| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Dead Men Tell Tales
Author: Rimmer, Harry
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Dead Men Tell Tales" ***
[Illustration: Anthropoid Sarcophagus, or Cartonnage]
Dead Men Tell Tales
by
HARRY RIMMER, D. D., Sc. D.
_With 37 Plate Illustrations in the Text_
_Eleventh Edition_
_Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co._
_Grand Rapids, Michigan_
Dead Men Tell Tales
BY HARRY RIMMER, D.D., SC.D.
_Copyright 1939 by
Research Science Bureau, Incorporated
Printed in the United States of America
All rights in this book are reserved
No part of the book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission.
For information address the publishers._
ELEVENTH EDITION
FOREWORD
In an older generation, especially among the writers of the more lurid
types of fiction, it was an accepted axiom that “Dead men tell no
tales!” But this was before the great era of modern archeology had
impressed its findings on the general public, and indeed before most of
those discoveries had been made.
Our generation knows better. Dead men _do_ tell tales, and marvelous and
wonderful are the stories they bring to us. By means of an archeological
resurrection, the great men of antiquity are with us again. Once more we
hear the accounts of their fascinating lives and adventures, and read
again the records of their culture. The tongueless tombs of the distant
past have suddenly become vocal, and this mighty chorus of the dead
great has forced us to revise many of our once cherished opinions.
Nowhere is this more strikingly true than in the case of the coincidence
of these old ages with the page of the Holy Bible. The richest finds of
archeology come to us from the very periods of history that are dealt
with in the pages of Holy Writ, and names that were known only from the
record of the Scripture are now the common possession of the scholarly
world. So much is this the case, that we have a new technique of Bible
study in our day. Just as the microscope is the instrument for the study
of biology, and the spectroscope has become the means of study in
physics, so the Bible is best read today in the light that is reflected
upon its pages from the blade of a spade! This, of course, is intended
to apply to the historical sections of the Book, and refers to the
problem of its authenticity and historicity. It still remains true that
_spiritual_ understanding of its message can be derived only from study
that is supervised and directed by the Holy Spirit.
This volume, the fourth in the promised series to be known as the
“JOHN LAURENCE FROST
MEMORIAL LIBRARY”
will deal with some of those fascinating discoveries that bear
particularly on the problem of the Old Testament. The succeeding and
companion volume, which will be entitled “Crying Stones,” will deal in
like manner with the records of the New Testament.
The material contained in this apologetic is derived from various
sources. Much of it came from records in the famed British Museum, in
London, England. This marvelous storehouse of treasure from the most
remote antiquity is the greatest collection of evidence bearing upon
these questions, that is at present in the possession of man. There is
scarcely a section of the Bible that does not receive some
authentication from the limitless wealth of this noble treasury.
A great deal of the remainder of this information and proof has been
derived from other museums, such as the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, Egypt,
and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Much of the contents
of this book has come from the excavations now in progress in Egypt, and
from the ruins at Sakkara, Luxor, Karnak, Iraq, and other centers of
present activity. The earth seems eager indeed to offer its treasures of
proof concerning the Word of God.
The author is especially grateful for the help accorded to him in Egypt
by Mr. and Mrs. Erian Boutros of Cairo, and by certain officials of the
Egyptian government, chief of whom in helpfulness was M. Abdul Nabi, and
the Egyptian Tourist Bureau, whose gracious efforts on our behalf won us
many privileges from the Department of Antiquities.
The illustrations used in this volume are largely from the author’s own
photographs of exhibits and evidences, made by him and presented with
the assurance that they are not retouched or altered in any manner. In
the course of his studies and travels in search of this material, he
made hundreds of negatives, only a few of which appear in this work. The
exceptions to this are noted where they appear. The zinc etchings are
made from original drawings by Miss Elizabeth Elverhoy from our
photographs, and are authentic in all details.
We hand you now Tales of Dead Men, rendered by Men Long Dead, as they
unconsciously accredit the sacred page of the Word of God. If you have a
tithe of the pleasure and profit in the reading of these pages that we
have experienced in the gathering of their contents, we shall be repaid
for the labor involved.
CONTENTS
Chapter I The Premise Stated 13
Chapter II The Tides of Culture 37
Chapter III Converging Streams of Revelation and History 55
Chapter IV Modern Science and the Ten Plagues of Egypt 85
Chapter V Sources 125
Chapter VI Fragments 163
Chapter VII The Rebirth of an Empire 195
Chapter VIII The Resurrection of Edom 225
Chapter IX The Brazen Shields of Rehoboam 247
Chapter X Mingled Voices 269
Chapter XI Vindication of Daniel 317
Bibliography 349
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Anthropoid Sarcophagus, or Cartonnage Frontispiece
Egyptians at a wine orgy Facing Page 32
Crude hieroglyphics on an ancient statue 33
Example of embellished statue 40
Colossi at Luxor 41
The Sheltered Wife 41
Khnum and Thoth in Creation Tradition 56
Colossi of Karnak 64
Colossi of Luxor 64
Colossi of Amen-Hetep III guarding Valley of Kings 65
At Tomb of Tutanhkamen 65
Open burial 72
Mural from an ancient tomb: Butchers at work 73
The god Hapi drawing the Two Kingdoms into one 73
Mace-head in British Museum 128
Cuneiform writing and sculpture on stone weapon 129
Ancient seals depicting historic events 136
Section of funerary papyrus, showing progress of the soul 137
Herds of cattle, such as Hyksos kings possessed 160
Ancient mural: Slaughter of cattle 161
Papyrus showing capture of quail 161
Cartonnage in the anthropoid sarcophagus 168
Outside and inside writings and decorations on anthropoid
sarcophagus 169
Detailed study of outside and inside of anthropoid coffin 176
Outside of rectangular coffin covered with writings 176
Murals and frescoes from tomb walls 177
Commemorative stele 184
Ancient boundary markers 185
Stone ouches, or door-sockets 192
The famed Black Obelisk, which confirmed record of Jehu 193
Hamath inscription 195
Small ivory lion from Ahab’s palace 200
Fragmentary frieze showing ancient chariots 201
Hittite inscription 208
Egyptian funerary papyri 209
Monuments of Petra, showing ruins from one direction 216
Monuments of Petra, looking in opposite direction 217
The rough approach to Petra 240
Approaching Petra by way of the main siq 241
“El Kahzne”, the Temple of the Urn 248
Building carved from living stone 249
El Deir 256
Additional view of El Deir 257
En route to the “High Place” 264
The Altar of Sacrifice 265
CHAPTER I
The Premise Stated
In the romantic vocabulary of the twentieth century few words are more
potent to arouse the interest of the average man than the fascinating
word “archeology.” A flood of volumes has come forth from the press of
our generation covering almost every phase of this now popular science.
After one hundred years of steady plodding and determined digging, this
school of research has at last come into its own and today occupies
deserved prominence in the world of current literature. This science,
which deals exclusively with dead races and the records of their conduct
is, to many, the most fascinating field of investigation at present open
to the inquiring mind of man. Nothing is of such interest to the human
as is humanity. The study of the life and record of our own kind rightly
means more to us than can most other subjects.
But the true appreciation of the value of the contribution of archeology
to our modern learning can be appreciated only by those who grasp an
outstanding fact that should be self-apparent, but is so often
overlooked: Namely, these records derived from musty tombs and burial
mounds constitute the daily events in the lives of _human beings_! The
folks who left these records were ordinary people such as make up the
nations of the earth today. They are not merely names on tablets or
faces carved in stone. They were actual flesh-and-blood individuals with
all that this implies. In hours of merriment they laughed, and they shed
tears in moments of sorrow. They hungered, and ate for satisfaction;
they drank when they were thirsty. They loved and they hated; they lived
and they died. Pleasure and pain were their alternating companions,
while ambition, aspiration, and hope drove them on the endless round of
their daily tasks.
In a word, they were _real_. Their life was as important to them as is
your life, and they lived it in much the same way. Therefore, the
records written by humans and studied by their kind, who now live these
thousands of years later, constitute the source of the most human
science with which our generation has to deal.
The contributions of archeology have reached almost every branch of
study, but to no particular group of people have they been more timely
and valuable than to students of the Bible. The hoary antiquity of the
Book which has been received in every generation by the intelligent and
the discerning as the Word of God, has its roots in the same generations
that archeology is investigating today. It is inevitable that much of
the material being recovered by modern excavations shall have important
bearing upon the various questions skepticism may raise concerning the
text of the Scripture.
To the open-minded scholar who approaches this subject without
prejudice, the science of archeology has a twofold contribution to make.
Some of the evidences derived from digging are (a) of incalculable value
in illuminating the text of the Scripture, and are (b) equally priceless
when viewed as a body of indisputable evidence. Under this latter
heading the proofs would come into four classifications:
1. The historicity of the text
2. The accuracy of the account
3. The authenticity of the record
4. The inspiration of the whole
By way of illustrating the manner in which the Scripture may be
illumined by the findings of archeology, we would introduce a
semi-humorous and partially tragic event that occurred in the dim and
distant days of our own earlier studies. During a short term spent at a
well known California college, we were specializing in the field of
history. The teacher of this course, Professor Rosenberger, was one of
the ablest pedagogues who ever wasted her life in the more or less
important task of teaching a rising generation how to think! At the end
of the first few weeks in a class in English history, she informed the
student group that the following day we would be privileged to have a
test in this particular subject. When the class gathered for the happy
event, there were twenty questions written on the board which were to
constitute our examination.
The first question was something like this, “What new treaty had just
been signed between France and Spain at this particular period?”
The next question had to do with the political commitments of the Holy
Roman Empire.
The third question took us into the Germanic states, and in all of the
twenty questions not one word concerning England was mentioned!
As the class sat with the usual and habitual expression of vacuity which
generally adorns the countenance of a college student facing a quiz, the
Professor said, “You may begin.”
Some hapless wight procured the courage to protest, by saying, “But you
said this was to be an examination in English history!”
The Professor replied, “Quite so! This _is_ English history!”
Then leaning forward over the desk she said, in impressive tones, “How
can you expect to know what England is doing, and why, if you do not
know the pressure upon her of her enemies and friends at that particular
period?”
A long distance back in our mental vacuum a dim light began to glow, and
we never were caught that way again! When the teacher said French
history, we read everything else! When she said German history, we
specialized on the surrounding countries. One day as we were thinking
over this helpful technique of understanding, the idea began to grow
that if this was the proper way to study secular history, _it ought to
apply to Bible study as well_!
There is an illumination that brightens the meaning of the Sacred Text
when read in the light of collateral events that can come no other way.
As an instance of this, we will remind the reader of the background of
Isaiah. When this prophet first began to write, there was trouble
between Israel, the northern confederation, and Judah, the southern
kingdom. The king of Israel at this time was Pekah, the son of Remaliah,
and although his people were numerically superior to Judah, he was
fearful that he might not be strong enough to overcome the southern
kingdom in the threatened war. Therefore, he made a close alliance with
Rezin, the king of Syria, promising him all the spoils of the battle, if
he would aid with his army and strength. The Syrian king hastened to
accept this offer, and signed the required covenant. When this alliance
became known in Judah, a natural alarm spread throughout the tiny
kingdom. Realizing that they were incapable of resisting the strong
forces of Israel and Syria which had combined against them, the princes
of Judah desired outside help. The only apparent source of such
assistance was Egypt. So in the court of Ahaz, the king of Judah, a
strong party began agitating for a military alliance with Egypt. That
being the only apparent aid within any reasonable distance, it seemed
natural to turn to them for a military alliance.
The prophet Isaiah, who was a strong force and exercised a vital
influence in the policies of Judah, began to object most strenuously. In
the light of this background, we can understand such outbursts of Isaiah
as are found in the thirtieth chapter of his prophecy, verses one to
three:
“Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel,
but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit,
that they may add sin to sin:
“That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to
strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the
shadow of Egypt!
“Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust
in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.”
His protest seems to reach a climax in the thirty-first chapter in that
magnificently written plea for faith in God which we find in these
graphic words:
“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and
trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because
they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel,
neither seek the Lord!
“Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his
words: but will arise against the house of the evil doers, and against
the help of them that work iniquity.
“Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and
not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that
helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they
all shall fail together.”
All through this period of prophecy, Isaiah’s voice is aggressively
raised against the folly of trusting Egypt. His protest is, “Since God
redeemed us once from bondage in that land, why put ourselves back again
under their yoke?”
The princes replied in some such terms as this: “The objection is o. k.
_in principle_; as a basic thesis we will admit that it is safe to trust
in God. But right now we need real help and we need it in a hurry.”
The prophet cried out in response, “God will send the help that you
need!”
The natural question was “Whence? Syria and Egypt are the only two
powers near us. One is arrayed against us and the help of the other you
forbid us to seek. Whence then is the aid that God will send?”
The prophet’s reply was short and terse, “God will send aid from very
far off.”
The reluctant court agreed to take a chance on Isaiah’s insistence, and
so to trust their cause to the God of Israel. Quickly, then, upon the
heels of this decision, as we learn from the records of archeology,
there came one of the earlier battles that were fought at Charchemish.
The rising power of Assyria first made itself felt in that engagement.
As a result, Syria was shattered and Israel made captive. The help that
God had promised did come, and now the definite prophecy of Isaiah, in
chapters seven and eight, may be correlated into this simple summary;
and against this background we can understand the vehemence of Isaiah in
crying out against an alliance with Egypt.
It is not too much to say, as we shall later show in detail, that in our
present possession there is sufficient knowledge derived from the
monuments and records of antiquity to authenticate every prophecy that
Isaiah made concerning Egypt, Israel, Syria, and Assyria. Thus the text
of the Old Testament is illumined, and a floodlight of understanding
thrown upon its prophetic utterance by the findings in this field.
Even more striking is the contribution of archeology in the second
field, that of evidence in defense of the accepted text. The museums,
monuments, and libraries of the world are teeming with such evidences,
and it shall be the purpose of this volume to condense, epitomize, and
present much of that evidence in a simple and readable form, divorced
from technical obscurities. Right here, however, we offer just one
simple illustration under each of the subdivisions suggested in the
paragraph above.
To demonstrate the evidence of the Bible’s historicity, we shall offer
the illustration made famous by the late Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, as to
the record of the forty-seven kings of antiquity. It is probably known
to the reader that the historical sections of the Old Testament contain
the names of forty-seven kings, aside from the rulers of Israel and
Judah. These foreign, or Gentile kings, have been known by name for many
centuries to every reader of the Old Testament.
The odd thing is that until comparatively recent times, these names had
been dropped out of secular history. Mighty as these men had each been
in his day, they were completely forgotten by posterity and for some
twenty-three hundred years their names were unknown to the scholars of
secular events. For this reason the learned leaders of “higher
criticism” relegated these forty-seven monarchs to the columns of
mythology. They were grouped among “the fables and folklore of the Old
Testament” which this deluded school mistakenly taught was one of the
basic weaknesses of the text. Then one after another these disputed
monarchs began to rise from the dead in an archeological resurrection.
In some cases a burial mound was uncovered; in others, an annalistic
tablet, a boundary marker, or a great building inscribed with the
monarch’s name. Now, all forty-seven of these presumably fabulous
characters have been transferred from the columns of “mythology” to the
accepted records of established history.
In forty-seven specific instances, as these kings rose from the dead
past, they were recognized, as their names were not strange to true
historians. Each was remembered from his appearance in the page of the
Old Testament which had preserved his memory with accuracy. Thus, in
this simple instance there are forty-seven definite and specific
evidences of the complete historicity of the text.
To stress this point, the accuracy of the record, we shall cite a
semi-humorous illustration. The great Greek historian, Herodotus, who is
supposed to be the “Father of History,” wrote some more or less accurate
observations concerning the land of Egypt. Among other things, he said
that the Egyptians grew no grapes and drank no wine.
There was another ancient who preceded this historian by many centuries,
who also wrote voluminously about Egypt and her customs. This was the
man Moses, who being reared in the bosom of the royal family as the
crown prince and heir apparent, might be presumed to know considerably
more about Egyptian customs than any casual visitor. Moses stated that
the Egyptians _did_ grow grapes and that they _did_ drink wine. In fact,
he recounts that Joseph was in jail with the chief cupbearer of Pharaoh,
the butler whose business was the purveying of wine to the royal table.
It may be remembered that in the butler’s dream he saw himself _standing
by the vine, squeezing the grapes into the cup_.
This brought these two authorities into sharp opposition. Since
Herodotus was supposed to be the final authority on matters of
antiquity, the critics fell upon this discrepancy with considerable
glee. The argument might still be going on, if it were not for the
discovery of an unquestionable bit of evidence among the frescoes that
decorate the tombs of Egyptian antiquity. These frescoes showed the
Egyptians engaged in the art of viticulture. In some of these pictures
they were dressing and pruning the vines, cultivating and tending their
crop. In others of the pictures they were seen to be gathering the
grapes and conveying them to the press. The ingenious method of
extracting the juice was clearly portrayed in these illuminating
frescoes, which showed the juice being stored in stone jugs, clay pots,
and skin bottles for future use. Since the ancients called any fruit
juice that was used for drinking purposes by the name of wine, whether
it was fresh or sweet, it is highly probable that some of this juice was
drunk in an unfermented condition.
However, one of the murals depicted an Egyptian party gathered around
the banquet board, making merry with the juice of the grape (See
Plate 1). The incidental evidences show very clearly that the juice was
fermented. Off in the corner, the picture depicts a noble lady who is
portrayed with her slave holding a silver bowl, while she gave up the
excess fluids that had evidently disagreed with the more commendable
parts of the banquet! Another of these murals showed the morning light
coming into such a banqueting hall, as the slaves were all carrying
their masters home; with the exception of one inebriate who had slid
under the table and had evidently been overlooked in the excitement!
Did the Egyptians grow grapes and drink wine?
Herodotus said “No.”
Moses said “Yes.”
The critics, to their later embarrassment, lined up solidly with
Herodotus.
But since archeology has accredited the accuracy of Moses, this argument
is no longer heard in the halls of learning.
When we come to the question of authenticity, we shall later give many
evidences that none of the records of the Bible, either the Old
Testament or the New, are, in any sense of the word, forgeries. They are
uniformly authentic in that they were written by the men whose names
they bear.
A classical illustration of this is found in the fact that Sir William
Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists of our generation, began his
work in his early days under the bias of the critical position that Luke
was not the author of either the Gospel that bears his name or the book
of the Acts of the Apostles. After forty years of research in Asia
Minor, Sir William Ramsay himself discovered the evidence that converted
him personally to the orthodox and historical view, and demonstrated
conclusively that Luke unquestionably wrote the two books that are
accredited to him. As we shall deal with this matter more extensively in
the fifth volume of this series, we pass on to the present cause of
modern controversy, namely, the inspiration of the text.
The fact of inspiration is stated so often by the writers of the
Scripture that we must accept their explanation of the origin of these
pages, or else classify them as the most consistent liars that humanity
has ever produced. They claim a supernatural guidance by the Holy Ghost
which has kept their records free from error or discrepancy. For one who
has examined and analyzed the Scripture in the unprejudiced light of
archeology, this claim is vindicated at every turn of the spade.
A simple illustration of the manner in which our science does show the
inspiration of the Scripture, may be found from the prophetic sections
of the Old Testament. In the days of Isaiah and his fellow prophets, the
capital of Egypt was the city of No. It is also called Amon, and
sometimes, No-Amon. It was a populous city of wealth and culture, being
the center of learning, as well as the seat of government. In a day when
Egypt dominated the world and No-Amon was the mistress of antiquity,
obscure Hebrew prophets raised their voices in denunciation of No in
such arbitrary and extreme statements as are found in the thirtieth
chapter of Ezekiel. Denouncing the sin of Egypt and their repeated
betrayals of Israel, Ezekiel warns Egypt that her land shall be overrun
with fire and sword, and that No-Amon shall be desolate and forsaken.
There must have been a strong element of humor in all of this outcry to
the proud mind of the Egyptian of that day! No-Amon, also called Thebes,
spreading out on both banks of the Nile, in complacent, serene command
of the ancient world, apparently had nothing to fear from the bitter
cries of a prophet of Israel. Yet today the visitor to the site of
Thebes, or No-Amon, to use the more ancient name, is faced with a scene
of desolation that is utterly devoid of any human habitation.
Since it is impossible for the human mind to pick up the curtain of time
and peer ahead into future events, prophecy can derive only from the
Holy Spirit. The work of archeologists in identifying the bleak and
barren site of No-Amon portrays the inspiration of the Scripture. The
proud city is forgotten except for its inscriptions on records of
antiquity and the denunciations to be found in the Word of God. Thus we
have simply illustrated how this dignified and sober science is bringing
to us illumination of the text, together with the evidences of the
HISTORICITY, ACCURACY, AUTHENTICITY, and INSPIRATION of the Bible.
This is eminently fitting, since this peculiar science is most
intimately concerned with the problem of the credibility of the Bible.
The unique and heavenly nature of the Book is in itself a divisive
factor. Multitudes of men and women love it and would die for its
preservation. Indeed, it is no exaggeration of fact to say that
multitudes _have_ died in its defense. There are others who hate the
Book and would go to any length to discredit it, except the extreme
length of martyrdom. It is very natural for men to die for what they
believe, but few men will surrender their lives for what they
disbelieve!
This division is decidedly fitting and proper. Men and women who are
saved by the grace of God recognize the supernatural nature of the Book
that is the means of their redemption. Men and women who are lost,
resent the honesty of that Book in that it condemns their sin and
iniquity.
In our day and age, infidelity has, under the guise of an attempted
scientific refutation, directed its chief argument against the integrity
of the Scripture. Living in an age of science, when all things are again
evaluated in the light of man’s technical knowledge, it is inevitable
that the Bible should come in for this type of investigation. No
exponent of Scripture would wish it otherwise. If the Bible is honestly
examined without prejudice, under any system of truth, it will maintain
its integrity and establish its own supernatural character.
The so-called scientific investigation of the Scripture, however, has
not been made on the basis of credible science. Rather, the prejudiced
enemies have sought to gather from pseudo-scientific claims such help
and hope for their opinions as would bolster their failing school. We
frankly admit that the text of the Bible _does_ refute the fallacies of
men of science. There is a great deal of theoretical speculation
indulged in by men who call themselves scientists, and who march under
the banner of technical learning. In every age, when such fallacious
theories are current, the Bible is necessarily repudiated by the
exponents of those false ideas. Few such men, however, know the Bible,
and their opposition has no lasting effect. This Book does not stand in
_any_ age by human consent, but has been able to maintain itself in
_every_ age by the inherent power of its supernatural character.
The science of archeology has played a great and leading role in
demolishing these fallacies of a pseudo-scientific generation.
As an instance of this, we may note that the theory of organic evolution
is unquestionably incompatible with the record of the Scripture. In the
“dark ages” of biology which began to draw to a close at the beginning
of this present decade, the thoughts of men were so darkened by the
general acceptance of the baseless and unscientific theory of man’s
animal origin, as sadly to handicap capable research and frustrate the
pursuit of real knowledge. We see again, however, that truth, though
crushed to the earth, will rise again. For certainly no one who is
within ten years of being up to date in the facts of biology and the
discoveries of archeology, will contend any longer for the animal origin
of the human species.
The theory cannot be harmonized with the record of the Scripture.
Therefore, in the days of blindness, when this particular theory
possessed the imagination of men, it was used as an argument against the
integrity of the text of the Word of God. This whole problem simmers
down to a simple illustration. In dealing with the origin of man, there
are two horses. The problem of every man is to decide which one he shall
ride. One horse is known by the name of “specific creation,” and the
other is called “organic evolution.”
It is impossible to ride them both at once. In riding two horses at one
time, it is necessary to keep them close together and both going _in the
same direction_. There is no record of anyone who successfully rode two
horses simultaneously when they were headed in _opposite_ directions!
These two premises are irreconcilable. The first is that man was created
in perfection. In the moment of his fiat origin, he was formed by the
hand of God, gifted with all the arts and cultures by a process of
involution. The word “involution” simply means “to come down into.” That
is to say, all of the graces and abilities possessed by man _were
imparted by creation_.
The second theory is that “man has himself consummated a gradual ascent
from a brutish state to our present high and civilized condition.” (If
there were room in such a work as this for sarcasm, we might say that
this is another way of noting that we have left the arrow and the club
for heavy artillery, poison gas and aerial bomb. If one were to wax
facetious, one might be tempted to suggest that if the present condition
of international hatred, mass murder, violated treaties, forgotten
honor, and civilian extermination in the holy name of war, are the best
that evolution can accomplish, we should hand the whole mess back to the
monkeys and ask them to stir up another batch!)
But to remain upon the sober grounds of scientific inquiry, it is not
too much to say that the archeologist speaks upon this problem with
absolute finality. There is nothing theoretical about archeology. _What
you dig up with your own hands, you are inclined to believe._
Some years ago we had a college lad on one of our expeditions who was
strongly addicted to the theory of organic evolution. At the beginning
of the work the lad showed some disposition to argue, and was somewhat
disappointed that we refused to enter into debate with him upon our
differing theories. As day followed day, however, and we got into the
rich contents of burial mounds containing a fabulous amount of ossi,
this lad became deeply concerned with the discrepancies between his
textbook learning and what he saw in his own personal recoveries of
ancient skeletons.
Every time he came to us with some bone that did not fit in with his
classroom theories, we would laugh and say, “Don’t bother us. _You_ dug
that up. This poor bone never read your textbook and it doesn’t know how
you want it to be. Now, which are you going to believe? The schematized
drawing in a textbook written by some professor who never saw a burial
mound, or this evidence that you yourself have acquired by your own
labor?”
At the end of that one summer, this student returned to the campus an
ardent and bitter anti-evolutionist, denouncing the false teachings
which had misled him by means of the printed page.
In a word, other sciences may speculate, theorize and deduce, but
archeology delves and demonstrates. Some of these demonstrations will be
seen in the contents of the following pages. We say _some_: for if all
the evidence from the realm of archeology were massed into one great
volume, no derrick ever built by man could lift its tremendous bulk and
weight. In such a work as this one we are handicapped and embarrassed,
not by the paucity of evidence, but rather by its over-abundance.
Plate 1
[Illustration: Egyptians at a wine orgy]
[Illustration: Crude hieroglyphics on an ancient statue. Depicting
the early development of art and writing]
It shall be the purpose of the following pages to cull and summarize
some of the striking facts of archeology, which demonstrate beyond
question that the Book which men call the Bible is historically
credible, scientifically accurate, and has been derived by inspiration
from the Spirit of God.
