized that the complete systematic\nexploration of the land was beyond the power of individual travelers.\nHence in 1865 a number of men interested in Palestinian research met in\nLondon {120} and organized a society known as the Palestine Exploration\nFund.  Its object was the complete, systematic, and scientific\nexploration of the Holy Land, especially for the purpose of elucidating\nthe Scriptures.  The idea was taken up with great enthusiasm, and from\nthe beginning until now the society has been actively engaged in\nilluminating Palestine past and present.  During the early history of\nthe Fund few excavations were carried on, and these were confined to\nthe city of Jerusalem; but since 1890 several mounds in southern\nPalestine have been excavated, the most important being Tel-el-Hesy,\nthe probable site of ancient Lachish, and the site of the important\ncity of Gezer.  At present (1912) the site of ancient Beth-Shemesh is\nbeing excavated.\n\nThe German Palestine Society was organized in 1877 for a similar\npurpose.  When the English surveyors were prevented by the Turkish\ngovernment from completing the survey of eastern Palestine the German\nsociety took up the work, and its results are embodied in a map now in\nprocess of publication.  The principal excavations of the German\nsociety were carried on between 1903 and 1907 at Tel-el Mutasellim, the\nancient Megiddo, under the direction of Dr. Benzinger and Dr.\nSchumacher.  Dr. Sellin carried on excavations at the neighboring\nTaanach for the Austrian government between 1902 and 1904.  {121} Two\nother sites have been excavated--Jericho by the Germans and Samaria by\nHarvard University, and though no epoch-making finds have come to light\nin these two places, the results illuminate the early history of\nPalestine.\n\nPhoenicia has yielded some of its treasures.  The first of importance,\nfound in 1855 in the Necropolis of Sidon, was the sarcophagus of\nEshmunazar, king of Sidon.  Since then various other sites have been\nexamined, and much material has been unearthed, throwing light on the\nhistory, religion, art, and civilization of these ancient neighbors of\nIsrael.  In the year 1868 a German missionary, the Rev. F. Klein,\ndiscovered at Diban, the site of an ancient royal city of Moab, a large\nstone, with an inscription of Mesha, a king of Moab in the ninth\ncentury B.C. Between 1888 and 1891 investigations were conducted, for\nthe Royal Museum in Berlin, at the mound of Zenjirli, once a city in\nthe land Shamal, near the northern limits of Syria, south of the Issus,\nabout forty miles inland.  The old citadel was uncovered, and various\nsculptures, showing Hittite influence, a magnificent statue of\nEsarhaddon, king of Assyria, a huge statue of the god Hadad, and\nseveral Aramaic inscriptions of great value, as illustrating early\nSyrian civilization, were found.  More recently, in 1906 and 1907,\nProfessor Winckler visited Boghaz-koei, in Asia Minor, a center of\n{122} early Hittite civilization, where he uncovered thousands of\ntablets which throw new light upon the history of western Asia in\nancient times.  Thus, generation after generation, amid dangers and\nhardships, a body of enthusiastic, self-sacrificing men have toiled\nalmost day and night in order to restore to life a civilization buried\nfor many centuries beneath the sands of the desert and the ruins of\nancient cities, and we are only at the beginning.  What revelations the\nnext fifty years may have in store!\n\nThe results of these expeditions have been enthusiastically welcomed by\nall who are interested in antiquity: the students of history, art,\nscience, anthropology, early civilization, and many others.  They are,\nhowever, of special interest to the Bible student; and it is well to\nremember that, whatever additional motives may be responsible for\nexcavations at the present time, from the beginning until now the\ndesire to find illustrations, or confirmations of scriptural\nstatements, has played a prominent part.  \"To what end,\" says Professor\nDelitzsch,[5] \"this toil and trouble in distant, inhospitable and\ndanger-ridden lands?  Why all this expense in ransacking to their\nutmost depths the rubbish heaps of forgotten centuries, where we know\nneither treasures of gold nor of silver exist?  Why this zealous\nemulation on the part of the nations to secure the greatest possible\n{123} number of mounds for excavation?  And whence, too, that\nconstantly increasing interest, that burning enthusiasm, born of\ngenerous sacrifice, now being bestowed on both sides of the Atlantic\nupon the excavations in Babylonia and Assyria?  One answer echoes to\nall these questions, one answer which, if not absolutely adequate, is\nyet largely the reason and consummation of it all--the _Bible_.\"\n\nOur purpose is to discuss the bearing of recent researches in Bible\nlands upon the Christian view of the Old Testament, that is, the view\nwhich looks upon the Old Testament as containing records of divine\nrevelations granted in divers portions and in divers manners to the\npeople of Israel.  Concerning this bearing, two distinct and opposing\nclaims are made: on the one hand, it is said that archaeological\nresearch only confirms the familiar view of the Bible as a trustworthy\nand unique record of religion and history; on the other hand, it is\nclaimed that archaeological research has shown the Old Testament to be\nuntrustworthy as to history, and as to religion, what has hitherto been\nregarded as original with the Hebrews is claimed to have been borrowed\nalmost bodily from the surrounding nations.\n\nWhat is the true situation?  The archaeological material which has more\nor less direct bearing upon our inquiry may be roughly arranged under\n{124} two heads: (1) The Historico-Geographical; (2) The\nReligio-Ethical.  The present chapter deals with the bearing of the\nhistorico-geographical material upon the Old Testament historical\nrecords, the other class being reserved for the succeeding chapter.\nThe next step in the discussion will be to enumerate at least the more\nimportant finds having a more or less direct relation to the Old\nTestament.  Many archaeological objects have been brought to light,\nwhich, though they have but indirect bearing upon the Old Testament,\nhave wonderfully illuminated the life of the ancient East, and thus\nhave made more distinct the general historical background upon which\nthe scenes recorded in the Old Testament were enacted.  But a more\nimportant source of information are the inscriptions which have been\ndiscovered by the thousands and tens of thousands.  These inscriptions\nwere written on all kinds of material--granite, alabaster, wood, clay,\npapyrus, etc.; shaped in a variety of forms--tablets, cylinders, rolls,\nstatues, walls, etc.; and they have been dug out of mounds, tombs,\npyramids, and many other places.  What, then, are the most important\nfinds?  The first thing to bear in mind is that the inscriptions have\nvery little to say about the earlier period of Hebrew history.  Says\nDriver,[6] \"With the exception of the statement on the stele of\nMerneptah, that 'Israel is desolated,' the first {125} event connected\nwith Israel and its ancestors which the inscriptions mention or attest,\nis Shishak's invasion of Judah in the reign of Rehoboam; and the first\nIsraelites whom they specify by name are Omri and his son Ahab.\"\nBefore considering the statement on the stele of Merneptah, attention\nmay be given to certain inscriptions which throw considerable light on\nconditions in Palestine before the Hebrew conquest, namely, the\nso-called Tel-el-Amarna tablets.[7]  These tablets were discovered by\naccident in the winter of 1887-1888 at Tel-el-Amarna, the site of the\nancient capital of Amenophis IV of Egypt, about midway between Memphis\nand Thebes.  On examination they proved to be a part of the official\narchives of Amenophis III (1411-1375) and Amenophis IV (1375-1358),\nconsisting almost entirely of letters and reports addressed to these\ntwo Pharaohs by their officials in western Asia, and by rulers who\nsustained close relations to the Egyptian court.  The royal letters,\nabout forty in number, are chiefly from kings of the Hittites, of the\nMitanni, of Assyria, and of Babylonia.  The rest of the correspondence,\nabout two hundred and fifty letters, is of much greater historical\ninterest; it consists of letters from Egyptian governors in various\ncities of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria.\n\nThese inscriptions show that about B.C. 1400, {126} about two hundred\nyears before the Hebrew conquest, Palestine and the neighboring\ncountries formed an Egyptian province under the rule of Egyptian\ngovernors stationed in all principal towns.  At the time the Egyptians\nhad considerable difficulty in maintaining their authority.  Their\npower was threatened by the Hittites and other powerful neighbors, by\nthe dissatisfied native population, by the Habiri, who seem to have\nbeen invaders from the desert, and by the intrigues and rivalries of\nthe Egyptian governors themselves.  Practically all the principal\ncities of the land are mentioned in these letters.  From the standpoint\nof Old Testament study, six letters written by Abdi-hiba, Governor of\nJerusalem, are of special interest.  He, like many of the other\ngovernors, is in difficulty.  The Habiri are pressing him hard; the\nneighboring cities of Gezer, Lachish, and Askelon are aiding the enemy;\nhe has been slandered before the king and accused of disloyalty.  In\nthe letters he emphatically protests his innocence.  One of them reads:\n\"To the king my lord, say also thus: It is Abdi-hiba, thy servant; at\nthe feet of my lord the king twice seven times, and twice seven times I\nfall.  What have I done against the king my lord?  They backbite, they\nslander me before the king my lord, saying: Abdi-hiba has fallen away\nfrom the king his lord.  Behold, as for me, neither my father nor my\n{127} mother set me in this place; the arm of the mighty king caused me\nto enter into the house of my father.  Why should I commit a sin\nagainst the king my lord?\"\n\nPerhaps the most surprising fact about these letters is that the\nPalestinian governors used, in the correspondence with their superiors\nin Egypt, not the Egyptian or native Canaanite, but the Babylonian\nlanguage, which seems conclusive evidence that for some time previously\nWestern Asia had been under Babylonian influence.  Without doubt this\ninfluence was primarily political, but naturally it would bring with it\nelements of civilization, art, science, and religion.  Now and then\nwords in the Canaanite language occur, either independently, or for the\npurpose of explaining a Babylonian expression in the more familiar\ndialect of the scribe.  These Canaanite words are hardly\ndistinguishable from the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  It is evident,\ntherefore, that the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine were closely\nakin to the Hebrews, and spoke substantially the same language.  The\ninscriptions of later Egyptian kings, during the thirteenth and the\nearly part of the twelfth century, throw little additional light on\nconditions in Palestine, except that it becomes increasingly clear that\nEgypt cannot maintain its hold on the land.  Subsequent to Rameses III\n(1198-1167) Palestine was entirely {128} lost to Egypt for several\ncenturies, which explains why the Hebrews were not disturbed by the\nempire on the Nile in their attempts to establish themselves in\nPalestine.\n\nThe first direct reference to Israel in the inscriptions apparently\ntakes us near the time of the exodus.  Archaeology has nothing to say\ndirectly about the exodus; but in the enumeration of his victories,\nMerneptah II, thought to be the Pharaoh during whose reign the exodus\ntook place, uses these words: \"Israel is lost, his seed is not.\"  The\ndiscovery of this inscription in 1896 was hailed with great rejoicing,\nfor at last the name \"Israel\" was found in an Egyptian inscription\ncoming, approximately at least, from the time of the exodus; but,\nunfortunately, the reference is so indefinite that its exact\nsignificance and bearing upon the date of the exodus is still under\ndiscussion.  It is to be noted that, whereas the other places or\npeoples named in the inscription have the determinative for \"country,\"\n\"Israel\" has the determinative for \"men\"; perhaps an evidence that the\nreference is not to the land of Israel, or to Israel permanently\nsettled, but to a tribe or people at the time without a settled abode.\nBut where was Israel at the time?  To this a variety of answers have\nbeen given.  D. R. Fotheringham suggests that the reference is to the\ndestruction of the crops of Israel in Goshen.  {129} Israel, he thinks,\nhad just left, with the crops unharvested.  These Merneptah claims to\nhave destroyed.[8]  Others believe that the Israelites had already\nentered Canaan when they suffered the defeat mentioned by Merneptah.\nPetrie thinks that the Israelites defeated were in Palestine, but that\nthey had no connection with the tribes that had a part in the biblical\nexodus; he believes that the latter were still in Goshen at the time of\nthis defeat.[9]  Still others believe that the Israelites were, at the\ntime of the defeat, in the wilderness south of Palestine, and that the\nclaim of Merneptah is simply an attempt to account for their\ndisappearance from Egypt.  And now comes Eerdmans, of Leiden, with the\nsuggestion that the Israelites defeated by Merneptah were the\nIsraelites before they went down to Egypt.[10]  It is seen, therefore,\nthat the reference on the stele of Merneptah, while of much interest,\nbecause it is the first mention of Israel in an Egyptian inscription,\nafter all throws little light upon the date and the events of the\nexodus.\n\nThe next monument of importance contains an account of the invasion of\nPalestine by Shishak, five years after the death of Solomon.  On the\nsouthern wall of the court of the great temple of Amen at Karnak the\nking has left a pictorial representation of his campaign.  A giant\nfigure is represented as holding in his left hand the ends of ropes\nwhich {130} bind long rows of captives neck to neck.  Their hands are\ntied behind them, and the victor's right hand holds a rod with which he\nthreatens them.  The names of the conquered cities are inscribed on\nshields that cover the lower part of the body of each prisoner.  Some\nof the most familiar names in this list are Gaza, Abel, Adullam,\nBethhoron, Aijalon, Gibeon, and Shunem.[11]\n\nFrom about the middle of the ninth century on inscriptions containing\nreferences to kings of Israel, or to events in which the Hebrews played\nimportant parts, become more numerous.  To the reign of Omri (889-875)\nand his immediate successors refers the inscription of Mesha on the\nso-called Moabite Stone.[12]  This notable specimen of antiquity is a\nstone of a bluish-black color, about two feet wide, nearly four feet\nhigh, and fourteen and one-half inches thick; rounded at the top, and,\naccording to the testimony of the discoverer, the Rev. F. Klein, also\nat the bottom, which, however, is doubtful.  The value of the stone\nlies not only in the fact that it preserves one of the most ancient\nstyles of Hebrew writing, but more especially in the historical,\ntopographical, and religious information it furnishes.  In 2 Kings 3 we\nread of the relations between Moab and Omri and his successors.  Omri\nhad subdued Moab and had collected from her a yearly tribute.  Ahab had\nenjoyed the same revenue, amounting during {131} Mesha's reign to the\nwool of a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams.  At the\nclose of Ahab's reign Mesha refused to continue the payment of the\ntribute.  The allied kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom marched with\ntheir armies against the Moabites, who fled for refuge within the\nstrong fortress of Kir-hareseth, where Mesha offered up his own son as\na burnt-offering to Chemosh, his god; whereupon \"there was great wrath\nagainst Israel, and they departed from them and returned to their own\nland.\"\n\nThe Moabite Stone was set up by King Mesha to his god Chemosh in\ncommemoration of this deliverance.  The opening lines read: \"I am\nMesha, son of Chemosh-ken, king of Moab, the Daibonite.  My father\nreigned over Moab for thirty years, and I reigned after my father.  And\nI made this high place for Chemosh in Korhah, a high place of\nsalvation, because he had saved me from all the assailants, and because\nhe had let me see my desire upon all them that hated me.  Omri, king of\nIsrael, afflicted Moab for many days, because Chemosh was angry with\nhis land; and his son succeeded him; and he also said, I will afflict\nMoab.  In my days said he thus.  But I saw my desire upon him and his\nhouse, and Israel perished with an everlasting destruction.\"  As a\nsupplement to the Old Testament narrative, this account is very\ninstructive.  The mention of {132} Yahweh, the God of Israel, is of\ninterest, as also the fact that in Moab, as in Israel, national\ndisaster was attributed to the anger of the national deity.  The idiom\nin which the inscription is written differs only dialectically from the\nHebrew of the Old Testament.  Small idiomatic differences are\nobservable, but, on the other hand, it shares with it several\ndistinctive features, so that, on the whole, it resembles Hebrew far\nmore closely than any other Semitic language now known.  In point of\nstyle the inscription reads almost like a page from one of the earlier\nhistorical books of the Old Testament.\n\nFrom the time of Omri on Israel came into frequent contact with\nAssyria; indeed, the fortunes of Israel were closely bound up with the\nfortunes of this great Eastern world-power.[13]  In 885, at about the\ntime when Omri had finally succeeded in overcoming his rivals,\nAshurnasirpal ascended the throne of Assyria.  He determined to restore\nthe former glory of his nation, which had become eclipsed under his\nincompetent predecessors; and with him began a period of conquest which\nultimately brought the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean under\nAssyrian sway.  In 860 Shalmaneser III[14] succeeded his father upon\nthe throne of Assyria, and in the following year he renewed the attack\nupon the West.  In 854 he felt prepared for a supreme effort, and it is\nin the {133} account of this campaign that we read for the first time\nthe name of an Israelite king in the Assyrian inscription.  Shalmaneser\nadvanced with great speed and success until he reached Karkar, near the\nOrontes, a little north of Hamath.  In the account of the campaign he\nmentions, among the allies who fought against him, Ahab of Israel, who,\nhe says, furnished two thousand chariots and ten thousand men.  The\ncampaign is recorded in several inscriptions, in all of which\nShalmaneser claims a complete victory.\n\nThe most famous inscription of this king is the one on the so-called\nBlack Obelisk, an alabaster monolith found at Nimrud in 1846.  This\nmonument is inscribed on all four sides with an account, in one hundred\nand ninety lines, of the expeditions undertaken during thirty-one years\nof the king's reign.  In the text of the inscription reference is made\nto campaigns against the west land (Syria and Palestine) in 859, 854,\n850, 849, 846, 842, and 839.  In addition to the inscription the\nmonument contains, on the upper portion, five series of four reliefs\neach, each series representing the tribute brought to the Assyrian king\nby kings whom he had conquered or who sought his favor.  In the\ninscription itself, no mention is made of Israel or the king of Israel,\nbut the second tier of reliefs is of much interest.  It depicts a\nprince or deputy prostrating himself before Shalmaneser, {134} and\nbehind the prostrated figure are attendants bearing gifts of various\nkinds.  The superscription reads: \"The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri,\nsilver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden ladle, golden goblets, golden\npitchers, lead, a staff for the hand of the king, shafts of spears, I\nreceived of him.\"  In 842 Shalmaneser undertook an expedition against\nHazael of Damascus, and in the account of this expedition he says, \"At\nthat time I received the tribute of the Tyrians and Sidonians, and of\nJehu, the son of Omri.\"\n\nAbout half a century after the occurrence of Jehu's name in the\ninscription of Shalmaneser III Israel is mentioned again as tributary\nto Assyria.  Adad-nirari IV (812-783), after enumerating other\ncountries subjugated by him, writes: \"From the Euphrates to the land of\nthe Hatti, the west country in its entire compass, Tyre, Sidon, the\nland of Omri, Edom, Philistia, as far as the great sea of the setting\nof the sun (Mediterranean Sea), I subjected to my yoke; payment of\ntribute I imposed upon them.\"\n\nAdad-nirari was succeeded by a series of weak kings, during whose reign\nthe power of Assyria declined, but in 745 the great Tiglath-pileser IV,\nmentioned in the Old Testament also under the name Pul, ascended the\nthrone.  He succeeded in reorganizing the resources of the empire and\nin rekindling its ambitions for conquest.  This {135} energetic king\nhas left several inscriptions of much interest to the student of Old\nTestament history.  In one of these, narrating an expedition against\nnorthern Syria about B.C. 738, he mentions a king, \"Azriau of the land\nof Yaudi.\"  It has been customary to identify this king with Azariah\n(Uzziah) of Judah.  The contents speak against this identification, and\nsince the inscriptions found in Zenjirli have established the existence\nin northern Syria of a state called Yaudi, perhaps the king mentioned\nin Tiglath-pileser's inscription was a ruler of this northern kingdom.\nIn the annals which tell of his victory over Azriau of Yaudi he\nmentions Menahem of Samaria as one of the kings whose tribute he\nreceived.  The same inscription, referring to events in 734 or 733,\nspeaks of a victory over the House of Omri, and the assassination of\nthe king Pekah, but the inscription is so fragmentary that the details\nare obscure.  Fortunately, the same events are recorded in another\ninscription, which is in a better state of preservation, though it also\nhas several gaps.  After enumerating several cities which he captured\nin Palestine, among them Gaza, he continues: \"The land of the dynasty\nof Omri ... the whole of its inhabitants, their possessions to Assyria\nI deported.  Pekah, their king, they slew, Hoshea to rule over them\nappointed.  Ten talents of gold, a thousand talents of silver, I\nreceived {136} as tribute.\"  Ahaz of Judah is also mentioned in an\ninscription of Tiglath-pileser, as paying tribute, but it is not clear\nto what year this refers.\n\nTiglath-pileser died in 727, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser V, who in\nturn gave place in 722 to Sargon II.  Shalmaneser is mentioned as the\nking who attacked the northern kingdom, and the Old Testament narrative\nleaves the impression that he was the king who finally captured the\ncity of Samaria.  The inscriptions show that it was Sargon who overcame\nthe city soon after the beginning of his reign.  In one of his\ninscriptions he calls himself, \"the brave hero ... who overthrew the\nHouse of Omri.\"  In another he says: \"Samaria I besieged, I took.\n27,290 of its inhabitants I carried away; 50 chariots I gathered from\nthem; the rest of them I permitted to retain their possessions.  Over\nthem I appointed my governor, and upon them I imposed the tribute of\nthe former king.\"  The annals of Sargon, which give an account of the\nevents during his reign in chronological order, give the date of the\ncapture of Samaria.  After the introduction, he continues: \"In the\nbeginning of my reign and in the first year of my reign, ... Samaria I\nbesieged and took....  27,290 inhabitants I carried away; 50 chariots\nas my royal portion I collected there....  I restored and made as it\nwas before....  People from all countries, my captives, I settled\nthere.  My {137} official I appointed as governor over them.  Tribute\nand taxes like the Assyrian I imposed upon them.\"  After the\ndestruction of the northern kingdom the life of the Hebrews became\ncentered in Judah and Jerusalem.  The fall of Samaria made an\nimpression on the South that was remembered for some time.\nNevertheless, the states along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean\nSea bore impatiently the Assyrian yoke, and in most cities there arose\na party which, relying on the promised help of Egypt, was eager to free\nitself from Assyria.  That this party gained a foothold also in\nJerusalem is seen from the prophecy in Isa. 20, in which the prophet\nwarns the people against trusting in Egypt and rebelling against\nAssyria.  In the same direction points an inscription of Sargon\ndescribing an expedition against Ashdod: \"The people of Philistia,\n_Judah_, Edom, and Moab, dwelling beside the sea, bringing tribute and\npresents to Ashur my lord, were speaking treason.  The people and their\nevil chiefs, to fight against me, to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, a prince\nwho could not save them, their presents carried and besought his\nalliance.\"  In all probability, Judah did not become involved seriously\nat this time.  But the death of Sargon in 705 seems to have been a\nsignal for revolt in many parts of the Assyrian empire.  His son and\nsuccessor, Sennacherib, gave these rebellions his immediate attention;\nuntil 702 {138} he was kept busy in the East, but in that year he\nturned westward, and by 701 was ready to attack Judah.  The campaign\nand the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem on that occasion are\nrecorded at length in 2 Kings 18, 19, and Isa. 36, 37.  