CHAPTER II
The Tides of Culture
In almost every branch of this fascinating science, archeology has been
the handmaid of revelation. Even more, it has acted as a beacon to
illuminate the pathway to God, which men call the Bible. The problem of
the antiquity and culture of man was the battleground of infidelity
which the skeptical chose to demonstrate the fallacy of the Bible’s
claims to supernatural origin.
If it can be proved by the aid of science that the human race is older
than is implied by the Genesis account of creation, and if it can be
shown that man has ascended from a dim and brutish ancestry, instead of
being created perfect by the hand of God, the foundation would
admittedly be swept from beneath the Scripture, and the entire structure
of revelation collapses. However, this unwarranted attempt to confuse
the issue and refute the Scripture, is manifestly unfair to science. It
is not too much to say that this is a debasing of the highest labors of
human mentality. Research, in the exact sense of the word, cannot be
used legitimately to establish a pet theory to which the advocate clings
without regard to evidence in the case. The attempt to demonstrate the
organic evolution of man belongs in the realm of philosophy and not of
science. The work of science is the correlation of facts. The sphere of
philosophy is the interpretation of facts. In all of this controversy,
we are not debating the facts of humanity, but are at odds concerning
the application of those facts. The real issue then is not the
_antiquity_ of man, but the _origin_ of man!
In the hope of obscuring the manner of origin, the enemy of our faith
has sought to raise the dust storm of antiquity. It is here more than
anywhere else, that archeology has been such a tremendous aid to the
establishment of the truth. This science has demonstrated the premise of
the Scripture, namely, the fixity and origin of our species. As far back
as the spade has been able to thrust the history of humanity, we find
the same types and varieties of the human family that exist upon the
earth today. Since we are covering this problem of antiquity and origin
in the sixth volume of this series, we will hasten on with this brief
statement of the issue involved. We will later show that all of the
statements made in the text of the Scripture concerning the degeneration
and moral collapse of humanity have been abundantly demonstrated in the
realm of archeology. Further, the claims that we make as to the
historicity of the Bible can be demonstrated satisfactorily in one
single field; namely, the recording of the story of man and the care
used by the Scripture writers in the exactness of their statements. In
this display of historical accuracy, the writers of the Bible have
incidentally repudiated the entire philosophy of organic evolution. It
is not too much to say that no single evidence derived in the entire
realm and history of archeology has sustained the theory of organic
evolution. Remember that we are dealing specifically with evidence. If
the evidence is rightly interpreted and honestly implied, item by item
and in the aggregate mass, it refutes the entire fallacy of this weird
philosophy.
Since it deals with the realm of human history, archeology is the final
voice as to the antiquity and culture of man. No race of man has ever
lived upon the face of this earth and failed to leave some relics or
evidences of its existence and culture.
The science of anthropology postulates the beginning of the human family
somewhere in Mesopotamia. The Bible is a little more specific, in that
it states that it was in that portion of Mesopotamia which lies between
the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. The oldest relics of man,
however, are not found in Mesopotamia. This is due to the climatic
conditions in certain parts of that ancient land. The rainfall is heavy.
We have ourselves suffered great inconvenience, delay, and loss by being
isolated from our objective in Mesopotamia by floods that filled the
wadies and gullies and made travel impossible. Also, the outlying
country is underlaid to a great extent by water. When excavators dig but
a short way into the strata of that land, they are handicapped and
hindered by seepage. Because of this excess moisture, some of the oldest
relics of our race have been destroyed by the ravages of time and the
power of the elements.
The situation in Egypt, however, is quite the opposite. In most of that
land there is no rain and in no part of that bleak country do we
experience frost. The climate is dry to the utmost extreme, and the soil
is largely sand. Due to this natural condition, the oldest records of
the human race are found in Egypt. The oldest records of man and the
most complete records so far recovered of his early existence have been
preserved for us by this combination of climate and soil. Since the
Egyptians buried in sand or in stone tombs, the deposits being protected
from the elements, man was the only destroyer. Even though there has
been a sad record of vandalism, as ruthless hands of the ignorant have
despoiled magnificent tombs of priceless records and information, there
is much that remained undisturbed. The people of Egypt built for
endurance. The mighty pyramids, from Sakkara to the Great Pyramid; the
Colossi at Luxor and the awe-inspiring ruins of Karnak, are present
evidences of the durability of their labors. (See plates 2, 3 and 4.)
Because of the strange beliefs concerning the life after death, these
people also buried for eternity. We shall later consider, in the light
of their customs and religious practices, the tremendous value that
modern civilization has derived from this ancient fact. We have
mentioned this fact now merely to note that the greatest treasure trove
of preserved antiquity is found in the land of Egypt.
Plate 2
[Illustration: Magnificent example of embellished statue, conveying
the name, hopes, and some of the record of an early ruler]
[Illustration: Colossi at Luxor]
[Illustration: The Sheltered Wife]
Strangely, in view of the consistent demands of the evolutionary school,
we find no evidence of human evolution in the land of Egypt. More than
this, the doctrine that man began with a brutish intellect and gradually
developed his high and peculiar culture, is refuted by the evidences
from this country. In fact, the contrary is strikingly the case. Instead
of proving a process of evolution, the history of man as found in the
archeology of Egypt is a consistent record of degeneration.
The eminent Sayce, one of the ablest archeologists in the whole history
of that great science, expressed his wonder and amazement at the high
stage of culture met with in the very earliest records of the Egyptian
people. Other authorities, such as Baikie, have written voluminously
upon this subject. It had been hoped that when excavators finally
reached undisturbed tombs of the first dynasty, they would find
themselves in the dawn of Egyptian culture. It was our fortunate
privilege to be at Sakkara a year ago when the first complete and
unmolested tombs of the first dynasty were uncovered. It was our
privilege to keep a close check and watch upon all that was done at that
time, and the conclusions and postulations of hopeful theorists were
utterly shattered in such discoveries as were made.
Indeed, we can no longer start Egyptian culture with the beginning of
the dynastic ages. Through the first tombs, we peer back into an older
preceding culture that dazzles and amazes the human understanding.
Instead of finding the dawn of a developing humanity, we see mankind
already in the high noon of cultural accomplishments. Instead of nomadic
dwellers in shaggy tents, we look upon works of enduring stone. Instead
of brutish, Egyptian ancestral artifacts, we find a pottery culture that
is really superb. It almost seems that the farther back we go into
Egyptian antiquity, the more perfect was their culture and learning. The
art of writing was the common possession of the Egyptian in the
pre-dynastic period.
It is true that there was a so-called stone age in Egypt, which preceded
the first dynasty. We are showing here, however, a photograph of one of
the most ancient open burials ever discovered in Egypt. This is
accompanied by various heads of mummies, to show the state of
preservation. (See Plate 5.) Before the art of embalming was invented
and the dead were mummified, they were buried by intrusion in the dry
sands. You will note the perfection of the culture of this people as
depicted by the pottery undisturbed in this grave. In contrast to this
type of burial, the mummies shown in this same plate are no better
preserved than the earlier burial. Indeed, there is no evidence to show
that these cultures were consecutive rather than contemporary. In
various sections of Egypt it is quite probable that different burial
customs prevailed simultaneously, and it is a pure speculation to say
that the more primitive type of burial is ages older than the advanced
style.
There are many anomalies and mysteries in this so-called stone age in
Egypt. In the museum at Cairo there will be found some of the most
remarkable specimens of stone flaking to be seen on the face of this
earth. Others may be seen in the British Museum, in the various exhibits
of Egyptian culture. One of these knives is equipped with two points,
and all of them are equally sharpened on both edges. In the author’s own
gatherings from the various stone cultures of mankind, there are
something over 25,000 artifacts. We have seen every important collection
of stone implements in the present world, but these specimens from
ancient Egypt are unquestionably the most magnificent types of stone
culture we have ever been privileged to observe.
The significant and startling fact is that these stone knives have
handles of beaten gold. At once we are impressed with the anomalous fact
that the stone age was thus synonymous with an age of metal.
Furthermore, it was an artistic age. The golden handles on these stone
weapons are engraved with scenes common to the life of the people. On
one side of the stone dagger with the double points, there is a sailing
vessel typical of the pleasure craft that were common to all ages of
Egyptian life. On the raised deck of this boat, dancing maidens were
entertaining the circle of spectators. This work was not crude and
brutish, but showed a high development of the engraver’s art. The
reverse side of the handle was even more interesting in that it
contained, in beautifully incised characters, the cult sign of the
owner.
Here is, indeed, a weird super-imposition of ages and cultures. The body
of the weapon is of a stone age; the handle of the weapon is of an age
of metal; the engravings upon that metal show an age of art and the
possession of written characters. There is no comfort for the
evolutionary hypothesis in the antiquity of Egypt. The contrary rather
is the case. There is a strange tide sweeping through the record,
portraying an ebb and flow of culture that is fascinating to observe.
The culture of Egypt starts on a magnificently high level and is later
reduced to a tremendous degree by a consistent record of degeneration.
It might be said that by the end of the fourth dynasty, the people had
reached the high peak of Egyptian art and learning. But after the sixth
dynasty had well begun, a definite decline and retrogression had set in.
We find ourselves then groping in a dark age wherein were no arts and no
written history. No great monuments come from that period, and no great
buildings were begun, repaired, or finished. Writing became extremely
scarce and in many sections of the land the art seems to have been
completely forgotten. As in the dark ages of medieval Europe, learning
was in eclipse and the mental life of man degenerated. Just when the
renaissance began, it is impossible to say, but in the eleventh dynasty
we are suddenly back into the light again.
Egypt emerges from those dark ages, ruled by powerful feudal lords, with
the pharaohs appearing to be mere figure-heads. These great barons left
voluminous records, which depict their conquests and their powers, and
tell of their own individual greatness. They constructed magnificent
tombs for their eternal rest, and the land blossomed culturally under
their dominion.
These conditions prevailed until the coming of the Hyksos dynasty. These
conquering kings were of Semitic origin and they seem to have come from
the region of Ur. After this conquest, Egypt suddenly became an
unlimited monarchy. The great lords became landless, stripped of their
power and robbed of all authority. The people literally passed into the
possession of the crown, and Egypt became a nation of slaves who owed
their very existence to the royal head of the government. The reason for
this change will be made manifest later in this present work. We are now
interested only in presenting these strange cycles of culture as shown
by archeology.
It would take many volumes to give a detailed picture of the early
golden age in Egypt. As an illustration of the art and development of
that culture, we refer the reader to the tomb of a court official at the
dawn of the sixth dynasty. Buried with this minor official were certain
small wooden effigies depicting customs, trades, and tools of his day.
There were porters laden with their heavy burdens. There were scribes
bearing stylus and plaque. Certain tradesmen were found in these
brilliant statuettes, each man’s craft being shown by the tools that he
carried in his hand. Priests appeared clad in their pontifical robes.
Perhaps the most interesting of all were the statuettes of candy
vendors, each man equipped with his tray of sweets, and a horsehair tail
wherewith to fan the flies. Some of these statues were so perfect in
their execution that the eminent Phidias might well have envied their
perfection. When we compare this art and culture with the so-called
pictures of brutish cave-dwellers, we have one more failure in the
collapsing chain of evidences that was supposed to show man’s constantly
advancing culture.
We might also give, by way of illustration, the magnificent statue of
Kephren. This memorial was exquisitely carved from stone so hard that it
would blunt most modern tools. Kephren constructed one of the pyramids
at Giza. This latter work was notable in that there were evidences that
some of the stones had been cut with what appeared to be tubular drills.
Since this is possible in our modern culture with the use of
diamond-pointed instruments, there is food for considerable thought and
speculation as to the culture and learning of Kephren’s age! As a
general statement, it is not too much to say that the farther back we go
into Egyptian antiquity, the more perfect the arts and culture in
general seem to be.
When we compare, for instance, the brilliant workmanship of the
priceless pectoral of the daughter of Usertesen (or Usertsen) with the
crude and amateurish workmanship of the jewelry of the later queen
Abhotep, it is evident that the centuries brought retrogression. The
reign of Usertesen may be correlated with the early period of the
patriarchal age, which fact has an important bearing upon our study. The
hopeful critics of the Book of Genesis have postulated for the age of
Abraham a barbaric lack of culture comparable to the nomadic tribes of
Arabia in the Middle Ages. We now see, however, that the entire age of
the patriarchs was a period of exquisite culture and high learning. To
refer again to Usertsen, he seems to have been a capable strategist, and
his system of working out his plan of battle was something like the game
of chess. His artists had made for him models of the various kinds of
soldiers that made up his variegated corps. The bowmen were armed with
exquisite miniature weapons that had, to our delight and wonder, been
preserved against all the passing centuries. The black troops that he
used, of whatever origin, were carved from a wood like our ebony, and
the tiny features were negroid in faithful representation of the
difference between the races of men employed in his army. These model
soldiers could be moved about a board which depicted the terrain of
battle, and his strategy thus wrought out. Our present point, however,
is the artistic perfection of the models of the soldiers that he used.
The art of his age was as nearly perfect as one could wish.
Then there came another cycle of retrogression and decay which climaxed
in a period of cultural darkness that reigned too long over that ancient
people. It is highly significant, for instance, that the best glass of
Egypt is dug from the more ancient sites. There came a time when the art
of making glass was forgotten by the people of Egypt and had later to be
rediscovered by other races.
If there is one voice that can be heard in archeology, and one lesson
that can be specifically learned, it is the certainty of the fallacy of
the theory of evolution. Egypt, as elsewhere, shows us no dim, brutish
beginning, but a startling emergence of this people in a high degree of
culture. No gradual ascent up the ladder of learning, but cycles of
retrogression and advancement, followed by decay: then a new dawning of
art and science. The entire record of archeology is thus a complete
vindication of the premise and basic contention of the inspired record
of God’s Word. No greater voice may be heard in our day than this
definite, adamant cry from Egypt, which depicts cycles of culture that
begin with a crest of learning. It must not be presumed that this
condition is unique in Egypt, or peculiar to any one race or country.
The same queer discrepancy between the fallacious theories of the
philosophy of organic evolution and the facts of human history is
observed wherever archeology has been able to hold the torch of
discovery over a given area.
We have illustrated, for instance, in Plates Number 6 and 7, one of the
most interesting of the exhibits in the British Museum. This is a stone
weapon from the archaic ages of the Chaldeans. It consists of a mace
head, made of limestone. Incidentally, this was a very common type of
weapon among those people in their warlike culture. The particular one
that is illustrated is typical of its time. Note that it is a STONE AGE
WEAPON.
A note of wonder is caused in our inquiring minds by the odd and utterly
incompatible fact that it is engraved clearly in high relief, thus
testifying to the fact that in the archaic stone age of Babylon, men who
wrought in a time when the evolutionary advocates demand a dim and
brutish stage of development were already gifted in the art of
sculpture!
To complicate the case still further, they were possessed as well with a
highly developed written language! Their stone implements are in some
instances crude, as they did not spend time polishing and decorating
rude tools that were used for a base purpose. Others of their artifacts,
like this stone mace head, are not only covered with finely sculptured
figures but are also inscribed with written characters that are clear
and well executed. A “stone age” with a written culture, scholars, and
books, is an anomaly, indeed!
Where, then, in the light of these archeological facts, is the evidence
of the slow development of the human mentality and the emergence of
primitive man from his “brutish” state? Unfortunately for the
high-priests of the dying sect of organic evolution, the science which
delineates the true condition of ancient races offers them no help or
proof whatever. The opposite is the case in archeology, as _all_ the
evidence that has come to us from the honest attempt to see man as he
was, and not as he was reported to have been, has proved conclusively
that organic evolution is a false religion. It is inevitable that this
fact should some day come to light; for although it may be that science
moves with leaden feet, when it does finally overtake error, it smites
with an iron fist!
Thus the false theory that man has struggled upward from a valley of
brutish darkness is refuted by archeology, and the premise of specific
creation, as set forth in the Bible, is established by the discoveries
in the realm of this science. In every land that man has occupied for a
long period of time, the tide of culture has ebbed and flowed from that
hour to this present moment of writing. Just as the night follows the
day, and the next day dawns only to be succeeded by the darkness in
turn, so the learning and progress of man has been a cycle, rather than
a steady climb up a ladder of learning, from level to level, until the
heights of present civilization were reached. The old error must now be
abandoned, or else we must close our eyes to the entire record of
archeological discovery, and frankly confess that we are not interested
in facts which refute erroneous, but accepted theories.
CHAPTER III
Converging Streams
In a systematic presentation of the evidences in the field of Christian
apologetics, it is necessary to review the Egyptian and Chaldean records
as they bear upon the text of the Scripture, and illumine its meaning.
For it is here that the streams of History and Revelation converge, to
continue their flow in mingled harmony throughout all the centuries
which follow this original conjunction.
In the very nature of the case we would not expect direct archeological
confirmation of a great deal of the earlier portions of the Old
Testament. The record of creation which was handed down from Adam to
each generation delineated an event which was not witnessed by any human
being. As has been very clearly shown in the illuminating book, “New
Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis,” by P. J. Wiseman, this record
was undoubtedly preserved in a written form from the very time of Adam
himself.
[Illustration: Khnum and Thoth in Creation Tradition.]
The events of the Garden of Eden and the subsequent history are not such
as would leave archeological material for the exact enlightenment of
later generations. There is, however, a manner in which the study of
antiquity can bring a tremendous light to shine upon the dark problem of
the credibility of these records. It is generally conceded by
ethnologists that when races of people hold a strongly developed idea or
belief, in common, there must have been an historical incident as the
basis of that universal tradition. Thus, among the very earliest
traditions of ancient Egypt, there is a record of the creation of man
that bears a valuable relationship to the account in Genesis.
The Mosaic record states that God stooped and created the body of man
out of the dust of the earth. Life was imparted to that body by the very
breath of God.
The earliest Egyptian record recounts how the god Khnum took a slab of
mud, and placing it upon his potter’s wheel, moulded it into the
physical form of the first man. The illustration facing this page shows
the entire process, with Thoth standing behind Khnum, and marking the
span of man’s years upon a notched branch. Here then is a coincidence of
traditional belief in the manner of creation of man that is of
tremendous significance.
We also note that the earliest records of Sumeria have this same
incidental bearing upon certain portions of the Old Testament text.
_All_ of the records of antiquity begin the history of man in a garden.
This is of considerable significance in view of the account of Eden that
is so prominently given in the record of Genesis.
Among the seals to which we shall occasionally refer and which are shown
in Plate 8, there is one from an early period in Sumeria from which we
have derived considerable understanding of Sumerian beliefs. This seal
shows Adam and Eve on opposite sides of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, and can be nothing less than a direct reference to the
event that is recorded in the Book of Genesis.
One of the most constantly cited documents of antiquity, is the
so-called Gilgamesh epic. The high antiquity of the original form in
which this occurs may be seen from the fact that many of the seals that
go as far back as the year 3,000 B. C. are made of illustrations of the
various episodes that are contained in this valuable document. The
original home of Gilgamesh seems to have been at Erech. The city was
evidently besieged by an army led by Gilgamesh, who, after a three-year
war, became the king of the city. So harsh was the despotic rule of the
conquering monarch that the people petitioned the goddess Aruru to
create a being strong enough to overthrow Gilgamesh and release them
from his sway.
Some of the gods joined in with this prayer and as a result a mythical
being, partly divine, partly human, and partly animal, was created and
dispatched to Erech for the destruction of Gilgamesh. This composite
hero bears a great many different names, but the earliest accepted form
in the Babylonian account was Enkedu. Gilgamesh, learning that an enemy
had been created for his destruction, exercised craft and lured Enkedu
to the city of Erech. The two became fast friends and set out finally to
do battle with a mighty giant named Khumbaba. When they arrived at his
castle, they besieged and captured the stronghold of the giant, whom
they slew. They carried off his head as a trophy and returned to Erech
to celebrate their victory.
The plan of the gods being thus frustrated, the goddess Ishtar besought
her father Anu to create a mighty bull to destroy Gilgamesh. The bull
being formed and dispatched upon its duty, also failed of its purpose
when Enkedu and Gilgamesh vanquished the animal after a tremendous
battle. And so on, the story goes with episode after episode,
culminating with a crisis in the account of the deluge.
In this climax, in a notable and fascinating manner, we see again the
coincidence of tradition with a record of the Scripture. In the
Babylonian account of the deluge, every major premise of the Mosaic
record is sustained in its entirety. The Gilgamesh account tells of the
heavenly warning, it depicts the gathering of material and the building
of an ark. In the ark was safely carried the hero, his wife and his
family with certain beasts of the earth for seed. The ark of the
Gilgamesh episode was made water tight with bitumen exactly as was the
ark of Noah in the record in the Book of Genesis. Entering this ark, the
Babylonian account tells how the boat came under the direct supervision
of the gods. On the same night a mighty torrent fell out of the skies.
The cloudburst continued for six days and nights, until the tops of the
mountains were covered. The sea arose out of its banks and helped to
overflow the land. After the seventh day, the storm abated and the sea
decreased. By that time, however, the whole human race had been
destroyed with the exception of the little company who had been within
the Babylonian ark.
The ark of Babylon grounded in that portion of the ancient world known
as Armenia, the Hebrew name of which is Ararat. Seven days after the
landing of the ark, the imprisoned remnant sent forth a dove. When she
found no place to light and rest, the dove returned to the ship. They
waited a short while and then sent forth a swallow. The swallow also
returned, wearied from a long flight, and several more days were allowed
to elapse. The next attempt to discover the condition of the earth by
the imprisoned remnant resulted in the sending forth of a raven. The
bird returned and approached the ark, but refused to re-enter the ship.
The remnant knew then that the flood was ended. They accordingly went
forth with all the redeemed life, and celebrated their preservation by
offering up sacrifices to the gods upon the mountains.
The goddess Ishtar was so pleased with the sacrifice of the godly
remnant that she hung in the heavens a great bow, which Anu, the father
of the gods, had made for the occasion. She swore by the sacred
ornaments that hung about her neck that mankind should not again be
destroyed by a flood, and this heavenly bow was the sign of that
covenant.
The incidental details which are found in this hoary manuscript coincide
too closely with the record of Genesis to admit of coincidence.
Archeology has brought no stronger testimony to the historicity of the
Mosaic record of the deluge than this great account in the Gilgamesh
epic, although interspersed with mythological characters and deviating
from the simplicity of the Genesis account.
One of the most valuable publications of the British Museum is their
monograph on the Gilgamesh legend, which contains a fine and scholarly
translation of the deluge tablet in an unabridged form. Our own copy of
this publication has been of great value to many students who have
sought its aid in their detailed studies of the Old Testament.
Another one of the disputed portions of the Old Testament text which
brought great comfort to the habitually hopeful among the destructive
critics, is that section of Genesis which deals with the record of
Nimrod and the tower of Babel.
Modern archeology not only has failed to bring any aid to the critics in
this particular incident, but has robbed them of all their carefully
erected structure of argument which was predicated upon the assumption
that the tower of Babel was entirely mythological. Among the recent
excavations in Mesopotamia was the work in the region which bore the
oriental name of Birs-nimroud. When the excavators had finished their
enormous task, they had laid bare a magnificent ziggurat of tremendous
antiquity which was the largest so far discovered. At the time these
ruins were first seen, this enormous tower covered an area of 1,444,000
square feet. It towered to the height of a bit more than 700 feet. Time
has, of course, ravished this monument to some extent, but enough of its
grandeur and glory remains to show it forth as the most ancient as well
as the most magnificent of the Babylonian ziggurats.
According to the description given by Herodotus, in the middle of the
fifth century, B. C., the structure then consisted of a series of eight
ascending towers, each one recessed in the modern fashion of
cutting-back that is used in certain types of sky-scraper architecture.
The famous Step Pyramid at Sakkara is another ancient example of this
type of structure, each successive and higher tower being smaller than
the one upon which it rests. A spiral roadway, according to Herodotus,
went around the entire ziggurat, mounting rapidly from level to level.
He states that at each level a resting place was provided in this spiral
roadway. At the top of the structure was a magnificent temple in which
the religious exercises of the day were observed.
That this was the tower of Nimrod is generally accepted by the
authorities of our present day. The name of Nimrod which in the Sumerian
ideographs is read “Ni-mir-rud” is found on a number of artifacts and
records of high antiquity, and reference is made as well to the great
monument that he built.
So as we _read_ our way through the episodes which constitute the
earlier records of Genesis, we also _dig_ our way into the older strata
of humanity and find ourselves walking hand in hand with the twins of
revelation and scientific vindication! They coincide in all their
utterances, teaching us that all that the Word of God has to say to men
may be accepted without question or doubt.
The late Melvin Grove Kyle has written extensively of his own researches
at Sodom and Gomorrah, so that it is unnecessary to recapitulate the
results of his lifetime of labor. The sulphurous overburden and the
startling confirmation of the Book of Genesis derived from the work of
Dr. Kyle and his associates would vindicate the Scriptural claims to
historical accuracy even if they stood by themselves.
In the general argument and discussion that long has clustered about the
record of Abraham, the starting point of critical refutation has
generally been the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. It is stated that the
battle of the kings that occurred in this disputed portion of Holy Writ,
was in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar. Since a contemporary is
named as Ched-or-la-o-mer, a storm of argument has swept over and about
that one opening verse of this important chapter. The allies of
Ched-or-la-o-mer are well known from his own records, and Amraphel was
not to be found among them. It was a tremendous blow to criticism when
the discovery was made that Amraphel is the Hebrew name of the Sumerian
form, Khammurabi.
Plate 3
[Illustration: Colossi of Karnak]
[Illustration: Colossi of Luxor]
Plate 4
[Illustration: Colossi of Amen-Hetep III guarding Valley of the
Kings]
[Illustration: At tomb of Tutanhkamen, in the Valley of Kings]
The brilliant ability of this mighty ruler is one of the high points of
far antiquity. The king-lists of antiquity, derived from many sources,
were compiled by order of several of the kings of Assyria and constitute
another of the many valuable records to be found in the British Museum.
A recent publication of the Museum entitled “The Annals of the Kings of
Assyria” is well worth many times the price of one pound sterling which
is demanded for the volume. This scholarly and brilliant piece of work
contains the original Assyrian text transliterated and translated with
historical data that the careful scholar cannot be without. It settles
the question of Khammurabi. This Khammurabi, whom we shall now call by
his Hebrew name Amraphel, has left us a long series of tablets,
monuments, letters, and a code of laws which stands engraved upon a
great monument preserved also in the British Museum.
It is a long way back to that twentieth century before Christ, but
neither time nor distance prevents our hearing the clamoring voices of
men long dead, who shout to us their vindication of the nature,
character, and integrity of these testimonies which are the Word of God!
It is a matter of common knowledge in our day that the word, or name,
pharaoh, may be applied either to a person or to an office. Exactly as
our modern word “president” may be applied to the function of the
office, or to the possessor of it in person, so the ruler of Egypt could
be known simply as The Pharaoh, or shorter still, as Pharaoh. As every
president, emperor or king, however, has his own proper name, so each
pharaoh also is designated by his personal name. Fortunately for our
purpose, many pharaohs are mentioned in the pages of Holy Writ under the
clear identification of their proper names. Many of them, however, are
not identified by their personal name but are referred to only by the
title of their kingly office. Thus, for instance, the pharaoh of the
Exodus is not named personally in the text. Such attempts at
identification of this pharaoh as are made, must be made from external
sources. However, there can be no question of the identity of the rulers
of Egypt, who are specifically named in the Word of God. Such men as the
Pharaoh Shishak, the Pharaoh Zera and the Pharaoh So, are identified
beyond any possibility of question.
It is a happy circumstance for the student of apologetics that each of
the pharaohs who is so named in person by the writers of the Bible, has
been discovered and identified in the records of archeology. No more
emphatic voice as to the credibility and the infallible nature of the
historical sections of the Scripture can be heard than that which is
formed by the chorus of these pharaohs.
To note the background of this record, may we remind the reader that in
early times, Egypt was a divided kingdom. It was known as Upper Egypt
and Lower Egypt, and a separate monarch reigned over each section. It
happens that in the period of the divided kingdom, there were fourteen
dynasties in each section of the land. The Egyptian, like all Eastern
people, highly prized ancestral antiquity. The farther back into
antiquity a man’s family could be traced in his genealogy, the more the
honour that accrued to him. We are not without modern counterparts, even
in our present democracy.
Therefore, when the two kingdoms were united, the first kings of the
united kingdom added together the fourteen dynasties of Upper and Lower
Egypt, making them consecutive instead of contiguous. Thus they built a
spurious antiquity of twenty-eight dynasties to enhance their greatness.
The earlier archeologists fell into this trap, and consequently erected
an antiquity phantom which obscured the problem of chronology for some
considerable time. When it was discovered that these dynasties were
concurrent, a great deal of the fallacious antiquity of Egypt was
abandoned. This fictional antiquity, which doubled the factor of time
for that period, had been used to discredit the text of the Bible by the
critical scholars, so-called. Now, in the light of our present learning,
we find no discrepancy between the antiquity of Egypt, properly
understood, and the chronology of the Scripture, when it is divorced
from the errors of Ussher. Incidentally, the chronology and antiquity
demands of both archeology and revelation coincide beautifully with the
demands of sane anthropology.
To delineate this background so necessary to the proper understanding of
the record of the pharaohs, it is necessary to introduce the first
occasion of the coincidence of the text of the Scripture with the land
and the people of Egypt, as it is here that the streams of revelation
and history begin to converge. This beginning is made, of course, in the
flight of Abraham into Egypt at the time of a disastrous famine.
Overlooking for the moment the reprehensible conduct of Abraham
concerning the denial of his wife Sarah, and the consequent
embarrassment of the pharaoh, we digress to make a brief survey of the
incidents that lead up to the kindness of Pharaoh to Abraham.
There had been previous Semitic invasions of Egypt. The first reason for
these forays, of course, was famine. Due to the unfailing inundation by
the river Nile, the fertile land of Egypt was a natural storehouse. The
land of Egypt is fertile, the sun is benevolent, and wherever water
reaches the land, amazingly prodigious crops are the inevitable result.
So in the ancient days, whenever there was drought in the desert
countries surrounding Egypt, the hungry hordes looked on the food
supplies of their neighboring country, and, naturally, moved in that
direction. Thus the pressure of want was the primary reason for these
early Semitic invasions.
The secondary cause was conquest. These people of antiquity were brutal
pragmatists, as are certain nations in our present Twentieth Century.
The theme song of antiquity undoubtedly was, “I came, I saw, I
conquered.” The motive for living in those stern days seems to have
been, “He takes who can, and keeps who may.”
The activating motive of much past history is simply _spoils_. Here now
is a case in point. A family of kings ruled in Syria, who counted their
wealth by flocks and herds. Driven by a combination of circumstances,
they descended upon Egypt. They were pressed by the lack of forage in
their own land, due to the drought, and they also lusted after the
treasure and wealth of the neighboring country. So, without need for any
other excuse, they descended with their armed hordes and conquered
Egypt. There they ruled, established a dynasty and possessed the land
for themselves. Since their principal possessions were their flocks and
herds, they were known as the Shepherd Kings. They have come down in
history as the Hyksos Dynasty. They unified Syria and Egypt, and it is
intriguing to study the development of this unification as that process
is seen in the pottery of that period. The work of Egyptian artisans
began to take on certain characteristics of Syrian culture until,
finally, the characteristic Egyptian line and decoration disappeared and
the pottery became purely Syrian. The Shepherd Kings established
commerce between the two halves of their empire and prosperity followed
their conquest. These kings imported artists from their native Syria,
together with musicians and dancers innumerable.
This intrusion of a foreign culture so changed the standards of Egypt
that for generations the ideal of beauty was a Syrian ideal. Later, when
the Syrian kings were expelled by Tahutmas the 2nd, the situation was
reversed and Egypt, now governed by an Egyptian, kept Syria as her share
of the spoils.
Four hundred years later another Semitic invasion swept over the land
from Ur. It is quite probable that these conquerors were Sumerians. They
established the sixteenth dynasty and brought with them also their
treasure in the form of livestock. Thus, when Abraham entered Egypt, he
found that it was ruled by his relatives! Thus we have an explanation of
the cordial welcome that a Sumerian from Ur received from a pharaoh in
Egypt. This contact is well established through the arts of that day, by
pottery, by frescoes, and by means of the records of ancient customs. We
know these things to be facts.
So when we read of the record of Abraham, we have at our disposal a vast
and overwhelming source of evidence as to the credibility of this
section of the record. The statements that are made in Genesis could
have been written only by one who was intimately familiar with the Egypt
of that day and time.
The second contact of Egypt and the Genesis record is found in the
experience of Joseph. Although harsh and unkind, the action of the
brothers in selling the youngest into slavery was perfectly legal under
the code of that day. The younger brethren were all subject to the
elders, and the law of primogeniture gave to the elder almost unlimited
power over the life of the younger. The brutality and envy of this act
are far from unparalleled in the secular records of that day. Nor was
Joseph’s phenomenal rise to power unusual in the strange culture of that
day and time. We must remember that Joseph was a Semite at a Semitic
court. There is an unconscious introduction of a collateral fact in the
simple statement of Genesis, chapter thirty-nine, verse one. After being
told that Joseph was sold to a man named Potiphar, the statement is made
that Potiphar was an Egyptian.
At first thought it would seem to be expected that a trusted officer in
the court of a pharaoh would naturally be an Egyptian. The contrary is
the case here, however. The pharaoh himself being an invader, he had
surrounded himself with trusted men of his own race and family. As far
as may now be ascertained, Potiphar was the only Egyptian who had
preserved his life and kept his place at the court. He seems to have
been the chief officer of the bodyguard of Pharaoh, and as such was
entrusted with the dubious honor of executing the Pharaoh’s personal
enemies. This, then, is a simple and passing statement that gives us an
unexpected means of checking the scrupulous accuracy of the Genesis
record.
Joseph was comely, attractive, and faithful. With an optimistic
acceptance of his unfortunate circumstances, which seem much harder to
us in our enlightened generation than would actually be the case to one
accustomed to such vicissitudes of fortune, he set himself to serve with
fidelity and industry. But above all this, the blessing of God rested
upon him and upon all that he did. Since he was in the line of the
promised Seed, and was under the direct blessing of that promise, it was
inevitable that he should prosper.
There is a flood of illumination that shines upon this period from the
frescoed tombs, the ancient papyri, and the records crudely inscribed
upon walls and pillars. Particularly is this true of the entire section
of Genesis that begins with the fortieth chapter and continues to the
end of that Book.
Plate 5
[Illustration: {open burial}]
[Illustration: {open burial}]
[Illustration: {open burial}]
[Illustration: Open burial lower left]
[Illustration: Another mural from an ancient tomb: butchers at work]
[Illustration: The god Hapi drawing the Two Kingdoms into one]
Among the quaint frescoes of antiquity, there is one that has no word of
explanation. There are many such murals in Egyptian tombs, and the
cattle also figure often in the pictures on the papyri. (See Plate 9.)
This fresco, however, was quite unique. Across the scene there parade
fourteen cattle. The first seven are round, fat and in fine condition.
They are followed by seven of the skinniest cows that ever ambled on
four legs! No word of explanation is needed to clarify this scene for
those who are familiar with the history of that time.
There is another mural showing the chief baker of Pharaoh, followed by
his servants and porters. In his hand he holds a receipt for the one
hundred thousand loaves that were daily delivered to the palace of
Pharaoh. These “loaves” were in the nature of large buns.
The multiplicity of these paintings would require a volume to delineate
carefully, but there is information here that cannot be passed over in
silence. They bring to us the solution of one of those mysteries of
Egyptian history, which is found in the collapse of the feudal system
and the consequent complete possession of the land by the crown. We can
now read from the secular evidences thus derived, that in a time of
plenty a trusted lieutenant of the king built granaries to store the
surplus left over from the time of plenty. Of course, to our enlightened
times or in the culture of this generation, that is the height of
ignorance. The proper thing to do in a time plenty is to _destroy_ the
surplus and plow under the excess. We sometimes wonder what would have
happened in Egypt if our modern culture had prevailed in the seven years
of plenty, in the light of the famine that followed!
We now find that when the whole land hungered, the lords ceded their
real estate to the crown for grain to keep themselves and their families
alive. The people sold themselves to Pharaoh and became slaves, on
condition that he feed them as he would his cattle. When this time of
famine was ended, Egypt was so absolute a monarchy that Pharaoh owned
even the bodies of those who had been his subjects.
As an illuminating collateral incident, we now learn that a Sumerian
name was given to Joseph, the trusted lieutenant. To him was accorded
the title “Zaph-nath-pa-a-ne-ah.” The Sumerian meaning is “Master of
hidden learning,” and was a title of honour and distinction which was
conferred because of his wisdom and forethought in providing for the
future. To him also was accorded the royal honour. He was to be preceded
by a herald who called upon the people to bow down as Joseph passed by.
Herein there comes the explanation of a slight philological difficulty
in the text of Genesis. They have tried to make this title of honour to
mean “Little Father.” This difficulty, however, disappears when we
understand that it is not a Hebrew word that is found in the text, but
an ancient Egyptian phrase. The common form of the word is “Ah-brak” and
literally it means “bending the knee.” The Babylonian form of the word
is “Abarakhu.” In some parts of the ancient world the term “Ah-brak” is
still used by cameliers to make their beasts of burden kneel to receive
their load. Thus when Joseph, the master of the hidden learning, went
abroad throughout the land the herald preceded him crying, “Bend the
knee,” and all the populace bowed in homage to him in acknowledgment of
his distinguished accomplishments.
Against this background of understanding, we now turn our thoughts to
one of the most stirring dramas in all human history. Again there was a
famine in the entire land of Sumeria, and the people turned, as was
customary, to the land of Egypt for succor and relief. Had this epic
been invented by some literary genius of antiquity, the arrival of the
brothers of Joseph to buy grain for their starving clan would be deemed
one of the most melodramatic episodes ever conceived by the human mind.
Therein we see again how God overruled the evil deed of the brethren,
and by that very deed saved the guilty. In a time of world oppression
and bitter famine, the family of Abraham was reunited in the shelter of
Egypt.
As the story unfolds, we see the significance of Joseph’s instructions
to his brethren. These Semitic kings were shepherds who highly prized
their flocks and herds. The Egyptians, however, despised husbandry, and
thus the monarchs were in great distress because of the want of capable
herdsmen. The brethren of Joseph were distantly related to the reigning
pharaoh. They were of the same race of people, and their father Abraham
had been a prince in that land of Sumeria. So when the pharaoh asked
them what their occupation was, recognizing them as distant relatives,
they were canny enough to reply, “We be shepherds; to sojourn in the
land are we come.” With great delight, the pharaoh employed them to be
the personal overseers of his treasured animals.
Goshen, which consisted of two hundred square miles of fertility, and
was the finest province and the juiciest plum in Egypt, was turned over
to them for a pasture! They entered into a life of comparative ease, of
absolute security, and of importance in the court of their day.
So there came into Egypt that group which was to constitute the spring
that gave rise to the historic stream of the Hebrew people. The tribes
were there in the persons of their founders, and the long contact of
Israel and Egypt began through the pressure and want occasioned by a
time of famine.
One further interesting and collateral evidence of the accuracy of these
records is found in the various texts and sections of the Books of the
Dead, and in the records of the customs and practices of the ancient art
of embalming. In Egypt the general rule was to allow seventy days for
the embalming of a dead body, the burial, and the mourning for the dead.
But the fiftieth chapter of Genesis dealing with the death and burial of
Joseph tells us, in the third verse, “And _forty_ days were fulfilled
for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those _which are embalmed_:
and the Egyptians _mourned_ for him _threescore and ten days_.”
These statements could be true only in the days of a Hyksos or Sumerian
dynasty. The manner of embalming introduced by these Syrian conquerors,
required forty days for the complete process and the burial. Seventy
days was their custom for mourning, thus making a total of one hundred
ten days. Only in these exact periods of Egyptian history could this
record of Genesis be thus established and accredited.
It is a fascinating experience for the student of archeology to wend his
way through the mass of evidence derived from these generations and now
in the possession of the great museums of our earth. A pilgrimage begun
in the British Museum, at London, continuing through the Egyptian Museum
at Cairo, passing by way of Sakkara to culminate at Karnak, will enable
the fascinated student to read this entire book of Genesis from the
sources of antiquity. Thus in the very beginning of the convergence of
the two streams, Revelation and History, we see that dead men _indeed_
tell tales; and their stories vindicate the record of the Word of God!
Much of this evidence is, in the very nature of the case, inductive, and
is valuable largely because of the light it sheds on dark places in the
text of the Scripture. The customs of the people of antiquity were in
many ways so different from those of our day, we have lost the
comprehension of their conduct that is dependent upon mutual experience.
There are thus certain obscurities in the pages of the Bible that have
baffled modern man for a long time, but which are now clearly understood
in the light of fresh understanding of the beliefs and practices of the
times that are dealt with in the Scriptures. This is by no means the
least of the benefits of archeological investigation.
One such field will be found in the record of the exodus of the Hebrews
from Egypt, and the manner in which God shook the power of the
conquering pharaoh and devastated Egypt for the relief of the oppressed.
The entire record has been repudiated point by point by the various
critics and the varying schools of criticism, until their limited
opinions leave no grounds for belief in the very fact of the event
itself. These objections, when analyzed carefully, are all predicated
upon the personal ignorance of the individual critic concerning some
phase of the proceedings that climaxed with the departure of Israel from
servitude.
One of the commonest objections to the credibility of the Old Testament
history was the oft-repeated assertion that though the children of
Israel were in bondage for a long period in Egypt and left that land in
the most dramatic exodus antiquity had known, there is no record from
Egyptian sources of the people or history of Israel. Such is not now the
case, but had it been so this would not necessarily have diminished the
value of the historical statements to be found in the record of the book
of Exodus.
Very few of the races of antiquity recorded in detail their defeats!
Certainly no nation that prided itself upon its greatness and power ever
suffered a more complete overthrow than did Egypt in the redemption of
Israel. It is only natural to presume that they would make very little
reference to the crushing blow that they suffered at that time. There is
even today a strong tendency on the part of the Egyptians to hush up all
evidence of this event as far as it is possible to do so. In the great
Egyptian Museum at Cairo, for instance, we find a record of one of these
texts that does refer to the Israelites.
Exhibit 599 in this aforesaid Museum is a large stele in dark gray
granite, which is beautifully engraved on both sides. On one side there
is an extensive inscription in which Amenophis the Third gives a
categorical list of his gifts and offerings for the temple of Amon. The
other side of the stele has been appropriated by Amenpthah. He gives a
highly dramatic account of his battles and victories over the Libyans,
and then alludes to the assault of Ascalon, of Gezer, and of Yanoem in
Palestine. In the course of this later record, the inscription reads,
“Israel is crushed. It has no more seed.”
In the Egyptian Museum this exhibit is accompanied by the following
ingenious statement: “This is the sole mention of the Israelites in the
Egyptian texts known up to the present day.”
This is not exactly the truth. The Egyptian Museum itself at Cairo has a
number of the tablets containing the correspondence between the Egyptian
court and the kings and governors who were vassals to Egypt in Palestine
and Syria. These communications make urgent demands upon the crown of
Egypt for military help against the invasion of an armed horde who are
called in the text, Hebiru. The word “Hebiru” is commonly identified
with the modern term Hebrew.
Again, the late Director General of the Department of Antiquity of Egypt
and the great founder of the Cairo Museum, Maspero, has left us an
interesting note of this monument of Menepthah. Maspero points to the
fact that in comparison to Egypt, Chaldea and Assyria, Israel was a very
insignificant race. If this was true when the nation was ruled by her
greatest and most glorious dynasty, that of David and Solomon, it would
be more so when the nation consisted of a slave company lodged in a
corner of the delta.
The later ravages undergone by the temples of Egypt, when they suffered
incalculable harm through the vandalism of the darker ages, makes it
indeed extraordinary that _any_ record of those earlier times has
remained.
In the very nature of the case, these details could not have been
comprehended by the scholars of the past generation, as they dealt with
customs and ideas that were lost to our age. The insatiable curiosity of
the archeologist, combined with the care with which the Egyptians
preserved their records, can be credited with the recovery of this lost
information, the possession of which so wonderfully establishes our
faith in this more enlightened age.
CHAPTER IV
The Ten Plagues
The prosecutors of the old charge of “folklore and mythology” so
constantly directed against the faith of those who hold to the
credibility of our present Scripture text, found some of their keenest
shafts in the Biblical account of the exodus from Egypt. Scrutinizing
the record of that notable event under the microscope of prejudice, the
critics claimed to have found many outstanding weaknesses in the text.
Particularly was this so in that section of the story which dealt with
the plagues with which Almighty God smote the land and broke down the
resistance of Pharaoh.
There is, therefore, a manifestation of a sardonic humor in the present
situation. After denying for generations that these plagues ever
occurred, the critics now seek to rob the account of any value by their
new technique of acquiescence. The really modern method of discrediting
the Scripture is to admit that there is some truth in the record and
then subtly twist the meaning of the text out of all harmony with the
general plan of revelation. As a noteworthy example of this modern
technique of criticism, we submit a leading article which appeared in
the _London Express_ of Sunday, September 6, 1936.
Professing to accept the historical record of the ten plagues, the
writer of this article then craftily proceeds to offer a peculiarly
human and mechanistic theory to account for the disaster. In reading
this news item, we are at once struck by the fact that every element of
a supernatural nature is deleted from the strange series of events, and
the credit for the entire victory of Israel is ascribed to the human
genius of the man Moses. This news item appeared in the following form:
THE PLAGUES OF EGYPT
SHOW THAT MOSES ANTICIPATED BY 3,000 YEARS THE GREATEST FEAR OF MODERN
SCIENCE
Science has been inquiring into one of the greatest catastrophes that
befell a nation—the ten plagues of Egypt.
They have found that modern theories are in accord with the Bible
story.
The plagues were brought upon the Egyptians by Moses in the days of
Israel’s captivity. Dr. Charles J. Brim, a New York authority on
public health, says that Moses must have anticipated by 3,000 years
modern science’s greatest fear—the use of disease germs, water
pollution and other attacks on sanitation as war weapons—in short,
bacteriological warfare.
Moses, states Dr. Brim, in addition to being the founder of the
science of hygiene, showed that germ warfare could annihilate man and
beast more effectively than arms and man power. With it he bent the
mighty Egyptians to his will and thus brought about the Exodus, the
release of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. With it he so
undermined their man power and morale that it became impossible for
them to face the hardships of war.
The ten plagues, in their order, were:
Changing the water into blood;
The frogs;
The lice;
The flies;
The murrain of cattle;
The boils on the Egyptians;
Hail;
The locusts;
The darkness;
The death of the first-born.
“The first step in this carefully planned attack,” says Dr. Brim in a
newly published book, “Medicine in the Bible,” “was the pollution of
Egypt’s water supply.”
This had two results: First, it attacked the god of Egypt—the Nile;
secondly, it sapped the very fountain of the country.
Egyptian legend said that the Nile sprang from the blood of the god
Osiris. Hence, “the waters of the Nile were turned into blood.”
Egypt depended on the Nile for its drinking water, on its yearly
inundations for the irrigation of the fields.
A polluted Nile was a smashing blow at the water supply and at the
crops and cattle. Nobody could wash or drink.
The fish—one of the staple foods—died. Frogs were forced to leave
their natural haunts in the river banks and invaded the streets,
fields and houses in their millions.
Swarms of frogs, with no water or food, died and rotted over the
countryside. Cartloads were burned, but not before the germs of
pollution had time to multiply.
The air became filled with the disease germs bred in this ideal
forcing-ground. People and animals became infected.
Flies descended in swarms greater than people had ever seen, bringing
more germs with them. Cattle died in their thousands.
Dust, in a naturally dusty country, became infected, spreading more
disease and death. Nature took a turn. A terrific hailstorm shrieked
over Egypt. The few crops that were left standing were flattened and
destroyed. Animals were killed by the force of the hailstones. Next
came the locusts, dropping in their millions on the fields, eating
everything the hail had left.
When they passed, a dust storm, caused probably by the hot, electrical
wind known as the hamsin, blew up and darkened the sky for days on
end, as sandstorms still do in that part of the world. The tenth and
last plague, the death of the first-born, was a natural consequence of
all that had happened since the day the water became polluted.
The Bible does not say explicitly that only the first-born died in
this plague.
What it does say is:
And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born
in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his
throne to the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon.
The epidemic killed many others, but in the death of the first-born lay
the greatest calamity, for the first-born son was chief in every
Egyptian household.
Dr. Brim does not explain how the first plague was brought about, but if
Moses did pollute the Nile it must have been done when the water was
low.
It is certain that Moses was a medical genius, as his laws of health
prove, and knew the certain effects of water pollution.
Neither does the doctor explain how Moses foresaw the hail, but it is
possible he could judge atmospheric conditions with precision.—V. B.
It is perhaps an inaccuracy to talk about “modern” attempts to thwart
and deny the Word of God! There is nothing modern about this entire
propaganda, popular as it may be in our own day. The error is ancient,
as is the attitude of mind that would set aside the element of the
supernatural in Holy Writ, and oppose the time-honored revelation of
God’s will by the modern self-satisfaction with human learning. Indeed,
this common and basic sin of our generation is so far from being modern,
that the very first recorded case of denial of God’s Word comes from the
Garden of Eden, man’s first and original home.
Even before sin had reared its ugly head, to shatter the sweet communion
and spoil the fair harmony that was the basis of man’s fellowship with
his Creator, this error appeared. It was Satan who, encroaching upon the
beauty of Eden’s fair content, first said, “Hath God said?” The denial
of the truth of God’s spoken word originated with the enemy of man: and
it would behoove us all to remember that any man who has questioned His
written word from that hour to this, is also an enemy, and an emissary
of the original foe of mankind! Do we owe Satan so great a debt of
gratitude for the deep and dark pit of woe into which he has lured our
race, that we must lend slavish attention to the same old error when he
sponsors it today?
For this “modern” attempt to discredit the Scripture is but a
recrudescence of his ancient and simple strategy for the hurt of
mankind. Well does he know that if he can but shake the faith of our
generation in the integrity of the Bible, faith in God must soon be lost
as well. Once more pedantic scoffers, professors of this and of that,
arise solemnly to refute the truth of the only “map” that can ever guide
men back to the Paradise we lost when the first man rejected God’s
revelation.
It is interesting to see that this old error is in no new guise, in the
article referred to above. This is nothing new, it is just an original
approach to the same old mess of Satanic whispering. Indeed, Paul warned
us of the possibility of this very article and method in II Timothy 3:8,
when he said:
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
He introduces the very age of Egyptian history, and the events connected
with the Exodus in speaking thus of the false teachers of the apostate
days that should precede the time of our Lord’s return. And lo! the
event transpires in this year of grace, as the press of the twentieth
century casts doubt upon the Ten Plagues in this subtle manner.
It _is_ subtle. Also dishonest to the nth degree. Professing to accept
the historicity of the events, the article then proceeds to demolish the
credibility of the record, by ascribing all the plagues to natural
forces, directed by the genius of a human being, namely, Moses. God is
ruled out, the supernatural denied, and common sense prostituted to
infidelity in a manner that the shallowest thinker could not
countenance. For a man of medicine, or a scholar in any realm of
science, to foster such a contemptible evasion of plain fact, passes
understanding.
A few years ago it was customary for criticism to deny that these
plagues ever happened. Classifying them among the reputed folklore of
the Hebrews, and relegating them to the realm of the purely
mythological, the critic calmly and boldly denied that they ever
occurred at all. But these past years of research and study have so
established the historicity of the record, that this procedure is no
longer possible; so the new attack is made, on the basis of naturalism.
It is plainly stated that Moses himself brought about these plagues upon
the Egyptians, and that he did so by the use of his own superior
knowledge. In a word, he was a bacteriologist, three and a half thousand
years before Pasteur! That in itself is a greater miracle than the
plagues could ever have been! No microscope, no instruments of research,
yet he not only anticipated the discoveries of Lister and Pasteur, but
he also applied _germ warfare_ to the redemption of Israel, and “bent
the Egyptians to _his_ will.”
More marvelous than all this, he did it by simply polluting the Nile
River, the source of the life of Egypt. This of course was a simple
task! The Nile is a mighty river. If we follow its course just from the
First Cataract at Assuan to the mouth, it is over five hundred miles as
the river twists and bends round and about.
Now all Moses had to do was to impregnate those five hundred miles of
winding river with some deadly form of disease germs, that would affect
the Egyptians _but not the Israelites_! Any nice germ would do! Of
course, he had also to _keep_ those five hundred miles of flowing stream
polluted, in spite of the rushing current that swept fresh water down
day by day! Let us not forget, _that he did all this while Pharaoh was
looking on_: and that for seven days the condition continued, then to
end as suddenly as it had begun. We should like to know something of his
technique!
Then, after the river had cleared its waters, Moses boldly announced
that the Lord would overrun the land with frogs! This was done, not as a
result of a polluted river, but rather after the river was clear.