The account of\nthe same campaign by the Assyrian king is, from the standpoint of Old\nTestament history, perhaps the most interesting historical inscription\nleft by an Assyrian ruler.  It is found in the so-called Taylor\nCylinder,[15] column 2, line 34, to column 3, line 41.  The most\ninteresting portion reads:\n\n\n  To the city of Ekron I went; the governors\n  [and] princes, who had committed a transgression, I killed and\n  bound their corpses on poles around the city.\n  The inhabitants of the city, who had committed sin and evil,\n  I counted as spoil; to the rest of them\n  who had committed no sin and wrong, who had\n  no guilt, I spoke peace.  Padi\n  their king, I brought forth from the\n  city of Jerusalem; upon the throne of lordship over them\n  I placed him.  The tribute of my lordship\n  I laid upon him.  But Hezekiah\n  of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke,\n  I besieged 46 of his strong cities, fortresses, and small cities\n  of their environs, without number, [and]\n  by the battering of rams and the assault of engines,\n  by the attack of foot soldiers, mines, breaches, and axes,\n  I besieged, I took them; 200,150 men, young [and] old, male\n      and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, oxen\n  and sheep without number I brought out from them,\n  I counted them as spoil.  [Hezekiah] himself I shut up like\n      a caged bird in Jerusalem\n\n{139}\n\n  his royal city; the walls I fortified\n  against him [and] whosoever came out of the gates of the\n      city, I turned\n  back.  His cities, which I had plundered, I separated from\n      his land\n  and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod,\n  to Padi, king of Ekron, and to Sil-Bel,\n  king of Gaza, and [thus] diminished his territory.\n  To the former tribute, paid yearly,\n  I added the tribute and presents of my lordship and\n  laid that upon him.  Hezekiah himself\n  was overwhelmed by the fear of the brightness of my lordship;\n  the Arabians and his other faithful warriors\n  whom, as a defense for Jerusalem his royal city\n  he had brought in, fell into fear.\n  With 30 talents of gold [and] 800 talents of silver, precious\n      stones,\n  _gukhli daggassi_ (?), large lapis lazuli,\n  couches of ivory, thrones of ivory,\n  ivory, _usu_ wood, box wood (?), of every kind, a heavy\n      treasure,\n  and his daughters, his women of the palace,\n  the young men and young women, to Nineveh, the city of\n      my lordship,\n  I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his ambassadors,\n  to give tribute and to pay homage.\n\n\nThese are, perhaps, the most important historical inscriptions\nillustrating specific events in the history of Israel and Judah.  There\nare, however, many more that make important, though more or less\nindirect, contributions toward a better understanding of Old Testament\nhistory.  Just to mention a few: Tirhaka of Egypt, who, temporarily at\nleast, interfered with the plans of the Assyrians, {140} appears\nseveral times in the inscriptions; the real significance of the events\nrecorded in 2 Kings 20. 12ff., and Isa. 39, can be understood only in\nthe light of the inscriptions; an interesting sidelight is thrown by\nthe inscriptions on the biblical account of Sennacherib's death.  In\none of the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, the son and successor of\nSennacherib, we are told that among the twenty-two kings of the land of\nthe Hittites who assisted him in his building enterprises was Manasseh,\nking of Judah.  Ashurbanipal, the successor of Esarhaddon, includes\nManasseh in a similar list.  Though this king is not mentioned in the\nOld Testament under his Assyrian name, it is very probable that he is\nthe king referred to in Ezra 4. 10, where it is said that the \"great\nand noble Osnappar\" brought Babylonians, Susanians, Elamites, and men\nof other nationalities to Samaria.  The inscriptions do not throw much\nlight upon the closing years of Judah's history, but we can understand\nthe events in which Judah played a part better because the inscriptions\nset into clearer light the general history of Western Asia.  The\nadvance of the Scythians, the revival of Egypt in the seventh century,\nthe fall of Nineveh, the rise of the Chaldean empire, which reached its\nhighest glory under Nebuchadrezzar, the conqueror of Judah--all these\nare described in the inscriptions, or, at least, illuminated by them.\n{141} In a similar way the inscriptions, though not mentioning the\nJewish exiles in Babylonia, illuminate the biblical records in many\nrespects.  Fortunately, also, the inscriptions furnish a good idea of\nthe events leading to the downfall of Babylon, which resulted in the\nrestoration of many exiles to Judah; and the restoration itself assumes\na new significance in the light of the inscriptions; for the permission\nto return granted by Cyrus to the Jews is seen to be in accord with the\ngeneral policy of the conqueror to secure the good-will of the peoples\ndeported by the Babylonians by restoring them to their own homes.  The\nhistorical situation of the age may suggest another reason for the\nkindly treatment of the Jews.  It was inevitable that sooner or later\nCyrus, or his successors, should come into conflict with Egypt.  At\nsuch time it would be of immense value to him to have near the border\nof Egypt a nation upon whose fidelity and gratitude he could rely.\nArchaeology has not thrown any direct light on the condition of the\nJews in Palestine under the Persian rule.  On the other hand, we know a\ngreat deal about conditions in Babylonia during that period, and within\nthe past decade several important documents written on papyrus have\nbeen found in Egypt which furnish indisputable evidence that the island\nof Elephantine, opposite Assuan, a short distance north of the first\ncataract {142} of the Nile, was the seat of a Jewish colony at least as\nearly as the reign of Cambyses, king of Persia (B.C. 529-521).[16]\n\nThis concludes the survey of the archaeological material of a historical\nnature.  It is seen that during the period from the division of the\nkingdom subsequent to the death of Solomon to the reestablishment of\nthe Jews in Palestine after the exile the inscriptions furnish most\ninteresting and instructive illustrations of events mentioned or\nalluded to in the Old Testament.  As a result the history and also the\nprophecy of the Old Testament have been removed from the isolated\nposition in which they previously seemed to stand.  They are now seen\nto be connected by many links with the great movements taking place in\nthe world without.\n\nThe question as to the bearing of the archaeological historical records\non the historical records of the Old Testament remains to be\nconsidered.  This question was asked as soon as the contents of the\ninscriptions became known.  The answers have varied greatly.  On the\none hand, it has been claimed that the Old Testament records are\nconfirmed in every detail; on the other, those have not been wanting\nwho claimed that the inscriptions discredit the Old Testament.  Here,\nas in other investigations, the true conclusion can be reached only\nafter a careful examination of all {143} the facts in the case.  In the\nstudy of the question there are several considerations and cautions\nwhich must not be lost sight of if we would reach a true estimate.\nSome of these cautions are suggested by the nature of the inscriptions.\n\nIn the first place, it must be remembered that most of the\narchaeological material has come from lands outside of Palestine, and\nthat the testimony is that of people not friendly to the Hebrews.  We\nmay expect, therefore, that at times personal bias may have colored the\nportrayal and caused the Hebrews to appear in a less favorable light\nthan the facts would warrant, or that the events in which the Hebrews\ntook part were described in a manner to make them favor the interests\nof the writers.\n\nAgain, not every period of Hebrew history is illuminated by the\ninscriptions.  True, the earliest monuments found in Egypt and\nBabylonia antedate the birth of Jesus perhaps more than four thousand\nyears; but it is not until the time of Ahab, king of Israel, that the\nimportant historical material begins.  The references to Israel\npreceding the time of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, c. B.C. 850,\nare few and more or less obscure.  There is the monument of Shishak in\nthe tenth century; but some are inclined to believe that the list of\nthe cities alleged to have been conquered by Shishak was simply taken\nover by him from {144} an earlier document, and that, therefore, it is\nof little or no historical value.  Israel is mentioned in the\ninscription of Merneptah, but, as has been seen, the significance of\nthe brief reference is obscure; there is nothing concerning the stay in\nEgypt, nothing concerning the patriarchs, and nothing concerning the\nearlier period that can in any way be connected with the historical\nrecords of the Old Testament.\n\nFurthermore, to get at the true value of the evidence from the\nmonuments we must distinguish between facts and inferences from the\nfacts.  This distinction, obvious as it seems, has not always been\nmaintained even by eminent archaeologists.  For example, Professor\nSayce, who is in just repute among Assyriologists, made a few years ago\nthe statement: \"The vindication of the reality of Menes [one of the\nearly kings of Egypt] means the vindication also of the historical\ncharacter of the Hebrew patriarchs.\"  Surely, common sense says that\nfacts proving the historicity of an early king of Egypt do not\nnecessarily prove the historicity of men living many centuries later.\nMany similar illustrations might be given.  Because bricks made without\nstraw were found it has been claimed that every detail of the Old\nTestament narrative concerning the stay of Israel in Egypt was\ncorroborated by archaeology.  The finding of the walls of royal palaces\nin Babylon furnished {145} the claim that the story of the handwriting\non the wall was established beyond doubt.  The finding of images of\ndeities has been interpreted as showing beyond a possibility of\nquestion the historicity of the narrative in Daniel concerning the\nimage erected by Nebuchadrezzar, etc.  There can easily be too much\nblind dependence on authority; an assumption of fact, upon the mere\ndictum of some presumably honest and competent scholar.  About a\ngeneration ago a well-known investigator said, \"Assyriology has its\nguesses and it has its accurate knowledge.\"[17]  These words might be\nexpanded to include the whole field of archaeology.  Archaeology has its\nfacts, and it has its inferences.  The two must not be confused.\n\nMoreover, the possibility of inscribing lies upon clay tablets must not\nbe overlooked.  Sometimes it has been claimed, and that most absurdly,\nthat because an inscription has been engraved upon imperishable stone\nor clay it has a superior value.  But the mere fact of a record being\ninscribed on a tablet of clay, perishable or imperishable, gives it no\nsuperiority over one written on papyrus or parchment or paper.  Clay\ntablets were to the civilization of the Euphrates valley what print\npaper is to us.  We all know that paper is patient, else the daily\npapers would be of smaller size and many books would remain unwritten.\nThe same is true of clay tablets.  Clay tablets are {146} patient.  It\nwas recognized long ago by Assyriologists that the so-called historical\ninscriptions are not all unbiased statements of objective facts.  In\nmany cases the chief purpose seems to have been the glorification of\nthe king; victories are recorded with the greatest care, but no mention\nis made of defeats.  For example: in one of the earliest inscriptions\nmentioning a king of Israel, Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, claims a\ngreat victory over the Western allies in the battle of Karkar in 854;\nbut, strange to say, the victory resulted in a rather hasty retreat of\nthe Assyrian army.  Another evidence of the \"absolute reliability\" of\nthe historical tablets is offered by the inscriptions of the same king.\nIn connection with the battle of Karkar, one inscription declares that\nthe allies killed numbered 14,000; another, 20,500; while a third\nclaims 25,000.  We have, indeed, reason to say that \"the evident\nuncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the clearness of the\nentire result.  The claim of a great victory is almost certainly\nfalse.\"[18]\n\nOnce more: the translation of the inscriptions is not in every case\nbeyond question.  For example, in lines 7-9 of the Moabite Stone we\nread, according to the common translation, \"Now Omri annexed all the\nland of Medeba, and Israel occupied it his days and half the days of\nhis son, forty years.\"  This rendering would imply that the {147}\nperiod from the conquest under Omri to the end of the first half of\nAhab's reign was forty years.  The chronology of Kings gives as the\ntotal of the full reigns of the two kings only thirty-four years, while\nthe above translation of the inscription would require about sixty--a\nserious discrepancy.  Now, it is generally conceded that the chronology\nof the Bible cannot be accepted as final in all its details, and that\nit must be checked by the chronology of the inscriptions wherever that\nis possible.  Yet before we can make use of the monumental testimony we\nshould be sure of its exact meaning.  In cases such as the one\nmentioned this certainty is absent, and we should move very slowly.\nAnother translation of the passage has been proposed: \"Omri conquered\nthe whole land of Medeba and held it in possession as long as he\nreigned and during half of my reign his son, in all forty years; but\nyet in my reign Chemosh recovered it.\"[19]  This translation would\nbring the total of the two reigns to about forty years, and thus the\nchronological difficulty apparently offered by 2 Kings 3 would be\nremoved.\n\nThe five considerations to which attention has been called must be\nobserved if we would understand rightly the bearing of the monuments on\nthe Old Testament, when viewed from the standpoint of the inscriptions.\nAttention must now be called to certain considerations touching {148}\nprimarily the Old Testament that must be regarded in forming an\nestimate of the value of its historical records.\n\nWe must remember, for example, that the purpose of the Old Testament is\nessentially and predominatingly religious.  This is recognized by the\nJews, for they do not call any of the so-called historical books by\nthat name.  The five books of the Pentateuch they designate as Law,\nbecause in these books practically all Hebrew legislation is embodied.\nJoshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, they include in the list of prophetic\nbooks, because they recognize the essentially prophetic purpose of the\nauthors.  The other books belong to the third division of the Jewish\ncanon, called the Writings.  Concerning the books of Kings, which are\nthe principal historical books of the Old Testament, it has been truly\nsaid: \"Kings, by virtue of its contents, belongs as much to the\nprophetical books as to the historical.  It is not a continuous\nchronicle; it is a book of prophetic teaching in which sometimes\nhistory, sometimes story, is employed as the vehicle of teaching.  It\nenforces the principle that God is the controlling power and sin the\ndisturbing force in the entire history of men and nations.[20]  In a\nsimilar manner the religious purpose predominates in the other Old\nTestament historical books.  They do not pretend to give a complete\nhistory even of {149} the Hebrew people.  The writers embodied only\nsuch historical material as was thought to illustrate the\nself-revelation of God in the history of individuals and of the nation,\nor to bear in some marked way upon the coming of the kingdom of God.  A\nmodern secular historian is disappointed at many omissions which would\nbe unpardonable in a strictly historical production.  Now, it is\nreadily seen that the religious purpose may be served, and the didactic\nvalue of the narrative may remain, even though historical inaccuracies\nin details should be discovered.\n\nAnother fact to be remembered is the possible difference in the\nviewpoint of several narrators of one and the same event.  In sacred,\nas in secular history, the viewpoint of the author determines to a\nconsiderable extent the character of the narrative.  For example: the\ndelineation of the events of the Civil War will not be the same in\nofficial documents, in a secular history, in a church history, or in a\nwork containing personal memoirs.  Still other differences might be\nseen in narratives confined to special incidents.  Such differences in\nviewpoint may be noticed also among the writers of the Old Testament\nhistorical books.  Broadly speaking, part of the historical literature\nof the Old Testament is due to prophetic activity, part to priestly\nactivity.  In writing history the prophets, with their broad interest\nin all the {150} affairs of the nation, resemble the modern secular\nhistorian.  They portray events more objectively than the priests,\nhence they are more reliable.  The priestly writers resemble the modern\necclesiastical historian, who judges everyone and everything according\nto their attitude toward the peculiar religious conceptions he\nrepresents.  The Old Testament contains also some personal memoirs (in\nEzra and Nehemiah) and some narratives of special incidents (Ruth,\nEsther), while the historical books in their present form embody also\nwhat may have been official documents.\n\nMoreover, in estimating the reliability of the Old Testament historical\nbooks we must not overlook certain unconscious references and\nindications which show that the authors exercised considerable care in\nproducing the books.  In the first place, historical statements appear\nto have been preserved with considerable care, at least so far as the\nsubstance is concerned.  This may be seen from the retention of\nparallel narratives of the same events, without attempts at harmonizing\nminor disagreements.  In the second place, history was written with\nsome discrimination.  This is evident especially in Kings, where the\nseveral degrees in which certain of the kings departed from the\nlegitimate religion of Israel are carefully indicated.  A clear\ndistinction is made between the relatively pious kings, who simply did\nnot {151} remove the high places (1 Kings 15. 14; 2 Kings 12. 3) and\nthose who, in defiance of a fundamental principle (Exod. 20. 4, 5),\ndesired to represent the spiritual God of Israel in images that would\nappeal to the senses (1 Kings 12. 28, 29; 14. 16, etc.), and those who,\nin defiance of the first requirement of the Decalogue (Exod. 20. 3),\nserved other gods (1 Kings 16. 31-33; 18. 22, etc.).  Once more: in the\nOld Testament records we find evidence of the historical consciousness\nof ancient Israel resting upon a very sure foundation.  The Mosaic age\nwas regarded as the supreme crisis in the national history.  Moses was\nthe great hero; yet his grandeur was not able to extinguish the\nconsciousness of the glory of the pre-Mosaic period.  Throughout the\nentire literature Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are also connected with\nthe beginnings of the Hebrew nation and with the beginning of the\nreligious mission of the people.  The memory of the pre-Mosaic period\nseems indeed to have been securely founded.\n\nWhat, then, are the results of this comparative study?  The Old\nTestament world has become a new world.  Dark regions were Egypt,\nAssyria, Elam, and other countries mentioned in the Old Testament\nbefore the explorers and excavators entered these lands.  Now it is\ncomparatively easy to trace with considerable accuracy the boundaries\nof empires that existed in the first {152} and second millenniums B.C.\nIn addition, we can fix with certainty the sites of some Old Testament\ncities whose location was previously unknown and, in some cases, whose\nvery existence had been doubted.  The topography of cities like\nNineveh, Nippur, and Babylon has become quite definitely fixed.\n\nThe historical gains are even more remarkable.  Whole nations have been\nresurrected.  What did we know a century ago of Elam?  Nothing but the\nname.  What of Assyria?  Only a few traditions, sometimes\nuntrustworthy, preserved by classical writers, and the statements of\nthe Bible, some of which were unintelligible because of their\nfragmentary character.  Now these and other nations pass one after the\nother in review, great and powerful in all their ancient glory.  And,\nalmost every day, new light is thrown on these early centuries.  Only a\nfew years ago it was thought that Assyrian history, as distinct from\nthat of Babylon, began about B.C. 1800; now we know the names of many\nrulers who lived generations and centuries before that date.\n\nThe chronological gains are especially important.  It is generally\nadmitted that Hebrew chronology is not always reliable, and various\nexpedients have been resorted to to remove the difficulties.  It was\nvery gratifying, therefore, to discover that the chronological system\nof the Assyrians was {153} more precise.  Among the inscriptions are\nespecially three classes of public records in which the occurrences are\ncarefully dated: (1) Records of the reigns of certain kings in which\ntheir activities are carefully arranged in chronological order; (2)\nbusiness tablets in which transactions are definitely dated; and (3)\nthe so-called eponym lists.  According to Assyrian custom, each year\nwas named after a prominent official.  Lists of these were carefully\nmade and kept, and, fortunately, large fragments of them have been\npreserved.  Two recensions of these eponym lists have come down.  In\none only the names of the years are given; in the other references to\nimportant events are added to the names.  If, now, any one of these\nevents can be dated, it becomes possible to trace the dates designated\nby the names on either side of the one whose date is first determined.\nBy means of these lists and the other records the Assyrian chronology\ncan be definitely fixed from about B.C. 900 on.  This, in turn, enables\nus to bring order into the chaos of Hebrew chronology during the most\nimportant period of the nation's existence.\n\nWhen we think of these and other gains, not the least of which is the\ndiscovery of the contemporaneous documents, the absence of which was at\none time made the basis for the rejection of many statements found\nexclusively in the Old {154} Testament, we may gratefully receive this\nnew light and rejoice in the advance in Bible knowledge made possible\nthrough the excavations.  What, now, is the general bearing of these\ndiscoveries on the trustworthiness of the Old Testament?\n\nIn the first place, it is well to remember that for many periods of\nHebrew history we are still entirely dependent on the Old Testament for\ndirect information.  For example, Professor Clay's claim concerning the\npatriarchal age, that \"the increase of knowledge gained through the\ninscriptions of this period has in every instance dissolved conclusions\narrived at by those critics who maintain that the patriarchs are not to\nbe regarded as historical,\"[21] is not justified by the facts.  In\nreality, no incident in the patriarchal story is referred to in any of\nthe inscriptions read thus far.  On the other hand, the age of the\npatriarchs has been wonderfully illuminated.  \"Formerly the world in\nwhich the patriarchs moved seemed to be almost empty; now we see it\nfilled with embassies, armies, busy cities, and long lines of traders\npassing to and fro between one center of civilization and another; but\namid all that crowded life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers\nof the Hebrews; we listen in vain for any mention of their names; this\nis the whole change archaeology has wrought: it has given us an\natmosphere and a background for the stories of Genesis; it is {155}\nunable to recall or certify their heroes.\"[22]  All that can be said in\nthis, as in other cases, is, that archaeology, by furnishing a broad\nhistorical background, has established the possibility of the principal\nevents recorded in the biblical narratives being correct.  It is silent\nconcerning the events themselves, and, therefore, neither confirms nor\ndiscredits them.\n\nA few cases there are, especially in connection with questions of\nchronology, where archaeology has modified and corrected biblical\nstatements.  According to the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, for\nexample, Menahem of Israel paid tribute to the Assyrian king in B.C.\n738, and there is reason for believing that this tribute was paid near\nthe beginning of Menahem's reign for the purpose of securing the good\nwill of Assyria.  In 734 or 733 Pekah is said to have been slain and to\nhave been succeeded by Hoshea.  Now, according to the Old Testament,\nMenahem reigned ten years; his son, Pekahiah, two years, and Pekah\ntwenty years, a total of thirty-two years.  Even if we assume that the\ntribute was paid by Menahem during his last year--which is not at all\nlikely--there would remain twenty-two years to be provided for between\n738 and 734 or 733.  Evidently, the Old Testament figures are too high.\nA similar case is found in connection with events that took place only\na few years later.  In 2 Kings {156} 18. 10 the statement is found that\nSamaria was taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Then,\nverse 13 states that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib,\nking of Assyria, came against Jerusalem.  The date of the capture of\nSamaria is definitely fixed by the Assyrian inscriptions.  The city\nfell either in the closing days of B.C. 722 or the opening days of B.C.\n721.  Assuming that it was 722, the fourteenth year of Hezekiah would\nbe 714.  