Pollution with disease germs might have driven the frogs out of the
river: but how did Moses get them to go _back_, as Pharaoh entreated him
to do?
Most conveniently, the author of the above cited article does not
mention how the lice were spread over the land by Moses! Did he
personally catch them and spread them all around, or had he been
breeding and storing them for years in advance? The flies may have
increased in the rotting piles of frogs, but what kept this pest of
flies out of the small section of Egypt called the Land of Goshen, where
the children of Israel were? Given the conditions that caused the flies
to breed, why did they refrain from the particular portion of the land
where Moses and his people were camping?
So also for the murrain on the cattle, and the boils on the Egyptians.
None of Israel were affected by these disasters. Did Moses have some
kind of salve or prophylactic serum that he used, he being the great
medical genius that this article makes him to be? Even that will not
account for the fact that when the hail came, it, also, avoided the camp
of Moses and his three and a half million compatriots!
But even a great medical genius and an accomplished meteorologist could
not have foreseen the coming of the locusts that darkened the sky and
the land as well. Nor could this great medical genius, even had he also
been an able entomologist, have seen to it that the locusts ate only
Egyptian vegetation, as Goshen greenery would have been just as
acceptable to _hungry_ locusts! And who ever saw any other kind?
Passing over the supernatural darkness with the simple observation that
it was _not_ an ordinary phenomenon such as a sandstorm (which left the
houses of the Israelites unaffected), we will hasten to the conclusion
of the matter, the death of the first-born. The article we are quoting
makes a terribly strained attempt to prove that others died as well as
the first-born, but the text of the Scripture does not so state or
imply. Indeed, the text very clearly sets forth the fact that it was
only the first-born who died. They died dramatically; all at the same
hour.
At midnight, simultaneously, death smote a certain restricted class.
The prince in the palace, and the felon in the dungeon; the cattle as
well.
_But the first-born of Israel did not die!
They were all under the blood!_
Quaint epidemic, was it not? It came as a result of disease germs in the
river Nile, it killed all its victims out of just one class, the
first-born, and it passed over any home that had lamb’s blood on the
door posts!
Is it necessary for a man to believe such arrant nonsense, and accept
such utterances of folly before he can qualify as an educated man, or a
scientist?
Most fortunately, it is not!
To show the truth of this matter, we can indeed study these ten plagues
in the light of modern science. Not by the flickering rays of the lamp
of human speculation can understanding be achieved. Only in the full
illumination of the sunshine of historical fact can the truth be
discerned. So, we will turn to the great and truly modern science of
archeology to study the Ten Plagues of Egypt, and see what the truth of
the matter really is.
In the first place, thanks to the vast amount of research in the
archeology of Egypt, we now know that these ten plagues were a contest
between the Lord God of the Israelites, and the pantheon of Egypt.
The genesis of the contest is given in Exodus 3:18. Here Moses is
instructed by God to ask Pharaoh for a three-day furlough for the entire
company of the Twelve Tribes, that they might go three days’ journey
into the wilderness, and sacrifice to Jehovah. This initial request was
to be the first step in a campaign that would result in the redemption
of Israel from their long bondage, and the apparently reasonable request
was made with the certainty that it would be refused. Indeed, the
request was such that Pharaoh _could not grant it_!
As we shall later see, the Egyptians were the most polytheistic nation
that ever lived. In their pantheon of deities there were more than
twenty-two hundred gods and goddesses, and each of them had a particular
theophany. That is to say, these gods and goddesses had certain animals
that were sacred to them, and in which animal form the particular god or
goddess occasionally manifested a personal presence. So very often the
deities of Egypt are depicted in stone and painting as having a human
body, but an animal head. Thus Thoth might be seen with the head of an
ibis, while Hathor sometimes has a human head, but more often she is
portrayed with the head of a cow.
So there was no animal that the Hebrews could sacrifice to their God,
Jehovah, that would not be sacred to some Egyptian deity. This sacrifice
would constitute blasphemy in the eyes of the Egyptian masters, and
trouble would eventuate immediately! Indeed, when Pharaoh, worn out by
the troubles brought upon him by the plagues, suggested to Moses that
the people sacrifice to Jehovah without going to the wilderness, Moses
simply replied in the language that is recorded in Exodus 8:26:
“What shall we sacrifice, that will not be an abomination in the eyes
of the Egyptians? Will they not stone the people if they sacrifice in
the land?”
The justice of the reply was so self-apparent that the ruler did not
press his suggestion, as the text shows. Thus God forced the issue and
provoked the conflict that not only freed His people from slavery and
eventually established them in the land that He had promised them
through Abraham, but also showed His supremacy over the gods of Egypt.
Even more than that, in the resultant series of events, the Lord God
brought such glory to His own Name, and showed such omnipotence that the
world has never forgotten this drama, even to our own day and time.
Witness the very article that is the subject of this present comment!
The clear statement of God’s attitude toward the conflict is seen in
Exodus 4:23, 24. The figure of speech used there is a divine choice,
therefore we use it just as God Himself expressed His own mind to Moses.
The “first-born” was the chief object of interest in every Egyptian
household, for two reasons. The law of primogeniture ruled in that day
and land, even as it does in England and other countries today. Also,
the first-born of every species, animal or human, was dedicated to the
gods, and was a sacred object, in a very strong sense of that word. So
later, we hear the law of Israel as set forth by God, that the
first-born of man or beast in the land is to be sacred to Jehovah: _not_
to the gods of Egypt.
Now then, as Moses was sent to Pharaoh, to carry the demands of God for
the release of the people, he was instructed to tell the ruler that
Israel was, in God’s sight, as prized and beloved a group as the
“first-born” was in an Egyptian household. In a figure of speech that
Egypt as a whole could most clearly grasp, God said: “Israel is _My_
son, _My first-born_: And I have said unto thee, Let my son go that he
may serve me; and thou hast refused to let him go; behold, I will slay
_thy_ son, _thy_ first-born.”
With this introduction, we can see clearly the genesis of the conflict.
It is most clearly stated in Exodus 5:1-3. When Moses said to Pharaoh,
“Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may
hold a feast unto Me in the _wilderness_:” the ruler of the land said,
in just so many words, “Who is Jehovah? I never heard of him!” Not only
did the mighty king reject the word and the commands of God, but he also
denied Him in no uncertain terms. This upstart Jehovah, who was _He_ to
give orders to Pharaoh the mighty? He was the god of an humbled and
captive people, therefore the king reasoned that his own gods must be
far mightier! So the proud and haughty monarch said, “I’ll stick by the
gods of Egypt; I know not this Jehovah, and I will not obey His words.”
Moses left with the clearly expressed warning that the king might not
then know Jehovah, but that he was certainly destined to find out about
Him! The call to arms, the challenge to combat, and the prophecy of
God’s victory are all expressed in the single verse in Exodus the
seventh chapter, where God tells Moses that “the Egyptians shall know
that I am Jehovah, when I stretch out my hand upon Egypt....” This,
then, was the primary reason for the ten plagues. God would teach the
Egyptians a lesson through _judgments_ that the land would never forget!
When he finished with them, none were ever again able to say, “And who
is this Jehovah? The gods of Egypt are stronger.”
Thus we see that the contest was primarily between the monotheism of
Israel and polytheism of Egypt. We would emphasize the fact that the
Egyptians were perhaps the most polytheistic race the world has so far
known. It is impossible to say just how many deities existed to the
Egyptian mind, but “their name was legion”! Two hundred separate deities
are named in the Pyramid Text, and four hundred and eighty more are
named in the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead. Altogether,
archeologists have recovered the names of over two thousand two hundred
different gods and goddesses that were worshipped by the Egyptians! Is
it any wonder that Jehovah must start His laws to His people with the
commandment: “Thou shalt have no other _gods_ before me!”?
A word about these objects of Egyptian worship will be necessary to
clear up the necessary later references to the practices and the beliefs
of the Egyptians. While these ancient folks never had the idea of an
immanent, pervasive God, in the monotheistic sense, they still had a dim
conception of a super-god principle, behind and over the various
individual gods and goddesses. There was first of all the grouping of
gods into triads, which was a widely accepted custom. Since each triad
consisted of a god, a wife, and a son, this grouping is less a
degeneration of the principle of the Trinity than might seem to be
suggested at first thought. Rather, it was a glorification of the
_family_ principle.
Thus we see that at Thebes, the principal triad of deities consists of
Amon-Ra, the king of all the gods, Mut, his Wife, and Khons, their son.
Ba-neb-Ded, with his wife Het-mehit, and their son Harpakhrad (whom the
Greeks later called Harpokrates) constituted the triad at Mendes. In
like manner, the Memphis triad was composed of Ptah, Sekhmet, and
Imhotep. Sometimes the greater gods were grouped into a company of nine,
called the Ennead. There was also the grouping of the major deities into
the “Three Companies,” being the gods of the heaven, the earth, and the
Other or Under World.
All the gods had human bodies, but some of them had animal heads.
Sometimes a god who customarily had a human head would appear wearing
the animal head of his theophany, as in the case of Hathor, cited above.
Thus when Hathor appears with a cow’s head upon a human body, she
appears with the solar disk between her horns; and when she appears with
the human head, she wears as a headdress the bonnet of the goddess Mut,
the wife of Amon-Ra, the horns of the cow, the solar disk which shows
her relationship to Horus, and the feather of the goddess Maat.
We have previously asserted that each plague was a direct blow at one of
these celestial beings, and it might be profitable to demonstrate this
fact with a few concrete illustrations.
[Illustration: Hapi]
The First Plague was a direct and definite blow at a numerous company of
these objects of worship. In the first place, the River Nile was itself
an object of worship. It was reputed to flow from the celestial stream
called Nu, and was heavenly in its origin. It brought life to the entire
land of Egypt, and was worshipped with appropriate and very exact
ritual. There were hymns to the Nile, prayers and offerings to and for
the Nile, and the river possessed in itself a very real personality. The
River is pictured in the form of a man wearing a cluster of water plants
upon his head, and the idea of fertility is conveyed by giving him the
heavy pendant breasts of a nursing mother! In the British Museum may be
seen a remarkable papyrus, containing the Hymn to the Nile. To show the
reverence felt for the power of the great River, we quote just a
sentence or two from this Hymn:
... Thou art the Lord of the poor and needy. If thou wert overthrown
in the heavens, the gods would fall upon their faces, and men would
perish....
This deified river, then, the source of life and blessing in Egypt, was
smitten by God, and its waters turned to blood. Frantically the
Egyptians sought to dig shallow wells by the banks of the stream, as
their water supply failed them for the first time in the memory of man!
Truly, Jehovah was greater than the Nile! And not only greater than the
River itself, there was more than this involved. There were many issues
involved, and many deities suffered “loss of face” that day!
[Illustration: Osiris]
There was the mighty Osiris, who was himself the cause and source of the
resurrection and of everlasting life. Greatest of all the gods of the
underworld, he has an important part in the text of the Book of the
Dead. The Nile was supposed to be his bloodstream! When God smote the
Nile, he laid the mighty Osiris low in the dust! With him fell Hapi—who
was the Nile-god, and also Satet, the wife of Khnemu, the goddess of the
annual inundation. Her divine sister, Anqet, bit the dust that day, as
she was the personification of the Nile waters, which turned into an
offense and a stench when Moses stretched out his staff. Time will not
permit the presentation of the characters of Isis-Sothis, Isis-Hathor,
Ament, Menat, Renpit and at least two score more, all of whom met defeat
in the First Plague. None of them could sustain their prestige and power
in the face of the action of Jehovah, and He emerged victorious in the
first trial of strength.
[Illustration: Khnum]
The Second Plague was likewise a contest between the Lord of the heavens
and the earth, and certain specific ideas of the Egyptian system of
worship. The plague of frogs that covered the land, making life a burden
to the people, was a blow struck at Heqt, the wife of the great Khnum,
whose theophany was a frog. Indeed, she was called the “frog-goddess,”
and this lowly creature was sacred to her. The frog was the symbol of
the resurrection, and the emblem of fertility. It was reverenced by the
people, and to have one around the dwelling place was a sign of good
fortune and was supposed to ensure a fertile year for farm and family
alike.
They got enough of this quaint object of reverence when God flooded
their land with myriads of the beastly things! They were in the
bread-trough, and got tangled up in the dough, thus adding a rather
quaint flavor to the bread! The bread could not be baked, however, as
the baking ovens crawled with frogs, and the fires could not be lighted.
They hopped all over the master of the house, and when he sought his bed
in disgust they were there before him.
Like a blanket of filth the slimy, wet monstrosities covered the land,
until men sickened at the continued squashing crunch of the ghastly
pavement they were forced to walk upon. If a man’s feet slipped on the
greasy mass of their crushed bodies, he fell into an indescribably
offensive mass of putrid uncleanness, and when he sought water to
cleanse himself, the water was so solid with frogs, he got no cleansing
there. In sheer desperation the mighty king was forced to beg, “Call off
your frogs, and I will let the people go!” Read Exodus 8:1-15.
And with that cry, the prestige of Heqt and Khnum was gone forever,
drowned out in the tidal wave of disgust that rolled up in protest at
_too much_ of her theophany!
It is a bit difficult to imagine that generation of Egyptians ever
worshipping the Frog again.
Plagues Three and Four are a bit more difficult to deal with at the
present writing, because of the personal ignorance of the writer. By
that he means to say that more light is required here as he does not
know definitely the exact god that was meant to suffer in the estimation
of the people, with the plague of lice. There can be no question,
however, that the people themselves were hard hit, as any veteran of the
A. E. F. will be only too glad to testify! This unclean parasite must
have been a source of misery that was well-nigh insuperable, when it
became as numerous as the very dust of the ground! It must have made the
Egyptians somewhat envious to see the Israelites basking in peace and
bodily comfort, while they, the lords of the land, itched and scratched
and suffered the misery of this vicious pest! How much better to trust
the God Jehovah who demonstrated His ability to keep His followers free
from even such a plague as this.
As for the flies, there is this suggestion, at least: one of them was
sacred to the name of Uatchit. What variety of fly is intended in the
text we cannot definitely say, as there are numerous species of flies.
But the _ichneumon_ fly is a symbol of this god, and their figures in
tiny statues and on papyri are well known to the modern archeologist.
They are a brilliant and beautiful insect, somewhat prized by the
entomologists of our day as specimens, but they can be a pest when they
come in too numerous companies!
Some years ago we were encamped in Mexico, with a company who were
digging for archeological treasure. The site was pleasant, the camp was
near a clear, meandering stream, and the shade trees were enjoyable.
There was just “one fly in the ointment” and that fly was the ichneumon.
Every time food was placed upon the camp table, this gorgeous insect
responded with enthusiasm and delight. They came in regiments and
companies, bringing all their relatives and friends with them! So we
could say from experience, that anyone who had to fight with a swarm of
ichneumon flies for his own share of the lunch, would soon come to
revile the god to whom this symbol was sacred! Not only Jehovah, but
_any_ god would seem preferable to Uatchit after an invasion of his
particular pets. Or should we turn this last word around and make it
pest, instead?
[Illustration: Hathor]
When we come to the Fifth Plague, we are again on solid and assured
territory. Once more firm archeological ground supports the theme of
this chapter. When God smote the cattle of Egypt, He dealt most
definitely and drastically with Egyptian polytheism. There were many of
the supreme objects of Egyptian worship that met their Waterloo in the
murrain on the cattle.
Chief of these is the mighty and venerated Hathor. She was the
“cow-goddess” that was universally worshipped in all the land, and was
to the human race of that day the “mother” principle of deity. Her most
common name in the Egyptian language is Het-Hert, which literally means
“the House of Horus.” The House of Horus is that portion of the sky
where Horus lives and is daily born, namely, the east. Hathor is
depicted in antiquity in many forms. Always she appears with a human
body, and may sometimes have a human head as well. But more often she
has a cow’s head on a human body, as the cow was her symbol. She often
walked the land in the theophany of a cow, and one could tell when a
calf was born, whether Hathor had come to earth, or not.
When this great goddess is pictured with a human head, she wears an
impressive headdress. This is composed of the spreading horns of a cow,
between which are seen the bonnet of Mut, the divine wife of Amon-Ra,
the king of the gods. Above this is seen the solar disk, as Hathor was
of “The Great Company” and was associated with all the beneficence of
the glorious and life-giving sun. The Book of the Dead teaches that
Hathor provides nourishment for the soul in the other-world, and as such
a provider she excels all the minor gods. So in all the forms in which
she is carved or drawn, she wears the sacred uraeus, to show her exalted
power.
When God smote the cattle, her especial symbol, He struck a mighty blow
at the tottering system for which Pharaoh had confidently expressed his
preference. The other forays were but skirmishes: this was a real and
decisive battle! This shrewd and telling victory was the beginning of
the end of the conflict. If the divine Hathor could not protect her
faithful following from the power of Jehovah, who could?
For not only Hathor was thus challenged and defeated, but other
important members of the Heavenly Company met defeat and disgrace in the
plague that smote the cattle. A common object in the Egypt of that day
was the sacred bull, Apis, whose power was vast indeed. His temples
dotted the land, and the priests of his cult were many and their power
was impressive in the extreme. On the forehead of Apis appears the
sacred triangle of eternity, and on his back is always seen the sacred
scarab, with spread wings.
Apis was the theophany of the god whose name was Ptah-Seker-Asar, and he
also was one of the triune resurrection gods. The living worshipped him
that they might live again in the world to come, and the dead, of
course, all worshipped him because he had made them to live again. Now,
alas, for those who trusted in him against Jehovah! He could not even
defend his own earth-form from the blight that his new enemy, Jehovah,
had sent on all that represented the great and powerful Ptah-Seker-Asar.
Thus God humbled the sacred Apis in the same stroke that crushed the
cult of Hathor.
To this record must also be added the name of Nut, the goddess of the
sky, and the wife of Geb. She it was who produced the egg out of which
the sun hatched, so in reality she preceded Horus and even Amon-Ra, even
though they ascended to a higher power and authority later. She is
depicted with a female human body, and the head of a cow. However, she
does not wear the solar disk, nor the headdress of Hathor, as she was a
little lower in the social company of the weird organization of nonsense
and mysticism that was the religion of Egypt.
The simple summary of the whole record is just this: all the gods of
Egypt were not able to defend the cattle, when the Lord God Jehovah
stretched out His hand to smite them! This the people of Egypt were
forced to concede, as their cattle died by the thousand before their
bewildered eyes, while not one of the herds of Israel lost so much as
one head of cattle by the murrain.
[Illustration: Reshpu]
The Sixth and Seventh Plagues are simple to deal with, as the record of
Egypt gives valuable aid to the unprejudiced student here. Imhotep was
the god of medicine, and the guardian of all the healing sciences.
Prayers were made to him for protection as well as for cures, and he was
greatly revered. In like manner, Reshpu and Qetesh were the gods of
storm and of battle, and they controlled all the natural elements except
the light. So the noisome and painful boils struck the devotees of
Imhotep and left him powerless to aid his praying following, and their
plight was pitiful indeed. How little it helped to see that the
followers of the god Jehovah, at whom Pharaoh had sneered with ridicule,
were comfortable, and with unblemished skins! No suppurating sores
advertised the pain of the Hebrews; the good hand of their God was upon
them, to protect them from the very disaster that came upon all the
Egyptians for Israel’s sake!
The medical man of the twentieth century, whose article we are now
considering, attributes all this painful consequence to the
bacteriological pollution of the Nile, which was accomplished by the
skill and wisdom of Moses. The present writer of this refutation is not
utterly ignorant of the science of bacteriology, but he humbly confesses
that he does not know of any pathogenic micro-organism that would bite
everybody except a Hebrew! We would like to know the name and the nature
of such a bacterium or bacillus! The Hebrews were exposed to the same
flies, the same germs, the same stench of the dead frogs, the same
epidemic that was consequent upon this chain of events, unless Moses
vaccinated or inoculated them all, some three and a half millions in
number. Truly the natural explanations of the supernatural cause reason
to totter on her throne!
[Illustration: Sebek]
But if God was at war with Imhotep, Reshpu and the gods of healing, and
desired to scatter their following and to open their eyes to the folly
of idol worship, we can see how He might protect His own, while smiting
the followers of the false religion. In that case also, Moses would not
need to be the only man in antiquity who could call up a devastating
hail storm at the dictate of his own will. Moses could leave it to God
to shame Reshpu and the other gods of the elements in the eyes of their
devotees.
The Eighth Plague, that of the locusts, is the easiest of all to
comprehend. This was a direct blow at the Egyptian conception of
Providence, and a sweeping victory over all that was holy in the eyes of
this idolatrous people. These ancient people ascribed the fertility of
their fields and the abundance of the harvests to certain specific
deities. The modern scholar establishes this fact by studying the hymns
of praise and the votive records of the Egyptians. But after the hail
had hammered their lovely ripening crops flat on the ground, and even
while they mourned their loss, swarms of locusts descended like a cloud,
and swept the land as clean of vegetation as a forest fire could have
done.
To see God’s purpose in this act, we need only consider the prophecy of
Joel. With a fidelity to detail that arouses the admiration of the
modern entomologist, this prophet of Israel portrays the devastation of
the land by a swarm of locusts, as a judgment from God upon His own
people. When famine and want stare men in the face, and they are beyond
the hope of other aid, then they turn back to God in sorrow and in
repentance. For where can men turn except to God, when the land lies
barren and devastated, and famine stalks the earth?
Thus in Egypt, when God would teach an unforgettable lesson to the proud
and haughty king whose impertinent comment had been, “Who is this
Jehovah?”, He punctuated His answer to Pharaoh’s question with a swarm
of locusts. It is reasonable to conclude that long after the starving
Egyptians had forgotten the pangs of hunger that came inevitably on the
heels of that visitation of consuming insects, the lesson of that
visitation remained.
All these disasters, following one after the other, had struck telling
blows at the very foundation of Egypt’s religion. But a worse was to
follow.
The Ninth Plague struck at the very apex and head of all the Great
Company of the pantheon. The most essential thing in all the physical
realm is light, and the Egyptians seemed to realize this fact. The
darkness of the ninth plague was a supernatural darkness. This much is
evident from the record, which says that it covered the land so grossly,
the people sought refuge in bed! Evidently artificial light would not
penetrate that fearful gloom; _but the children of Israel had light in
their dwellings!_
Of course they had it!
They are the people who later sang: “Jehovah is my light and my
salvation.”
But the songs of the Egyptians were directed to different gods entirely.
Here, then, was a golden opportunity to test the might of these
conflicting ideas of deity. Is Jehovah able to maintain His superiority
over the hosts of the Egyptian gods? They were indeed mighty in the
hearts of the people, and the contest was long and grim.
First of all to consider, there was the incomparable Thoth who had
worked out the system of placing all the stars, the sun and the moon in
the heavens. He had arranged also the seasons, as they had been decreed
by Ra. Although inferior to Ra and to Horus, nevertheless Thoth gave
light by night, and on those days that the sun was not visible. He also
gave Isis the power needed to raise the dead, and to offend him was to
suffer eternal loss. Remembering that the Hebrews had lived under this
culture and psychology for generations, and considering that they all
must have been tinctured somewhat with these beliefs, many of them must
have trembled indeed when Jehovah calmly engaged in battle with Thoth!
So the Lord God not only smote the god of Egypt in this part of the
conflict, but He also established His personal superiority in the minds
of His own despairing people. Certainly, when this plague ended, the
Hebrews hastened to follow His next commands without hesitancy, even
though those commands laid them in danger of the death penalty under
Egyptian law.
[Illustration: Sekhmet]
A lesser deity, but also a powerful one who suffered grievously in loss
of prestige while the darkness reigned, was the fire-goddess Sekhmet.
She was the divinity of fire, and thus also of artificial light. This
darkness that covered the land during this plague was called “thick”
darkness, and it was so impenetrable that for three days and nights, the
Egyptians stayed in bed! They saw the face of no man in those dark days
and dense nights, and it is evident that artificial light was useless.
Only in the houses of Israel did any light shine, but in each dwelling
in Goshen the light was undimmed. So it was demonstrated in the case of
Sekhmet, the lioness-headed goddess of artificial light, that she was
powerless when Jehovah invaded her realm.
With what delight did Moses remember all this, when later he wrote the
words of the First Chapter of Genesis. How his heart must have thrilled
as he spoke of God commanding the light to shine on the first day of
creation, and recorded the obedience of the light to the spoken word of
Israel’s God. He had seen that when God commanded darkness all the gods
of Egypt were powerless before Jehovah, and that it was therefore simple
for God to reverse the process, and bring light to alleviate the
darkness of the chaos.
The section of the pantheon that crumbled in the regard of the devoted
Egyptians that hour was a broad and numerous company. No divinity of all
the polytheistic company was very much more reverenced than Horus, the
hawk-headed. He was called “the eye of Ra,” and was the god of the
noontime sun. When the flaming heat of Ra was just overhead at the hour
of midday, and when its light and heat were the most intense, Horus was
in the ascendancy. When the deep darkness of the ninth plague hit the
land, the hearts of the people were sick with fright. Believing that the
sun was born anew every morning, and having an intense and
well-thought-out system of deities connected with this rite, they must
have thought that there had been wholesale slaughter and failure among
the heavenly beings. But there still would smoulder in their deepest
thinking, the dim hope that at noon the incomparable Horus would glow,
as Ra was the omnipotent, and his _eye_ could not be dimmed. But not
only did the noon pass in the same awful darkness, but two more noons
followed each other in slow succession, and the feebleness of the
once-revered Horus could no longer be doubted. So when they said, “Who
is mightier than Horus?” the children of Israel could reply with
grateful hearts, “Jehovah is; see, we have light in _our_ dwellings!”
But like many other heathen and idolatrous people, the chief object of
Egyptian worship was the sun itself. The natural mind can comprehend
this, and there is a little of the Parsee in most modern men. So to the
ancients the sun was a personification of beneficence and providence.
The worship of the sun took many forms in Egypt, but the oldest and most
general form of that worship was in the person of the god Ra, who
appears in ancient records in many guises, and under many names. Perhaps
the most common of these names is Amon-Ra. He was unquestionably the
chief form of deity to the Egypt of Moses’ generation.
[Illustration: Taueret]
As far as it can be said that the Egyptians conceived of a
god-principle, this was expressed in the person of Ra. He was the
creator of earth and of heaven, and of all things therein. All other
gods were parts of his person, and members of his body and substance.
The pantheon was headed by Ra, and after him came the gods and goddesses
who were parts of his body. One was his eye, another his ear, while
still another was his foot. This quaint conception was carried out for
every known section of the anatomy, which the Egyptians seemed to have
known fairly well.