But Sennacherib did not become king until 705, and the attack\nupon Jerusalem was not made until 701.  Here, again, the biblical\naccount seems to be inaccurate.\n\nIn many other cases, however, remarkable confirmations are seen.  There\nare many persons and events mentioned in the Old Testament which are\nreferred to also in the inscriptions.  Think of the long list of\nBabylonian and Assyrian kings named in the Old Testament; Amraphel,\nking of Shinar, at one time considered a mythical figure, is shown to\nhave been one of the greatest generals, wisest administrators, and\nfairest lawgivers among the early kings of Babylon.  Sargon, whose very\nexistence was once doubted, has in defiance risen from the dust.  In\nthese and numerous other cases, especially from the ninth century\nonward--as may be seen from a comparison of the inscriptions quoted\nabove with the corresponding portions of {157} the Old Testament--the\narchaeological records furnish striking confirmations of the Old\nTestament narratives.  To sum up this entire inquiry: It must be\napparent to every unbiased student that the monuments, when read\nintelligently, neither set aside nor discredit the Old Testament\ndocuments.  On the contrary, they prove their substantial accuracy.\nThey may at times modify them, especially in questions of chronology;\nbut they more frequently corroborate than impugn; thus they offer their\nservices not as a substitute but as a supplement, by the aid of which\nwe may study from without the history of the Hebrew people.\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER IV\n\n[1] An excellent account of the explorations and excavations in\nBabylonia and Assyria, and of the decipherment of the inscriptions is\nfound in R. W. Rogers, A History of Babylonia and Assyria, Vol. I,\nChapters I-VIII; compare also H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible\nLands during the Nineteenth Century, Part I.\n\n[2] Preliminary reports of the results of the German excavations are\ngiven from time to time in the Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient\nGesellschaft.\n\n[3] G. Steindorff, Excavations in Egypt, in H. V. Hilprecht,\nExplorations in Bible Lands, pp. 623-690.\n\n[4] Opening words of I. Benzinger, Researches in Palestine, in\nHilprecht, Explorations, pp. 579-622.  A very complete discussion of\nexplorations and excavations in Palestine may be found in F. Jones\nBliss, Development of Palestine Exploration.  The {158} progress of the\nexcavations is reported in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine\nExploration Fund.\n\n[5] Opening words of the first lecture on \"Babel and Bible.\"\n\n[6] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xlviii.\n\n[7] A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, Chapter XI.\n\n[8] The Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 97.\n\n[9] Egypt and Israel, p. 35.  Breasted also seems to think that the\nIsraelites defeated by Merneptah had no direct connection with those\nwho suffered in Egypt, A History of Egypt, p. 466; compare p. 410.\n\n[10] The Expositor, 1908, p. 199.\n\n[11] J. C. Ball, Light from the East, pp. 131, 132.\n\n[12] W. H. Bennett, The Moabite Stone; Hastings, Dictionary of the\nBible, art., \"Moab, Moabites.\"\n\n[13] Most of the inscriptions from this period on are found in D. G.\nHogarth, Authority and Archaeology, Part I--Hebrew Authority, by S. R.\nDriver.  See also T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the\nHistorical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia; A. T. Clay,\nLight on the Old Testament from Babel; A. Jeremias, The Old Testament\nin the Light of the Ancient Orient; R. F. Harper, Assyrian and\nBabylonian Literature; S. R. Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating\nthe Bible.  The most recent and most complete collection of cuneiform\ninscriptions throwing light on Old Testament religion and history is\ncontained in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament,\nwhich appeared after this book had gone to press.\n\n[14] Formerly called Shalmaneser II; see Expository Times, February,\n1912, p. 238.\n\n[15] A translation of the entire inscription by R. W. Rogers is found\nin Records of the Past, New Series, Vol. VI, pp. 80ff.  These Records\nof the Past contain translations of the more important ancient\ninscriptions.\n\n{159}\n\n[16] The most important of these papyri is translated in the Biblical\nWorld, June, 1908, pp. 448ff.\n\n[17] Francis Brown, Assyriology--Its Use and Abuse in Old Testament\nStudy, p. 3.\n\n[18] R. W. Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, Vol. II, p. 80.\n\n[19] Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. I, col. 792, Note.\n\n[20] E. W. Barnes, The First Book of Kings, p. xxxiii.\n\n[21] A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p. 143.\n\n[22] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. liii, quoted in part from G.\nA. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p.\n101.\n\n\n\n\n{160}\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION\n\nThe present is an era of comparative study.  We no longer study\nsubjects by themselves, but compare them with correlated experiences\nand phenomena.  \"In the sphere of language study we have the science of\ncomparative philology.  Language is compared with language.  By means\nof this comparison we have found that there are groups of languages\nclosely related to one another; and, comparing these groups with one\nanother, we have discovered certain universal laws of language.\nComparing further the languages within each group, we ascertain the\nlaws common to that group.  By such comparison a flood of light has\nbeen thrown on language.  We know Greek and Latin and Hebrew to-day as\nour predecessors did not know them.\"[1]  The same principle of\ncomparison is now applied to the study of history, of literature, of\nphilosophy, of ethics, and of religion, including the literature and\nreligion of the Hebrews.  Men are laying to-day the entire Hebrew\nliterature, history, and religion alongside of the literatures,\nhistories, and religions of other {161} nations, testing them by the\nsame methods and applying to them the same rules.\n\nWhat should be the attitude of the Christian toward this method of\nstudy?  When the science of comparative philology first asserted itself\nmany good Christians set themselves against it, because one of its\nclaims was that Hebrew is not the original language given by God to\nmen.  Comparative philology has won its way, and Bible students are\ntruly grateful for the light it has shed upon sacred scripture.  When\nthe comparative study of the Scriptures was first advocated there were\nmany timid souls who felt that this method of study was an attack upon\nthe Bible, which could only issue in such an overturning of belief that\nthe Church would remain helpless with a worthless Bible.  Hence they\nset themselves with all their might against the new study as an enemy\nof Christianity.  Is this the proper attitude?  In the first place, it\nis well to remember that the Bible has withstood all attacks for\nthousands of years.  Its great river of truth has flowed serenely on,\nwatering the whole earth with its life-giving streams, and refusing to\nbe dammed up by any foe.  Surely, history teaches that there need be no\nfear that any new method of study will bring about an end of the\nBible's reign.  On the other hand, history teaches the folly of\nresisting the progress of science along any line of investigation.\n{162} True science will win its way just as surely as the teaching of\nthe Bible will win its way into the hearts of men.  Hence it would seem\nthe part of wisdom to encourage rather than to discourage the efforts\nof the comparative student of the Old Testament.\n\nAs a matter of fact, we cannot do anything else unless we would\nstultify ourselves.  We have said to the adherents of every other\nreligion: \"You say your sacred books are divine, prove it; lay your\nbooks open before the jury of the world, let the critics scrutinize\nthem, analyze them, criticize them, according to the canons of modern\ncriticism by which they criticize all books.\"  And can we refuse to\nopen our Bible before the jury of the world and bid it scrutinize,\nanalyze, and criticize it according to the same canons which it applies\nto the Veda, the Koran, and other so-called holy books?  Would such an\nattitude be fair?  If we believe that the Bible is different from the\nsacred books of other nations, that it stands on a far higher plane,\nunique, needing no concealment and no bolstering up with traditions and\ndoctrines--if that is our faith, then let us lay it down open before\nthe world and challenge men to read it, study it, and compare it with\nall the sacred literatures of the world.  The man who really believes\nin the inspiration of the Bible ought not to be afraid of such a test.\nHe may rest assured {163} that the comparative study of biblical\nliterature and biblical religion will prove one of the things that work\ntogether for good to all those who have a living faith in God.\n\nAn exhaustive discussion of the subject of this chapter would involve a\nstudy of all the great historical religions, known better to-day than\never before, and a comparison of them with the religion of the Old\nTestament.  This, however, could not be done satisfactorily within the\nlimits of a single chapter.  It seems, therefore, advisable to confine\nthe investigation to the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions\nof the nations with whom the Hebrews came into more or less close\ncontact, such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians.  Political\ncontact, which was common between these nations and the Hebrews, might\nfurnish occasions for exerting influence in the realms of religion,\nlaw, and other elements of civilization.  \"When alien races and diverse\nfaiths confronted each other it might not always be the cause of war,\nbut it was always the occasion of psychical conflict.\"[2]  Since the\nknowledge of the religions of the nations named has been supplied very\nlargely through archaeological labors, this inquiry is simply one phase\nof the broader question as to the bearing of archaeology upon the Old\nTestament; more especially, the bearing of the archaeological material\nof a religious and ethical nature {164} upon the uniqueness and\npermanent significance of the Old Testament religion.\n\nThe importance of this study is suggested in the following quotation\nfrom a prominent Assyriologist, Hugo Winckler: \"We come in the end to\nthis, that we can distinguish only two views of the world which the\nhuman race has known in its historical development: the old Babylonian,\nand the modern empirical naturalistic, which is still in process of\ndevelopment and is yet struggling with the old one in many departments\nof life.\"[3]  To avoid misunderstanding respecting the extent of the\nBabylonian influence, he adds, \"The view of the world and religion are\none for the ancient Oriental.\"[3]  In this statement Winckler robs the\nOld Testament religion of all originality; he considers it simply a\nnatural development of the Babylonian religion.  Friedrich Delitzsch,\nin his lectures on \"Babel and Bible,\"[4] expresses the same idea in a\nslightly modified form and attempts to show the predominance of\nBabylonian thought in the Hebrew conception of the origin of the world,\nthe Fall, the Flood, life after death, angels, demons, the devil, the\nSabbath, a large part of the sacrificial cult, the directions\nconcerning the priesthood, the name and worship of Jehovah, and even in\nthe monotheistic conception of Deity.  How much truth is there in these\nclaims?  Or, to put the question in another form, If the religious\n{165} ideas expressed in the Old Testament have parallels among nations\ncommonly called heathen, and if these extra-biblical ideas cannot be\nexplained as dependent on the Bible, does it follow that the ideas of\nthe Bible are appropriated from these nations, and if so, what becomes\nof the uniqueness, the sacredness, the inspiration of the Old\nTestament?  In order to answer the question adequately it is necessary\nto consider in detail the most important phases of the religious ideas\nof the Hebrews on the one hand, and of the nations with whom the\nHebrews came in contact on the other.\n\nFundamental to all religious thinking is the conception of Deity.  The\norigin of the Babylonian conception of Deity, which shows more striking\nsimilarities to the ideas of the Old Testament than do the conceptions\nof the other nations above mentioned, belongs to a period of which\nlittle or nothing is known.  But there are indications that a\nfundamental aspect of the earliest religion of the country was animism,\nthat is, the belief that every object was possessed and animated by a\nspirit.  \"Life was the only force known to man which explained motion,\nand, conversely, motion was the sign and manifestation of life.  The\narrow which sped through the air, or the rock which fell from the\ncliff, did so in virtue of their possessing life, or because the motive\nforce of {166} life lay in some way or other behind them.  The stars,\nwhich slowly moved through the sky, and the sun, which rose and set day\nby day, were living beings.  It was life which gave them the power of\nmovement as it gave the power of movement to man himself, and the\nanimals by whom he was surrounded.\"[5]  Besides this belief in animism,\nthe Babylonian religion shows evidences of a belief in ghosts that were\nrelated to the world of the dead.  These ghosts were thought to\nexercise an evil influence upon men and could be cast out only by the\nuse of incantations.\n\nBut, while these elements belonged to the early religion, Babylonian\nreligion as it actually meets us even in the earliest inscriptions has\nreached a higher stage of development.  There appear many local\ndeities; every center of human habitation had its special patron deity;\nfor example, Babylon was the city of Marduk; Nippur, of Enlil; Ur, of\nSin; Sippara, of Shamash; Cuthah, of Nergal; Asshur, of Ashur; etc.\nThese deities are usually associated with natural phenomena; foremost\namong them stand the sun and the moon; but by the side of these many\nother natural objects or forces were personified and deified.\n\nIt is probable that in the beginning, as the result of limited\nobservation and speculation, the number of gods in the Babylonian\npantheon was relatively small.  However, in the course of time, {167}\nthey became greatly multiplied as the result of a wider observation of\nthe phenomena of nature, political changes, and theological\nspeculation.  Over against this tendency to multiply deities there\nshows itself, in the course of the centuries, a tendency to diminish\nthe number of gods, and in the end comparatively few remain, until in\nthe late Babylonian period the worship seems to have been confined\nchiefly to Marduk, Nabu, Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar.  Some of the great\nthinkers of Babylonia seem to have gone even so far as to consider the\nvarious deities manifestation of the one god Marduk.  There is in\nexistence a tablet of the Neo-Babylonian period which states that\nMarduk is called Ninib as the possessor of power, Nergal as lord of\nbattle, Bel as possessor of dominion, Nabu as lord of business, Sin as\nthe illuminator of the night, Shamash as the lord of right, Addu as the\nlord of rain, etc.[6]  It is seen, then, that monotheistic tendencies\nare not absent from the Babylonian religion.  But they never go beyond\nthe realm of speculation.  \"The Babylonians, with all their wonderful\ngifts, were never able to conceive of one god, of one god alone, of one\ngod whose very existence makes logically impossible the existence of\nany other deity.  Monotheism transcends the spiritual grasp of the\nBabylonian mind.\"[7]  In the words of Delitzsch, \"Notwithstanding all\nthis, however, and despite {168} the fact that many liberal and\nenlightened minds openly advocated the doctrine that Nergal and Nebo,\nthat the moon-god and the sun-god, the god of thunder, Ramman, and all\nthe rest of the Babylonian pantheon, were one in Marduk, the god of\nlight, still polytheism, gross polytheism, remained for three thousand\nyears the Babylonian state religion--a sad and significant warning\nagainst the indolence of men and races in matters of religion, and\nagainst the colossal power which may be acquired by a strongly\norganized priesthood based upon it.\"[8]\n\nEven the most spiritual expressions of the Babylonian religion, the\nso-called penitential psalms, bear witness to the fact that the writers\ncontinued to worship many deities.  In one of the most spiritual of\nthese psalms, the psalmist prays:\n\n  That the heart anger of my lord be appeased,\n  A god unknown to me be appeased,\n  A goddess unknown to me be appeased,\n  A known and unknown god be appeased,\n  A known and unknown goddess be appeased,\n  That the heart of my god be appeased,\n  The heart of my goddess be appeased,\n  God and goddess, known and unknown, be appeased.[9]\n\nSome of the hymns and prayers addressed to certain deities read almost\nas if the authors were monotheists.  But this is due simply to the fact\nthat just at the time they are interested in the power or {169}\nsplendor or favor of a specific deity.  Again and again the fact that\nthey believe in the existence of other deities, and in their duty to\npay homage to different deities, crops out.  At no period of the\nreligious history of Babylonia is there any indication of a clear and\nwell-defined monotheism.\n\nIn Egypt also a tendency toward monotheism manifested itself,\nespecially during the reign of Amenophis IV, soon after B.C. 1400,[10]\nthat is, during the period when the Hebrews were in Egypt.  He tried to\ndo away with the worship of many deities and to establish as the one\nsupreme deity the orb of the sun; but after the death of Amenophis, who\nwas considered a heretic, the new cult disappeared without exerting any\nnoticeable influence on Egyptian religion.  There certainly is no\nevidence that either the Babylonian or the Egyptian monotheistic\ntendencies influenced in any direct way the development of Israel's\nreligion.\n\nTurning now to the religion of the Old Testament, we soon discover that\nHebrew religion, including the conception of Deity, passed through\nvarious stages of development, the earliest of these belonging to the\nperiod before Moses.  The first thing to be noted about this period is\nthat, in spite of the close relation of the ancient Hebrews with\nBabylon, the early Hebrew conception of Deity does not seem to have\nbeen influenced in any marked manner by that of Babylonia; nor {170} is\nthere any indication of Egyptian influence.  On the other hand, the\noldest Hebrew conceptions show marked similarities with the religion of\ntheir nomadic neighbors, as reflected, for example, in the oldest\ntraditions of the Arab tribes.  This does not mean that an indirect\ninfluence may not have been exerted by Babylon; indeed, the absence of\nsuch influence would be very strange in view of the fact that,\naccording to Hebrew tradition, the truth of which cannot be doubted,\nthe ancestors of the Hebrews came from Babylonia, from the city of Ur,\nthe principal center of the worship of the Babylonian moon-god, Sin.\n\nThe results of modern investigations into the nature of early Hebrew\nreligion may be briefly stated as follows: Like the early Babylonian\nreligion, the religion of Israel passed through a stage of animism.  In\none form this is the belief in the activity of the spirits of recently\ndeceased relatives.  But this becomes a religion only when it leads to\nthe worship of the departed, that is, ancestor worship, of which there\nis no definite indication in the biblical material at our command.  But\nthere is a form of animism of which there are traces in Israel as in\nBabylonia, namely, the worship of spirits that were believed to be the\ninhabitants and possessors of certain objects and places, like trees,\nstones, springs, which thereby assumed a sacred character.  To this\nform of {171} religion the name \"polydemonism,\" which means the worship\nof many demons, is ordinarily given.  Demon, however, is to be\nunderstood here, not in the sense of evil spirit, but simply a divine\nbeing of an inferior order.  As illustrations of this belief, attention\nmay be called to the sacred stone, Bethel, which gave the locality its\nname, \"House of God\" (Gen. 28. 19), or to the sacred oracular tree at\nShechem (Gen. 12. 6; Deut. 11. 30), or to the sacred wells at Kadesh\n(Gen. 14. 7) and Beersheba (Gen. 21. 28-33).  In general, it may be\nsaid that during the pre-Mosaic period the religion of Israel, whatever\nmay have been true of isolated individuals, was not essentially\ndifferent from the religious conceptions of the people with which we\nhave become better acquainted through modern exploration and\nexcavation.[11]\n\nAnother and very different conception appears from the time of the\nexodus on.  The most striking feature of this new conception is that\nthe Israelites now worship one God, whom they consider their own\npeculiar Deity, while they look upon themselves as his own peculiar\npeople.  True, the earlier conceptions did not disappear entirely or\nimmediately; but for the religious leaders there was but one God who\nhad a right to demand Israel's loyalty.  Jehovah, or Yahweh, was the\nname of this God, and the religious watchword was, \"Jehovah, the God of\nIsrael; Israel the people {172} of Jehovah.\"  Now archeology has shown\nthe name \"Yahweh\" to have been used as a divine name long before the\ntime of the exodus; but archaeology has also shown that the conception\nof the nature and character of Yahweh held by the religious leaders of\nthe Hebrews from the time of Moses on is peculiar to them.  Says R. W.\nRogers, \"There can, therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that\nthe divine name 'Yahweh' is not a peculiar possession of the\nHebrews.\"[12]  Then he continues: \"At first sight this may seem like a\nstartling robbery of Israel, this taking away from her the divine name\n'Yahweh' as an exclusive possession, but it is not so.  Yahweh himself\nis not taken away: he remains the priceless possession, the chief glory\nof Israel.  It is only the name that is shown to be widespread.  And\nthe name matters little.  The great question is, What does this name\nconvey?  What is its theological content?  The name came to Israel from\nthe outside; but into that vessel a long line of prophets from Moses\nonward poured such a flood of attributes as never a priest in all\nwestern Asia from Babylonia to the sea ever dreamed of in his highest\nmoments of spiritual insight.  In this name and through Israel's\nhistory God chose to reveal himself to Israel, and by Israel to the\nworld.  Therein lies the supreme and lonesome superiority of Israel\nover Babylonia.\"[13]\n\n{173}\n\nArchaeology has revealed the pantheon of Babylonia and Assyria; the\ninscriptions have also set in a clear light the nature and character of\nthe gods as conceived by their worshipers.  For example, the gods are\nlooked upon as a part of the process of creation, as may be seen from\nthe opening lines of the story of Creation:[14]\n\n  When no one of the gods had been called into being,\n  And none bore a name, and no destinies were fixed.\n  Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven.\n\nAn idea of the character of these deities may be gathered from the\ndescription of a heavenly banquet scene in the same poem:\n\n  They made ready the feast, at the banquet [they sat],\n  They ate bread, they mingled the wine.\n  The sweet drink made them drunken ...\n  By drinking they were drunken, their bodies were filled.\n  They shouted aloud, their heart was exalted,\n  Then for Marduk, their avenger, did they decree destiny.\n\nCertainly, not all the religious thinkers of Babylonia held these low\nconceptions.  In some of their prayers and hymns they rise to lofty\nspiritual and ethical conceptions which compare quite favorably with\nexpressions found in the Old Testament.  In a hymn addressed to\nShamash, the sun-god, are found these lines:\n\n  Who plans evil--his horn thou dost destroy,\n  Whoever in fixing boundaries annuls rights.\n  The unjust judge thou restrainest with force.\n\n{174}\n\n  Whoever accepts a bribe, who does not judge justly--on him\n      thou imposest sin.\n  But he who does not accept a bribe, who has a care for the\n      oppressed,\n  To him Shamash is gracious, his life he prolongs.\n  The judge who renders a just decision\n  Shall end in a palace, the place of princes shall be his dwelling.\n      *      *      *      *      *\n  The seed of those who act unjustly shall not flourish.\n  What their mouth declares in thy presence\n  Thou shalt burn it up, what they purpose wilt thou annul.\n  Thou knowest their transgressions; the declaration of the\n      wicked thou dost cast aside.\n  Every one wherever he may be is in thy care.\n  Thou directest their judgments, the imprisoned dost thou\n      liberate.\n  Thou hearest, O Shamash, petition, prayer, and appeal,\n  Humility, prostration, petitioning, and reverence.\n  With loud voice the unfortunate one cries to thee.\n  The weak, the exhausted, the oppressed, the lowly,\n  Mother, wife, maid appeal to thee,\n  He who is removed from his family, he that dwelleth far from\n      his city.[15]\n\nFar be it from the writer to rob the religion of Babylonia of any of\nits glory.  Nevertheless, he ventures to assert without any fear of\ncontradiction that we may search the pantheon of Babylon, from one end\nto the other, and we shall not find one god who in nature and character\ncan compare with the Jehovah of Israel as proclaimed by the great\nprophets and glorified by the sweet singers of the nation, a God\n\"merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness\nand truth.