Seeing, then, that Ra was immanent, pervasive, and the principle back of
all deities, he was the chief object of Jehovah’s enmity, and the real
subject of the contest and conflict. In all the other plagues the
_parts_ of Ra were defeated, and now at last the two ideas are locked in
the final struggle. It was preposterous to the Egyptians that any god or
power could be superior to Ra, as the sun is the source and seat of all
power. But the plague of darkness left him shorn of power and greatness,
and prostrated him before the feet of _Jehovah_ forever. Three
theophanies had Ra, and God desecrated every one of them!
Ra appeared in the form of the sun: so that was blotted out of the sky
for three days. Sometimes he walked the earth in the form of the
first-born of a cow, if that first-born was a bull. So the first-born of
all the cattle died, and Ra was covered with shame. Occasionally he was
supposed to visit men in the form of a ram. The first-born were all
sacred to him and dedicated to him from birth: yet when all the
first-born of Egypt died, the babes of Israel, with their cattle and
flocks were all safe, because they were under the shed blood of what was
Ra’s chief theophany, next to the sun! The application of the blood to
the lintel and the doorpost was an act of blasphemy against Ra, yet in
that very defiance the Hebrews were acknowledging at last that _Jehovah_
should be their God forever, in that He had proved His power.
[Illustration: Amon-Ra]
The Tenth Plague intrudes into the sphere of the ninth. The death of the
first-born was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, as far
as the Egyptian resistance to Jehovah was concerned. This is still aimed
primarily at Ra, although there were notable deities other than he that
suffered defeat in this last and awful skirmish. When the Children of
Israel left Egypt, bribed to depart by a people who were prostrated with
grief, the mourning Egyptians pressed upon them the cattle and the
flocks, the gold and the jewels requested. Anything to get rid of the
devotees of the awful Being who left every home in Egypt bowed in
sorrow, and who had slain, as well, every particle of faith the people
had in the once-powerful gods of the land of captivity!
To name many of these gods would be to weary the reader. But we cannot
refrain from naming Meskhemit, who was the goddess of birth. She was
also the companion of Hathor, and overshadowed the first-born of the
land. To what avail, when _all_ died who were under her divine
protection! And even stronger than she, was the mighty Min, the god of
virility and generation. Closely related to Amon-Ra, being the means of
extending the power of Ra to those who worshipped him, he too, fell with
a resounding crash, when the hand of The-Only-God-That-There-Is swept
all the idols of Egypt off their pedestals, in what might be called the
greatest “ten rounds” ever fought! Not only did _Jehovah_ win the battle
and the crown, He also won every round! The victory was complete and
crushing.
[Illustration: Set]
Many centuries later, Paul the Apostle recalled all that is implied and
stated here, when he wrote the ninth chapter of Romans and the
seventeenth verse. Here it is stated that God dealt so with Pharaoh,
that the name of God should be advertised throughout all the earth.
Is it so advertised?
Witness this article, cited above! Thirty-five hundred years have come
and gone since these things transpired, but the mind of man has not been
able to escape from the demonstration of God’s power that He gave in
that far-off day. And all we can say about this latest attempt to
explain the victory of God in the land of Egypt by attributing it all to
the smartness and genius of a learned man, is, it just will not stand
up! For the God who smashed the pantheon of Egypt evidently knew that
this attempt was due, and He raised from the dead, in an archeological
resurrection, the witnesses to the facts at issue. And we have done
nothing in this simple reply but review _their_ evidence! But in so
doing, we note again that modern science, whenever her voice may be
heard, establishes the Scripture and vindicates its claim, that “holy
men of old spake as they were moved by the spirit of God.”
CHAPTER V
Sources
One of the many questions that are frequently asked of the archeologist,
and one that is most difficult to answer in a few brief words, concerns
the source of his material. There is a sort of mystery that hovers over
this modern calling which intrigues the fancy of the average layman.
When an archeologist begins to dig in some barren waste of sand and
comes upon a buried city that has been missing from the history of men
for multiplied centuries, it impresses the casual observer as magic of
the blackest kind. There is, however, nothing supernatural or uncommon
about these discoveries, although the element of chance does enter in to
a minor extent. Some of the greatest and most prolific fields we
personally have investigated were brought to our attention when the plow
of a farmer cast up a human skull and focussed attention upon that
particular field. Generally, however, the sources of archeology are
uncovered by hard, patient, painstaking labor.
When an able prospector starts out in his search for gold, he is guided
by certain known factors that have been derived from the experience of
generations. Panning his way up a stream-bed, the keen-eyed hunter of
fortune tests every spot that previous experience had taught him might
be profitable. He may labor at one thousand barren sites before he
strikes gold. If he is in a mountainous country and the placer deposits
are not rich enough to pay him to tarry on the spot where the first
discovery was made, he will work his way on up the stream, testing site
after site for increasing values. If the show of color in his pan
suddenly ceases, he knows that he has passed the sources of these
wandering fragments. He then goes back to the last point where he found
traces of gold and then begins to search the side canyons and branch
streams that lead into the main channel. In this way he traces his path
step by step to the ledge from which the gold originally came. After
laboring weary months, or even years, with heart-breaking disappointment
and grim, hard work, if he is fortunate he announces a discovery. The
thoughtless immediately credit his good fortune to the goddess of luck
and wonder why they also could not be blessed that way.
This illustration is an exact picture of the manner in which
archeologists go about their business. There are certain sites that
experience has taught us should be profitable to investigate. The region
is carefully combed for surface indications. These may be such things as
shards of pottery, arrowheads, fragmentary bones, or any of the ordinary
debris that indicates a site of human habitation or burial. When the
surface indications suggest the probability of a real find, then the
digging commences. Most of our great discoveries are made only after
months, and even years, of painstaking survey. These surveys must be
made by men who are expert in the interpretation of surface indications
and fragmentary evidences. Thus it is at once apparent that there is
really nothing supernatural or magical about this sober craft; it is
scientific in its procedure. There is no “doodle-bug” for archeology
such as is sometimes used by those who are found around the fringe of
geology.
It must be remembered that the orientals differed greatly in their
building methods from the occidentals. It is customary among us to
excavate to bed rock before we lay the foundation for a building. The
orientals, however, began to build right on the surface of any site that
suited their fancy. For instance, a wandering tribe of nomads desiring
to settle either temporarily or permanently, would pick out a hill that
was more easily defended than a level site would be. Upon its crest,
they built their houses and generally fenced the scene for the purposes
of defense. Within these fortifying walls they dwelt in more or less
security until they became rich enough to be robbed. It would not be
long, however, under the brutal law of might that prevailed in those
ancient days, before some marauding band would overrun that site with
fire and sword. The walls would be breached or cast down and the
inhabitants put to sword or carried away into slavery. Usually fire
would sweep the homes of this once contented people and their memory
would soon be forgotten.
To one who has seen the sand storms of the East, the rest of the story
is self-evident. Even in our own times and in our own land, we have seen
what can happen when drought and wind begin to move the surface of a
country and make the efforts of man fruitless and unavailing. When men
lived in these sites of antiquity and kept the encroaching sands swept
and shoveled out, they were able to maintain their position of security.
As soon, however, as the site was deserted, the sand would begin to
drift over the deserted ruins. In a very few years the remains of the
ruined city would be lost from the sight of men. Perhaps a century or
two would pass by, during which this abandoned region would be devoid of
habitation.
Plate 6
[Illustration: Mace-head in British Museum]
Plate 7
[Illustration: Note cuneiform writing and sculpture on stone weapon]
Then another company of people looking for a permanent dwelling place
would chance upon this hill. Finding it suited to their requirements
they would immediately start building upon the surface. With no
knowledge whatever that a previous group of people had made this hill
their habitation, the new dwellings and walls would rise high upon the
covered ruins of the earlier period. Within a comparatively short time
they also would be the victims of some wandering conqueror, and once
again the wrecked habitations of men would be repossessed by the
drifting sands of the desert. It is not uncommon that in the course of a
thousand years such an experience would be repeated from three or four
to a dozen times upon the same site.
When the archeologist finds such a mound or hill, he has a treasure
indeed. By excavating this deposit one stratum at a time, he builds up a
stratographical record which is highly important in reconstructing a
consecutive history of this region. The date factors of the various
strata are generally established by the contents of each horizon of
dwelling, in turn. If the archeologist depends upon facts instead of his
imagination, a credible chronology for the entire region can thus be
constructed.
In such a recovery the common life of the people of antiquity is
revealed in amazing detail. We learn their customs of living, something
of their arts and crafts and their manner of labor. Their knowledge of
architecture is clearly portrayed through such ruins as remain, and the
general picture of the incidental events that made up their living is
clearly developed as the work proceeds.
Since the destruction of such a city was usually catastrophic, the
record suddenly breaks off at the point of the tragedy. The abruptness
wherewith the life and activity ceased, leaves all of the valuable
material undisturbed _in situ_. This circumstance, though unfortunate
for the ancients, is a happy one for the archeologist who thus is
enabled to rebuild their times and lives.
These sites yield many types of material. In establishing chronology,
the most important of all of these is probably the pottery. There is no
age of men so ancient that it does not yield proof of human ability in
the ceramic art. Without aluminum cooking utensils or iron skillets, the
folk of antiquity depended upon clay for the vessels of their
habitation. Dishes, pots, jars, and utensils of a thousand usages were
all made of this common substance. Before the invention of paper, clay
was also the common material for preserving written records. As each
race of people had its own peculiarities in the use of clay, the pottery
that is found on a given site is one of the finest indications of a date
factor that the site can contain.
Even after the invention of papyrus or parchment, these types of writing
material were too costly for the average person to use. Requiring some
cheap, common, readily accessible material upon which to write, the poor
of antiquity laid hold upon the one source of supply that was never
wanting. This consisted of shards of pottery. By the side of every
dwelling in ancient times might be found a small heap of broken utensils
of clay. The ingenuity of man suggested a method of writing on these
fragments. In every home there was a pen made of a reed and a pot of
homemade ink. With these crude tools, the common people corresponded and
made notes on pieces of clay vessels. When a fragment of pottery was
thus inscribed, it was called an ostracon.
These ostraca are among the most priceless discoveries of antiquity.
They were written in the vernacular and dealt with the common daily
affairs that made up the lives of the humble. They shed a flood of light
upon the customs and beliefs of the mass of the people. Some of the wall
inscriptions of great conquerors, if taken by themselves, would give an
impression of grandeur and splendor to their entire era, if we believed
such record implicitly. But for every king or conqueror there were
multiplied thousands of poor. These were the folks who made up the mass
of humanity and whose customs and lives paint the true picture of
ancient times. Therefore, these ostraca, being derived from the common
people, are the greatest aid in the reconstruction of the life and times
wherewith the Bible deals.
Another source of evidence is found in tools and artifacts which show
the culture of any given time and region. Knowing how the people worked
and what they wrought, has been of priceless value to the Biblical
archeologist. Since the critics made so great a case out of the alleged
culture of the people in every age, it is eminently fitting that the
refutation of their error should come from the people themselves.
Still another source of archeological material is to be found in the art
of antiquity. It seems that from the time of Adam to the present hour
the desire to express our feelings and emotions in the permanent form of
illustration has been common to man. The sites of antiquity testify to
this fact in unmistakable terms.
In the art of the days of long ago many subjects were covered. Much of
the painting and sculpture had to do with the religion of the time. Thus
we can reconstruct the Pantheon of Egypt very largely from the
illustrations that come to us from monuments and papyri.
Another large section of ancient art dealt with the history of the time
in which the artists lived and wrought. Since the work of such artists
was generally intended to flatter and please the reigning monarch, most
of this illustrated history is military in nature. Thus we are able to
confirm much of the Old Testament history through the recovery of
ancient art.
Other artists, in turn, dealt with the human anatomy, the style of dress
and the industries of old. When we gather together all of this
illuminating material, it is safe to say that ancient artists have
brought to us a source of material which is not the least of the
treasures of antiquity.
A final source of material is found upon the walls that made up the
actual dwellings of old. This business of scribbling names and dates
upon public buildings or objects of interest is not unique to modern
men. Deplorable as the custom may be, this ancient vulgarity has,
nevertheless, proved a great boon to the archeologist of our day. For
instance, many of the scribes and officials of antiquity, traveling
about the country upon the business of their lords, would visit one of
the tombs of a former age. Prompted by curiosity and interest in the
grandeur of antiquity, they came to stare and to learn. Their emotions
being aroused they desired some expression. This desire they sometimes
satisfied by inscribing upon the wall of a certain tomb or temple their
names and the fact that at such a date they visited and saw this wonder.
Since they generally dated their visit by the reign of the king under
whom they lived and served, a chronology may be builded for antiquity
from this source of material alone.
It has been more or less customary in our era for the itinerant gentry
to leave valuable information for fellows of their fraternity who come
along after them. This custom also is a survival of an ancient day. A
man journeying from one region to another would stop by the side of a
blank wall and inscribe road directions for any who might follow after
him. Sometimes he would add his name and the year of the reign of a
given monarch. It was not unusual also for such an amateur historian to
make some caustic and pertinent comments upon the country, the
officials, or the people. These spontaneous records are priceless. They
are the free expression of an honest opinion and are not constructed
with the idea of deluding posterity with a false standard of the
grandeur of some conquering king.
It is rather amusing now to look back to the long battle that was fought
between criticism and orthodoxy in this very field. With a dogmatic
certainty which was characteristic of the assumptions of the school of
higher criticism, these mistaken authorities assured us that the age of
Moses was an age of illiteracy. In fact, the extreme scholars of this
school asserted that writing was not invented until five hundred years
after the age of Moses. We have ourselves debated that question with
living men.
One such occasion occurred recently, when we were delivering a series of
lectures at Grand Rapids, Michigan. The subject had to deal with
archeology and the Bible, and the men in attendance seemed to appreciate
the opening lecture extremely. Therefore, we were the more surprised
when a gentleman, clad in clerical garb, came forward and in the most
abrupt and disagreeable manner demanded,
“By what authority do you state that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Your
dogmatic assertion is utterly baseless!”
In some surprise we replied, “I am sorry to sound dogmatic, as I try
never to dogmatize. All that I mean to imply is that I am absolutely
certain that he _did_ write it!”
Our humor, which was intended as oil on troubled waters, turned out to
be more like gasoline on raging fires! The exasperated gentleman
exclaimed with considerable more heat than he had previously manifested,
“You can’t _prove_ that Moses wrote the Pentateuch!”
“I don’t have to,” I replied, “as the boot is on the other foot! May I
quote to you a section from Greenleaf on Evidence? Here is the citation:
‘When documents purporting to come from antiquity, and bearing upon
their face no evident marks of forgery, are found in the proper
repository, the law presumes such documents to be authentic and genuine,
and _the burden of proof to the contrary devolves upon the objector_.’
Now, my dear brother, these documents _do_ come from antiquity. They
bear no evidence of forgery, and have thus been accepted and accredited
in all of the ages that make up three millenniums of time. You face a
problem if you are going to repudiate all the evidence and tradition of
their credibility. Just how are you going to prove that Moses _did not_
write these books ascribed to him?”
“That is easy,” the scholarly brother retorted. “Moses could not have
written the first five books of the Bible, because writing was not
invented until five hundred years after Moses died!”
In great amazement I asked him, “Is it possible that you never heard of
the Tel el Armana tablets?”
He never had!
So we took time to tell him of the amazing discovery of this great
deposit of written records from the library of Amenhetep the Third, and
their bearing upon the great controversy. Then we told him also of the
older records of Ur, that go all the way back to the days of the queen
Shub Ab, and manifest a vast acquaintance with the art of writing as far
back of Abraham as this patriarch in turn preceded the Lord Jesus
Christ! He frankly confessed his total ignorance of this entire body of
accumulated knowledge, and then closed the debate by stating,
Plate 8
[Illustration: Ancient seals, depicting historic events.]
[Illustration: Seal]
[Illustration: Seal]
[Illustration: Seal]
[Illustration: Section of a funerary papyrus, showing the progress
of the soul on its journey in the Other World]
“Well, it may be that every one else in antiquity could write, _but
Moses couldn’t...!_”
And such an one would accuse another of dogmatism! Because we stand upon
the certainty of the approved and orthodox conception of the credibility
of the Scriptures, and maintain our case with the most exact evidence,
we are not “scholarly.” Yet here is a reputedly religious leader,
utterly ignorant of an enormous body of knowledge derived from a
generation of research, who misleads those who are unfortunate enough to
be under his ministry, and offers them the fallacious, repudiated, and
utterly baseless conclusions of higher criticism, in the place of the
living bread which God has provided for His children! This is but to be
expected when we think the matter through. The bread of life is to be
found only in the pages of God’s Book. Therefore, if the source of this
bread is rejected and derided, the bread cannot be available!
The great pity of the matter is seen in the fact that this attitude is
entirely untenable, in the light of our present knowledge. Although our
science has demonstrated a remarkable culture for the very age of the
patriarchs, we are faced with religious leaders who are so far behind
the advanced learning of our day that they still teach the outmoded
nonsense of criticism, and claim that Moses could not write!
It is rather amusing in the light of this dogmatic assurance of critical
authorities to journey back through the hallways of time and find that
writing was a common custom a thousand years before Moses, or even a
thousand years before that! Throughout Egypt especially, the art of
writing was a universal possession among all classes of the populace.
The toilet articles used by the beauties of Ancient Egypt were highly
engraved with charms, and with prayers to the goddess of beauty. As an
Egyptian damsel prepared herself for the evening’s engagement, she would
read these prayers and charms which were supposed to give her divine aid
in impressing the ladies with her outstanding beauty! Poems of love and
lyrics of passion were engraved upon her toilet articles and were
incised upon the walls of her apartment as well.
In addition to this, most of the ancients wore amulets to guard them
against the evil eye and every sort of disaster.
Some wore engraved pectorals that showed the high development of the art
of writing to a great antiquity.
Businessmen of various kinds, minor officials and even the common people
carried upon their persons seals wherewith to sign the documents and
contracts of their casual business affairs.
From this common source there is a kaleidoscopic view of ancient life
that thrills the observer with its ever-changing magnitude. It is almost
impossible to limit the value of such discoveries as to the integrity of
the Scriptures. In all this enormous mass of authoritative data not one
single fact has ever been derived which argued against the credibility
of any statement in the Bible.
An even more important source of historical evidence is found among the
papyri of old. This valuable material was invented in Egypt at a very
early age. In Upper Egypt the Nile was bordered, and in some places
overgrown, with a prolific reed which is scientifically called “cyperus
papyrus.” It is from this name that the paper manufactured from this
substance derives its identification. The manufacture of papyrus was a
simple procedure which nevertheless required time. Briefly stated,
strips of the papyrus reed, cut to a uniform length and saturated with
water, were laid down side by side. Another layer of strips was laid
across them transversely, and usually a third layer was superimposed
upon the second layer. These layers of reed, being laid in alternate
directions, were then pounded with a flat paddle and smashed into a
pulp. When the mass dried, it was a sheet of rough paper, somewhat
comparable to the paper towels that are used in our generation. The
edges were trimmed smoothly and the surface of the paper was smoothed
off with a shell or rubbed with sand. This finished side of the paper
was called the obverse and was the side upon which writing was
customarily inscribed. So expensive was this substance, however, that
frequently both sides would be covered with writing. In that case the
rough side was always known as the reverse. Many of these papyri not
only were inscribed with a written text but were highly illustrated with
scenes depicting the life and customs of the people. These illumined
papyri, some of which go back to a very remote age, are of tremendous
value to the student of the Scriptures.
We have, for instance, papyri from Egypt at the time of Moses, showing
the fowlers engaged in capturing quail. (See Plate 10.) These birds
being tired by their long flight in their annual African migration, fell
easy victims to the men who smote them to the earth or captured them in
hand nets. Incidentally, the author has frequently been offered such
quail upon the streets of Cairo by vendors who earned a precarious
living by peddling such game. Many Scriptural events are attested in
this manner by these illustrated manuscripts.
Since there was a high content of starch in the finished papyrus, it was
possible to make them any length desired. By moistening the edges of two
sheets and pressing or pounding them together, the result would be a
single sheet when the joint had dried. This process could be continued
indefinitely. As a method of comparison let us note that the entire
Gospel of John could be written on a papyrus of the usual width, if it
was eighteen feet in length. Such a long sheet would be rolled to form a
complete volume. The longest papyrus we have ever seen is in the British
Museum and is exhibit No. 9999. This single sheet is 135 feet long.
Another papyrus of unusual length is that which shows the funery
experiences of the scribe Ani. This is a highly illumined specimen and
contains many illustrations of the soul of Ani, as he goes through the
intricate process of achieving eternal life in the realm of Osiris. This
papyrus is 78 feet long and is one foot, three inches wide. The average
sheet of papyrus, however, is about six by nine inches.
These papyrus records are divided into many kinds and types. Some of
them are funery, and deal with the events of the decease and
resurrection of the individual. Most noteworthy among the papyri of this
type are the various texts of the “Book of the Dead.” These are
illuminated with scenes of religious beliefs. They depict the experience
of the soul on its pilgrimage into the hereafter. They tell of the
conditions of life in the other world and the manner of entering into a
blessed state after death.
There are also papyri that deal with pure literature. Almost every
subject common to modern literature is found in the ancient records of
this type. For instance, fiction was a common field for the scribe of
antiquity. The British Museum contains many of these prized papyri, as
does the Egyptian Museum at Cairo.
It might surprise the modern reader to know that the Egyptian people of
old highly prized stories of mystery and imagination. Some of their
greater manuscripts bear a strong resemblance to portions of the Arabian
Nights, and they may indeed have been the original basis of that later
production.
In the British Museum a papyrus, No. 10183, is a fine example of this
common theme. This is entitled, “The Tale of the Two Brothers.” In the
introductory section, the life of a humble farmer in ancient Egypt is
given in detail. The familiar triangle develops between the elder
brother, his wife and the younger brother. The plot develops when the
wicked wife made herself sick by rancid grease, and, bruising herself
with a stick, lay moaning on the floor when her husband returned.
Accusing the younger brother of attempted assault, she aroused her
husband’s anger to the point where he grabbed an edged weapon and set
out to kill the suspected villain. The oxen, however, told the younger
brother of the ambush that was set for him and he fled the home.
Marvelous miracles occurred during this flight, which opened the eyes of
the elder brother to the injustice that he had been about to perpetrate.
Whereupon he returned home, and satisfied the demands of the stern
justice of his day by slaying his wife and feeding her body to his pet
dogs. The rest of the story is taken up with the wanderings and
adventures of the younger brother. This record goes back to the
thirteenth century B. C., and is a perfect specimen of the fiction of
that time.
Limited space will not permit the introduction of other notable classics
of fiction such as the story of the shipwrecked sailor; the story of the
doomed prince; the story of the possessed princess; the story of the
eloquent peasant, and any number of other records, nor is their
presentation essential to the development of our thesis. Their value,
however, is seen in the fact that not only do they depict the literary
tastes of antiquity, but they delineate many of the common details and
incidents of the daily life of those ages.
There are also any number of poems which have a high historical value.
We shall refer later to the famed poem of Pentauer, which immortalizes
the victories of Ramses the Second, which this great conqueror achieved
over Egypt’s ancient enemies the Hittites. The discovery of this record
was the first appearance of the Hittites in archeology and caused a
sensation in the ranks of Biblical criticism.
Among the more sober types of literature will be found narratives of
pure history. Such would be the lists of the kings, giving the
chronology of the dynasty of each. Records of conquest, lists of
tribute, and the names of captive races form the bulk of this type of
material.
There are also books of maxims teaching the higher morality of the age
in which the papyrus was written. In a word, the literature preserved in
the papyri of Egypt deals with religious aims, books of magic, records
of travel, and the science of that day. From the latter we learn their
beliefs and technique in the realm of astronomy. Their system of
mathematics is preserved for us in such prize records as the Rhind
Papyrus which deals with the geometry of that age. This papyrus is in
the British Museum and is numbered 10,057. In the Museum at Cairo is a
papyrus illustrating the geography and cartography of antiquity. This
famous map shows the religious divisions of that province, which is now
called the Fayyum. Others of these papyri deal with medicine as it was
practiced in that ancient day. There are, of course, biographical papyri
that are almost innumerable, all of which reconstruct for us the lives
and times of these people who are so long dead, but far from forgotten.
Among the most important of all the varieties of papyri are those which
preserve for us the embalming technique practiced at various stages in
the development of this art in Egypt. Since the Egyptians believed that
the resurrection of the body and its eternal life depended upon the
preservation of the physical form, they took great pains in their
preparations for the burial of their dead. The most graphic description
of the method used is given by Herodotus and is thus familiar to all
students of history. This noted writer states that three general methods
were used by the Egyptians and the cost of each was graduated to the
thoroughness of the method.
The most expensive means of embalming was an elaborate process indeed.
The abdominal cavity was opened and the viscera were removed from the
body. These were carefully washed in palm wine, thoroughly dried and
sprinkled with certain aromatic spices. The brains were withdrawn from
the head and treated in this same fashion. These cavities were then
dried and filled with a combination of bitumen, myrrh, cassia and
various other expensive and astringent spices. The openings were then
sewed up. A tank was prepared which was filled with a solution of soda,
and the body was steeped in it for seventy days. After removal from this
pickling solution the body was thoroughly dried in the hot sun and
anointed with spicy compounds which had the two-fold purpose of
imparting a fragrant odor to the mummy and of further preserving its
structure. The process was completed when the body was wound with the
strips of linen with which all students of Egyptology are so familiar.
The cost of this type of embalming varied, of course, in each dynasty,
but as a general average it would be in the neighborhood of $1500 in our
modern currency. When we consider the disparity between our standard of
money value and that of ancient Egypt, it can be seen that such a
preparation was enormously expensive.
A cheaper method of embalming consisted of dissolving the viscera by
means of oil of cedar. The flesh also was dissolved with a caustic soda
solution, and the skin shrunk tightly to the bones. This dessicated form
was then wrapped in the traditional linen bandages. The cost of this
process was in the neighborhood of $300 in the currency of our day.
For the very poor, however, a cheaper form of preparation was used. The
body was dumped into the tank of soda, where it was alternately
saturated and dried for a period of seventy days. The pickled body was
then handed over to the relatives, who wrapped it according to their own
ability and means and arranged for burial at any convenient site. This
process would cost in the neighborhood of $1.50 in our present standard
of currency.
It will be noted that the customary period of embalming was seventy
days. A discrepancy has been fancied here between this ordinary custom
and the embalming of Israel, as it is recorded in the fiftieth chapter
of Genesis. The third verse of that chapter states, “And forty days were
fulfilled for him, for so are fulfilled the days of those which are
embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him three score and ten days.”