\"  We may well speak of a \"great gulf, {175} which is fixed\nbetween primitive Semitic conceptions of God and the noble spiritual\nviews of him set forth under divine illumination by Isaiah.\"[16]  It is\ndue to this fundamental difference in the conception of the nature and\ncharacter of Deity that the religion of Israel became \"a living and\nethical power, growing and increasing until Jesus, greatest of the\nprophets, completed the message of his predecessors,\" and Christianity\nwas born.\n\nFrom the conception of Deity we may pass to a brief consideration of\nreligious institutions and beliefs.  One of the most important results\nof recent archaeological discoveries has been to show that many of the\nreligious rites, customs, and institutions of Babylonia and Assyria, as\nalso of Egypt, resemble closely those assigned in the Old Testament to\nthe Hebrews.  This cannot appear strange when we remember that Israel\nwas a branch of the great Semitic race, which was, at the time of its\nseparation from the common stock, in possession of many of the common\nSemitic notions and practices.  It would have been impossible to rid\nthe Israelite consciousness of all of these; therefore the religious\nleaders of the Hebrews took the better way of retaining the familiar\nforms and pouring into them a new, higher, and more spiritual\nsignificance.\n\nOne of the earliest religious institutions recognized in the Old\nTestament is the Sabbath.  The {176} very fact that it is mentioned in\nthe story of creation shows that, whatever the reason for its\nobservance among the Hebrews, it was recognized as a very ancient\ninstitution.  Has archaeology thrown any light on the origin of the\nSabbath day?[17]  In his first lecture on \"Babel and Bible,\" Delitzsch\nanswers the question in these words: \"There can therefore be scarcely\nthe shadow of a doubt that in the last resort we are indebted to this\nancient nation on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris for the\nplenitude of blessings that flows from our day of Sabbath, or Sunday,\nrest.\"[18]  This statement was soon criticized, because it seemed to\ngive too much credit to the Babylonians, and Delitzsch later modified\nthe statement and claimed, simply, that the Hebrew Sabbath ultimately\nis rooted in a Babylonian institution.[19]  No exception can be taken\nto this putting of the claim.\n\nWhat are the facts in the case?  (1) The Babylonians observed in a\npeculiar way the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth\ndays of the month, that is, the days on which the moon entered a new\nphase.  They also observed the nineteenth day of the month, which was\nthe forty-ninth day from the beginning of the preceding month.  These\ndays were considered unlucky days, on which certain actions had to be\navoided, at least by important personages, like the king, {177} priest,\nand physician.  The prohibition reads: \"The shepherd (king) of the\ngreat nations shall not eat roasted nor smoked meat, not change his\ngarment, not put on white raiment, not offer sacrifice; the king shall\nnot mount his chariot, as ruler not pronounce judgment; the priest\nshall not give oracles in the secret place; the physician shall not lay\nhis hand on the sick, the day being inauspicious for any affair\nwhatever.\"  The Babylonians evidently observed these days by at least\npartial cessation of work, because nothing would prosper anyway on\nthose days.  In contrast, it may be well to notice that in the Sabbath\nobservance among the early Hebrews the humanitarian element played a\nprominent part.  (2) The name _Sha-bat-tu_ has been found in the\ninscriptions as an interpretation of the phrase, _um nuh libbi_, which\nmeans, a day for appeasing the heart (of the deity).  It would seem,\ntherefore, that the Babylonian Sabbath was intended to be a day of\natonement or supplication, which might imply cessation of ordinary\nlabor, especially since the word _Sha-bat-tu_ may be identical in\nmeaning with _gamaru_, to complete or finish, which leads naturally to\nthe idea of rest, because the work is completed.  (3) There is no\ndefinite evidence that the five days mentioned were called\n_Sha-bat-tu_; the name is given rather to the fifteenth day of the\nmonth, which is the day of the full moon.\n\n{178}\n\nIn the light of these facts it is not improbable that there is some\nconnection between the Hebrew Sabbath and certain special days among\nthe Babylonians; but, as in other cases, the Hebrews have given to the\nadopted institution a new significance.  Some of the changes introduced\nby the Hebrews are: (a) The Hebrews observed every seventh day without\nregard for the month or the year.  The Babylonians observed the\nseventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each\nmonth, (b) The motive underlying the observance among the two people\ndiffers.  The earliest Hebrew legislation (Exod. 23. 12) would seem to\nindicate that humanitarian considerations are responsible for Sabbath\nobservance, not religious superstition, (c) The Sabbath law of the\nHebrews was binding on all.  According to our present knowledge, among\nthe Babylonians only the leaders appear to have been affected.\n\nThe Babylonians, Egyptians, and other ancient peoples had in addition\nto the Sabbath numerous other festivals, and it is not improbable that\nsome of the Hebrew festivals are connected with these, though the exact\nrelation is not yet determined.\n\nArchaeology has thrown much light on the complicated ceremonial system\nof the Old Testament, though it is an exaggeration to say that, \"if we\nwant to trace the origin of the late Jewish ceremonial of the Priest\nCode, we must look for {179} it in the cuneiform ritual texts of the\nBabylonians.\"[20]  Attention may be called here to a few of the more\nmarked similarities between the Hebrew and Babylonian systems.[21]  (1)\nThe Babylonian temple closely resembled the temple of Solomon.  Both\nhad two courts, chambers for the priests, the sanctuary, and the Holy\nof holies.  Externally, both were mere rectangular boxes, without much\narchitectural beauty or variety of design.  It was only in the\npossession of a tower that the Babylonian temple differed from the\nHebrew, a difference due to a difference in the conception of Deity.\nThe temples agreed even in the details of their furniture: the two\naltars of the Babylonian sanctuary are found again in the temple of\nJerusalem; so also the mercy seat and the table of showbread.  The\nbronze sea of Solomon was modeled after a Babylonian original.  The\ntwin pillars, which Solomon erected in the porch of the temple, have\ntheir counterparts in Babylonian sanctuaries.  Even the sacred ark\nseems to have had a Babylonian origin, though some would trace it to\nEgypt.  (2) Every great sanctuary had its chief priest.  Under him was\na large number of subordinate priests and temple ministers, such as\nsacrificers, pourers of libations, anointers with oil, bakers,\nchanters, wailers, etc.  Connected with the sanctuaries were also the\nprophets, augurs, soothsayers, necromancers, etc.  {180} Though not all\nthese classes of religious workers are found in connection with the\nJewish sanctuaries, the chief priest and his subordinates are found\nthere as well as in Babylon.  (3) Similarities in the details of the\nsacrificial system may be noted.  Libations were poured out before the\ndeities, consisting originally, probably, of pure water, to which was\nsubsequently added wine, made either from the palm or the vine.  All\nthe first-fruits of the cultivated land were offered to the god; milk\nand butter and oil, dates and vegetables were given in abundance.  So\ntoo were spices and incense, brought from the southern coast of Arabia,\nthe corn that was grown in the fields, garlic and other herbs from the\ngarden, and honey from the hive.  Annual sacrifices were not forgotten.\nOxen and calves, sheep and lambs, goats and kids, fish and certain\nkinds of birds, were slain upon the altar.  There are traces of human\nsacrifice, but, as among the Hebrews, the practice disappeared at an\nearly date.  \"Babylonia,\" says Sayce, \"was the inventor of the\ntithe,\"[22] which was paid by all classes, even the king.  One of the\nlast acts recorded of the crown prince, Belshazzar, is the payment of a\ntithe, forty-seven shekels in amount, due from his sister to the temple\nof the sun-god at Sippara.  The daily sacrifice was a fixed custom.\nSeveral of the technical terms of the Old Testament are {181} found\nalso in Assyrian.  For example: _torah_, law, has its counterpart in\nthe Assyrian _tertu_; the biblical _kipper_, atonement, is the Assyrian\n_kuppuru_; _korban_, gift or offering, is the Assyrian _kurbannu_.  The\nnames for animal sacrifice, _zibu_, for meal offering, _manitu_, and\nfor freewill offering, _nidbu_, all are found in their Hebrew forms in\nthe Old Testament.  As in the Hebrew legislation, a distinction is made\nbetween the offerings of the rich and the poor, and the sacrificial\nanimal was to be without blemish.  The Babylonian priest retained\ncertain parts for himself, which was also the custom among the Hebrews\n(Deut. 18. 3), though the parts retained are not the same in the two\ncases.  A ritual tablet shows that Babylonians sprinkled the blood of\nthe lamb that was killed at the gate of the palace on the lintels, on\nthe figures flanking the entrances, and on the doorposts to the right\nand the left, which has its parallel in the Hebrew passover ceremony.\n\nThese illustrations, which by no means exhaust the list, reveal close\nsimilarities between the Hebrew ceremonial and that of the inhabitants\nof the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and the more we know of the Babylonian\nritual, the more extensive and striking these resemblances become.\nThey both start from the same principles and agree in many of their\ndetails.  Between them, however, lies that deep gulf which separates\nthe religion of {182} Israel from that of Babylonia as a whole.  The\none is monotheistic, the other polytheistic.  Upon the basis of this\nfundamental difference the religious leaders of Israel gave to the\nsimilar forms adopted from other nations a new and deeper meaning and\nsignificance.\n\nLike the Hebrew religion, the religion of Babylonia has its guardian\nangels.[23]  The Babylonian rulers stood in need of hosts of messengers\nto bear their behests into all quarters of their dominions.  In a\nsimilar manner, it was thought, the gods needed their heavenly hosts to\ncarry out their commissions.  These angels are represented under\nvarious forms, but all of them are equipped with wings, so as to be\nable to carry upon the winds of heaven the commands of the gods to the\nchildren of men.  Sometimes they are represented with eagles' heads,\nperhaps to indicate that they possess the keenness of vision and the\nrapidity of flight of an eagle; sometimes they have human countenances\nto denote their human intelligence.  Frequently they appear as hybrid\nfigures, with the body of a lion or bull, the wings of an eagle, and\nthe head of a man, symbolizing strength, swiftness, and intelligence.\n\nThe duties of these angels are manifold.  Those placed at the entrances\nof palaces or temples are to guard those entrances.  The peculiar\nrelations of angels to men are suggested, for example, by {183} a\nletter of a Babylonian officer to the queen mother.  He writes: \"Mother\nof the king, my lady, be comforted.  Bel's and Nabu's angel of mercy\nattends on the king of the land, my lord.\"  A letter addressed to\nEsarhaddon contains these words: \"May the great gods send a guardian of\nsalvation and life to stand by the king my lord.\"  And Nabopolassar,\nthe founder of the Chaldean empire, and father of Nebuchadrezzar,\nwrites: \"To lordship over land and people, Marduk called me.  He sent a\ncherub of mercy to attend on me, and everything I undertook he aided.\"\n\nAlongside of these guardian angels there appear evil spirits and\ndemons.  \"These demons were everywhere: they lurked in every corner,\nwatching for their prey.  The city streets knew their malevolent\npresence, the rivers, the seas, the tops of the mountains.  They\nappeared sometimes as serpents gliding noiselessly upon their victims;\nas birds, horrid of mien, flying resistlessly to destroy or afflict; as\nbeings in human form, grotesque, malformed, awe-inspiring through their\nhideousness.  To these demons all sorts of misfortunes were ascribed:\ntoothache, headache, broken bones, raging fever, outbursts of anger, of\njealousy.  Did a man lie wasting of disease and torn of pain, a demon\nwas thought to be within him, the disease being but a manifestation of\nhis malevolence.  There could be no return of the precious boon of\n{184} good health until the demon was exorcised, and it was to the\nexorcising of demons that so large, so disproportionate a part of the\nreligious literature of Babylon and Nineveh was devoted.\"[24]\nSometimes demons are referred to in a manner which shows that the\nconception in Job 1. 6ff., Zech. 3. 1ff., of the Adversary, or the\nSatan, is closely related to the Babylonian conception of a demon as\naccuser, persecutor, or oppressor.\n\nThe vision of the Old Testament is largely confined to this world.\nThere is little hope for a man after he passes away from this earth.\nIndeed, there are some passages which would seem to imply the thought\nthat with death existence came entirely to an end.  Compare, for\nexample, Psa. 39.13:\n\n  Oh, spare me, that I may recover strength\n  Before I go hence, and be no more;\n\nor Job 14. 7-12:\n\n  For there is hope of a tree,\n  If it be cut down, that it will sprout again,\n  And that the tender branch thereof will not cease.\n  Though the root thereof wax old in the earth,\n  And the stock thereof die in the ground;\n  Yet through the scent of water it will bud,\n  And put forth boughs like a plant.\n  But man dieth, and is laid low;\n  Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?\n  As the waters fail from the sea,\n  And the river wasteth and drieth up;\n  So man lieth down and riseth not:\n  Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,\n  Nor be roused out of their sleep.\n\n{185} These are expressions of deepest despondency and despair over a\nlife soon ended, never to be lived again here upon earth.\n\nHowever, by far the greatest number of Old Testament passages dealing\nwith the subject express a belief in a continuous existence after death\nin Sheol.  Sheol is the place of departed personalities; the\ngenerations of one's forefathers are there: he who dies is gathered\nunto his fathers; the tribal divisions of one's race are there: the\ndead is gathered unto his people; and if his descendants have died\nbefore him, they are there, and he goes down to them, as Jacob to his\nson (Gen. 37. 35: \"For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning\"),\nand David to his child (2 Sam. 12. 23: \"I shall go to him, and he shall\nnot return to me\").\n\nThere are only a few passages which go beyond this, expressing a hope\nof immortality or a resurrection.  There is, for example, the hope\nexpressed in Psa. 16. 8-11:\n\n  I have set Jehovah always before me:\n  Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.\n  Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:\n  My flesh also shall dwell in safety.\n  For thou will not leave my soul to Sheol;\n  Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.\n  Thou wilt show me the path of life:\n  In thy presence is fullness of joy;\n  In thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.\n\nThe hope expressed here is not a hope of a resurrection, but, rather, a\nhope that the psalmist will {186} be delivered from death and live in\nfellowship with God forevermore.  There are other passages which\nrecognize the impossibility of escaping death, but express a hope that\nthere will be a resurrection from death.  The most definite Old\nTestament teaching of a resurrection is in Dan. 12. 2, \"And many of\nthem that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to\neverlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.\"\n\nThese lofty hopes are peculiar to Israel.  But Israel's conception of\nSheol shows very striking resemblances with the Babylonian conception.\nThe descriptions found in Job, in the Psalms, in Isaiah, in Ezekiel and\nelsewhere, are hardly to be distinguished from those found in\nBabylonian literature.  The opening lines of Ishtar's descent into\nSheol read:\n\n  To the land from which there is no return, the home of darkness,\n  Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, turned her mind,\n  Yea, the daughter of Sin set her mind to go;\n  To the house of gloom, the dwelling of Irkalla,\n  To the house from which those who enter depart not,\n  The road from whose path there is no return;\n  To the house where they who enter are deprived of light;\n  A place where dust is their nourishment, clay their food;\n  The light they behold not, in thick darkness they dwell;\n  They are clad like bats in a garb of wings;\n  On door and bolt the dust is laid.\n\nCompare with this Job 10. 21, 22:\n\n  Before I go, whence I shall not return,\n  To the land of darkness, yea deepest darkness,\n\n{187}\n\n  The land dark as midnight,\n  Of deepest darkness without any order,\n  And where the light is as midnight;\n\nor Job 7. 9, 10:\n\n  He that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more,\n  He shall return no more to his house,\n  Neither shall his place know him any more.\n\nOther similarities may be noted: the Hebrew Sheol, like the Babylonian,\nwas deep down in the earth; it is pictured as a cavern; silence reigns\nsupreme, etc.  There is but one explanation for these similarities:\nWhen the ancestors of the Hebrews left their homes in the Euphrates\nvalley they carried with them the traditions, beliefs, and customs\ncurrent in that district.  Under new surroundings, and especially under\nthe influence of their higher religion, new features were added and old\nconceptions were transformed.  But these changes were not able to\nobscure entirely the character impressed upon the older beliefs by\ncontact with Babylon.\n\nStriking similarities are found also between the legal systems of\nBabylonia and Israel.  In the light of recent discoveries the study of\nancient law begins to-day, not with the legal systems of Rome, or of\nGreece, or of Israel, but with the laws of early Babylonia.  Of the\nbeginning of the Babylonian legal system we know nothing except a few\npopular traditions, which trace it back to some deity.  It is clear,\nhowever, that long {188} centuries before the time of Moses or Minos or\nRomulus the people living in the lower Euphrates-Tigris valley\ndeveloped legal codes of a high and complex order.  In the legal phrase\nbooks of the later scribes there have been preserved seven so-called\nSumerian family laws, written in the language of the people occupying\nthe southern part of the Euphrates-Tigris valley before it came under\nthe sway of the Semites.  These laws, in theme and literary form\nresembling later Babylonian and early Hebrew laws, were probably in\nexistence in the fourth millennium B.C.; some of them may go even\nfarther back.\n\nBy far the most important Babylonian legal code now known is the\nso-called Code of Hammurabi.[25]  Hammurabi was known to Assyriologists\nlong before the finding of his legal code.  He reigned in Babylon about\nB.C. 2000, was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, and the\nfirst permanently to unite the numerous small city states under one\nruler.  He may, therefore, be called the founder of the Babylonian\nempire.  From his numerous letters and inscriptions, as also from other\ndocuments coming from the same period, he was known as a great\nconqueror and statesman, interested in the highest welfare of his\npeople, and persistently laboring for the improvement of their\nconditions.  The Bible student has a special interest in Hammurabi,\nhowever, because in all {189} probability he is no other than the\nAmraphel of Gen. 14. 1.\n\nThe monument on which the code is engraved was found during the winter\n1901-1902 by a French excavator in the acropolis of Susa, the scene of\nthe book of Esther.  It is a block of black diorite, about eight feet\nin height.  When found it was in three pieces, which, however, were\neasily joined.  On the obverse is a bas relief representing the king as\nreceiving the ruler's staff and ring from the sun-god Shamash, \"the\njudge of heaven and earth.\"  Then follow on the obverse sixteen columns\nof writing, containing 1,114 lines.  There were five more columns on\nthis side, but they were erased and the stone repolished, probably by\nthe Elamite conqueror who carried the monument to Susa.  On the reverse\nare twenty-eight columns with more than 2,500 lines of inscription.\nThe English Assyriologist, C. H. W. Johns, estimates that originally\nthe inscription contained forty-nine columns, 4,000 lines, and about\n8,000 words.  About 800 lines are taken up by the prologue and\nepilogue, setting forth the king's titles, his glory, the extent of his\nrule, his care for his subjects, and devotion to his gods.  The\ninscription opens with a statement of his call by the gods to be the\nruler of Babylon: \"When the lofty Anu, king of the Anunaki, and Bel,\nlord of heaven and earth, he who determines the destiny {190} of the\nland, committed the rule of all mankind to Marduk, the chief son of Ea;\nwhen they made him great among the Igigi; when they pronounced the\nlofty name of Babylon, when they made it famous among the quarters of\nthe world, and in its midst established an everlasting kingdom, whose\nfoundations were firm as heaven and earth--at that time, Ami and Bel\ncalled me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, the worshiper of the gods, to\ncause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the\nevil, to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, to go forth like\nthe sun over the blackhead race, to enlighten the land and to further\nthe welfare of the people.\"\n\nAccording to the closing statement of the prologue he faithfully\nexecuted this commission: \"When Marduk sent me to rule the people and\nto bring help to the country, I established law and justice in the land\nand promoted the welfare of the people\" (V. 14-21).  To better care for\nthe welfare of the people he set up the code of laws.  In column XLI, a\npart of the epilogue, he says: \"Let any oppressed man, who has a cause,\ncome before my image as king of righteousness!  Let him read the\ninscription on my monument!  Let him give heed to my weighty words!\nAnd may my monument enlighten him as to his cause and may he understand\nhis case!  May he set his heart at ease!\" (1-19.)  He recognizes the\nvalue {191} of his law code and advises his successors on the throne to\nmake good use of it: \"In the days that are yet to come, for all future\ntime, may the king who is in the land observe the words of\nrighteousness which I have written upon my monument!  May he not alter\nthe judgments of the land which I have pronounced, or the decisions of\nthe country which I have rendered!  May he not efface my statues!  If\nthat man have wisdom, if he wish to give his land good government, let\nhim give attention to the words which I have written upon my monument!\nAnd may this monument enlighten him as to procedure and administration,\nthe judgments which I have pronounced, and the judgments which I have\nrendered for the land!  And let him rightly rule his blackhead people;\nlet him pronounce judgments for them and render for them decisions!\nLet him root out the wicked and evildoer from the land!  Let him\npromote the welfare of his people!\" (59-94.)\n\nThe epilogue closes with a blessing upon the king who will observe the\nlaws, and curses upon him who will disregard or alter them (XLII-XLIV).\nThe pronouncement of blessings is very brief; the curses are reiterated\nin various forms, and numerous gods and goddesses are appealed to by\nname to destroy the evildoer and his reign.  The section begins (XLII,\n2-49): \"If that man pay attention to my words which I have written\n{192} upon my monument, do not efface my judgments, do not overrule my\nwords, and do not alter my statues, then will Shamash prolong that\nman's reign, as he has mine, who am king of righteousness, that he may\nrule his people in righteousness.\"  It continues: \"If that man do not\npay attention to my words which I have written upon my monument; if he\nforget my curses and do not fear the curse of god; if he abolish the\njudgments which I have formulated, overrule my words, alter my statues,\nefface my name written thereon and write his own name; on account of\nthese curses commission another to do so--as for that man, be he king\nor lord, or priestking or commoner, whoever he may be, may the great\ngod, the father of the gods, who has ordained my reign, take from him\nthe glory of his sovereignty, may he break his scepter and curse his\nfate!\"\n\nBetween the prologue and the epilogue is the law code proper.\nOriginally there appear to have been 282 separate enactments (this is\nthe estimate of the French Assyriologist, Father Scheil, who first\nedited the code, and is commonly accepted as correct); of these 66-99\nare now missing as a result of the erasure to which reference has been\nmade.  The code covers a variety of topics.  Laws dealing with the same\nsubject are ordinarily grouped together; sometimes the principle of\narrangement is the class or profession concerned.  {193} A brief\noutline will give at least a general notion of its contents: 1, 2,\nFalse accusation of a crime; 3, 4, False witness and bribery; 5,\nAlteration of judgment by a judge; 6-8, Theft; 9-13, Concealing of\nstolen property; 14, Kidnapping; 15-20, Assisting in the escape of\nslaves; 21-25, Burglary and brigandage; 26-41, Rights and duties of\nofficers, constables, and taxgatherers; 42-52, Renting of fields for\ncultivation; 53-56, Care of dykes and canals; 57, 58, Shepherds\nallowing their sheep to pasture on the fields of another; 59, Unlawful\ncutting down of trees; 60-65, Duties of gardeners; 66-99, (lost);\n100-107, Relation of merchants to their agents; 108-111, Regulations\nconcerning wine-sellers, always women.  