The discrepancy, however, has been cleared up by the discovery of the
fact that under the Hyksos Dynasties the period of the embalming was
forty days instead of seventy, and the mourning of the dead was more
important than the time used in preserving the body.
In the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, exhibit No. 1270, is a magnificent
anthropoid sarcophagus from the time of Psammetichus the Second. The
inscription on this sarcophagus confirms the statement that the
embalming process lasted seventy days and is a testimony of the honesty
of the undertaker in that he did not shorten the time for the extra
profit involved.
It is to the reverence for their dead that was manifested by all in
Egypt that we owe our present wealth of archeological material. The most
voluminous evidences for the accuracy of the Bible come to us from
burial sources. Very often the coverings of the corpse were inscribed
with verbose descriptions of the life, morals, and piety of the dead
individual.
A further source of material is found on the cartonnage. When the body
had been encased in bandages a type of coffin was made that is called
mummiform or, more commonly, anthropoid. (See Frontispiece.) This first
covering was made of some plastic material, which was moulded to the
form of the individual to be buried. In the earlier days this cartonnage
was made of strips of linen cloth pasted together and covered with a
type of shellac. While still plastic, this material was moulded to the
contour of the head and shoulders of the occupant until it took on a
rough resemblance to the individual. This may have been the origin of
the death-mask custom which continues in some regions even to the
present time. In later times this first covering was gilded, and, in the
case of the very rich, might be decorated also with eyes of obsidian or
lapis lazuli.
In later periods, the cartonnage was made of outmoded papyri. These were
dampened and moulded into a mulch like the method of using papier-mache
in our generation. In so doing, however, the writing was not demolished.
Some of the greatest discoveries of antiquity have come to us when a
cartonnage made of papyrus has been carefully separated into its
original sheets and the writing thereof recovered.
When the mummy was enclosed in its cartonnage, a wooden coffin was then
prepared, which quite frequently was also anthropoid in shape. (See
Plate 11.) Not only did it maintain the form of the human body, but very
often it had also a painted portrait of the dead person to identify the
deceased. This wooden coffin was painted and inscribed on the inside and
the outside with a record and history of the individual, to which were
added scenes and texts from the Book of the Dead. (See Plate 12.) This
second coffin was not always made of wood, however. In the case of
Tut-ankh-amen, the coffin was of solid gold, and constituted a
tremendous treasure in itself. This was possible only to a monarch or a
noble of enormous wealth.
The final covering was the sarcophagus, a great rectangular box
sometimes made of wood, but often formed of stone. In this box the
anthropoid coffin was carefully placed and the lid was tightly sealed.
In preparing the sarcophagus, every inch of the inside would be engraved
with a record of the history of the individual as well as of the times
in which he lived. On the inside of this box, the bottom, both ends, and
the two sides would be covered with writing as closely as the characters
could be engraved. Not content with this, the industrious scribe of
antiquity also covered the outside of the sarcophagus, both ends, both
sides, and the top with further writings. We have illustrated this
custom clearly in Plate 13.
To make the case complete, the noble, the wealthy, and the great of
antiquity were buried in tombs, the walls of which were illuminated with
frescoes, murals, and texts in written script that covered every square
inch of space on the ceiling, as well as on the four walls. All of the
visitors to the Valley of the Kings in Upper Egypt have wondered over
these remarkable and complete records. They are, however, more than just
a curious sight to satisfy the interest of the tourists. They are one of
the priceless sources of valuable information concerning the coincidence
of ancient history with the text of the Scripture! (See Plate 14.)
Still another source of material and information is found in the
innumerable stelae which covered the ancient world. The word “stele” is
a Greek word meaning “an upright stone.”
Archeologically it applies to slabs of stone which were erected over a
burial site in the fashion of a headstone in our modern custom. Some
were square, some rectangular, and some were artistically rounded at the
top. In the case of a burial stele, the name of the man so honored,
together with a record of his life and conduct, was carved in high
relief upon the stone. Thereon were named the king and the dynasty under
which the dead man had lived, and sometimes the important historical
events of that reign. Always such a stele contained the episodes of
history to which the given individual had personally contributed. They
are a large source of historical information. These stelae were
sometimes erected in public places as memorials of great events. (See
Plate 15.)
When Ramses the Second won his great campaign against the Hittites, he
ended a five hundred year period of warfare in which the Egyptians had
been consistently defeated. To celebrate his victory, a voluminous
account of his valor and skill was carved upon a large number of stelae
and erected in prominent centers throughout his kingdom. So also
Amenhetep the Third set up a stele to record his conquest of the country
of Abhat. This beautifully preserved record may be seen in the British
Museum. It is exhibit No. 657 in Bay 6.
In the Egyptian Museum at Cairo there is a stele originally erected by
Amenhetep the Third. We shall refer to this one again because his
successor Menepthah appropriated this stele, and because it contains his
record of the Israelites, who are thus acknowledged by the monarchs of
Egypt to have been a people of importance in the annals of their empire.
The most stupendous source of material is found in monuments. The larger
and most important type of monument is of course the buildings of
antiquity. To the Egyptologist the most entrancing and magnificent
spectacle on the face of the earth is the ruined temple at Karnak. The
general public is so familiar with the magnitude and extent of these
stupendous ruins, it is not necessary to make more than a brief
reference to them in this paragraph. Any standard encyclopedia, such as
the current Britannica, carries a more or less lengthy article on this
subject, and the number of interested observers who have studied these
ruins is almost beyond estimating.
The present city of Luxor, in Upper Egypt, was once known as Thebes, and
was the center of government in times long past. Three very important
sources of study are found in that vicinity. There is the great Valley
of the Kings, where so many of the dead great of Egypt were buried. Then
also there is the great temple at Luxor, which is still in the process
of recovery. It is to be regretted that excavations there have been
halted for some time, due to the fanaticism of the Moslems, who refuse
to permit a mosque to be moved from the top of the remaining mound,
under which the balance of this great temple still lies buried.
Last, but far from least, there is the great temple, called Karnak. The
evidences that have been recovered from this site carry us as far back
as the early stages of the Old Kingdom, and may indeed be pre-dynastic.
There are a number of temples that have been erected upon this site,
which contribute to the glory of its past history. The earliest relics
found are flint instruments, and there are a number of recoveries from
the Middle Kingdom also. While the famed archeologist Legrain was in
charge of the work of recovery here, he opened one great pit from which
an unbelievable amount of material was recovered. In this one find,
seven hundred and fifty large statues were dug up, and more than twenty
thousand smaller objects were recovered from this same pit. This was
largely a Middle Kingdom deposit. It may be said that the entire history
of the land is seen here, from the archaic age to the end of the
Ptolemaic period.
There are three major ruins that make up the vast monument of Karnak,
which, with the avenue of ram-headed sphinxes, is almost a mile in
length. Each of these three enclosures has its own story to tell. The
smallest one is the most northerly, and was built by Amenhetep the
Third. Ramses the Second added to its structure, and the imposing gate
was built by Ptolemy Euergetes the First. This magnificent gate is
practically all of the original structure that remains today. The
outline of the foundation of the original temple may be traced, but its
material, with the exception of the gate, has long since disappeared.
The south enclosure contained the temple built to the glory of the
goddess Mut by Amenhetep the Third, of which also very little of the
original structure remains. Behind this temple, however, is a sacred
lake, shaped like a horseshoe, upon which tradition says the barge of
the sacred lady used to appear. Indeed, there are fellahin in Egypt
today who maintain that at certain times when the moon is just right,
this notable barge may still be seen if one is fortunate enough to be on
the spot at the right time. (We regret to say that the times that we
were there were never the right ones!)
There were small temples and shrines inside both of these enclosures
where various kings honoured other deities in the lengthy pantheon. Some
traces of these may still be seen here and there, and much more may yet
be brought to light by the excavations now being conducted there by the
Department of Antiquities.
It is the third enclosure which is the great one, and the really
thrilling monument. It is about 1,500 feet square, so that it is at once
apparent that it is immense. Undoubtedly it is the largest temple ever
constructed by man. Two million, two hundred and fifty thousand feet of
floor space make quite a place of worship in any day and age!
The original sanctuary was probably begun by Usertesen the First, who
dedicated it to Amon-Ra. Having done so, the king then used the walls,
pillars, beams, and all other available space to carve a record of his
own reign and greatness; not forgetting, of course, to give Amon-Ra due
credit here and there for such divine aid as the Pharaoh may have needed
from time to time! The drawings, paintings, and carvings of this monarch
are a fine source of information concerning his times and peoples.
This seems to have established a precedent at Karnak, for the original
temple was added to by Thothmes the First, who faithfully followed the
example of his predecessor, and told what a mighty man he also turned
out to be! Then Seti the First followed him, to be in turn replaced by
Thothmes the Third, and neither neglected to carve the tale of his power
and successes on the additions to the original temple that Usertesen had
started.
The next builder was Amenhetep the Third, and after him the three
successive Ramses all built extensive votive shrines and temples. The
amount of carving, painting, and hieroglyphics that covers all this
mighty pile of stone work is almost unbelievable, and leaves the
beholder amazed and somewhat awed.
The most noteworthy section of the standing ruins is the great
hypo-style hall, which is one of the architectural wonders of the world.
This hall is 171 feet deep and 338 feet in breadth. The roof was
supported by 134 mighty columns, set in 16 rows, of which the two
central rows were by far the highest. The roof of this great hall was 78
feet above the floor, and the entire structure was covered with reliefs
and painted scenes from the conquests and lives of the builders.
Here are to be found the most gratifying evidences of the integrity and
accuracy of the Scripture that the most ardent devotee of the Bible
could desire. The Pharaohs who appear in the text of Holy Writ are there
on Karnak’s walls as well, and this testimony of ancient heathen
monarchs is conclusive and final.
As the kings of antiquity consistently carved upon the walls, the
pillars, and the beams of Karnak the proud record of their conquests, it
is inevitable that this source of material should be drawn upon heavily
by the exponent of the Scripture. In a later chapter we shall return to
Karnak again and again to read these treasured accounts.
There are many other temples of antiquity that are of almost equal
value, such as the great temple at Luxor. Students have long been
familiar with the nature of the great pyramids which have also a great
contribution to make to our sources of evidence. It is to be noted,
however, that only an honest and honorable evaluation of these evidences
is of any aid to the faithful student of the Scripture.
One of the greatest but most nonsensical heresies of our generation is
the false teaching that parades under the name of “British-Israelism.”
This ridiculous fantasy is predicated upon the false premise that the
Great Pyramid is a prophecy erected under divine leading. By a weird
interpretation of its mathematical proportions, it is presumed to
portray a prophetic record of coming events. It is the source of more
fantasy than has ever been derived from any other misapplication of
coincidence!
The advocates of British-Israel heresy claim that the pyramids were
never used as burial sites. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. They
were nothing but stupendous graves.
We have ourselves been in the burial chambers of the Great Pyramid and
have seen the sarcophagi.
We have had the pleasure of examining the great stone casket that was
taken out of the pyramid, containing the mummy of the buried king, as
well as the replica thereof which was put back into this burial chamber
to satisfy the interest of visiting tourists.
We have been in the burial chamber of the queen and the royal children
as well.
We have seen these mummies that came out of the Great Pyramid, have
poked our way into the treasure room and have seen some of these
recoveries which were made when the pyramid was entered.
To show something of the interest the kings of antiquity had in their
resting places, it is recorded on credible ancient authority that the
building of this Great Pyramid occupied twenty years, and that three
hundred thousand men were employed in the building. Ten years were
occupied in the one task of quarrying the stone. Another decade passed
by in the erection of the monument. Herodotus states that the men worked
in groups of ten thousand, laboring three months at a shift. The records
of Herodotus contain a description of the construction of earthen ramps
up which the stones were skidded by means of wooden machines.
The Cairo Museum contains a number of very valuable exhibits from this
greatest of all burial mounds. So also has the second pyramid of Gheza,
in turn, yielded its mummies, as have the others which have since been
breached.
We cannot ignore the great evidence given by the type of monument
composed of the obelisks, the erection of which delighted the ancient
conquerors. These consisted of enormous stone shafts that towered into
the air sometimes to a distance of seventy feet. These great spires were
engraved with the name of the monarch, a description of his greatness,
and some of the more important records of his reign.
In closing, we must not neglect to mention also the boundary markers
that were so common in the Assyrian culture. These engraved stones,
often illustrated with sculptured figures in high relief, are of unique
importance not only because of their written records but also because of
their ubiquity. Throughout all of the ancient world of Mesopotamia they
seem to have been in general use. Since they were an important factor in
deciding the title of a section of land, they were carefully made and
preserved. The date factor is generally a certain year of the reign of a
given king, and the historical information derived from monuments of
this type is practically unlimited. (See Plate 16.)
Also, since the ancients had no hinges, it was customary in constructing
a door to have it turn upon a pivot. Beneath the door sill was a
hollowed stone customarily called an ouch. This acted as a bearing which
supported the weight of the door and enabled one man easily to swing a
very heavy structure. These ouches were generally engraved with the name
of the building, the purpose of the building and, perhaps, the cost and
record of the construction. (See Plate 17.)
From all these scattered sources, then, we gather together the unified
testimony of multiplied thousands of men once dead who speak from the
long silence of their forgotten era. Their united testimony is an
unbroken chorus of assurance for those who are concerned over the
integrity of the text of the Scripture.
In the bewildering mass of all this evidence which together would weigh
so many tons that the figure, if computed, would appear fabulous, there
is not one word, one testimony, or one fact that has contradicted or
disproved a single line of the Holy Bible.
Plate 9
[Illustration: Herds of cattle, such as the Hyksos kings possessed]
Plate 10
[Illustration: Ancient mural of the slaughter of cattle]
[Illustration: Papyrus showing the capture of quail]
CHAPTER VI
Fragments
“Rome was not built in a day,” is a self-evident truth: but it is
equally true that it was not _excavated_ in a day, either! In fact, as
all visitors to Italy can testify, the Department of Antiquities is
still working on some of the more ancient sites, and certain of the most
extensive ruins are just beginning to emerge for the delight of our
generation. Archeology is a very fine exposition of the truth inherent
in the old proverb of science: “Research is the examination of the tenth
decimal place.”
There are many stupendous monuments that have been uncovered with
surprising speed, but the majority of our most valuable evidence has
been derived from long and patient digging, and is often composed of
innumerable fragments from here and there. Standing alone, any one of
the many items that appear to be inconsequential would arouse no
interest in the average observer, and would be passed over without
comment. Such evidence is similar in its accumulative force to the
action of water. A drop, or any number of single drops of water,
attracts very little attention, but when enough of them combine to form
a flood, great cities and whole nations sit up in alarm and pay strict
attention to the course of the flow.
So it is today with the flood of facts that make up the great stream of
discovery, and constitute so forceful a demonstration of the value and
accuracy of the Bible. A few facts from Egypt suddenly fit into the
pattern of certain other events that occurred in Assyria, and these in
turn naturally correlate themselves with a record inscribed upon a stone
by some king of Moab. Like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, these isolated
and apparently unrelated facts make a complete picture when they are
intelligently assembled, but careless or ignorant handling can never
show the marvelous pattern in its complete beauty.
In this chapter we will offer a group of these fragments from here and
there, and show their value to the student who seeks evidence on the
question of the authority of the Holy Word. Their accumulated force is
irresistible, and their final authority cannot be refuted. Just as
grains of sand make up a mighty mound when they are assembled into one
great heap or deposit, these fragmentary facts have an imposing
authority when they are taken together. In support of this statement, we
shall cite the problem of chronology.
One of the greatest difficulties that has always faced the students of
antiquity was the construction of an accurate and detailed chronology.
The early Egyptians paid no attention whatever to chronological
sequence, but dated the episodes and events which they recorded by the
year of the contemporary monarch. Among the Chaldeans and the Sumerians,
however, lists of eponyms were carefully kept. In the Assyrian meaning
of this word an eponym was an official whose name was used in a
chronological system to designate a certain year of office. From these
consecutive records of the eponyms, king-lists of unusual and detailed
accuracy were compiled. A great deal of the difficulty in harmonizing
the chronological factors in the study of antiquity has recently been
solved by a close study of these canons, which studies were first begun
by Sir Henry Rawlinson. As an instance, we note that one such
consecutive list gives all of the eponyms from B. C. 893 to 666.
Another magnificent aid to the Biblical chronologist is found in the
astronomical data which were so carefully kept at the same historical
period. Through these credible records we have the material to check the
accuracy of the king-lists that adds to their tremendous value. For
instance, a tablet has come to us stating that in the eponym of one
Pur-sagali, there was an eclipse of the sun which took place in the
month Sivan. Since Sivan would be composed, according to our calendar,
of the last two weeks of May and the first two weeks of June, it is easy
to make an astronomical calculation to fix this date. We are delighted
to find that there was an eclipse of the sun which would have been
visible at Nineveh on June 15, 763 B. C. With this factor fixed, we can
now date all of the events of that period of antiquity from these
king-lists to the time of the beginning of the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
Another such tablet, which came from Babylon, gives us an opportunity to
check back the other way. This tablet merely states, “In the seventh
year of the reign of Cambyses, between the 16th and 17th of the month
Phemenoth, at one hour before midnight, the moon was obscured in the
vicinity of Babylon by one-half of her diameter on the north.” We then
turn to our modern astronomical sources and learn from them that there
_was_ just such an eclipse of the moon which would have been visible in
Babylon in the year 522 B. C. Since this was the seventh year of
Cambyses, it follows that he must have ascended in the year 529.
This is exactly what is demanded by the Biblical chronology accepted at
our present time. Incidentally, by correlating the prophecies and
history of the Old Testament to the proved chronological points in these
records, archeology has vindicated the historical and traditional
acceptance of those dates which criticism unsuccessfully disputed. The
kings of Israel and Judah, with the writing prophets of each monarch’s
reign, may now be correlated into this accredited system of chronology.
When this is done, the traditional and accepted dates for the prophecies
of the Old Testament which orthodox scholarship has always maintained,
are established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the confused condition of the Egyptian chronology it is difficult to
dogmatize concerning the exact identification of certain pharaohs whose
records are contained in the Sacred Text, but who are not identified by
their prenomen in Holy Writ.
A good deal of this confusion, however, is being dissipated with
surprising rapidity due to the recovery of some hitherto unknown
sources. The tendency of our present day is to concede that the Pharaoh
Thotmes, whose name is more commonly given as Tuthmosis, was the pharaoh
of the Oppression. There is a great deal of reliable authority for
adopting this view. This mighty sovereign, whose history we have partly
covered in connection with his sister, wife and domineering queen,
Hatshepsut, in the portion dealing with the times of Moses, according to
the best chronologist, reigned fifty-one years. He died in 1447 B. C.,
and was succeeded by Amenhetep the Second. This fact would make it
practically certain that the latter monarch was the pharaoh of the
Exodus.
There is a great deal of gratifying demonstration in the new chronology
which, being purged from the gross errors that naturally resulted from
chronological differences inevitable to pioneers in Egyptology, has
brought great comfort and aid to the orthodox believer in the Old
Testament. There were almost as many different dates given by the
critics for the Exodus from Egypt as there were critics. It may be noted
in passing that one of the major difficulties of criticism and one of
its foundational weaknesses is to be seen in the fact that each
individual critic is his own highest authority. The only finality that
criticism recognizes is the dogmatic decision of a particular individual
to believe one way or the other.
So it is rather hard to say that criticism in general held to any
certain thing. The consensus of opinion, as far as such can be gathered
from criticism, however, would make the date of the Exodus not any
earlier than 1220 B. C.
Plate 11
[Illustration: Cartonnage in the anthropoid sarcophagus]
Plate 12
[Illustration: Showing both outside and inside writings and
decorations on anthropoid sarcophagus]
The _new_ chronology, derived from archeological research, has utterly
and finally upset these critical conclusions. The Exodus can be credibly
dated now to within a span of ten years. The earlier probability is 1447
B. C. and the latest possible time would be 1437. It may be said that if
we consider the archeological sources alone, there is a possible spread
of thirty years, but no more. Even if we make the most liberal
concessions, the Exodus must be fitted into the record between 1447 and
1417 B. C. Allowing then for the years of wandering in the wilderness,
the fall of Jericho occurred with a possible spread of ten years,
between 1407 and 1397. The earlier date is now accepted as by far the
most credible. We may state almost with finality that Jericho was
destroyed in 1407 B. C., and remain secure in that conclusion.
Therefore, if Tuthmosis died in 1447, the reign of Amenhetep the Second
would have ended in 1421. These perplexing seals of Amenhetep, if they
have not been derived by intrusion, would thus have had a sufficient
time to reach Jericho in connection with some official business of the
kingdom in the forty years elapsing between the Exodus and the assault
on the Canaanite city.
It will be remembered that Josephus makes a passing reference to the
statement of the Egyptian historian, Manetho, that the pharaoh of the
Exodus was Amenophis. Amenophis is another form of the name Amenhetep,
which would add a great deal of authority to our present conclusions.
Josephus is not willing to acknowledge the dependability of Manetho, due
to the fact that Manetho came so long after the event. But since the
Egyptian historian preceded Josephus by some three hundred years, the
older authority would seem to be at least as dependable as Josephus!
Incidentally, this fact, if accepted, would be a confirmation of the
accepted date for the Tel-el-amarna tablets with the reign of Amenhetep.
The final word as to the date, based upon authoritative evidence derived
from the pottery culture as given by Dr. Garstang, makes the destruction
of Jericho to have been not later than 1400 B. C. Thus the pendulum of
opinion and discussion has now swung back to the point where we can
authoritatively stand upon the earlier conclusions of the Book of Joshua
and accept its credibility without the slightest question.
Most of us can remember how recently it was the fashion for the
opponents of the Bible to laugh at those who believed in the historicity
of Joshua’s strange conquest of the Canaanite city of Jericho. The
collapse of the walls of that ancient city has long been a source of
mystery to the scientific student, and of hilarity to the unbeliever.
The faith of the intelligent is vindicated, however, and the laughter of
the unbeliever is stilled, by the exhaustive work that archeology has
done in the vicinity of Jericho.
The site has been explored a number of times, but the most comprehensive
and conclusive work was done by the 1933 expedition that was headed by
Dr. Garstang. The walls of Jericho were mighty, and as long as they
stood the city was impregnable to the armed forces of antiquity. The
unusual structure of Jericho’s walls was manifested when they were
uncovered from the dirt and debris of centuries. The word “walls” is
properly given in its plural form as there were outer and inner walls
that entirely encircled the city. There was, first of all, surrounding
the city completely, an outer wall, which seemed to have been held up as
much by faith as by gravity!
Ever since we had the first opportunity of personally examining the
geology of Jericho and noting the insecure structure upon which those
walls were builded, our own private wonder has not been that the walls
fell down; rather we have been bewildered by speculating as to what in
the name of physics ever held them up! Perhaps it was the binding of the
buildings that anchored the outer wall to the inner wall, and made a
sort of tripod structure of the whole, which accounted for this
phenomenon. Some fourteen feet back from the outer wall and roughly
paralleling the convolutions of the former, there was an inner wall of
the same height as the outer one. Across these two walls great beams had
been laid, and dwellings constructed upon this unique foundation. The
outer wall was pierced by the one gate, in exact accordance with the
description in the Book of Joshua.
There is no natural explanation to account for the unique evidence of
the collapse of these walls. They were not undermined by military
engineers, for they all seem to have collapsed around the entire
circumference of the city at one and the same time. They were not shaken
down by an earthquake. This would have resulted in a haphazard piling of
the wall material in a number of different directions. It seems as
though a mighty blast had been set off in the center of the city,
thrusting the walls outward, in what might roughly be described as a
circle. This collapse of the walls naturally resulted in the wrecking of
the houses builded thereon. When the preliminary clearance had been made
and the excavators came down to these great ruins, every demand of the
Book of Joshua was satisfactorily met by the conditions there uncovered.
In the remnants of the houses found in Jericho there was overwhelming
evidence of a systematic destruction by fires that were set to sweep the
entire ruin. Among the most interesting and significant of the charred
evidences were the great stores of burned grain which showed that even
the food of Jericho had been dedicated to the fire, as Joshua had
commanded.
When the discoveries of Jericho were first publicized, Dr. Garstang
could find only one apparent contradiction between the record of Joshua
and the evidences in the city. That was in the time factor, or
chronology, that was involved. In the cemetery of Jericho upon its
excavation, there were found two seals of the Pharaoh Amenhetep the
Third. Since this monarch reigned probably at least a hundred years
after the time of Joshua, it was difficult to reconcile the apparent
discrepancy. The apparent difficulty, however, dissolves when we
consider the possibility of later intrusion.
Before the excavations at Jericho could begin, it was necessary for the
workers to clear away the remains of a fortress of Ramses, the monarch
who headed the nineteenth dynasty, which in turn followed that of the
dynasty of Amenhetep the Third. Since this site had been temporarily
used by the Egyptians two hundred years after its destruction, it is
highly probable that it might also have been temporarily visited by them
the century immediately following its destruction. If the presence of
two seals of Amenhetep are to be taken as a date factor in view of the
fact that burials at that site were by intrusion, then a great case
could be made for a later date by the ruined fortress of Ramses.
The pharaoh who ruled in the day when Joshua led the conquest of Canaan
was most probably Tuthmosis the Third, who reigned contemporarily with
the Queen Hatshepsut until he was sufficiently entrenched to overthrow
her dominion. This queen, as all the evidence most clearly suggests, was
most probably the one who drew Moses out of the Nile. The contemporary
and collateral evidence is fairly conclusive, so that this fact is
generally accepted. Relegating the one anomalous discovery, then, to the
probability of intrusion, we find that Jericho, perhaps more than any
other site in antiquity, has vindicated the record of the Old Testament
text.
In this very connection, it is interesting to note how the queen
Hatshepsut came into the record, and first interested the student of
apologetics. The eminent archeologist, Flinders Petrie, found a tablet
on the slope of Mt. Sinai which was written in an archaic script that
baffled every attempt to decipher its mystery for nearly thirty years.
But at long last Professor Hubert Grimme, who held the chair of Semitic
languages at the University of Munster, made out two words. One of these
was the ancient Hebrew name for God, which in this form of writing
appeared as “JAHUA.” The other word that Dr. Grimme succeeded in reading
was “HATSHEPSUT,” who was known from her monuments and obelisk.