It may be interesting to note\nthat with them the law was very severe.  Of the three crimes\ncondemned--minor crimes at that--one is to be punished by throwing the\nwine-seller into the water, the second by putting her to death, the\nthird by burning her.  112, Loss of goods intrusted for transportation;\n113-119, Securing settlement for debts; 120-126, Liability for\ndeposits; 127, Slander; 128, Marriage contract; 129-132, Adultery,\nrape, and suspected unchastity; 133-143, Separation and divorce;\n144-149, Concubines; 150-152, Marriage dowry; 153, Murder of husband\nfor the sake of another; 154-158, Illegitimate sexual intercourse;\n159-161, Breach of promise; 162-164, Disposition of dowry after the\n{194} death of the wife; 165-177, Inheritance of sons in polygamous\nrelations; 178-182, Inheritance of priestesses; 183, 184, Inheritance\nof daughters of concubines; 185-194, Treatment of adopted children;\n195-214, Offenses against limb and life; 215-225, Operations by doctors\nand veterinary surgeons.  For example, \"If a physician cause a man a\nsevere wound with a bronze lancet and cause the man's death, or, in\nopening an abscess of a man with a bronze lancet, destroy the man's\neye, they shall cut off his fingers\" (218).  226, 227, Unlawful\nbranding of slaves; 228-233, Liability of negligent builders.  For\nexample, \"If a builder build a house for a man, and do not make its\nconstruction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause\nthe death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to\ndeath\" (229).  234-252, Hired animals--the injuries they cause or\nsuffer; 253-277, Rights and duties of workmen; 278-282, Selling and\ntreatment of slaves.  In addition to this very complete code there is a\nvast amount of information from both early and late periods concerning\nlegal practices, to be gathered from the thousands of tablets recording\nbusiness and legal transactions of various sorts: Marriage and dowry\ncontracts, partnership agreements, records of debts and promissory\nnotes, leases of land, houses, or slaves; records of sales of all kinds\nof property, mortgages, documents {195} granting the power of attorney;\nconcerning adoption, divorce, bankruptcy, inheritance--in short, almost\nevery imaginable kind of contract.\n\nOver against this complex legal system of Babylonia we may place the\nlegal literature of the Hebrews.[26]  Anyone who approaches the study\nof Hebrew laws is met by two difficulties.  In the first place, the\nlegal portions do not form separate books, but are embodied in writings\nbelonging to other kinds of literature; in the second place, there is a\nlack of system in the arrangement of the laws.  The abrupt transitions\nfrom one subject to another are almost as marked as they are in the\nbook of Proverbs.  \"Civil and ceremonial, criminal and humane, secular\nand religious, ancient and late laws and precedents are all mingled\ntogether, with little trace of systematic arrangement.\"\n\nThe legal literature is found mainly in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,\nNumbers, and Deuteronomy; outside the Pentateuch the most important\npiece of legislation is Ezek. 40-48.  This legal material may be\nseparated from its surroundings and arranged by itself.  Indeed, this\nhas been done, and modern scholars are quite generally agreed that the\nPentateuch contains several distinct legal codes belonging to different\nperiods in the history of Israel and reflecting different stages of\npolitical, social, and religious development: (1) The Decalogue; (2)\nthe Book of the Covenant; (3) the {196} Deuteronomic Code; (4) the Code\nof Holiness; (5) the Priestly Code.  Of these five codes the last two\nare almost entirely religious and ceremonial, and as the similarities\nbetween the Babylonian and Hebrew ceremonial have already been pointed\nout, they need not be considered in this connection.  The other three\ncontain much legislation concerning social, civil, and criminal\nrelations, just like the Babylonian legal provisions, and therefore may\nbe considered somewhat more in detail.  In connection with the\nDeuteronomic Code, however, it may be noted that three fourths of the\nlaws in the earlier codes are reproduced in some form in Deuteronomy;\nso that for purposes of comparison, the Deuteronomic Code does not\nfurnish many new elements.  It is seen, therefore, that for a\ncomparative study, the Code of Hammurabi on the one hand, and the\nDecalogue and the Book of the Covenant on the other, furnish the most\nimportant material; and since the Code of Hammurabi contains no\nreligious and ceremonial provisions, the material of that nature in the\nHebrew codes may be omitted in this connection.\n\nThat there exist similarities between the legislations of the two\nnations even a superficial reading will show.  One is immediately\nstruck, for example, by the similarity in the application of the _lex\ntalionis_: Ham. 196, \"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they\nshall destroy his eye\"; 197, \"If one {197} break a man's bone, they\nshall break his bone\"; 200, \"If a man knock out the tooth of a man of\nhis own rank, they shall knock out his tooth.\" With this compare Exod.\n21. 23-25, \"Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for\ntooth, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe\"; or\nDeut. 19. 21, \"Thine eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye\nfor eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.\"  Compare also\nLev. 24. 19, 20, \"If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath\ndone, so shall it be done to him: breach for breach; eye for eye, tooth\nfor tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be\nrendered to him.\"  This principle is applied very extensively in both\ncodes in providing restitution for damage done.\n\nThe use of \"the oath of innocence\" is also enjoined in both codes: Ham.\n249, \"If a man hire an ox and a god strike it and it die, the man who\nhired the ox shall swear before god and shall go free.\"  With this may\nbe compared Exod. 22. 10, 11, \"If a man deliver unto his neighbor an\nass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep, and it die, or be\nhurt, or driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of Jehovah shall be\nbetween them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's\ngoods, and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make\nrestitution.\"  The illustrations might be multiplied manifold.  {198}\nJeremias points out twenty-four similarities between the Code of\nHammurabi and the Book of the Covenant alone;[27] which number is\ngreatly increased if the comparison is extended so as to include the\nentire Pentateuch.\n\nThe spirit permeating the two systems is one of humaneness and\nkindness.  Hammurabi describes himself as a shepherd chosen by the gods\nto care for his people, to lead them into safe pastures and to make\nthem dwell in peace and security.  He compiled the code, \"that the\ngreat should not oppress the weak; to counsel the widow and orphan, to\nrender judgment and to decide the decisions of the land, and to succor\nthe injured.\"  This is the same spirit that permeates the Pentateuchal\nlegislation.\n\nThe picture at the head of the code, representing Hammurabi standing\nbefore the sun-god Shamash, \"the supreme judge of heaven and earth,\" is\nvery suggestive, for it reminds one of the narrative in Exodus which\nrepresents Moses as receiving the Hebrew laws directly from Jehovah.\n\nCertainly, there are also differences between the two systems; and this\nis only what we should expect, since the civilization of Babylon was\nfar in advance of and much more complex than that of the Israelites,\neven during the period of the latter's highest development.  Besides,\nthe lower religious conceptions would inevitably influence the\nlegislation.\n\n{199}\n\nAttention may be called also to some similarities between the Decalogue\nand certain requirements in Babylonia, the existence of which is\nimplied in an incantation[28] in which these questions are asked: Has\nhe broken into the house of his neighbor?  Has he approached the wife\nof his neighbor?  Has he spilled the blood of his neighbor?  Has he\ngrasped the garment of his neighbor?  These questions would seem to\nimply the existence of laws like these: Thou shalt not break into the\nhouse of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach the wife of thy\nneighbor; Thou shalt not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt\nnot grasp the garment of thy neighbor.\n\nIn view of all these similarities, the question naturally arises\nwhether the Babylonian legal system exerted any influence upon the\nlawmakers of the Hebrews, for the resemblances are too close to be\nexplained entirely on the basis of coincidence.  Those who admit some\nrelation between the two legislations are not in agreement as to the\nnature of the connection.  Some hold that there is direct dependence;\nthat the author or authors of the laws of the Pentateuch was or were\nacquainted with the laws of Hammurabi, and made these laws the basis of\nthe Hebrew legislative system.  The possibility of such dependence\ncannot be denied.  Surely, an acquaintance with the Code of Hammurabi\nin the Arabian {200} desert or in Palestine at the time of the exodus\nor later cannot appear strange in view of the evidence of the\nTel-el-Amarna tablets, showing that some time before the exodus\nintercourse between Babylon and the West was frequent; that religious,\npolitical, and literary influence was widespread, and that the language\nof Babylon was the _lingua franca_ throughout Canaan.  On the other\nhand, there are those who believe that the parallels and analogies\nbetween the two codes are due to the common Semitic origin of the two\nsystems.  The Babylonians and the Hebrews were Semites, originally\ndwelling in a common home.  When they left this home they carried with\nthem their common traditions, laws, customs, and practices.  In their\nnew homes they developed them and impressed upon them their own\nindividuality.  The result among the Hebrews, determined in a large\nmeasure by their peculiar religion, is seen in the legislation of the\nPentateuch, while the outcome in Babylon is best represented by the\nCode of Hammurabi.\n\nWhich of these two explanations is correct it may be impossible to say\nwith absolute certainty.  To me it seems that both contain elements of\ntruth.  Sometimes the one, sometimes the other may be correct, while in\nother cases the similarities may be due to coincidence.  In any case,\nthe value of the Pentateuchal legislation remains {201} unaffected, for\nit depends, not upon its origin or process of growth, but, rather, upon\nits inherent spirit and character.\n\nAttention may further be called to the existence in Babylonia of\nstories showing almost startling resemblances to the accounts of the\ncreation of the world, of the origin of man and of sin, of a Deluge,\nand other narratives contained in the first eleven chapters of the book\nof Genesis.  Several distinct creation stories, originating in\ndifferent religious centers, have been handed down.  The most\nremarkable of these, called _Enuma elish_ (when above), from its\nopening words, has been deciphered from tablets found in the library of\nAshurbanipal in the ruins of Nineveh.  These tablets represent a copy\nmade in the seventh century B.C.  The time of the composition, or\ncompilation of the story, is not known.  However, pictorial\nrepresentations of some of the scenes in the epic, and allusions in\nother literary productions whose dates can be fixed, make it certain\nthat the story, or at least the most important component elements of\nthe story, existed before B.C. 2000.  In its present form it belongs to\na period later than the elevation of Babylon to be the national center,\nwhich took place under Hammurabi, about B.C. 2000, for the chief place\nis assigned to Marduk, the god of Babylon.[29]\n\nEchoes of this story are found in several Old {202} Testament passages,\nespecially in the poetic and prophetic writings.  In these Jehovah is\nrepresented as having contended with a great primeval monster, called\nin some passages Rahab, in others Leviathan, or Dragon.  This being\nseems to symbolize chaos, or to personify the primeval ocean, which\nexisted when the process of creation began.  In the conflict between\nJehovah and this monster the hostile creature and its helpers were\noverthrown, after which the heavens and the earth were created.  A few\nof these passages may be quoted:\n\n  O Jehovah God of hosts,\n  Who is a mighty one, like unto thee, O Jehovah?\n  And thy faithfulness is round about thee.\n  Thou rulest the pride of the sea:\n  When the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.\n  _Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain;_\n  _Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength._\n  The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine:\n  The world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them,\n  The north and the south, thou hast created them (Psa. 89. 8-12).\n\nRahab is a reflection of the Babylonian Tiamat; Jehovah takes the place\nof the Babylonian god, Marduk, the conqueror of Tiamat; the _enemies_\nare the _helpers_ of Tiamat mentioned in the Babylonian poem.  The\norder of events is the same in the two accounts: first the conflict,\nthen creation.\n\n  He stirreth up the sea with his power,\n  And by his understanding _he smiteth through Rahab._\n\n{203}\n\n  By his Spirit the heavens are garnished;\n  _His hand hath pierced the swift serpent_ (Job 26. 12, 13).\n\n  God will not withdraw his anger;\n  _The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him_ (Job 9. 13).\n\n  Yet God is my King of old,\n  Working salvation in the midst of the earth.\n  Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength:\n  _Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters._\n  _Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces;_\n  Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.\n  Thou didst cleave fountain and flood:\n  Thou driedst up mighty rivers.\n  The day is thine, the night also is thine:\n  Thou hast prepared the light and the sun.\n  Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:\n  Thou hast made summer and winter (Psa. 74. 12-17).\n\n\nThe similarities between the Babylonian story called _Enuma elish_ and\nthe narrative of creation in Gen. 1 are especially pronounced: (1) Both\naccounts recognize a time when all was chaos.  In the Babylonian\nconception this chaos is personified in Tiamat; in Gen. 1. 2 occurs the\nword _tehom_, translated \"deep,\" which is the same as Tiamat, changed\nbut slightly in passing from one language to the other.  (2) In Genesis\nlight dispels darkness and order follows; in the Babylonian account,\nMarduk, the god of light, overcomes the demon of chaos and darkness.\n(3) The second act of creation is the making of the firmament, which\n\"divided the waters which were under the {204} firmament from the\nwaters which were above the firmament\" (Gen. 1. 6-8); in the Babylonian\npoem the body of Tiamat is divided and one half becomes the firmament\nto keep the heavenly waters in place.  (4) The third and fourth acts of\ncreation in the Hebrew story are the creation of earth and the\nbeginning of vegetation (Gen. 1. 9-13); the corresponding Babylonian\nstory has been lost, but it seems quite probable that these acts were\ndescribed in the same order on the fifth tablet.  Berosus, in his\nsummary of the Babylonian account, says that Bel formed the earth out\nof one half of Omorka's body--Omorka is probably a corruption of\n_Ummu-Khubur_, a title of Tiamat--and as in every instance where the\nnarrative of Berosus has been tested it has proved to be correct, we\nmay assume that in this also he gives a correct reproduction of the\nBabylonian tradition.  Moreover, at the beginning of the seventh tablet\nMarduk is hailed as \"bestower of fruitfulness,\" \"founder of\nagriculture,\" \"creator of grain and plants,\" he \"who caused the green\nherb to spring up.\"  (5) The fifth act of creation is the making of the\nheavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 14-19).  With this the Babylonian parallel\nshows close similarities, for it states that Marduk\n\n  Made the stations for the great gods,\n  The stars, their images, as the constellations he fixed,\n  He ordained the year, marked off its divisions.[30]\n\n{205}\n\n(6) The sixth and seventh acts of creation were the creation of fishes\nand birds and of land animals (Gen. 1. 20-25): the Babylonian parallels\nin _Enuma elish_ are wanting at present; but Berosus hints that they\nwere created at the same time as man, so that it is probable that the\naccount of these acts of creation appeared somewhere in the lost\nportions of the fifth or sixth tablet.  From allusions in other\nwritings we learn that Marduk was looked upon as the creator of the\nanimals and other living creatures of the field.  (7) The eighth act of\ncreation, that of man (Gen. 1. 26-31), finds its parallel upon the\nsixth tablet:\n\n  When Marduk heard the word of the gods\n  His heart moved him and he devised a cunning plan.\n  He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spoke,\n  That which he had conceived in his heart he made known unto him.\n  \"My blood will I take and bone will I fashion,\n  I shall make man that man may ...\n  I shall create man, who shall inhabit the earth,\n  That the service of the gods may be established and that\n      their shrines may be built.\"[31]\n\n\nIn order to estimate rightly the relations between the Babylonian and\nHebrew accounts the differences between the two must also be noted.  To\nbegin with, the order of the separate acts of creation is not quite the\nsame.  For example, in the Babylonian account, the creation of the\nheavenly bodies follows immediately upon the {206} making of the\nfirmament, while in the Hebrew story it follows the making of the earth\nand the springing up of vegetation.  Certainly, this difference is of\nno special significance, and the change may easily be explained as due\nto the desire of the Hebrew writer to crowd the creative acts into the\nsix working days of the week.  The real difference is more fundamental\nand appears especially in the conception of the nature and character of\nDeity.  The Babylonian story opens with these words:\n\n  When above the heaven was not named\n  And beneath the earth bore no name,\n  And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,\n  And Mummu-Tiamat, the mother of them all--\n  Their waters were mingled together,\n  And no reed was formed, no marsh seen,\n  _When no one of the gods had been called into being,_\n  [And] none bore a name, and no destinies [were fixed],\n  _Then were created the gods in the midst of_ [_heaven_].\n\nCompare with this the simple, yet majestic, conception, \"In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth.\"  In one case many\ngods, in the other one God almighty; in one case the gods are a part of\nthe process of creation, in the other the uncreated God is in the\nbeginning.  Genesis presents God as almighty, but also as kind,\nbeneficent, loving; Marduk, the Babylonian creator, is represented as a\ngreat hero, but exceedingly selfish.  He undertakes the mighty task of\n{207} overcoming Tiamat only after making arrangements for a suitable\nreward.  The description of the heavenly banquet scene, to which\nreference has been made earlier in the chapter, implies a conception of\nthe character of the gods which is separated by an impassable gulf from\nthe Old Testament ideal.\n\nNo one can read with an unbiased mind the two accounts without\nrealizing the great differences between the mythological, polytheistic\naccount of the Babylonians and the simple, solemn, sublime,\nmonotheistic picture in Genesis.  The soberness, the dignity, the\nsimplicity of the Hebrew account lift it far above its Babylonian\ncounterpart.  From it the crude nature myths have all been stripped\naway.  No drunken gods hold revels in its solemn lines.  Above and\nbehind and in all is one righteous and beneficent God.  In this sublime\nethical monotheism the Hebrew story rises infinitely above the story\nthat originated in the Euphrates-Tigris valley.\n\nAnother Babylonian tradition, the close relation of which to the\nbiblical account has long been recognized, is the story of the Deluge.\nIn its cuneiform text it was first discovered on fragments of tablets\nbrought from the library of Ashurbanipal.  But that the Babylonians\npossessed a story of the Flood was known before from an outline\npreserved by Berosus.  The tradition brought to {208} light by\narchaeology forms an episode in an epic which narrates the exploits of\nGilgamesh and occupies the eleventh of the twelve parts into which the\nepic is divided.  Gilgamesh sprang from a city, Shurippak, which\nafterward completely disappeared.  He became king of Erech, where he\nruled as a tyrant until the gods created Ea-bani to destroy him.  The\ntwo, however, became bosom friends.  Together they delivered Erech from\nthe Elamite oppressor, Khumbaba.  Ishtar, the goddess of love, then\noffered her hand to Gilgamesh in marriage, which he spurned with scorn.\nOut of revenge, she sent a scorpion, whose sting proved fatal to\nEa-bani.  Gilgamesh himself she smote with an incurable disease.  To\nfind relief, the latter set out for the dwelling place of his\ngreat-grandfather, Ut-napishtim, far away on the isles of the blessed.\nWhen he finally reaches him the latter tells him all about the great\nFlood from which he escaped to enjoy eternal life.[32]\n\nThe most striking resemblances between the Babylonian and Hebrew\nstories of the Flood may now be noted: (1) Compare the instruction\ngiven by God to Noah (Gen. 6. 13-22) with the words addressed by the\ngod Ea to Ut-napishtim:\n\n  O man of Shurippak, son of Ubaratutu,\n  Pull down thy house, build a ship,\n  Leave thy possessions, take thought for thy life,\n\n{209}\n\n  Thy property abandon, save thy life,\n  Bring living seed of every kind into the ship.\n  The ship that thou shalt build,\n  So shall be the measure of its dimensions,\n  Thus shall correspond its breadth and height,\n  Into the ocean let it fare.[33]\n\n(2) In both accounts the destruction is due to sin.  This is definitely\nstated in Gen. 6. 5-7.  For the Babylonian story it is implied in the\nrebuke given to Bel by Ea:\n\n  On the sinner lay his sin,\n  On the transgressor lay his transgression.\n  Forbear, let not all be destroyed.[34]\n\n(3) In both accounts, only a seed of life sufficient to replenish the\nearth is saved.  Compare Gen. 6. 19, 20 with the command, \"Bring living\nseed of every kind into the ship,\" or with the statement:\n\n  I brought into the ship my family and household;\n  The cattle of the field, the beasts of the field, craftsmen, all\n      of them I brought in.[35]\n\n(4) Both stories tell of a great storm and deluge of water.  Gen. 7. 11\nreads, \"The fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows\nof heaven were opened.  And the rain was upon the earth forty days and\nforty nights.\"  Compare with this:\n\n  The dawning of that day I feared,\n  I feared to behold that day.\n  I entered the ship and closed the door.\n  When the first flush of dawn appeared\n  There came up from the horizon a black cloud.\n\n{210}\n\n  Adad thundered within it,\n  While Nabu and Marduk went before.\n  They go as messengers over mountain and valley.\n  Nergal bore away the anchor.\n  Ninib advances, the storm he makes to descend.\n  The Anunaki lifted up their torches,\n  With their brightness they light up the land.\n  Adad's storm reached unto heaven,\n  All light was turned into darkness,\n  It [flooded] the land like ...\n  ........ the storm\n  Raged high, [the water climbed over] the mountains,\n  Like a besom of destruction they brought it upon men.[36]\n\n(5) In both instances the structure rests upon a mountain in the north.\nGen. 8. 4 reads, \"And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat,\"\nthat is, Armenia.  The Babylonian story reads:\n\n  To the land of Nisir the ship made its way,\n  The mount of Nisir held it fast that it moved not.[37]\n\nMount Nisir is east of the upper Tigris. (6) In both cases birds are\nsent out to ascertain the condition of the land.  Compare Gen. 8. 6-12\nwith these lines:\n\n  When the seventh day approached\n  I sent forth a dove and let her go.\n  The dove flew to and fro,\n  But there was no resting place and she returned.\n  I sent forth a swallow and let her go;\n  The swallow flew to and fro,\n  But there was no resting place, and she returned.\n  I sent forth a raven and let her go;\n  The raven flew away, she saw the abatement of the waters,\n\n{211}\n\n  She drew near, she waded (?), she croaked, and came not back.\n  Then I sent everything forth to the four quarters of heaven.[38]\n\n(7) Sacrifice is offered by Noah and Ut-napishtim, acceptable to the\nGod of Noah and to the gods of the Babylonian hero, in both cases\nresulting in a promise not to repeat the Flood.  Compare Gen. 8. 20-22\nwith:\n\n        I offered sacrifice,\n  I made a libation upon the mountain's peak.\n  By sevens I set out the sacrificial vessels,\n  Beneath them I heaped up reed and cedar wood and myrtle.\n  The gods smelt the savor,\n  The gods smelt the sweet savor,\n  The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.[39]\n\nOther similarities might be noted, such as the use of bitumen, the\narrangement of the ship in stories, and, what seems more striking, the\nfact that the hero of the Babylonian story is the tenth antediluvian\nking, while Noah is the tenth antediluvian patriarch.\n\nAs in the stories of creation, marked differences may also be noted\nbetween the two representations of the Flood; and these differences\nappear where they are most significant, namely, in the spirit and\npurity of conception permeating the entire Hebrew account.  For\nexample, the book of Genesis introduces the divine displeasure with\nsin, the ethical element, as a fundamental note; then, {212} when the\ndivine mercy is aroused, the Flood ceases; according to the Babylonian\nstory, the Flood is caused by the capricious anger of Bel, the idea of\npunishment for sin cropping out only as an incident in the conversation\nbetween Ea and Bel at the end of the story.  The Flood ceases because\nthe other gods are terrified, and Ishtar intercedes for her own\ncreation.  Moreover, the whole Hebrew conception of the Divine differs\nfrom the Babylonian.  In the Hebrew account we find ourselves in an\natmosphere of ethical monotheism that is unknown apart from the chosen\npeople.  Disappeared have all the gods who war with one another, who\nrejoice in successful intrigues, who do not hesitate to tell untruths\nor instruct their favorites to do so; the gods unstable in all their\nways, now seeking to destroy, now flattering their creatures; the gods\nwho, terrified by the storm, \"cower like dogs\" at the edge of heaven,\nand who \"gathered like flies\" around the sacrifice of the saved hero.\nAll these characteristic features of the Babylonian account are absent\nfrom the Bible.  Surely, there is no connection between these deities\nand the one sublime and gracious God of Genesis.\n\nLack of space will not permit us to institute detailed comparisons\nbetween other narratives in the early chapters of Genesis and\nBabylonian literature.  It may be sufficient to say that the {213}\nresemblances are not confined to the stories of creation and of the\nFlood.  True, no complete Babylonian story of paradise and of the fall\nis at present known; nevertheless, there are certain features in the\nbiblical narrative which strongly point to Babylonia, and in the light\nof the known fact that elements in the two important narratives of\ncreation and of the Flood are derived from Babylonia, it may be safe to\ninfer that in this case also echoes of Babylonian beliefs supplied, at\nleast in part, the framework of the Hebrew representation.  The\nantediluvian patriarchs also seem to have their counterparts in\nBabylonian tradition, and the story of the Tower of Babel, though it\ndoes not seem to be of Babylonian origin, presupposes a knowledge of\nBabylonia, and it is not impossible that some Babylonian legend served\nas the basis of it.\n\nIn closing this discussion, attention may be called to a few general\nconsiderations that must be borne in mind in any attempt to answer the\nquestion whether the religious and ethical ideas of the Hebrews which\nshow similarities with the ideas of other nations were borrowed bodily\nfrom these nations, or, after all, contain elements that were original\nwith the Hebrews.\n\nIn the first place, it must be remembered that similarities between the\ncustoms or beliefs of two peoples do not necessarily imply the\ndependence {214} of one upon the other; much less do they indicate\nwhich is the original.  Where similarities are found at least four\npossibilities should be recognized: A may depend upon B; B may depend\nupon A; both A and B may have been derived from a common original; or A\nand B may have developed independently, the similarities being merely\ncoincidence.  Which interpretation is the right one in a given case\ndoes not lie on the surface; it is only by careful, patient, unbiased\nstudy that one may arrive at a proper understanding.  Take as an\nillustration the Decalogue.  The Buddhists have \"ten prohibitory laws,\"\nsometimes called the \"Buddhist Decalogue.\"  The first five read, \"Thou\nshalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not lie; Thou shalt\nnot commit adultery; Thou shalt not get drunk.\"  Three of these\ncorrespond exactly to three of the demands in the Jewish Decalogue.\nDoes it necessarily follow that the Decalogue was borrowed from Buddha?\nThe Egyptians also had a sacred law.  The law itself has not yet come\nto light, but the Book of the Dead indicates its existence.  In the one\nhundred and twenty-fifth chapter of this book we read the\njustifications offered by the dead: \"I have not acted with deceit or\ndone evil to men; I have not oppressed the poor; I have not judged\nunjustly,\" etc.  These negations seem to imply the existence of a law,\neither oral or written, {215} forbidding these things.  From the\nnegations, \"I have not acted with deceit; I have not committed murder;\nI have not been unchaste,\" etc., one may infer that the Egyptians had\nprecepts corresponding substantially to some of the requirements in the\nDecalogue.  Does logic demand, therefore, the conclusion that the\nDecalogue owes its existence to the sacred law of the Egyptians?  Among\nthe Babylonians also we find evidence of the existence of, at least,\nsome of the requirements of the Hebrew Decalogue: \"Thou shalt not break\ninto the house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach the wife of thy\nneighbor; Thou shalt not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt\nnot grasp the garment of thy neighbor.\"  Do these similarities prove\nbeyond question the dependence of the one upon the other?\n\nThere are, then, marked resemblances between the Hebrew Decalogue,\ncertain requirements among the Babylonians, among the Egyptians, and\namong the Buddhists.  I know of no one who claims that the Decalogue\nwas borrowed from Buddha; some, however, seem to think, that in part at\nleast, it was dependent upon Babylon; others, that Moses is indebted\nfor it to Egypt.  True, in the minds of most scholars the dependence is\nnot direct; there would be room, according to their theory, for the\nwork of the Spirit in the selection of these fundamental, ethical\nconceptions {216} from the great mass of requirements, the majority of\nwhich are far inferior to the Decalogue.  Such dependence, even if it\ncould be proved, would not rob the Decalogue of inspiration or\npermanent value; but it seems to me that the similarities do not\nwarrant the claim of even such dependence.  Is it not more likely that\nthese similarities are due to the instinct implanted in man by the\nCreator, which recognizes the sanctity of life, of family relations,\nand of property rights?  But this instinct does not account for the\nobvious differences between the Hebrew Decalogue as a whole and the\nlegislations of other peoples.  These must be traced to the special\nactivity of a Spirit who produced among the Hebrews a collection of\ncommandments such as natural instinct, if left to itself, could not\nhave produced.\n\nIt is different, perhaps, when we consider the relation of the more\ncomprehensive civil legislation of the Pentateuch to the Code of\nHammurabi.  There the resemblances are numerous and striking enough to\njustify the inference that there exists some relation of dependence,\nand yet by no means that the legislation of the Pentateuch is borrowed\ndirectly from the other, or even that there is a literary dependence.\nHow extensive this dependence is only careful examination can show;\nbut, however complete, it will not destroy the fact that the laws of\nIsrael are permeated by a Divine {217} Spirit.  The important question\nis not, Where do we find the natural basis upon which the system is\nbuilt up by men under divine guidance? but, Does the spirit and\ncharacter of the system indicate such guidance?\n\nIn the second place, in seeking the truth about this relationship\nassumption must not be confused with knowledge.  Modern archaeologists\nseem to be in peculiar danger of taking things for granted.  It is not\nwithout reason that a prominent Old Testament scholar proposes to\nchange the title of the third edition of a book entitled The Cuneiform\nInscriptions and the Old Testament into The Cuneiform Scholar and the\nOld Testament.  It is stated, for example, without qualification by\nDelitzsch that the name \"Yahweh\" has been discovered on inscriptions\nbelonging to the period of Hammurabi.  No hint is given that the\nreading is questioned by many Assyriologists.  There is, at least, a\npossibility, no matter how small, of a different rendering, with, of\ncourse, a vastly different conclusion.  But admitting, as I believe we\nmust do, that the name does occur, the inference drawn from this\noccurrence by Delitzsch, and expressed in the following words, is an\nassumption and misleading, unless it is materially modified: \"Yahweh,\nthe abiding one, the permanent one, who, unlike man, is not to-morrow a\nthing of the past, but one that endures forever, that {218} lives and\nlabors for all eternity above the broad, resplendent, law-bound canopy\nof the stars--it was this Yahweh that constituted the primordial\npatrimony of those Canaanite tribes from which centuries afterward the\ntwelve tribes of Israel sprang.\"[40]  The fact is that you may search\nthe Babylonian pantheon from one end to the other and you will not find\none god who in nature and character can compare with the Jehovah of\nIsrael, \"merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in\nloving-kindness and truth.\"\n\nAnother instance of the same character is the story of the fall.  One\nthing we know, namely, that a story of the fall of man, similar to that\nin Genesis, has not as yet been found among the fragments of Babylonian\nlibraries.  Certainly, such story may have existed, and probably did\nexist; it may even be, as has been asserted, that some connection\nexists between the scriptural story of the fall and the picture on an\nold Babylonian seal cylinder having in the center a tree with fruits\nhanging down, on each side a figure, and behind the figure at the left\na mark which may represent a serpent.  But the interpretation is by no\nmeans certain.  The fact that an assertion is made by an expert favors\nthe presumption, but does not prove, that the statement is true.\n\nSome archaeologists claim that the monotheism of Israel was derived from\noutside of Israel, {219} either from Arabia[41] or from Babylonia[42].\nAmong the arguments in favor of this claim is the occurrence of proper\nnames which are alleged to imply the existence of monotheism; for\nexample, _Yasma-ilu_, which may be translated \"God hears,\" implying the\nexistence of but one God.  However, it might mean also \"_a_ god hears,\"\nor \"god\"--referring to one of many--\"hears,\" the giver of the name\nsingling out the one for special consideration.  And as there are clear\nindications of polytheism in southern Arabia, where the name is found,\nthe name, in all probability, means the latter, thus implying\npolytheism.  The same may be said of the names found in Babylonia.\nWhatever the primary meaning of _ilu_, these names do not in themselves\nprove the existence of monotheism.  They may be translated in perfect\naccord with logic and grammar as admitting the existence of more than\none god.  Indeed, the historical facts demand such interpretation.  If\nwe find, for example, \"Sin-muballit\" (\"the moon-god brings to life\") as\nthe name of the father of Hammurabi, and \"Shamshu-iluna\" (in all\nprobability, \"the sun-god is our god\") as that of his son, the facts\nsurely indicate that the monotheism of the period was not very\ndistinct.  The testimony of the Code of Hammurabi points in the same\ndirection, as also the most spiritual utterances of religion in the\nEuphrates valley, the penitential psalms.\n\n{220}\n\nIt is seen, then, that facts do not warrant the claim, made by some,\nthat that upon which rests the significance of the Bible in the world's\nhistory, namely, monotheism, was taken over by the Hebrews from the\nBabylonians.  Josh. 24. 2 remains uncontradicted: \"Your fathers dwelt\nof old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and\nthe father of Nahor; and _they served other gods_.\"  It is only in\nIsrael that we find a clearly developed monotheism.  Assumption and\nfacts are not quite the same.\n\nAnother important point, to which attention has already been called, is\nthe marked difference which obtains between the literature of the Old\nTestament and that uncovered by archaeology.  True, there are points of\ncontact; indeed, strange it would be if there were none; for, like the\nBabylonians, the Hebrews were Semites.  Surely, it is not strange that\nnations of the same race, originally in the same home, should possess\nsimilar traditions, customs, beliefs, and practices.  When they left\ntheir common home they carried with them their common traditions,\ncustoms, and beliefs; in their new homes they developed them and\nimpressed upon them their own individualities.  We are nowhere informed\nin the Old Testament, and it would seem contrary to reason to suppose,\nthat at the time of Abraham, Moses, or at any other period, God emptied\nthe Hebrew mind and {221} consciousness of all the things which had\nbeen the possession of the Semitic race from the beginning.  Is it not\nmore likely that the inspired teachers and writers employed for their\nloftier purposes the ancient traditions and beliefs familiar to their\ncontemporaries?  In doing so they took that which was, in some cases,\ncommon and unclean, and, purifying it under the guidance of the Divine\nSpirit, made it the medium by which to impart the sublimest truths ever\npresented to man.  Obviously, the special religious value of the Old\nTestament literature does not lie in what is common to it and Babylon,\nbut in the elements in which they differ.\n\nThe points of contact must not blind the eye to the points of contrast.\nThese points of contrast are in the spirit and atmosphere pervading the\nHebrew Scriptures, which are quite distinct, not simply from\nBabylonian, but from all other literatures.  These essential\ndifferences occur, as we have seen, throughout the entire religious and\nethical literature.  In many cases is agreement in form, but how far\nsuperior the spirit and substance of the Hebrew!  Think of the\ndifferent conceptions of the nature and character of God, of God's\nrelation to man, of the divine government of the world, and many other\ntruths precious to Christians in all ages.  There is, indeed, in the\nHebrew record \"an intensity of spiritual {222} conception, a sublimity\nof spiritual tone, an insight into the unseen, a reliance upon an\ninvisible yet all-controlling Power, that create the gap between the\nHebrew and his brother Semite beyond the River.\"\n\nHow are we to account for these differences?  Professor Sayce has\nsuggested an answer in these words: \"I can find only one explanation,\nunfashionable and antiquated though it be.  In the language of a former\ngeneration, it marks the dividing line between revelation and\nunrevealed religion.  It is like that something hard to define which\nseparates man from the ape, even though on the physiological side the\nape may be the ancestor of man.\"[43]  Though the language of this\nstatement may be unfortunate, especially where it implies that there is\nno revelation in the ancient religions outside of the Old Testament, it\ndoes call attention to the secret of the fundamental difference between\nthe Old Testament sacred literature and that of the surrounding\nnations.  There is in the former abundant evidence of the activity of a\nSpirit whose presence is less manifest in the sacred literatures of\nother ancient nations.\n\nTrue, the monuments have not spoken their last word; but if we have the\nright to draw inferences from the known, we may safely affirm that\nthough the monuments may swell into infinity, they will offer nothing\nto equal, much less to supersede, in substance and spirit, our {223}\nOld Testament.  We may receive gratefully every ray of light, but the\ntime has not yet come, nor ever will come, when we may lay aside the\nOld Testament and accept as a substitute the legends and myths of\nheathen lands to give to us the bread of life which the Saviour found\nin the pages of the Old Book.  Let us welcome the light and knowledge\nGod has bestowed upon us; let us rejoice in them with perfect assurance\nthat they are for good and not for evil; let us learn to use them\nwisely and honestly, and let us still be ever alert listening for other\nwords, uttered ages ago, but not yet audible to modern ears.  \"It is\nfor us to catch these messages, and to understand them, that we may fit\nthem into the great fabric of apprehended truth to the enrichment of\nourselves, and to the glory of our common Lord.\"\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER V\n\n[1] J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the New Scholarship, p. 92.\n\n[2] S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, p. 20.\n\n[3] Hugo Winckler, Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier, p. 9.\n\n[4] Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, of the University of Berlin,\ndelivered three lectures on the relation of Babylonian religion to the\nreligion of the Old Testament, under the title, \"Babel und Bibel.\"\n\n[5] A. H. Sayce, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 276,\n277.\n\n[6] A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I,\np. 86.\n\n{224}\n\n[7] R. W. Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 88.\nPractically all the cuneiform inscriptions quoted or referred to in\nthis chapter are translated in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the\nOld Testament.\n\n[8] Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, published by\nOpen Court Co., p. 65.\n\n[9] A translation of the entire psalm is found in Sayce, The Religions\nof Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 419-421; also in Rogers, Religion\nof Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 182-184; R. F. Harper, Assyrian and\nBabylonian Literature, pp. 436-439.\n\n[10] Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 35, 93, 195.\nA translation of a hymn composed by this king to his supreme god is\nfound in J. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, pp. 371ff.\n\n[11] An excellent brief survey of the religious conceptions of the\npre-Mosaic period is given in the article on \"Religion of Israel,\" by\nE. Kautzsch, in James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol.,\npp. 613ff.\n\n[12] The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 95.\n\n[13] Ibid., p. 97.\n\n[14] The most recent and most satisfactory edition and translation of\nthe entire Babylonian story of creation is by L. W. King, The Seven\nTablets of Creation.  The two quotations given are Tablet I, lines 7-9,\nand Tablet III, lines 133-138.\n\n[15] Additional portions of this hymn are found in R. W. Rogers,\nReligion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 170ff.\n\n[16] S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religions To-day, p. 14.\n\n[17] A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p. 15; A. H.\nSayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 476ff.; M.\nJastrow, in American Journal of Theology, 1898, pp. 315-352; A.\nJeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I, pp.\n198ff.\n\n{225}\n\n[18] Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 38.\n\n[19] Ibid., p. 101.\n\n[20] Paul Haupt, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual, Journal\nof Biblical Literature, 1900, p. 61.\n\n[21] The details of this question have been discussed very extensively.\nAdmirable discussions of the entire subject are found in Sayce,\nReligions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 448-478; Jeremias, Old\nTestament in the Light of the Ancient East, II, pp. 112ff.\n\n[22] Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 469.\n\n[23] Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, pp. 53ff.\n\n[24] R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 145.\n\n[25] R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi; art. on the same subject in\nHastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 584ff.; W. W.\nDavies, The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses.\n\n[26] The best and most complete recent treatment of the legal\nliterature of the Old Testament is found in C. F. Kent, Israel's Laws\nand Legal Precedents, which is Vol. IV in The Student's Old Testament.\n\n[27] Johannes Jeremias, Moses and Hammurabi, pp. 31ff.\n\n[28] R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 158.\n\n[29] L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, Two Vols.; a\ntranslation is also found in R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian\nLiterature, pp. 282ff.  R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and\nAssyria, pp. 107ff.\n\n[30] Tablet V, lines 1-3.\n\n[31] Lines 1-8.\n\n[32] An English translation of the entire epic is found in R. F.\nHarper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, pp. 324ff.; the Deluge\nstory is given by R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp.\n199ff.\n\n{226}\n\n[33] Lines 23-31.\n\n[34] Lines 184-186.\n\n[35] Lines 27, 85, 86.\n\n[36] Lines 92-111.\n\n[37] Lines 141, 142.\n\n[38] Lines 146-156.\n\n[39] Lines 156-162.\n\n[40] Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 62.\n\n[41] F. Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, pp. 75ff.\n\n[42] P. Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, pp. 58ff.\n\n[43] Preface to Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.\n\n\n\n\n{227}\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nIn the opening paragraphs of Chapter I, attention is called to the\nunique place occupied by the Old Testament in the thought, life, and\ntheology of the early Church.  Throughout the Middle Ages, and in the\neyes of the Protestant reformers, the two great divisions of the Bible,\nthe Old and New Testaments, continued to command equal respect and\nattention.  The legal principles of the Pentateuch have determined the\nlegal systems of all civilized nations; the bold and fiery sermons of\nthe prophets have been the chief inspiration on the fierce battles for\nrighteousness in all ages; and the sublime religious lyrics of the\nPsalter have ushered millions into the very presence of God.  Indeed,\nthe Old Testament has exerted an incalculable influence on the\ndevelopment of religion and civilization.\n\nHowever, it must be admitted that during the latter part of the\nnineteenth century a change of attitude toward the Old Testament seems\nto have taken place.  True, from nearly the beginning of the Christian\nera again and again voices have {228} been heard denying to the Old\nTestament a place in Christian thought and life, but not until\ncomparatively recent times has this sentiment become widespread.  Says\na writer in a book published a few years ago: \"The Bible was never more\nstudied nor less read than at the present day.  This paradox is true,\nat least, of the Old Testament.  For two generations scores of patient\nscholars have toiled on the text, scanning each letter with microscopic\ncare, and one result of their labors has been that to the majority of\neducated men and women of whatever belief, or no belief, the Bible has\nbecome a closed, yea, a sealed, book.  It is not what it used to be;\nwhat it has become they do not know, and in scorn or sorrow or apathy\nthey have laid it aside.\"[1]  There may be some exaggeration in this\nstatement, but it cannot be doubted that there is considerable\njustification for the complaint.  C. F. Kent makes the admission that\n\"with the exception of a very few books, like the Psalter, the Old\nTestament, which was the arsenal of the old militant theology, has been\nunconsciously, if not deliberately, shunned by the present\ngeneration.\"[2]  And the words of Professor Cheyne are almost as\napplicable to-day as they were when they were first written, more than\ntwenty years ago: \"A theory is already propounded, both in private and\nin a naive simple way in sermons, that the {229} Old Testament is of no\nparticular moment, all that we need being the New Testament, which has\nbeen defended by our valiant apologists and expounded by our admirable\ninterpreters.\"[3]\n\nIf this represents in any sense the true state of affairs; if, on the\nother hand, the words of the apostle are true, that \"every scripture\ninspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for\ncorrection, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of\nGod may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work\"; and if\nthese words are applicable to the Old Testament, as the writer intended\nthem to be--if, I say, these things are true, then Christians appear to\nbe in great peril of losing sight of one of the important means of\ngrace, on which were nourished Jesus and his disciples, and millions in\nformer generations, and for the restoration of which the reformers\nrisked their very lives.\n\nThe change of attitude toward the Old Testament may be traced to a\nvariety of causes, all of which affect very vitally modern religious\nthought and life.  There are, for example, many who feel, and that with\nsome justice, that the New Testament is in a peculiar sense the sacred\nbook of Christianity.  Why, they ask, go to the Old Testament when we\nhave the New with its more complete and perfect revelation?  But this\nattitude reflects only a half truth, which is often {230} more\ndeceptive than an out and out falsehood.  Certainly, Christians find\ntheir loftiest inspiration in the study of the life, character, and\nteaching of the Master and of his disciples; but the New Testament has\nby no means displaced the Old.  The early Christians were right in\nplacing it beside the New, because the former is still of inestimable\nvalue.  