With this key, the table was quickly deciphered, and was ascribed to
Moses. The text as it appeared follows:
“I am the son of Hatshepsut
overseer of the mine workers of sin
chief of the temple of Mana Jahua of Sinai
thou oh Hatshepsut
wast kind to me and drew me out
of the waters of the Nile
hast placed me in the temple (or palace).”
On the reverse were directions for locating the place where the writer
reported he had buried certain tablets of stone, which he had broken in
his anger. Since all the landmarks the writer used to identify the place
of burial have disappeared, nothing has so far come from the search that
resulted when this tablet was at last read.
Incidentally, this queen Hatshepsut left her mark upon the age in which
she lived, as she was one of the most persistently determined women who
ever appeared upon the pages of ancient history. There is a remarkably
complete record of her history and her imperial reign which may be read
today in the relics of her times and in the ruins of the great works
which she caused to be constructed.
Her important place illustrates one of the difficulties of chronology,
which we have previously mentioned. Her background is clear and
undisputed. When Tuthmosis the First died, his son and heir Tuthmosis
the Second succeeded to the throne. He was a physical and mental
weakling, and very little is known of him from the monuments of old. But
he married his half-sister Hatshepsut, and started a train of events
that had surprising consequences. Incidentally, it was the custom for
Egyptians to marry in the closest family ties, and brother and sister
more often wed than not. In view of this famous lady’s character and
later conduct, it is highly probable that the king had no choice in
marrying his sister, but was led to the slaughter whether he would or
not! At any rate, he died very soon after the wedding, and the widow
Hatshepsut declared herself queen. To make her position secure, she
married her young stepson and half-brother, Tuthmosis the Third, who was
the legal and rightful heir to the throne. During his boyhood the queen
reigned in undisputed power, and developed the country in a surprising
manner.
She was a feminist with a vengeance, and called herself KING Hatshepsut,
and stated that she was a god and as such was entitled to worship and
obedience. What is more, she made it stick! Since she could not lead her
armies in person, she pursued the ways of peace, and the troubled land
had rest and prospered. Some of the greatest building operations of the
ancient world were begun and finished under her direction and patronage.
Plate 13
[Illustration: Detailed study of outside and inside of anthropoid
coffin. Note voluminous record]
[Illustration: inside]
[Illustration: Outside, or rectangular coffin also covered with
writing and records]
[Illustration: records]
Plate 14
[Illustration: Murals and frescoes from tomb walls]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
When her husband-brother-consort became of age, he naturally rebelled
against her usurpation. He gathered a company of adventurous nobles
about him and forced the queen to abdicate, after which she disappeared
under circumstances which would have interested Scotland Yard, if that
noted institution had been in existence in that day and place! The
ambitious young king took the name of Tuthmosis the Third, and left a
brilliant record as a conqueror and builder. Counting the twenty-one
years he lived as co-regent with Hatshepsut, he ruled the land
fifty-three years, which was an enviable span for those warlike days.
If the present accepted chronology is right, he came to the throne in
1501 B. C. and died in the year 1447. This would have made him the
Pharaoh of the Oppression! In which case, the queen Hatshepsut would
have unconsciously offended him in elevating Moses to a place of
prominence and power, which might explain why Moses felt it necessary to
flee from Egypt when he was in trouble. At any rate, out of this tangled
skein of human conduct and ambition, some present help is offered to the
learning of our day by the known facts that have been clearly
established from the relics of this embattled couple. The name of the
queen Hatshepsut was abhorrent to her brother-husband-regent-successor;
and he tried to obliterate it wherever it appeared. But she had built so
many great works and had left such ample records that his actions in
this matter came to nought, and she lives today to shed the assurance of
probability upon the record of Moses.
We have seen her obelisks, her records and some of the ruins of her
great works, and the entire pattern is of a piece with the demands, both
chronological and ethnological, of the text of the Scripture. It is
apparent that not only dead _men_, but also dead _women_, may tell
tales, if their voices are heeded and the ears of the listener are not
stopped with the wax of infidelity and disbelief.
The amazing and scrupulous accuracy which is maintained by the Old
Testament in its historical statements is once again demonstrated by the
record of Ahaz as it is given in the Old Testament and found on the
monuments in Assyria. We read in II Kings and the sixteenth chapter,
these words:
In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of
Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen
years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of
the Lord his God, like David his father.
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son
to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the
heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.
And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the
hills, and under every green tree.
Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel,
came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not
overcome him.
At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and dwelt
there unto this day.
So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria saying, I
am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of
the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which
rise up against me.
And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the
Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a
present to the king of Assyria.
And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria
went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it
captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
The visit of Ahaz which closes this record was made in 732 B. C.
Tiglath-pileser has left his own story of these stirring events and has
called Ahaz by name upon his monument. The unfortunate action of Ahaz in
calling for Assyrian aid against his enemies Pekah king of Israel and
Rezin king of Syria, resulted, according to Tiglath-pileser’s account,
in his invasion of both Syria and Palestine. From thence he carried away
into captivity the two tribes of Reuben and Gath, and the half tribe of
Manasseh. The distress of Israel was not ended until Hoshea, shortly
afterward, became the new king of Israel. As a matter of policy he
formally accepted the yoke of Assyria and became the vassal of
Tiglath-pileser.
In the Assyrian Room of the British Museum, Wall Cases 14 to 18 contain
a valuable collection of inscribed bowls, ostraca, and fragments of
records which extend from the days of Assur-resh-shi, down to the end of
the Assyrian dynasty. Among them are fragmentary inscriptions from the
reign of Tiglath-pileser the Third. He is known in the Scriptures also
by his Babylonian name of Pul. In I Chronicles 5:26 both names are found
in the one verse, as though the scribe were anxious that the
identification should be complete:
And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria,
and the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he carried them
away, even the Reubenites and the Gadites, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the
river Gozan, unto this day.
Tiglath-pileser again appears under the name of Pul in II Kings 15:19:
And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave
Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to
confirm the kingdom in his hand.
In the twenty-ninth verse of this chapter, however, his Assyrian name is
given alone, as is done in the sixteenth chapter.
In the above cited wall cases, exhibit K 2751, is an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser’s setting forth some of his conquests, and an account of
certain of his building operations. Among the tributary kings who
accepted his yoke, he _specifically mentions Ahaz king of Judah_.
Modern man is so used to the phenomena that make up the miracle of our
modern living that such fascinating possessions as this are not
generally appreciated and properly valued. Here, however, we hear again
the voice of a man who died in the year 727 B. C. The phenomenon is seen
in the fact that in spite of the indescribable vandalism and wreckage
wrought by those intervening ages, a fragment of clay persisted, and
remained in existence until it could be uncovered from the dust heaps of
antiquity by _the one generation that desperately needed its testimony
and was able to interpret and prize its record_!
Here indeed is a dead man who tells tales, and who tells them with such
authority and accuracy that the mouth of criticism is stopped and the
Word of God completely vindicated. Incidentally, Tiglath-pileser’s
record corroborates the prophecy of Isaiah, concerning the destruction
of both Israel and Syria, because they had joined their forces to make
war upon Judah.
This prophecy is given at length in the seventh chapter of Isaiah and
was the instance of introducing the greater prophecy of the final
redemption of the people with the coming of Messiah. He was to be
identified, according to Isaiah, by means of the miracle of the virgin
birth.
When Omri, the general of the armies of Israel, was elevated by popular
acclaim to the throne of dominion, he climaxed an astonishing career
that left a deep impression upon antiquity. At the beginning of his
reign the nation was divided in its allegiance and this division
resulted in a civil war that was bitter, though brief. The power and
might of Omri quickly pacified and subdued the land, which accepted his
dominion, and for twelve years his hand guided the helm of the ship of
state. One of his earlier acts was to buy the hill of Samaria for a sum
that is given as two talents of silver, which would be in the
neighborhood of $4,000 in our reckoning. So impressive was his
personality that from his day on to the end of the kingdom, the land of
Israel was generally known among the Assyrian peoples as the Land of
Omri.
On the black monolith for instance, which was set up by Shalmaneser the
king of Assyria, there are many sculptured pictures which illustrate the
text of this priceless historical record. One of the scenes shows that
among the conquered rulers, one is entitled “Jehu the son of Omri.” A
record is made of the silver, gold, lead, vessels of gold, and of other
materials that Jehu brought in tribute to Shalmaneser. (See Plate 18.)
This black obelisk may be seen in the Nimrud Central Saloon of the
British Museum in London. That this was a general is seen from the fact
that on the nine-sided prism which gives the record of Sargon concerning
his conquests in Palestine, the great Assyrian lists the people of
Israel whom he calls “Bit-Khu-um-ri-a” (Omri-land), among other subdued
races. Omri was succeeded on the throne by Ahab, who was a young man
when he came to the throne. He left an unenviable record of apostasy and
idolatry, but was none-the-less a courageous and able administrator
whose work strengthened the realm greatly. In the twenty-two years of
his reign the Word of God was ignored and unbelief swept over the land.
In his day the first persecution of God’s people, which was directed
against their ministry, began when his wife Jezebel caused the slaughter
of the prophets.
The entire career of Ahab occupies considerable space in the records of
the Old Testament and is almost as prominent in the monuments of
antiquity. One of the most outstanding and notable of his early acts was
the famous overthrow of Benhadad, the king of Syria. The invasions of
Israel by Benhadad are fully covered in the historical texts of the Old
Testament, so they need no recapitulation here. When the Syrian king
suffered an overwhelming and crushing defeat at the hands of Ahab, he
submitted himself to the king of Israel with a humble plea for mercy. In
spite of the denunciation of the prophet, who warned that Benhadad would
bring disaster upon the realm, Ahab restored him to his Syrian dominion
and made a covenant of brotherhood with him. Later on, Ahab and Benhadad
united in a rebellion against their Assyrian overlord in one of the most
disastrous acts of his career. The battle that decided the campaign was
fought at Karkar.
In the British Museum, the Nimrud Central Saloon exhibits a stele of
Shalmaneser the Third which bears the identifying number of 88. The
inscription sets forth the names, titles, and ancestry of the king and
gives a complete account of several of his military adventures. He
states that in the sixth year of his reign, he battled against certain
allies who had rebelled against his authority. Among them he lists “Ahab
of the land of Israel.” Shalmaneser tells how he defeated this coalition
and slew fourteen thousand of the Syrian warriors in one great battle.
Plate 15
[Illustration: Commemorative stele]
Plate 16
[Illustration: Ancient boundary markers]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
On the monolith of Shalmaneser the record begun on this stele is further
continued. This battle, according to Shalmaneser’s chronology, would be
about 854 B. C. This Benhadad is known on the Assyrian monuments
variously by the names of Hadad-ezer and Hadad-idri. He is authenticated
by the finest type of historical proof that the most carping critic
could demand. Incidentally, Benhadad is one of the forty-seven kings
mentioned in our preliminary remarks, who were supposed to be legendary
characters, until archeology called them forth from the dead to testify
in their own behalf.
Ahab was one of the most industrious builders who ever occupied the
throne of Israel. Although he lacked the resources of Solomon, there are
a number of records in the Scripture that shed light upon his
architectural interests. In I Kings 22:39 all of this activity is
summarized in their brief epitome:
Now the rest of the acts of Ahab and all that he did, and the ivory
house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not
written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
The hill of Samaria, which Omri had purchased, passed by inheritance to
Ahab. The ivory palace that is mentioned in I Kings 22:39 was built on
this site. Solomon may have had his throne of ivory, but Ahab improved
upon that idea, as this text seems to imply. This summer palace which he
built for himself and Jezebel on the crest of the hill of Samaria has
been the scene of recent expeditions. A great deal of archeological
industry has been expended in reconstructing the beauty and marvel of
this palace of Ahab. It has been discovered that the walls were
decorated with ivory carvings, and that much of the furniture was inlaid
with ivory. This valuable substance was used with a profligate hand to
construct one of the most splendid edifices of all antiquity.
Some of the most skilled craftsmen of human history were employed by
this enterprise. To show something of the ability of these ancient
artists, we present a photograph of the figure of an ivory lion which
came from the site of Ahab’s palace. The illustration is magnified four
times, but tiny as this priceless relic is, the lines and perfection of
the carving cannot be excelled by any craftsman today.
The Harvard expedition under Dr. Reisner, and the joint expedition of
1931, both made delighted comment on the unprecedented perfection of the
structure of this great palace. It covered an area between seven and
eight acres in extent; the masonry of the building was no less than
marvelous in the perfection of its structure and joining. Concerning
these ivory miniatures, inlays, and friezes, the leader of the
expedition said, “These ivories are the most charming example of
miniature art ever found on an Israelite site.” By referring to the
ivory lion in Plate 19 the reader can see that this is indeed the fact.
The excavations at Samaria have been going on since the Harvard
expedition began in 1908. Among the valuable finds from the ivory palace
of Ahab must be listed a group of seventy-five ostraca. These ancient
fragments of pottery, inscribed and engraved with the homely affairs of
the daily life of Ahab’s time, contain the same script as is found on
the Moabite stone.
This great relic of antiquity has had a fascinating but unfortunate
history in itself. It will always be a matter of sincere regret that the
first discoverer of the Moabite stone did not make a copy of its
complete text. The Moabite stone states that Ahab reigned forty years.
The Scripture record, however, makes his reign to be twenty-two years.
According to the credible chronology of II Kings, upon the death of
Ahab, his son, Jehoram, ascended to the throne and reigned twelve years.
Mesha, who had accepted the lordship of the able Ahab, rebelled against
the weaker son.
At some time during this reign, Mesha, a minor king of Moab, tired of
paying to Israel the annual tribute of one hundred thousand lambs, plus
one hundred thousand rams, with the wool thereof. He rebelled against
the overlord of Israel and successfully threw off the yoke. On an
enormous stele which was erected at Dhiban by the successful king we
find these words:
“I Mesha, son of Chemosh-melech, king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father
reigned over Moab 30 years and I reigned after my father. I have made
this monument for Chemosh at Qorhah, a monument of salvation for he
saved me from all invaders and let me see my desire upon all my
enemies. Omri was king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for
Chemosh was angry with his land. His son, Ahab followed him and he
also said: I will oppress Moab. In my days Chemosh said: I will see my
desire on him and his house and Israel surely shall perish forever.
Omri took the land of Medeba and dwelt in it during his days and half
the days of his son, altogether 40 years. But Chemosh gave it back in
my days. I built Baal-Meon and made therein the ditches; I built
Kirjathaim. The men of God dwelt in the land of Ataroth from of old,
and the king of Israel built there the city of Ataroth; but I made war
against the city and took it. And I slew all the people of the city,
for the pleasure of Chemosh and of Moab and I brought back from the
Arel of Dodah and bore him before Chemosh in Qerioth. And I placed
therein the men of Sharon and the men of Mehereth. And Chemosh said
unto me: Go, seize Nebo of Israel and I went in the night and fought
against it from the break of dawn till noon; and I took it, slew all
of them, 7,000 men and boys, women and girls and female slaves, for to
Ashtar-Chemosh I devoted them. And I took from thence the Arels of
Yahwah and bore them before Chemosh. Now the king of Israel had built
Jahaz and he dwelt in it while he waged war against me, but Chemosh
drove him out from before me....”
When this great monument was first discovered in 1868, its value was of
course not appreciated and no copy of the text was made. The Museum of
Berlin heard of it and moved for its purchase. An employe of the French
Consulate heard of the negotiations, and offered a large bribe for the
possession of the stone. The Turkish officials then interfered. The
superstitious Arabs, believing that the monument must have some magical
value, broke it into a number of fragments and distributed the pieces as
amulets, or charms. A French agent, however, industriously pursued these
fragments and with the help of a squeeze which he had made,
reconstructed the major portion of the writings. The ancient name of
Jehovah occurring on this text was an additional delight to these
students of antiquity.
Certain small cities that Israel had wrested from Moab were returned to
Mesha at the time of this rebellion. Jehoram, and Jehoshaphat, the kings
of Judah, later battled against the increasing power of Moab and
administered a crushing defeat to the Moabites sometime after the
successful uprising that is recorded here in this text.
Among the ostraca excavated at Samaria, were some that mentioned many of
the historical personages of the Old Testament, which also enhanced
their value in the eyes of archeologists.
The later expedition to Samaria which was working in 1931, apparently
reached the foundations of the first buildings of Omri. They have left a
record stating, “No remains earlier than the building of Omri are to be
found upon this site.” This being so, we cannot question the statement
of the text that Omri was the original builder on the crest of the hill
of Samaria, which fact is in itself of considerable importance to the
subject of our present study. The question has been raised as to what
the effect would have been on the problem of the integrity of the text
of the Scripture if this site had proved to have been like the other
regions excavated, and was occupied by many older and underlying ruins!
The simple answer is that such a discovery was _not_ made; and the
evidence that has been derived is of such nature that this portion of
the sacred Book _must_ be accepted by the intelligent and informed
scholar.
These fragmentary events and references are of as much value as are the
individual bricks that make up the mass of a wall or a building. One or
two standing alone would be relatively unimportant, but when scores of
such evidences are gathered into a composite unit, they offer a
formidable and impressive structure of evidence that is extremely
difficult to refute. Although it has been the custom to construct the
critical argument against the integrity of God’s Word from imagined
_minor_ errors in the text, so intrenched is critical dogmatism that
nothing but a _major_ rebuttal will be heeded. Happily, a major
structure may be erected from minor materials: and thus these
_fragments_ serve their destined purpose.
Plate 17
[Illustration: Stone ouches, or door-sockets]
[Illustration: door-sockets]
Plate 18
[Illustration: The famed Black Obelisk, which confirmed the record
of Jehu]
[Illustration: Hamath Inscription]
CHAPTER VII
The Rebirth of an Empire
Among the ancient races that are catalogued in the lists which appear in
the pages of the Old Testament, the most important one in the
presentation of this thesis is the Hittite race. In the heyday of their
brief popularity the higher critics indulged in an orgy of refutation
concerning these sections of the Scripture. Since the Hittites are
mentioned forty-eight times in the pages of the Bible, if it could be
proved that these people were fictitious in character, the critical case
against the Old Testament would be demonstrated beyond question. It
would almost seem as though the writers of the ancient word had invited
this contest with deliberate intention. It is impossible to justify the
manifold appearances of the Hittites in the Sacred Word, if they were
not an actual people.
In addition to the many other references, in the various lists of races
given as occupying different portions of the ancient world, the Bible
mentions the Hittite peoples twenty-one separate and distinct times. The
eminent dean of higher criticism, the late Canon Driver, ascribes these
historical catalogs of peoples to imagination and fiction, and refers to
them in such words as these, “The Hittites are also regularly mentioned
in the rhetorical lists.” Canon Driver is careful to note that these
lists of peoples are found in that section of the Scripture which he
calls the “Elohistic Manuscript.” It is not hard to understand that one
who starts with the assumption of incredibility, would have trouble
believing in the reality of the statements in a document so treated.
The writers of the Scripture, in their dealings with the subject of this
forgotten people, sketch an amazing picture indeed. They portray a
warlike, powerful, well organized race whose genius at colonization and
military ability combined to win for them a veritable world empire. The
center of their dominion was Syria, but from thence they reached out to
lay their yoke upon Egypt, to overrun Palestine, and to force the early
Assyrians to pay tribute to their might and power.
It seems almost inconceivable that in the voluminous records of
antiquity there should have been no single word concerning this mighty
race. For until the closing decades of the nineteenth century, the
Hittites had no place in secular history. They were preserved to the
memory of man, simply and only because of the forty-eight Old Testament
references which we have previously mentioned. The scholarly critics
argued that it would be impossible for a world empire to disappear from
history without leaving a single trace. They insisted that if a race of
men had ever lived who dominated the world of their day, common sense
would incline us to the conclusion that they could not suddenly fade
away from the memory of man and leave no evidence of their existence.
But they did! From the very beginning of this argument, it should have
been apparent that there were two ways to approach the problem. One way
was the method which was adopted by the higher critics, namely, to
assume that the Old Testament is fallible. Adopting as the grounds of
investigation the pre-conceived conclusion that the records of the Old
Testament are fallacious and incredible, the critics then proceeded to
search for proof of this basic assumption. By dogmatically asserting
that the Old Testament was not historical, but that much of its contents
consisted of folklore and myth, inductive conclusions were offered as
proof of this presumption.
It did not seem to occur to the higher critical scholars that a better
way to study the Word would have been to concede the historicity of the
text until it was disproved by evidence. This, of course, has ever been
the method used by the orthodox student of the Word. We might say in
passing that this is not only the intelligent technique but is also the
safer process. To say the very least, it saves the embarrassment that
inevitably comes to him who arrays himself against the integrity of the
Word of God!
The first appearance of the Hittites in the Bible is in the fifteenth
chapter of the Book of Genesis, verse twenty:
“And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims.”
This is perhaps the very earliest coincidence of archeology with the
records of the Scripture. In the various lists of races who were to be
displaced by Israel, according to the covenant God made with Abraham,
the Hittites are frequently named. Without any reservation or
qualification whatever, this text which we have just cited states that
the Hittites were Canaanites. According to Genesis 10:15, the
Canaanitish people came through the line of Sidon and Heth. It is
apparent also from Genesis 10:6, where Canaan the son of Ham first comes
into the record, that these Hittites, if they had existed, would have
been akin to the early population of Chaldea and Babylon. It is an
interesting fact to note that the monuments of antiquity which have
restored these Hittites to their proper place in secular history, show
them to have had a mixture of Semitic and Mongolian characteristics.
In the various appearances of these people in the Old Testament records,
it is to be noted that several characters married Hittite wives.
Bathsheba, who was the mother of Solomon, and thus infused a Gentile
strain into the genealogy of Mary, who was the mother of our Lord, was a
Hittite woman. In I Kings 11:1, it is also stated that Solomon, among
his many political marriages, had taken to himself wives from among the
Hittites.
These people, although unknown in the orderly annals of human history,
might have been recognized had the scholarly ability of earlier
generations been able correctly to interpret obsolete systems of
writings. The Assyrians called them the “Khatti.” In the Egyptian
inscriptions they are known as the “Kheta.” The fact that these names
referred to the Hittites was not known until the Hittite inscriptions
themselves were read and interpreted and the fact of their reality
established. It is to be regretted that in a work as short as this one
we have not room to recapitulate their long and fascinating history. The
romance of their recovery of their rightful place in the annals of human
conduct is all that we can present in this chapter. They were thrust by
human ignorance into the outer darkness of forgotten things, but we can
trace the hand of God in bringing them back into the light of
remembrance and establishing them in their proper place of glory and
prominence among the empires of antiquity.
Without hesitation we would offer this as the perfect demonstration of
the manner in which Almighty God cares for His Word. When His Book is
assailed and discredited, He will, if need be, raise the dead to
establish the integrity of the Inspired Record. It might be noted in
passing that secular history is now often corrected by archeology. The
misunderstandings and errors which were alleged to appear in the Bible,
and which are common to the production of a purely human document, are
being done away with as we read them again in the light of the
monuments. Wherever such correction has been made, it has had the effect
of bringing secular history into complete harmony with the Bible. So in
restoring the empire of the Hittites to the staid columns of accredited
history, the Divine Record is again confirmed.
It is inevitable that these Hittites should appear in the Ancient Word,
as they largely parallel the history of the Hebrew kingdom in point of
time. From the days of Abraham to the end of the kingdom of Israel, the
Hittites and the Hebrews walked side by side and hand in hand. During
that time Hittites and Israelites alike are the enemies of Egypt. Alike
they battled against Babylon and Assyria, they intermarried, had
treaties and covenants each with the other, and had a well developed
system of commerce between the nations.
Plate 19
[Illustration: Small ivory lion from Ahab’s palace
Author’s collection (Photo by Dworshak)]
Plate 20
[Illustration: Fragmentary frieze showing ancient chariots (Museum
of the University of Pennsylvania)]
King Solomon, the merchant prince, had developed business relations with
all of the many chieftains and kings of the Hittite peoples, and had a
well developed trade in the horses and chariots for which the Hittites
were famous in their day. (See Plate 20.) This coincidence of affairs
began when Abraham consummated the first commercial transaction that is
mentioned in human history. Before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees to
begin his strange pilgrimage, the Hittites were already established in
Canaan. It must not be thought that Abraham at that time was the ancient
prototype of our modern hobo, wandering from point to point with no
estate! The pastoral pursuits of Abraham had built up for him flocks and
herds that made him enormously wealthy. He was an able strategist, and
his military skill, combined with his personal valor, had elevated him
to a high position of power and influence.
In the land of Canaan he was treated with honor and admiration as
befitted his station and position. His armed retainers constituted a
formidable army for that day, and this trained manpower compelled
respect for Abraham, the wandering prince. When Sarah died, the Hittites
were in possession of the land and Abraham recognized the validity of
their title when he opened the negotiations for a burial plot for Sarah,
by defining himself as a stranger and a sojourner in their land. With
typical oriental courtesy in bargaining, the Hittites replied to his
request for a burying place for his dead wife by saying, “Hear us, my
lord, thou art a mighty prince among us,” and they offered him freely
and without price the choice of a plot for a sepulchre. Abraham
designated the cave of Machpelah as his choice and offered to pay the
full value of the site. This courtesy, of course, was expected of him.
Though it had been offered as a free gift, it would have been a breach
of manners of the worst type, according to the customs of that day, for
him to have accepted the gift.
It will be noted in this account in Genesis that when Abraham weighed
out the requested price of four hundred shekels of silver, the statement
was made that it was the shekel which was the current money with the
merchants. The sum was equivalent to about $300 in our present system of
values. This is the first reference made to coinage, and it fits in
beautifully with the archeological indications that the Hittites were
the inventors of the principle of coining both gold and silver as a
medium of exchange.
From this first moment of their contact with Abraham there is no period
of Hebrew history, up to the time of the fall of Samaria, where the
people of Israel lost contact with the nation of the Hittites. Their
mercenary soldiers became captains in the army of David and Solomon, and
they were occasionally allied in important battles in which the people
of Israel fought side by side with them. It is amazing that the critics,
in the face of the tremendous emphasis laid upon the Hittite empire by
the writers of the Scripture, did not exercise some discretion in their
repudiation of the historicity of this people. Even while the tongues of
the unbelieving were clamoring with loud denunciations of the text of
the Word of God, Libya, Syria, and Asia Minor in general exhibited
magnificent sculpture, incised stones, and monuments written in a
strange system of hieroglyphics that none had been able to read. These
proved later to be the records of the Hittite peoples as they themselves
had cut them with their own hands.