Indeed, it is impossible to understand the New Testament\nproperly unless one has an adequate knowledge of the Old.  Moreover,\nthere are many truths taken for granted in the New Testament for a\nbiblical statement of which we must turn to the Old.  Will the\nrevelation of the nature and character of God contained in the Old\nTestament ever lose its doctrinal value?  And even in cases where both\nTestaments cover the same field the Old retains a peculiar value.\nTrue, the New Testament presents a more complete and perfect\nrevelation, but there are few New Testament truths which have not their\nroots in the Old.  The former presents the full-grown revelation;\nnevertheless, a vast number of people, who have not yet reached a state\nof perfection, will understand even New Testament truths more readily\nas they are presented in the Old Testament; for here they can see the\ntruths in more concrete form; they have flesh and blood; they are\nstruggling for victory over darkness and superstition.  Nearly all the\ngreat and vital doctrines of the Church, {231} though founded\nprincipally on the New Testament, are illustrated, are made more real\nand human, become more impressive and forceful as we study their\ndevelopment and growth under the Old Testament dispensation.\n\nThe neglect of the Old Testament is due, in the second place, to a\nreaction against its misuse by former generations.[4]  Puritanism and\nthe theology of the past three centuries were largely rooted in the Old\nTestament.  From it the stern Puritans drew their spirit of justice,\ntheir zeal for righteousness, and their uncompromising condemnation of\neverything that appeared wrong.  Their preachers nobly echoed the\nthunders of Sinai and the denunciations of Elijah and Amos; but in\ndoing this they failed to recognize the divine love back of the\nprophetic message, and by their narrow interpretation of the letter,\nand their emphasis upon the more primitive and imperfect teaching of\nthe Old Testament, they were often led to extremes that were neither\nbiblical nor Christian.  Against intolerance and persecution the human\nheart rebels, and with it comes a feeling of resentment against the\ncause.  Thus it happened that the reaction against Puritanism brought\nwith it a disregard of the Old Testament, which was followed either by\nthe exaltation of the New Testament, whose spirit is more merciful and\ntender, or by hostility against the entire {232} Bible and Christianity\nas a whole.  This abuse of the Old Testament was due in large part to\nthe use of faulty, or erroneous, methods of interpretation.  And since\nthere seems to be even now a tendency in some places to defend these\nmethods, which are out of keeping with the spirit of scientific\ninvestigation in this age, many intelligent men have come to look with\nsuspicion upon a book in the study of which unscientific methods\ncontinue to be used.\n\nAnother important cause of the change of attitude toward the Old\nTestament is to be found in the labors expended upon the Old Testament\nby able scholars in the pursuit of a careful, critical study of the\nancient records.  As has been stated in another connection, these\nstudies are not the outgrowth, as is often erroneously assumed, of a\ndesire to discredit the Bible, to displace it from the heart and\nconfidence of the people, or to attack its teaching or inspiration.\n\"It would be a most hopeless thing,\" says W. G. Jordan, \"to regard all\nthis toil as the outcome of skepticism and vanity, a huge specimen of\nperverse ingenuity and misdirected effort.\"[5]  They are simply the\nresults of Protestantism and the Renaissance.[6]  But whatever the\nspirit back of the study, and whatever the gains of this investigation,\none result is that many Christians feel perplexed with regard to the\ntrue position of the Old Testament.  {233} What of its claims?  What of\nits inspiration?  How far is it human in origin?  How far divine?\nThese and similar questions are asked by men everywhere.  Never was\nthere more interest, more inquiry, and, perhaps, more unrest and\ndisquietude among thoughtful people.\n\nSurely, it is high time to realize that all this investigation has had\nno harmful effect upon the substance of the divine revelations conveyed\nin the Old Testament records.  In the words of Jordan, \"To me, with my\nfaith that the whole universe is filled with the presence of the\nliving, self-revealing God, I cannot conceive ... that the most severe\ncriticism can ever banish the divine power from that great literature\nwhich is one of the choicest organs of its manifestations.\"[7]  As has\nbeen pointed out in the preceding chapters, some long-cherished notions\nand interpretations have been overthrown; to some extent our ideas\nconcerning its literary forms have had to be modified, but its\nsubstance has not been disturbed.  On the contrary, it has come to be\nseen with a clearness unrecognized before that it bears the indelible\nstamp of God.\n\nThis being the case, students of the Bible should return to a more just\nappreciation of that part of Sacred Scripture which is so intimately\nconnected with the training of Jesus and his disciples.  If the Old\nTestament contains records {234} and interpretations of divine\nrevelations, those who claim to be children of God should be willing,\nyea, anxious, to put forth some efforts to familiarize themselves\nadequately with these records.  But the sense of gratitude and\nappreciation for these self-revelations of God is not the only reason\nwhich should prompt the Christian to turn more frequently to the pages\nof the Old Book.  A much more important consideration is the fact that\nthe lessons taught in the Old Testament are of profound significance\nto-day, and that they cannot be neglected without serious consequences.\nAgain, attention may be called to the fact that the Founder of\nChristianity and his disciples found nourishment in its pages, and that\nthey constantly exhorted their followers to do the same.  Now, Jesus is\nrecognized by all Christians as a model worthy of imitation in every\nrelation of life.  Would it not be well to imitate him in the use of\nthe Old Testament Scriptures?  If he found in the pages of the Old\nTestament weapons with which to put to flight the Evil One, might not\nwe?  Aside from these general considerations, it is easily shown that\nevery part of the Old Testament is full of teaching which is of the\nhighest value even in the twentieth century of the Christian era.\nConsider, for example, the first eleven chapters of Genesis, around\nwhich much controversy has raged.  In former days these chapters were\n{235} thought to give an absolutely accurate account of creation and\nthe early history of mankind.  However, various lines of investigation\nhave shown this view to be untenable.  \"We are forced, therefore,\" says\na recent writer, \"to the conclusion that, though the writers to whom we\nowe the first eleven chapters of Genesis report faithfully what was\ncurrently believed among the Hebrews respecting the early history of\nmankind, yet there was much they did not know, and could not take\ncognizance of.  These chapters, consequently, contain no account of the\nreal beginnings, either of the earth itself, or of man and human\ncivilization upon it.\"[8]  All this need create not the slightest\ndifficulty for one who holds the scriptural conception of the nature\nand purpose of the biblical writings.  It is true of these chapters, as\nof other parts of the record, that \"the only care of the prophetic\ntradition is to bring out clearly the religious origin of humanity.[9]\nIf anyone is in search of accurate information regarding the age of\nthis earth, or its relation to the sun, moon, or stars, or regarding\nthe exact order in which plants and animals have appeared upon it, he\nshould go to recent textbooks in astronomy, geology, and paleontology.\nIt is not the purpose of the writers of Scripture to impart physical\ninstruction, or to enlarge the bounds of scientific knowledge.  So far\nas the {236} scientific or historical information imparted in these\nchapters is concerned, it is of little more value than the similar\nstories of other nations.  And yet the student of these chapters can\nsee a striking contrast between them and extra-biblical stories\ndescribing the same unknown ages handed down from pre-scientific\ncenturies.  Here comes to view the uniqueness of the Bible.  The other\ntraditions are of interest only as relics of a by-gone past.  Not so\nthe biblical statements; they are and ever will be of inestimable\nvalue, not because of their scientific teaching, but because of the\npresence of sublime religious truth in the crude forms of primitive\nscience.  If anyone wishes to know what connection the world has with\nGod, if he seeks to trace back all that now is to the very\nfountain-head of life, if he desires to discover some unifying\nprinciple, some illuminating purpose in the history of the earth, he\nmay turn to these chapters as his safest and, indeed, only guide to the\ninformation he seeks.\n\nThe purpose of the narratives being primarily religious, it is only\nnatural that their lessons should be religious lessons.  The one\nsupreme lesson taught throughout the entire section is \"In the\nbeginning, God.\"  But each separate narrative teaches its own peculiar\nlessons.  The more important of these are briefly summarized by Driver\nas follows: \"The narrative of creation {237} sets forth, in a series of\ndignified and impressive pictures, the sovereignty of God; his priority\nto and separation from all finite, material nature; his purpose to\nconstitute an ordered cosmos, and gradually to adapt the earth to\nbecome the habitation of living beings; and his endowment of man with\nthe peculiar, unique possession of self-conscious reason, in virtue of\nwhich he became capable of intellectual and moral life, and is even\nable to know and hold communion with his Maker.  In chapters two and\nthree we read, though, again, not in a historical but in a pictorial\nand symbolic form, how man was once innocent, how he became conscious\nof a moral law, and how temptation fell upon him and he broke that law.\nThe fall of man, the great and terrible truth, which history not less\nthan individual experience only too vividly teaches each one of us, is\nthus impressively set before us.  Man, however, though punished by God,\nis not forsaken by him, nor left in his long conflict with evil without\nhope of victory.  In chapter four the increasing power of sin, and the\nfatal consequence to which, if unchecked, it may lead, is vividly\nportrayed in the tragic figure of Cain.  The spirit of vindictiveness\nand the brutal triumph in the power of the sword is personified in\nLamech.  In the narrative of the Flood God's wrath against sin and the\ndivine prerogative of mercy are alike exemplified: {238} Noah is a\nstanding illustration of the truth that 'righteousness delivereth from\ndeath,' and God's dealings with him after the Flood form a striking\ndeclaration of the purposes of grace and good will with which God\nregards mankind.  The narrative of the Tower of Babel emphasizes\nJehovah's supremacy in the world, and teaches how the self-exaltation\nof man is checked by God.\"[10]\n\nThese chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs.\nMissionaries say--and experience at home has confirmed the claim--that\nthe patriarchal narratives are of inestimable value to impress lessons\nof the reality and providence of God, and to encourage the exercise of\nfaith and confidence in him.  There is nothing that can be substituted\nfor them in religious instruction.  Lack of space will not permit to\npoint out in detail the educational value of these documents; however,\nin passing, mention may be made of the fact that Professor W. W. White\nenumerates twenty-one Christian virtues that are illustrated and\nenforced in the life of Abraham.[11]  He was (1) steadfast, (2)\nresolute, (3) prudent, (4) tactful, (5) candid, (6) kind, (7)\nself-controlled, (8) obliging, (9) self-denying, (10) condescending,\n(11) unselfish, (12) peaceable, (13) hospitable, (14) courteous, (15)\nhumble, (16) thankful, (17) reverent, (18) prayerful, (19) worshipful,\n(20) faithful, {239} (21) obedient.  Not one iota of their value for\npurposes of instruction in righteousness have these records lost\nbecause doubt has been cast upon their absolute historical accuracy.\n\"Abraham is still the hero of righteousness and faith; Lot and Laban,\nSarah and Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in their characters and\nexperiences, are still in different ways types of our own selves, and\nstill in one way or another exemplify the ways in which God deals with\nthe individual soul, and the manner in which the individual soul ought,\nor ought not, to respond to his leadings.\"[12]  What if some of these\nfigures pass before us on the stage rather than in real life, do they\non that account lose their vividness, their truthfulness, their force?\n\"If,\" says J. E. McFadyen,[13] \"it should be made highly probable that\nthe stories were not strictly historical, what should we then have to\nsay?  We should then have to say that their religious value was still\nextremely high.  The religious truth to which they give vivid and\nimmortal expression would remain the same.  The story of Abraham would\nstill illustrate the trials and the rewards of faith.  The story of\nJacob would still illustrate the power of sin to haunt and determine a\nman's career, and the power of God to humble, discipline, and purify a\nself-confident nature.  The story of Joseph would still illustrate how\nfidelity amid {240} temptation, wrong, and sorrow is crowned at last\nwith glory and honor.  The spiritual value of these and similar tales\nis not lost, even when their historical value is reduced to a minimum,\nfor the truths which they illustrate are truths of universal\nexperience.\"  The present writer is convinced that even as historical\ndocuments these narratives are of immense value.  Nevertheless, it may\nbe well to remind ourselves again that the apostle does not point his\nreaders to the Old Testament Scriptures for instruction in ancient\nhistory, but he claims that they are profitable \"for teaching, for\nreproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness\";\nand these records, whatever their historical shortcomings may be, are\nmost assuredly profitable for all these purposes.\n\nThe historical books of the Old Testament are a continuous illustration\nof the reality of a Divine Providence, by revealing on almost every\npage the hand of God in human history.  Only as we trace the history of\nthe Hebrews can we understand the unfolding in the mind of man under\nthe influence of the Divine Spirit of the great religious ideas and\nconceptions which have become the mainspring of human progress; the\nideas which may be seen in crystallized form in modern Judaism, in\nperverted form in Mohammedanism, and in expanded and spiritualized form\nin Christianity.  {241} Preeminent among these conceptions is the idea\nof one personal holy and righteous God.  The Hebrews were also the\nfirst to teach man that the supreme goal of life is righteousness, and\nthus they became the ethical teachers of the human race.  They first\ngave objective expression to pure and lofty ethics in law.  To-day the\nprinciples of Hebrew legislation are still the bone and marrow of the\nworld's greatest legal systems.  Though the Romans may be, to a large\nextent, responsible for the form which modern legal systems have\nadopted, the substance must be traced back to Hebrew legislation.\n\nMoreover, the Hebrews prepared the way for Christianity.  Jesus himself\nrecognized that the faith he proclaimed was not a new creation.  \"Think\nnot,\" said he, \"that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came\nnot to destroy, but to fulfill.\"[14]  He came to fill up, to\nspiritualize and intensify the religious and ethical teaching of the\ngreat leaders of the Hebrews.  Men needed the preliminary training of\nthe Old Testament dispensation before they were ready to appreciate the\nfuller revelation in and through Jesus the Christ, and Christianity\ncould never have triumphed had it not been for the preparatory work of\nthe religious and ethical teachers of the Hebrews, whose activity was\nvery largely determined by the course of the nation's history.  Again,\n{242} Jesus, according to the flesh, was a descendant of Abraham,\nreared in a Jewish home, and under Jewish influences.  He studied\nJewish literature and Jewish ideals were held up before him.  All this\nmust have made some impression upon the mind and life of the Master.\nHe and his teaching can be understood only if he is studied in the\nlight of Jewish thought and Jewish religion reaching back to the very\nbeginning of Hebrew history.  All this shows how important is the study\nof the historical books of the Old Testament to one who desires to\nappreciate fully the Christian religion.\n\nIt is impossible to estimate too highly the eternal value of the\ndevotional literature of the Old Testament as illustrated, for example,\nin the book of Psalms.  Well has it been said, \"What the heart is in\nman, that is the Psalter in the Bible.\"[15]  The Psalms touch the\nheart, because they are the expressions of the deepest feelings of the\nwriters; and because these lyrics express personal experiences they may\nbe, and are, used even to-day to express the various emotions of joy,\nsorrow, hope, fear, anticipation, etc., of persons who live even on a\nhigher plane than did their authors.  \"What is there,\" says Richard\nHooker,[16] \"necessary for man to know which the Psalms are not able to\nteach?  Heroical magnanimity, exquisite justice, grave moderation,\n{243} exact wisdom, repentance unfeigned, unwearied patience, the\nmysteries of God, the sufferings of Christ, the terrors of wrath, the\ncomforts of grace, the works of Providence over this world, and the\npromised joys of that world which is to come; all good, necessarily to\nbe either known or done, or had, this one celestial fountain yieldeth;\nlet there be any grief or disaster incident to the soul of man, any\nwound or sickness named for which there is not in this treasure-house a\npresent comfortable remedy at all times ready to be found.\"\n\nManifold indeed are the contents of the Psalter; manifold the moods of\nthe authors; and manifold the experiences they express.  But there is\none bond which unites them all into one living unity, namely, a sublime\nfaith in Jehovah, the God of Israel.  This variety on the one hand, and\nessential unity on the other, are the qualities which have given to the\nbook in all ages a unique place in the religious life of the individual\nand of the Church of God.  With full justice says Perowne:[17] \"No\nsingle book of Scripture, not even the New Testament, has, perhaps,\never taken such hold on the heart of Christendom.  None, if we dare\njudge, unless it be the Gospels, has had so large an influence in\nmolding the affections, sustaining the hopes, purifying the faith of\nbelievers.  With its words, rather than with their own, they have come\nbefore God.  In these they have uttered {244} their desires, their\nfears, their confessions, their aspirations, their sorrows, their joys,\ntheir thanksgivings.  By these their devotion has been kindled and\ntheir hearts comforted.  The Psalter has been in the truest sense the\nprayer book of both Jews and Christians.\"\n\nEqually profitable is the study of the Wisdom literature.  The wise men\naccepted the great religious truths proclaimed by the prophets; it was\ntheir business to apply them to the details of everyday life, and\ninstruct their contemporaries in that application.  They did an\nimportant and necessary work; they pointed out constantly and\npersistently that religion cannot be separated from the daily life.\nBut the wise men were dealing with persons who had hardly gone beyond\nthe childhood stage in things religious and ethical, hence they must\nput the most profound truths in the simplest possible form.  They must\nabstain, as far as possible, from all speculation, and confine\nthemselves to simple, practical precepts which would appeal to the\nordinary practical common sense of the hearer.  \"The great desire of\nthe sages,\" says Marshall, \"was to reduce the lofty theistic morality\nwhich underlies Mosaism to brief, pithy sayings, easily remembered and\nreadily applicable to the everyday life of man.\"[18]  Certainly, in\ntime they would be compelled to rise above simple precepts and try to\nsolve some of {245} the more perplexing problems of life; on the other\nhand, there would always be a demand for the more simple sayings of\nthese moral guides.  The Old Testament contains specimens of these\ndifferent productions of wisdom activity.  The book of Proverbs is a\ncollection of the more simple, practical precepts, while the books of\nJob and Ecclesiastes illustrate speculative wisdom.\n\nThe charge has sometimes been made against the book of Proverbs that it\nis not truly religious, that it moves on a lower plane, and\ncontemplates lower aims than the other books of the Old Testament; but\nthis is only a half truth.  That the book differs from other books is\nundoubtedly true, but that is due to the purpose of its author.  He did\nnot mean to collect prophetic discourses or sublime religious lyrics,\nbut those simple precepts of life which, though simple, are ever needed\nfor the proper conduct of man.  There are two phases of religion: the\none internal, the religious experience; the other external, the\nreligious life.  The two go together, though at times the one, at times\nthe other, may be emphasized.  The authors of the Proverbs emphasized\nchiefly the latter.  They teach the most difficult of all lessons: how\nto practice religion; how to fulfill the duties and overcome the\ntemptations of everyday life.  But these wise men rested their\npractical teaching upon a religious basis.  Their {246} religion may\nnot be on a New Testament level, but in this they resemble other Old\nTestament writings; their conceptions of reward and punishment may be\ncrude, and at times materialistic, but this peculiarity they share with\nall those saints of Israel whose vision is limited to this world.\n\nUnderneath all their teaching there is a firm belief in the existence\nof a righteous God and the reality of his rule over the world, as also\nin the other great religious verities taught by the prophets.  Far from\ndisregarding religion, the writers of the Proverbs sought to make it\nthe controlling motive of life and conduct.  A profound religious\nspirit pervades the whole book; but in addition there are many passages\nwhich give definite expression to the lofty religious conceptions of\nthe wise men.[19]  Nevertheless, as is natural in view of the purpose\nof the wise men, greater stress is laid upon ethics, the practice of\nreligion.  Nothing and no relation of life seems to have escaped the\nattention of the writers.  Precepts are given concerning ordinary\neveryday conduct, the relations of men to their fellows, domestic\nrelations and happiness, national life and the proper attitude toward\nthe government, and other relations and interests of life.  The\npermanent value of the book is suggested in these words of Davison:[20]\n\"For the writers of Proverbs religion {247} means good sense, religion\nmeans mastery of affairs, religion means strength and manliness and\nsuccess, religion means a well-furnished intellect employing the best\nmeans to accomplish the highest ends.  There is a healthy, vigorous\ntone about this kind of teaching which is never out of date, but which,\nhuman nature being what it is, is only too apt to disappear in the\nactual presentation of religion in the Church on earth.\"\n\nFrom simple practical precepts the wise men rose to speculation.  Their\nspeculative philosophy is theistic, for it starts from the conviction\nthat there is a personal God.  The best specimen of this type of Wisdom\nliterature is the book of Job, which deals with the perplexing problem\nof evil and suffering.  The book recounts how Job, a man of exemplary\npiety, was overtaken by an unprecedented series of calamities, and it\nreports the debate between Job and other speakers to which the occasion\nis supposed to have given rise.  The experiences of the perfect Job\nraised the perplexing question, How can the suffering of a righteous\nman be harmonized with the belief in a holy and just God?  The popular\nview, reflected in the greater portion of the Old Testament, was that\nsuffering was always punishment for sin, prosperity reward for piety.\nSuch belief seemed in accord with the righteousness of Jehovah.\nUndoubtedly, exceptions to the rule might be {248} noted, but as long\nas the individual was looked upon simply as an atom in the national\nunit, the apparent inequalities in the fortunes of individuals would\nnot constitute a pressing problem.  When, however, especially through\nthe teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the individual received proper\nrecognition, an experience like that of Job was bound to create\ndifficulties, for the suffering of a righteous man would seem to point\nto unfairness on the part of God.  That this perplexity was felt is\nseen from allusions in the prophetic books.  At last the time came when\na wise man in Israel sought to solve the problem in the light of the\nreligious knowledge he possessed.  The problem, then, discussed by the\nauthor of the book of Job is, How can the sufferings of a righteous man\nbe harmonized with belief in a holy and righteous God?  Various\nsolutions of this problem are suggested in different parts of the book:\n(1) The solution of the prologue--Suffering is a test of character.\n(2) The solution of the friends--Suffering is always punishment for\nsin.  (3) The solution of Job--Job struggles long and persistently with\nthe problem; a few times he seems to have a glimpse of a possible\nstraightening-out of the present inequalities after death, but it is\nonly a glimpse; he always sinks back to a feeling of uncertainty and\nperplexity.  His general attitude is that there must be {249} something\nout of gear in the world, for the righteousness of God cannot be\ndiscerned as things are going now.  (4) The solution of Elihu--Elihu\nagrees with the friends that suffering is closely connected with sin;\nbut he emphasizes more than they the disciplinary purpose of suffering,\nwhich, he points out, is the voice of God warning men to return to Him.\n(5) The solution of Jehovah--The whole universe is an unfathomable\nmystery, in which the evil is no more perplexing than the good.  In the\npresence of all mysteries the proper attitude is one of humble\nsubmission.  (6) The solution of the epilogue--Returns to the opinion\nof the friends, for it teaches that righteousness will sooner or later\nbe rewarded with prosperity even in this world.\n\nIt is chiefly in the solution of this age-long problem suggested by the\nauthor of the book of Job that the real value of the discussion lies.\nThe author nowhere states which of the above-mentioned conclusions he\naccepts as true.  As a result, he has been charged with raising a\nprofound problem, discussing it with relentless logic, and then leaving\nit unsolved.  This, however, is not quite fair to this ancient wise\nman.  \"With a touch too artistic to permit him to descend to a\nhomiletic attitude, the poet has shown that his solution of life's\nproblem is a religious one.  He had portrayed with great power the\ninability of {250} man's mind to comprehend the universe or to\nunderstand why man must suffer; but he makes Job, his hero, find in a\nvision of God the secret of life.  Job's questions remain unanswered,\nbut now that he knows God, he is content to let them remain unanswered.\nHe cannot solve life's riddle, but is content to trust God, of whose\ngoodness he is convinced, and who, Job is sure, knows the answer.  The\npoet has thus taught that it is in the realm of religion, and not in\nthat of the intellect, that the solution of life's mysteries is to be\nfound.\"[21]  Even Christianity has no other solution of the problem to\noffer; it must still insist upon a solution of faith, with a lofty\nconception of God, and a vision of life broad enough to include\neternity, when the apparent inequalities of this life may be adjusted\nby a loving and righteous God.\n\nThe book of Ecclesiastes, dealing with the perplexities of life in\ngeneral, full of pessimism and skepticism, is not without its permanent\nvalue.  The author of the book has passed through many disappointments,\nand his spirit has grown somewhat skeptical and pessimistic.\nEverything has proved vanity: riches, pleasure, honor, even the search\nfor wisdom; and he is not sure concerning his destiny after death.  But\nover against his experiences in life there is a faith in God who\ngoverns the world.  The book, which portrays {251} the struggle between\nexperience and faith, has aptly been called \"a cry for light.\"  The\nauthor does not see the light clearly, though here and there he may\nhave a glimpse of it.  The real perplexity is due to the fact that the\nauthor's horizon is bounded by the grave.  In this life he sees no\nhope, therefore he looks with longing for a possible reckoning in an\nafter life; but it remains a hope and cry, it never grows into a\nconviction.  The more significant is the retention of his faith in God.\nHe is conscious of a moral order in the world, though its operation is\noften frustrated; he is aware of cases in which the God-fearing man had\nan advantage over others.  Hence, with all his uncertainty and doubt,\nhe holds that it is his duty, and the duty of everyone else, to fear\nGod and keep his commandments; God, somehow, will care for the\nmysteries and perplexities of life.  Even the Song of Songs, or Song of\nSolomon, often an object of ridicule, when rightly interpreted, is seen\nto bring suggestive lessons to the present age.  The book owes its\nplace in the canon of Sacred Scripture to the allegorical\ninterpretation given to it from the earliest times.  The Jews\ninterpreted it as picturing the close relation existing between Jehovah\nand Israel; the Christians, as picturing the intimate fellowship\nbetween Christ and his bride, the Church.  At present it is quite\ngenerally held that this interpretation {252} does not do justice to\nthe primary purpose of the book; but as to its original purpose two\ndifferent views are held.  According to both interpretations, the\nsubject of the book is love--human love; the differences of opinion are\nwith reference to the manner in which the subject is treated.  Some\nthink that the book is simply a collection of love or wedding songs,\nall independent of one another.  Others feel that there are too many\nevidences of real unity in it to permit this interpretation; they see\nin the book a didactic drama or melodrama, the aim of the author being\nthe glorification of true human love.\n\nThe drama centers around three principal characters--Solomon, the\nShunammite maiden, and her shepherd lover.  The book relates how the\nmaiden, surprised by the king and his train, was brought to the palace\nin Jerusalem, where the king hoped to win her affections and to induce\nher to exchange her rustic home for the enjoyment and honor the court\nlife affords.  She has, however, already pledged her heart to a young\nshepherd; and the admiration and blandishments which the king lavishes\nupon her are powerless to make her forget him.  In the end she is\npermitted to return to her mountain home, where at the close of the\npoem the lovers appear hand in hand and express, in warm, glowing\nwords, the superiority of genuine spontaneous {253} affection.  The\nreal aim of the book, therefore, seems to be to glorify true love, and\nmore specifically, true betrothed love, which remains steadfast even in\nthe most dangerous and most seductive situations.\n\nIn this age, when the responsibility of the individual Christian and of\nthe Christian Church toward the practical, social, religious, and moral\nproblems and evils is recognized more than at any other previous time,\nthe prophetic literature is worthy of the most careful study on the\npart of all Christians who recognize and who are willing to meet their\nobligations to their day and generation.  The prophets of old met in\nthe strength of God, and at the divine impulse, the problems and evils\nof their own age.  They had to face the problems of materialism and\ncommercialism; the evils resulting from the accumulation of wealth,\npower, and resources in the hands of a few; very serious economic\nproblems; cruelty, oppression, arrogance on the part of the rich\nproprietors; corruption in government and in the administration of\njustice; they had to grapple with a cold, heartless formalism that\nthreatened to destroy pure, spiritual religion.  Against these evils\nand wrongs the prophets of old raised their hands and voices.  \"When\nthe old tribal customs and bonds were weakened by the growth of cities\nand the cultivation of commerce they saw that {254} society must be set\nupon a moral basis or suffer destruction.  When the nation itself was\nabout to be broken to pieces they saw in this a call for a deeper\nspiritual life....  They were interested in politics, but not as a\nprofession in which to show their skill, or out of which they might\ngain wealth or glory.  Politics for them meant simply the life of the\nnation in its relation to God and to the great outside world.  They\nwere social reformers.  To the earlier prophets man was regarded always\nas a member of society rather than as an independent individual....  In\nopposition to a showy ritual, they set up their demands for justice\nbetween man and man.\"[22]  Surely, it is a part of the Christian's duty\nto do his share toward a Christian solution of the social and religious\nproblems of our day.  We can hardly claim to have reached the full\nstature of Christian manhood or womanhood until we have acquired the\nknowledge and power to cope with these difficulties in the spirit of\nthe Master and with the methods best adapted to the Christianizing of\nmodern society.  In these our efforts to lift humanity nearer to God,\nor to bring God nearer to humanity, we may learn much from the prophets\nof old.\n\nTo sum up the results of our study: As Christians we may find our\nloftiest inspiration in the study of the life, the character, and the\nteachings {255} of the Master, and of the words of his disciples.  But\nthe New Testament is little more than a quarter of the Bible.  In the\npreceding pages the attempt has been made to emphasize the permanent\nvalue of the larger division of the Sacred Book.  It has been carefully\nscrutinized, tested in furnaces heated seven times, but out of the fire\nit has come bearing the stamp of God, testifying more confidently than\never before that God in olden times spake unto the fathers, and that in\nits pages may be found records and interpretations of these\nrevelations.  The features of the Old Testament which assure to it a\npermanent place in religious thought and life may be briefly indicated\nas follows:\n\nThe Old Testament will always prove attractive as literature.  The more\nwe know of other literatures of antiquity, the more evident it becomes\nthat even from the literary viewpoint the Old Testament is far superior\nto any other literary remains of ancient civilization.  \"If the\ninimitable freshness of life is preserved in Homer, it is not less\npreserved in the epic stories of the Old Testament; while the still\nmore intangible simplicity of the idyl is found perfect in Ruth and\nTobit, the orations of Deuteronomy are as noble models as the orations\nof Cicero.  Read by the side of the poetry of the Psalms, the lyrics of\nPindar seem almost provincial.  The imaginative poetry of {256} the\nGreeks is perfect in its own sphere, but by the Hebrew prophets as bold\nan imagination is carried into the mysteries of the spiritual world.\nIf the philosophy of Plato and his successors has a special interest as\nthe starting point for a progression of thought still going on as\nmodern science, yet the field of biblical wisdom offers an attraction\nof a different kind, in a progression of thought which has run its full\nround and has reached a position of rest....  And in the inner circle\nof the world's masterpieces, in which all kinds of literary influences\nmeet, the Bible has placed Job, the Isaiahan Rhapsody, ... unsurpassed\nand unsurpassable.\"[23]\n\nFrom the standpoint of history the Old Testament still occupies, and\never will occupy, a unique position.  Important as are the\ncontributions of archaeology, the student of ancient history can by no\nmeans spare the testimony of the Bible.  The Old Testament is still the\nmain source of information for the national history of the Hebrew\npeople, and it is and will remain a very important secondary source for\nthe history of the surrounding nations.  It also retains a unique place\nin the history of religion, for without it the religious development of\nthe Jews could not be traced; and since the Jewish religion is the\nfoundation upon which Christianity was developed, ignorance of that\nearlier religion [257] would prove a serious handicap to the student of\nChristianity.\n\nThe Old Testament will always be of value because of its intimate\nconnection with the New.  From the purely linguistic standpoint a\nknowledge of the former is essential for an understanding of the\nlatter.  New Testament modes of thought and expression are inexplicable\nwithout a study of the Old.  There are many passages in the New\nTestament taken from the Old and referring back to it which cannot be\nproperly understood unless we examine them in their original context.\nBut the connection is even more vital, for in a very real sense the new\ndispensation has its roots in the old.  It is one kingdom of God that\nis the subject of the history in both, and the Bible as a whole can\nnever be rightly understood until the two Testaments are comprehended\nin their unity and harmony, for they are joined in inseparable unity in\nChrist himself.\n\nMost important of all, the Old Testament retains, and ever will retain,\na unique religious value.  It will ever be important in the field of\ndoctrine.  True, the New Testament is the primary source for the\ndoctrines of Christianity, but there are some things which the New\nTestament takes for granted, and for which we must turn to the Old.\nWill the revelation of the nature and character of God contained in the\nOld Testament {258} ever lose its doctrinal value?--God, a spirit,\npersonal, with a clearly defined moral character, in his mercy\ncondescending to enter into covenant relations with his creatures,\nloving man and desiring to be loved by him, his anger aroused by sin,\nbut gracious toward the repenting sinner?  Again, have those early\nchapters of Genesis lost their doctrinal value?  Has anyone supplied a\nsubstitute for the simple \"In the beginning God created heaven and\nearth\"?\n\nThe Old Testament is of permanent religious value because of its keen\ninsight into human nature.  The Bible has been called \"the family album\nof the Holy God\"; we might compare it, rather, to a picture gallery.\nWhat a variety!  Everywhere we see them flesh and blood!  Why is it\nthey impress us so?  Is it not because the pictures are so true to\nhuman nature that in spite of the difference in time, place, and\ncircumstances they may serve even us as mirrors?\n\nThe Old Testament will always deserve study from the religious\nstandpoint, because of the ideal of character it sets before us.  \"It\npresents to our souls characters that are supremely worthy of our\nreverence because consciously centered in God and full of his power.\nIt permits us to share the enthusiasm of the men who discovered the\nfundamentals of our religion and the character of our God.  It is\nindispensable to complete the {259} discipleship of Christ, because it\nis the creator of the mold which his soul expanded.\"[24]  Its types of\ncharacter may lack the finer graces, yet they are types we may do well\nto imitate.  Will the lives of Abraham, Joseph, Samuel, Elijah, David,\nand many others ever lose their lessons?  What sublime ideals even the\nChristian minister may find in the lives of the prophets!\n\nWill we ever get beyond the moral duties which are, according to the\nOld Testament, obligatory upon man?  Purity of thought, sincerity of\nmotive, singleness of purpose, truthfulness, honesty, justice,\ngenerosity, love--these are some of the virtues which again and again\nare in the strongest language insisted upon in the pages of the Old\nBook.  Indeed, the Old Testament emphasizes the loftiest ideals of\nhuman life and society, anticipating the time when in all the world the\nuniversal Fatherhood of God and the common brotherhood of man would be\nrealized.  In an editorial in the Expository Times, commenting upon a\npaper read before the First International Moral Education Congress, are\nfound these suggestive words: \"It is when the teaching of the Old\nTestament is simple, frank, and historical that it becomes the best\ntext-book of ethics in the world, for it possesses these two\nincomparable advantages--it is full of humanity, and it is full of\nvariety.  The epics of Joseph and David, the {260} tragedies of Elijah\nand Isaiah have an undying charm.  And the examples are varied as they\nare interesting.  It offers examples of almost every stage of moral\ndevelopment.  Whatever the pupil's moral attitude, there is some Jewish\nhero that appeals to him.  That hero's actions can be traced to their\nmotives and followed to their consequences.  He can be treated with\nsympathy in so far as he attains the standard of his times, and yet\ncriticized in so far as his motives are not those which we recognize as\nabsolute.  So the pupil may learn at once to appropriate those _media\naxiamata_ which fit him, and yet realize that there is something beyond\nand above them.\"[25]\n\nThe Old Testament is of permanent significance because of its\ninsistence on pure and spiritual religion, and its condemnation of all\ncold and external formalism.  These words of the prophet Isaiah imply a\nlofty conception of true religion: \"What unto me is the multitude of\nyour sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the\nburnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not\nin the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.  When ye come to\nappear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my\ncourts?  Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto\nme; new moon and sabbath, the calling of {261} assemblies--I cannot\naway with iniquity and the solemn meeting.  Your new moons and your\nappointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary\nof bearing them.  And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine\neyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your\nhands are full of blood.  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil\nof your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do\nwell; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead\nfor the widow.\"[26]  And the prophetic definition of religion, \"He hath\nshowed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of\nthee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with\nthy God?\"[27] is in no wise inferior to that given in the New\nTestament: \"Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is\nthis, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to\nkeep oneself unspotted from the world.\"[28]\n\nFinally, how can we estimate highly enough the devotional value of the\nOld Testament as illustrated, for example, in the book of Psalms?  Here\nwe have the outpourings of human souls in the closest fellowship with\ntheir God, giving without restraint expression to the most various\nemotions, hopes, desires, and aspirations.  What other literary\ncompositions lift us into such atmosphere of religious thought and\nemotion?  {262} Surely, the sweet singers enjoy a preeminence from\nwhich they can never be dethroned.\n\nIt is quite safe, therefore, to assert, that as long as human nature is\nwhat it is now the Old Testament must remain an ever-flowing fountain\nof living truth, able to invigorate and to restore, to purify and to\nrefine; to ennoble and to enrich the moral and spiritual being of man.\n\"No man,\" says A. W. Vernon,[29] \"save Jesus, ever had the right to lay\nthe Book ... aside, and he made it immortal.\"\n\n\nNOTES ON CHAPTER VI\n\n[1] J. C. Todd, Politics and Religion in \"Ancient Israel, p. vii.\n\n[2] The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament, p. 7.\n\n[3] Contemporary Review, August, 1889, p. 232.\n\n[4] C. F. Kent, The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament,\npp. 5ff.\n\n[5] Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 6.\n\n[6] See above, p. 79.\n\n[7] Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 230.\n\n[8] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xlii.\n\n[9] A. Westphal, The Law and the Prophets, p. 43.\n\n[10] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. lxx.\n\n[11] W. W. White, Studies in Old Testament Characters, p. 14.\n\n[12] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. lxviii.\n\n[13] Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 335.\n\n[14] Matt. 5. 17.\n\n{263}\n\n[15] These words of Johannes Arnd are used by Franz Delitzsch as the\nmotto for his Commentary on the Psalms.\n\n[16] Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter XXXVII, 2.\n\n[17] The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. 18.\n\n[18] J. T. Marshall, Job and His Comforters, p. 4.\n\n[19] For example, 3. 5-7; 16. 3, 6, 9; 23. 17.\n\n[20] W. T. Davison, The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, pp.\n134, 135.\n\n[21] G. A. Barton, The Book of Job, p. 12.\n\n[22] W. G. Jordan, Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, pp. 284, 285.\n\n[23] Richard G. Moulton, The Modern Reader's Bible, One Vol. ed., p. x.\n\n[24] A. W. Vernon, The Religious Value of the Old Testament, p. 80.\n\n[25] Expository Times, November, 1908, pp. 54, 55.\n\n[26] Isa. 1. 11-17.\n\n[27] Mic. 6. 8.\n\n[28] James 1. 27.\n\n[29] The Religious Value of the Old Testament, p. 81.\n\n\n\n\n{264}\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbraham, 238.\n\nAdad-nirari IV, 134.\n\nAhab, 131 ff.\n\nAngels, 182 f.\n\nAnimism, 165 f., 169 f.\n\nAppeal to the soul, 30 ff.\n\nArchaeological material, 123 f.\n\nArchaeology, 110 ff.\n\nAshurbanipal, 140.\n\nAssumption versus knowledge, 217 ff.\n\nAuthorship, of Pentateuch, 88 f.; other books, 89 f.\n\n\nBabylon, fall of, 141.\n\nBenefits of criticism, 105 ff.\n\nBible and Reason, 33 f.\n\nBible lands, 111.\n\nBlack Obelisk, 133 f.\n\n\nCanon, 86 f.\n\nCeremonial system, 178 ff.\n\nCharacter study, 238, 258 f.\n\nChristian consciousness, 36.\n\nComparative religion, 160 ff.\n\nComparative study, 160 ff.; aim, 160; attitude toward, 161 f.;\nimportance, 164\n\nCompilation, 87 f.\n\nComposition, 21-23.\n\nConfirmations, 156.\n\nConflict between science and Genesis, 41 ff.\n\nContrasts, 221 f.\n\nCosmology of appearances, 59 f.\n\nCreation, 41 ff.; story of, 201 ff.; permanent value, 235 f.\n\nCriticism, 66 ff.; benefits, 105 ff.; definition, 67 f.; Jesus and c.,\n92 ff.; inspiration and c., 98 ff., 105.\n\nCyrus, 141.\n\n\nDavid, 104.\n\nDay of Creation, 45 f.\n\nDecalogue, 199, 214 ff.\n\nDeity, conception of, 165 ff., 206 f., 212; Babylonian, 165-169,\nEgyptian, 169, Hebrew, 169-172; Character of D., 173 ff.\n\nDemons, 183 f.\n\nDevotional literature, 17 f., 242 f.\n\nDivine element, 26 ff.\n\nDoctrinal value, 257 f.\n\n\nEcclesiastes, 250 f.\n\nElephantine, 141.\n\nEponym lists, 153.\n\nEsarhaddon, 140.\n\nExcavations, 112 ff.; Assyrio-Babylonia, 112-116; Egypt, 116-118;\nPalestine, 118-121; Phoenicia, 121; Moab, 121; Syria, 121; Asia Minor,\n121 f.\n\nExile, 141.\n\nExodus, 128 f.\n\n\nFacts versus inferences, 144 f.\n\nFall, 213.\n\nFestivals, 178.\n\nFlood, 207 ff.\n\nFulfillment of prophecy, 28 f.\n\n\nGains from excavations, 151 ff.; chronology, 152 f., 155; geography,\n151 f.; history, 152.\n\nGilgamesh, 208.\n\n\nHammurabi, code of, 188 ff.\n\nHarmonizing science with scripture, 45 ff.\n\nHarmony between science and Genesis, 61 f.\n\nHezekiah, 138 f.\n\nHigher criticism, 73 ff.; definition, 76; extra-biblical, 76 f.;\ntradition and h. c., 77; importance, 78 f.; origin, 79 ff.; reformers\nand h. c., 80 f.; loyalty to Christ and h. c., 82 f.; traditional, 83;\nnon-traditional, 83 ff.; conclusions, 85 ff.; illegitimate, 101 f.;\nJesus and h. c., 92 ff.; inspiration and h. c., 98 ff.; Moses and h.\nc., 102 f.; Isaiah and h. c., 103 f.; David and h. c., 104.\n\nHistorical criticism, 72 f.\n\nHistorical literature, 19 f., 240 ff., 256 f.\n\nHuman element, 20 ff.\n\n\nIdeal harmony, 52.\n\nIllegitimate criticism, 101 f.\n\nImperfections, 24 f.\n\nInaccuracies, 23 f., 55 ff.\n\nInfallibility, 38 f.\n\nInferences versus facts, 144 f.\n\nInspiration and criticism 98 ff., 105.\n\nInterpretation, 39 f., 45 ff.\n\nIsaiah, 103 f.\n\n\nJehu, 134.\n\nJesus, the supreme revealer, 35 ff.; limitation of knowledge, 97 f.;\ncriticism and J., 92 ff.; the Old Testament and Jesus, 9 f., 26, 36 f.,\n234.\n\nJob, 247-250.\n\n\nKnowledge versus assumption, 217 ff.\n\n\nLegal literature, 18 f.\n\nLegal system, Babylonian, 187 ff.; Hebrew, 195 f.; relation between the\ntwo, 199 f.\n\nLinguistic criticism, 70 f.\n\nLiterary criticism, 71 f.\n\nLiterature, kinds of, 15 ff., 90.\n\n\nMerneptah, 128 f.\n\nMiracles, 27 f.\n\nMission of Israel, 60 f.\n\nMisuse, 231 f.\n\nMoabite Stone, 130 ff.\n\nMonotheism, 167 f., 218 f.\n\nMonotheistic tendencies, 167-169.\n\nMoral teaching, 259.\n\nMoses, 102 f.\n\n\nNature of Old Testament, 12 f.\n\nNebuchadrezzar, 140 f.\n\nNeglect, 227 f.; causes of, 229-233.\n\nNew Testament, superiority, 229 f., 254 f.; estimate of O. T., 10 f.\n\n\nOld Testament, nature, 12 f.; reliability, 150 f.; as literature, 255\nf.; in Christian church, 9; New Testament estimate of, 10 f.; Old\nTestament and interpretation of New Testament, 257; Jesus and Old\nTestament, 9 f., 26, 36 f., 234.\n\nOmri, 130 f.\n\nOpposition to criticism, 74 f., 82, 101.\n\nOrder of creation, 47 ff.\n\n\nPatriarchal age, 154; narratives, 238 f.\n\nPekah, 135.\n\nPenitential Psalms, 168.\n\nPentateuch, authorship of, 88 f.\n\nPermanent value, 59 ff., 227 ff.\n\nPolydemonism, 171.\n\nPolytheism, 166 ff.\n\nPriesthood, 179 f.\n\nProphecy, fulfilment of, 28 f.\n\nProphetic literature, 15 f., 253 f.\n\nProverbs, 245-247.\n\nPsalms, 242-244, 261.\n\nPurpose of Old Testament, 11 f., 53 ff., 148.\n\n\nReliability, of O. T. history, 150 f.\n\nReligion, development of, 87.\n\nReligious imperfections, 24 f.; r. institutions, 175 ff.\n\nRestitution theory, 48 f.\n\nRevelation, 53 ff.; methods of, 13 f.; progressive, 85 f.\n\n\nSabbath, 175 ff.\n\nSacrifice, 180 f.\n\nSamaria, capture of, 136 f.\n\nSargon II, 136.\n\nScience, 38 ff.\n\nSennacherib, 137 ff.\n\nShalmaneser III, 132 f.\n\nShalmaneser V, 136.\n\nSheol, 184 ff.\n\nShishak, 129 f.\n\nSimilarities, 220.\n\nSong of Songs, 251-253.\n\nSpiritual appeal, 29 ff.; judgment, 35 f.; unity, 29 f.\n\nStyle, 21.\n\n\nTaylor Cylinder, 138 f.\n\nTel-el-Amarna tablets, 125 ff.\n\nTemple, 179.\n\nTextual criticism, 68 ff., 74.\n\nTiglath-pileser IV, 134 ff.\n\nTirhaka, 139 f.\n\nTithe, 180.\n\nTrue religion, 260 f.\n\n\nUniqueness, 32 f.\n\nUnity, 29 f.\n\nUnrest, 42 ff., 232.\n\nUse of archaeological material, 143 ff.\n\n\nVeracity of inscriptions, 145 f.\n\nView point, 149 f.\n\nVision theory, 50 f.\n\n\nWisdom literature, 16 f., 244 ff.\n\n\nYahweh, 171 ff., 217.\n\nYaudi, 135.","title":"The Christian View of the Old Testament","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":59905}