We shall later refer to the great work of Dr. A. H. Sayce in deciphering
these hieroglyphics. His achievement in that instance was, in the annals
of human history, one of the greatest triumphs of pure reason. Before
this was done, however, the Hittites had begun to stretch themselves and
stir in the tomb of oblivion. Their long sleep was ended and they began
to rise from the dead, when experts in Egyptology read the record of
Ramses the Second. It is not too much to say that these early
discoveries threw the camp of higher criticism into utter confusion.
Ramses the Second successfully ended a period of warfare with the
Hittites which had vexed and distressed Egypt for more than five hundred
years. So great was the power of the Hittite empire that no previous
conqueror or king in Egypt had been able to shake off their yoke
completely. Indeed, Ramses the Second succeeded in so doing only by
contracting an important political marriage with a Hittite princess.
The center of the Hittite empire was Charchemish. On the site of
Megiddo, which was so often the scene of battles in successive years,
the forces of Ramses fought with the armed forces of the Hittites. There
the Egyptian monarch successfully defeated the Hittites in one of the
most stirring battles preserved to us in ancient records. The Hittites
at this time were governed by a number of kings who had a close
confederation in all affairs pertaining to the empire. In the day of
Ramses the confederation was headed by the king of Kadesh. According to
Ramses’ record, which is preserved for us on the walls of Karnak, all
“the kings and peoples from the water of Egypt to the river-land of
Mesopotamia obeyed this chief.”
This army of the confederation massed itself on the bloody field of
Megiddo in a battle which lasted six hours. Ramses tells in detail how
he marched and maneuvered his forces to gain strategic advantages.
It was a coincidence that the battle began on the morning of the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the ascension of Ramses the Second. He
celebrated the anniversary of his crowning by throwing off the yoke of
the Hittites. A complete victory was denied Ramses, due to the fact that
when the Hittite force broke and fled before him, his army failed to
take advantage of the rout. Falling upon the rich plunder, they fought
among themselves over the spoils so long that the Hittites were able to
enter their fortified city and barricade it against the Egyptians. An
element of humor enters into the final statement. Ramses recounts that
he besieged the city for a number of days, but since “Megiddo had the
might of a thousand cities, the king graciously pardoned the foreign
princes.” In the list of the spoil that the Egyptians gathered from this
battle, there occurred the names of one hundred nineteen towns and
cities which henceforth paid tribute to Egypt. The next important item
was the capture of nine hundred twenty-four chariots, including the
personal chariot of the Hittite king which was plated and armored with
gold. (See Plate 20.)
Although Ramses boasted that he had “completely overthrown the might and
power of the Hittites,” the future history of this Pharaoh depicts
campaign after campaign lasting until the end of his life. At least nine
campaigns are recorded on the walls of Karnak, in each of which the
Hittites were singularly exterminated, completely overthrown, and
defeated for all time hereafter. The only trouble seems to have been
that the Hittites didn’t realize how completely they were defeated, so
that they came back again and again! The nearest to peace that Ramses
ever achieved, in his dealings with this race, was when upon his
marriage with a Hittite princess, a great treaty was signed. In the
records of his battles, Ramses refers to the Hittite king as “the
miserable lord of the despised Hittites.” When he records the treaty
that he made at the time of his marriage, he refers to the same man as
“his noble and magnificent brother, a fellow to sit with the god of the
sun by the side of Ramses himself.” It is evident, then, that some of
Ramses’ records must be taken with a grain of salt. We noticed recently,
as we were studying and photographing the battle scene of Megiddo which
is portrayed on the north side of the great temple at Karnak, that
Ramses is shown as having thrown to the ground all the Hittites and as
having slain their king. Seven years later, however, the king is still
alive to give his daughter in marriage to Ramses!
Since the Hittites were at this time the central power of the ancient
world, peace with them meant peace with all the other enemies of Egypt.
Perhaps, for this reason, Ramses’ boasting of his great victory might be
pardoned.
This great battle is also immortalized by a contemporary poet. The
papyrus copy of this poem is now in the possession of the British
Museum. Many stanzas from this notable work, however, are to be seen in
connection with the magnificent battle pictures at Karnak. Some of these
are also repeated in the temple at Luxor, as well as on the great
monument at Abydos.
Professor Wright refers to this poem as “the earliest specimen of
special war correspondence.” This work is known as the poem of Pentauer.
Pentauer is the name of a Theban poet who wrote his dramatic ode two
years after the battle between Ramses the Second and the Hittite horde.
The boastful extravagance of his language becomes a bit wearisome as he
sings the praises of Ramses and chants of the impossible feats of the
monarch. An example of hyperbole is offered in this verse:
“King Pharaoh was young and bold. His arms were strong, his heart
courageous. He seized his weapons, and a hundred thousand sunk before
his glance. He armed his people and his chariots. As he marched
towards the land of the Hittites, the whole earth trembled. His
warriors passed by the path of the desert, and went along the roads of
the north.”
The “miserable and deceitful king of the Hittites,” however, had
prepared an ambush. When the Hittites sprang their trap with their king
in their midst, Pharaoh called on his mighty men to follow him. Leaping
into his chariot, he assaulted the numberless horsemen and the armored
footmen of the horde of the Hittites, and plunged into the midst of
their ablest and bravest warriors. As he fought his way into the press
of these noble horses, Ramses looked around to see how his force was
getting along. To his surprise he found that they had not followed him;
and he was hemmed in by two thousand five hundred chariots which were
manned by the mightiest of the Hittite champions. Deserted by his entire
army, Pharaoh saw that he had to rely upon his own ability, so “shouting
for joy, with the aid of the god Amon, he hurled darts with his right
hand and thrust with the sword in his left hand!” He “slew two thousand
five hundred horses which were dashed to pieces!” He “laid dead the
noble Hittite knights until their limbs dissolved with fear and they had
no courage to thrust!” He swept them into the river Orontes and slew as
long as it was his pleasure.
It is quite evident that Pentauer relied largely upon his imagination
for the details of this great battle. However exaggerated this poem may
be, nevertheless it has some historical value. Especially is this so
since the poem of Pentauer and the Karnak record of Ramses the Second
are in virtual agreement as to the essential details of this battle.
Plate 21
[Illustration: {hieroglyphs}]
divinity
king
country
plurality
supremacy
e, i.
u, o.
dimes, di
tu, to
kus
ku
khat, khattu
si
es
tar
sis
sar
tarku, tarkus
kue, mesi
seal, inscription
“to speak”
sun-god: “behold”
[Illustration: From such funerary papyri much valuable information
regarding Egyptian beliefs and customs is derived]
Incidentally, the walls of Karnak yielded from the records of other
kings the historic evidence of an actual Hittite empire. Tuthmosis the
Third immortalized the Hittites on the walls of Karnak when he gave a
list of towns in the land of the Hittites over which he was victorious.
Unquestionably this list contains the first and oldest authentic account
of ancient cities, which are frequently afterwards mentioned in the
Assyrian records as well. This record is found in the splendid temple
which is called the “Hall of Pillars” and which was erected by this
notable pharaoh. It has been said that in this work the art of Egypt
reached its highest point. Certainly the walls and pillars are literally
covered with the beautifully engraved pictures and names of the races
and cities which the pharaoh had conquered.
When the Department of Antiquities was working upon the wall of a lower
section, a catalog of one hundred nineteen conquered places came to
light. This record showed that, more than three hundred years before the
Israelites entered the land of Canaan, the Hittites were established in
a powerful dominion over that lovely land. There are seven separate
records of the contacts of this pharaoh with the people who were the
Hittites.
Ramses the First has also left a record of the treaty of peace that he
made with the Hittite king Seplal at the end of the war that he
unsuccessfully fought to throw off the yoke of this people. On the north
wall of the temple at Karnak, he gives the route of his march and tells
of the victories that he won. He did not, however, delineate his final
capitulation. This conflict resulted in a treaty of peace which is
recorded in this account.
The successor of Ramses the First was Seti the First, and in his day the
treaty was broken. According to Seti, it was the Hittites who offended
against the covenant, and he also engraved on the walls at Karnak an
account of the consequent battle with its result. To bring just a short
line from his voluminous record, he acknowledges his own greatness in
such an inscription as the following:
“Seti has struck down the Asiatics; he has thrown to the ground the
Kheta. He has slain their princes.”
Telling them how he concluded a treaty with the Hittites, to the
enhancement of his own glory, Seti’s record concludes with these words:
“He returns home in triumph. He has annihilated the people. He has
struck to the ground the Kheta. He has made an end of his adversaries.
The enmity of all people is turned into friendship.”
With just this brief reference to the voluminous records to be found in
Egyptian archeology, we would be able to establish the triumph of the
Bible in the realm of historical accuracy, had we no other sources. The
fact of the matter, however, is that the Assyrian and Babylonian
accounts of the Hittites are at least as numerous as are the Egyptian.
It may be noted in passing that, although filled with consternation at
these marvelous discoveries in Egyptology, the critics were by no means
silenced. It would have been better for their later reputation had they
graciously accepted their defeat and acknowledged that they were in
error. Instead, they rushed into vociferous refutation of the newly
discovered Egyptian records. Unfortunately, their denunciations and
renewed claims were given wide publicity by being included in the then
current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is to be regretted
that this great encyclopedia has often been a tremendous aid to
criticism in spreading its errors and fallacies. This in large measure
is due to the fact that there is a common reverence for this great work
in the mind of the average human. There is a certain class of readers
who hold this notable reference work in such great reverence that its
authority to them is greater than that of the Word of God. It must be
remembered, however, that the encyclopedia of each generation represents
only the current thought of that brief period of human experience.
Anything that is written by man is subject to later revision or
repudiation, as human knowledge increases. So in this great compendium
of human wisdom it is unfortunate that much space was given to the famed
critic, the Rev. T. K. Cheyne.
This eminent authority was a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. In the
above cited article, he treated the statements of the Bible as
unhistorical and classified them as pure folklore. Concerning the
Biblical references to the Hittites, he used these exact words, “They
cannot be taken as of equal authority with the Egyptian and Assyrian
inscriptions!” In dealing with Abraham’s purchase of the burial plot for
Sarah, he had a great deal to say in refutation of the possibility of
any accuracy in the record. At the conclusion of his criticism he
stated, “How meager the tradition respecting the Hittites was in the
time of the great Elohistic narrator, is shown by the picture of Hittite
life in this reference.”
Dr. Cheyne fell into the great error of claiming that the Hittites were
only warriors. Because they are thus shown on the walls of Karnak, he
concluded that they were mercenary troops who never entered into
business transactions. In his article on the Canaanites in this above
cited encyclopedia, he goes so far as to say, “The Hittites seem to have
been included among the Canaanites by mistake. Historical evidence
proves convincingly that they dwelt beyond the borders of Canaan.” These
conclusions were also advocated by his great colleague and collaborator,
Prof. W. H. Newman.
Dr. Newman was also a Fellow of Balliol College at Oxford and is the
author of the once famous “History of the Hebrew Monarchy.” In all of
this work he maintained that the Hittite references in the Old Testament
were unqualifiedly unhistorical. They prove beyond question, according
to the author, that the writers of the Old Testament were totally
unacquainted with the times of which they wrote. His conclusion was that
the Old Testament was written many centuries after the events which it
purports to depict. He stated with finality, along with Dr. Cheyne, that
the Hittite people were limited to Syria and had no place in Palestine.
Thus the story of Abraham buying territory from them at Hebron is
unquestionably mythological.
These ardent advocates of a collapsing theory should have waited! It was
not long after these utterances were printed that Prof. Sayce deciphered
certain of the Assyrian records of Tiglath-pileser. These showed that in
the reign of this monarch, as late as 1130 B. C., _the Hittites were
still in command of all the territory from the Euphrates to Lebanon_!
Again the Word of God was vindicated, when the monuments, as they were
deciphered, yielded the interesting information that the Hittites were
notable colonizers. They also covered all the ancient world as
merchants, and their caravans and trade-routes were the earliest to be
established. They are in Assyrian annals depicted as artisans and
artists. Although all of them could fight when war was inevitable, they
had a standing army for the casual and necessary protection of the
realm. Dr. Newman was unfortunate also in choosing the time in which he
charged the Bible with error. At a most unfortunate period for criticism
in the history of archeology he questioned the details of Hittite
prowess in the incidental references of the Scripture. As though the
scientists of that day were in league with the Lord, they laid bare in
site after site a refutation of all the critics maintained!
It will be remembered that in connection with the siege of Samaria, as
the story is given in II Kings, the seventh chapter, there is a peculiar
but important reference to the Hittites and their known power. The
people of Israel who were commanded by Jehoram were distressed by the
siege of their capital when Benhadad of Damascus had pressed them to the
limit of their resistance. Famine and disease had swept Samaria, so that
the remnant faced the choice of surrendering or perishing. Elisha had
prophesied a deliverance, and in verses six and seven in the seventh
chapter of II Kings, the fulfillment of God’s promise is given in this
way:
“For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of
chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and
they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us
the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come
upon us.
“Wherefore, they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents,
and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled
for their life.”
Professor Newman found a great deal of grounds for hilarity in what he
called this “childish narrative.” He says, “The unhistorical tone is too
manifest to allow of our easy belief in it.” He admits that there may
have been some unusual deliverance of Samaria, because of collateral
records of dangerous night panics among various hordes of antiquity. He
adds, however, in reference to the Bible account, “The particular ground
of alarm attributed to them does not exhibit the writer’s acquaintance
with the times in a very favorable light. No Hittite kings can have
compared in power with the king of Judah, the real and near ally, who is
not named at all. Nor is there a single mark of acquaintance with the
facts of contemporaneous history.”
Two sources of information, however, have since been derived that flatly
refute the learned Professor and vindicate the accuracy of the record of
God’s Word. The Assyrian sources show conclusively, upon the examination
of their records, that the Hittites at that time were the greatest power
with which the monarchs of Chaldea had to deal. In the records of
Assur-Nasir-pal a long and powerful tribute is paid to the military
might of the Hittites. So in that day they were still a strong and
warlike people. They were especially dreaded by the armies of antiquity
because of the unique distinction of their chariots. It is to this fact
that the writer of II Kings refers when he speaks of “the noise of
chariots.”
The walls of Karnak give us a clear and illuminating description of
these ancient weapons of battle. Each chariot was drawn by two horses,
armored and shod with spikes. Three warriors rode in each chariot. One
of these handled the reins, while the other two plied arrow, javelin,
sword, and dart, working untold havoc in the closely packed ranks of
ancient infantry. (See Plate 20.)
Plate 22
[Illustration: Monuments of Petra, showing extent of the ruins in
one direction]
Plate 23
[Illustration: Looking the opposite way from Plate 22]
It is also noted that Assur-Nasir-pal has given a detailed account of
the treasures that he derived from the defeated Hittites. Among them he
lists with great delight “swift chariots with horses therefor.” Whenever
this monarch won a victory over the Hittites, he refers again and again
to their chariots. One such reference is seen in this statement: “The
chariots and warlike engines of the general of Charchemis I laid up in
my magazines.”
We have already noted that Solomon was engaged in trade with the people
called Hittites, taking chariots and horses in exchange for his
merchandise.
Ramses the Second states that the Hittite chiefs were distinguished
among the nations “for their swift chariots and horses and their engines
of war.”
It would seem indeed that the writer of II Kings was better acquainted
with the times of which he wrote than was the later critic who disdains
the authority of the ancient scribe!
Shalmaneser made five references to the Hittites, in every one of which
he refers to their chariots. In the monument of Shalmaneser, which is
now found in the British Museum, the inscription represents the Hittites
at Charchemish with various of their allies fighting against
Shalmaneser. He concludes this record by saying, “With them I fought;
their corpses like chaff through the country I scattered. Multitudes of
chariots and horses trained to the yoke I seized.”
Sargon also tells of his overthrow of the Hittite kingdom, and mentions
the chariots that were so formidable an aid to their military campaigns.
It may be noted in passing that Dr. Cheyne, like the eminent Dr. Sayce,
was later converted to faith in the integrity of the Word of God. This
might be called one of the later victories of the Hittite empire. Its
people have risen from the dead to fight for the faith and for the Book
which alike were delivered unto the saints by the Spirit of God. Some of
the later writings of Dr. Cheyne constitute a frank repudiation of his
earlier position. His lectures and sermons, after his discovery of the
integrity of the Bible, still linger in the memory of those who were
privileged to hear them.
The summary of the matter presents a complete victory for the orthodox
school. First, as to the extent of their empire, the Egyptian and
Israelite inscriptions give three hundred geographical names in
connection with the domain and rule of the Hittites. These cover almost
every section of the ancient civilized world. These same inscriptions
also present a long list of the allies and the dependencies which paid
tribute to the Hittite kings. Lists of the satraps who reigned as
vassals to the Hittites have also been recovered.
Secondly, the Hittite inscriptions themselves have now yielded their
secrets to the earnest student. The earliest note of Hittite writings
comes from a traveler, who in 1812 discovered some incised stones and
engraved mounds which were covered with unknown hieroglyphics. These
finds were made at Hamath, a small city in Syria. In the light of the
archeological interest of our generation it seems incredible that these
inscriptions were then ignored completely for threescore years. Then Dr.
William Wright, a Protestant missionary in Damascus, was enabled, by the
authority he wielded through his friendship with high government
officials, to procure these stones and to remove them. Some of these
relics had been built into the houses of Hamath and were part of the
walls of occupied domiciles. One at least was so heavy that it took
eight hours for four oxen to move it one mile. The romance and adventure
of his indomitable pursuit of these stones is covered in Dr. Wright’s
own memoirs and writings.
At this time, Dr. A. H. Sayce, one of the greatest archeologists of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, began the tedious task of
deciphering these hieroglyphics. With no aid, such as the Egyptologists
received from the Rosetta Stone, Dr. Sayce started out on a cold trail.
His ultimate victory constitutes one of the greatest triumphs of pure
reason in the long record of human endeavor. To show something of the
difficulty that Dr. Sayce faced, we have portrayed on page 194 one of
these Hittite inscriptions written in the hieroglyphics of their time.
We have also shown in plate 21 the key that was worked out by Dr. Sayce.
Dr. William Wright, working independently, arrived at practically the
same conclusions.
When these records were publicized as Hittite inscriptions a storm of
protest came from the critics of the Scripture, who utterly rejected the
findings of both Sayce and Wright. They attempted to minimize any
historical value that might be derived from the translation of these
inscriptions. Having built their case against the integrity of the Bible
so strongly upon the error presumed to be found in the Hittite
references, they could not give up their demonstration without a
struggle.
At this time there came to light a reference to a silver disk that had
previously been offered to the British Museum. This consisted of a
convex silver plate. It had every resemblance to the ordinary boss which
is found on the top of the handle of a dagger when such instruments are
decorated. This boss, or plate, had in its center a picture of a warrior
standing upright. He was dressed in the typical garb of a Hittite
soldier. Around this warrior were two rows of hieroglyphics, one on
either side. These hieroglyphics were enclosed in a circle. Outside the
circle was an inscription in the cuneiform script. When this boss was
offered to the British Museum, they kept it a while for study and
rejected it on the grounds that it was probably spurious. Fortunately,
however, they had made an electrotype copy of this article.
When the conclusions of Sayce and Wright were rejected by the critics,
Dr. Sayce heard of this exhibit. Thinking that it might be a way to the
Hittite inscriptions, he prosecuted his search for the original. It had
disappeared, but he fortunately recovered the copy that was in the
British Museum. This copy then became paramount evidence. At a glance,
Dr. Sayce identified the hieroglyphics as being Hittite in origin. Using
the key that he had worked out for the translation of the hieroglyphics,
he translated the boss to be the possession of one Tarkondemos. Having
read this in the Hittite hieroglyphics, he then translated the cuneiform
text and found the two to be identical.
This vindication of the accuracy of this earlier work won the confidence
of the scholarly world in the Hittite inscriptions. This was the
deciding voice. The Hittites became _historical_ to the modern scholar
from the records of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. They become _real_ to
us from their own inscriptions.
Nowhere in all the records of human research and endeavour is it
possible to find a greater and more complete assembling of the
vindication of the integrity of the Word of God. Even though the hand of
the Almighty must shake the very foundations of ancient history, He has
sworn that His Word shall be maintained. Thus He has called from the
limbo of forgotten races an entire nation in an archeological
resurrection, that they, though dead, may tell their tale of the
credibility of the Word of God.
CHAPTER VIII
The Resurrection of Edom
From the staggering mass of archeological material and evidence which is
at the disposal of the twentieth century scholar, it is very difficult
to choose the most perfect illustrations of our theme. If the case of
the Hittites offers a complete refutation of the critical theories
concerning the origin and veracity of the Old Testament, the
resurrection of Edom is no less dramatic and valuable.
The word “Edom,” together with its various derivates such as “Edomite,”
occurs more than fourscore times in the text of the Old Testament. As
the history of this region and its various inhabitants unfolds in the
Old Testament story, there is a complete, remarkable and stirring record
of this land and its people that covers many centuries of time. The word
Edom first occurs in the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis, thirtieth
verse:
“And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red
pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.”
In this first instance the word appears in connection with the eldest
son of Isaac, whose name was changed from Esau to Edom because of the
strange incident of the sale of his birthright. The pottage that his
younger brother, Jacob, had cooked was made from a lentil which gave a
red hue that was characteristic of any food in which this particular
lentil was used. So, because Esau exchanged his priceless rights of
inheritance for a pot of red mush, his name was thereafter called Edom.
In the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis, verses one, eight, and nineteen,
this same definite statement is carried out:
“Now these are the generations of _Esau, who is Edom_.”
“Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: _Esau is Edom_.”
“These are the sons of _Esau, who is Edom_, and these are their
dukes.”
Here we read that the dwelling place of Esau and his people was in mount
Seir, and that Esau is Edom. Hence the name of Edom was also applied to
the people who descended from Esau, as well as to the country wherein
they dwelt.
This region of the ancient world was also known as mount Seir. It was so
named because of the progenitor of the Horites who originally dwelt in
that section. We are told that this people derived their name from Hori,
who was the son of Seir. This ancient people habitually dwelt in caves.
Therefore, by transition, their name came to mean cave dwellers, as it
was descriptive of their type of habitation.
If one should journey from Jerusalem to the center of Edom today, the
most convenient route would lie through the modern city of Amman, which
is at the present writing the seat of government of Iraq. On the
outskirts of this city, and all through this region, the limestone caves
are today occupied by families of people. They, with their folks, their
horses and cattle, and all of their possessions, dwell in these
ancestral caves in contentment as their fathers have always done before
them. These caves are furnished as our modern homes are equipped, with
rugs, tapestries, and all the treasures that go to make a human
habitation into a home!
To summarize the Old Testament record of Edom and Edomites, we must
begin by noting that although Esau _sold_ his birthright, his brother
Jacob actually _stole_ the blessing. We are all familiar with this
fascinating drama of the deception wrought by Jacob at his mother’s
insistence, when he impersonated his brother to deceive his dying
father. This account constitutes one of the implacably honest records
characteristic of the Bible. No other book known to man is so frank in
the delineation of the weaknesses of its leading characters, as God can
deal honestly with sin and failure, since He knows how to overrule such,
and effect a cure! When Esau learned that the blessing of his father had
been stolen by his younger brother, he took a solemn oath that as soon
as the days of mourning for his father were ended, he would slay Jacob,
the deceiver. His vengeance was frustrated, however, as Isaac and
Rebekah sent Jacob to Padan-aram. Here Jacob met a shrewd bargainer more
ruthless than himself; and dwelt in Padan-aram for twenty years, during
which he prospered enormously.
On his way home from his long sojourn, the account tells how he met
Esau. Two chapters of Genesis, namely, the thirty-second and the
thirty-third, are occupied with this dramatic and human document. Still
burdened by the guilt of his dishonest conduct in the matter of the
blessing, and perhaps feeling also that he had been less than honorable
in buying the birthright, Jacob prepared an enticing bribe to soften the
wrath of Esau. Word had been brought to him that Esau was coming to meet
him with four hundred retainers, and Jacob believed that the hour of
reckoning had come. The score of years, however, had softened the wrath
of Esau, and he greeted his younger brother with love and affection.
Refusing to accept any bribe or present at his hand, he made him welcome
to his possession. The record distinctly states that at that time Esau
was dwelling in Seir.
It is evident that he must have prospered there, as the genealogical
tables in the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis list his progeny. All of
his grandsons appear in the record as dukes. Verses one, eight and nine
of this chapter identify the Edomites as descendants of Esau. They
further identify the land of their dwelling with the ancient site of
Seir. To clarify this point, we here reproduce these three verses:
“Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.”
“Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.”
“And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in
mount Seir.”
Verse twenty begins the list of the previous inhabitants of Seir, who
are called the Horites. These people are listed in Genesis 14:6 as among
the races that were smitten by Chedorlaomer in the days of Abraham in
the notable Battle of the Kings. It seems evident, then, that Esau was
powerful enough to overcome the Horites and to impose his dominion upon
them. The two companies intermarried and became the Edomites of the
later record.
The next important point in their development is introduced in the
twentieth chapter of Numbers. As the children of Israel were making
their notable journey from Egypt to the land of Canaan, Moses sent a
courteous request to the king of Edom asking permission to make a
peaceful passage across that land. The salutation of Moses was brotherly
and affectionate. He reminded the king of Edom that Israel and the
Edomites were brethren. He asserted his peaceful purpose, and gave a
pledge not to harm the fields or the crops with the passage of his
flocks.
The king of Edom summarily refused this courteous request in the most
graceless manner. He threatened the company of Israel and forbade them
to pass over his domain. The answer of Moses was a renewal of the
request for peaceful passage. This time, Moses stated that they would
stay to the high and rocky way where no harm could come to the land from
their herds. He even covenanted to pay for such water as the flocks
might drink. The result was a renewal of the threat to oppose the
passage with the edge of the sword. Consequently the people of Israel
were forced to make a circuit of Edom, and they passed around its border
by way of mount Hor.
From this time on, there was implacable enmity between the two great
branches of these Semitic people. The subsequent history is a constant
record of battle and hatred on both sides.
Saul fought against them in the days of his might, and records with
delight his various successes against them.
When David occupied the throne warfare was renewed. So great a nuisance
did the Edomites prove to the people of Israel in David’s day, that this
great warrior king finally directed a complete campaign against them. In
the notable battle that was fought in the salt valley, he slew eighteen
thousand of the Edomite army and pressed on to capture their cities. In
their conquered strongholds, he placed capable garrisons. Under Joab
these garrisons patrolled the land for more than six months. At this
time Benhadad, to whom we shall again refer, escaped to Egypt to become
a later source of distress to Israel.
In all of their history, the Edomites were consistently allied against
Israel. They never missed a chance to vex their kinsmen. No matter who
the enemy of Israel might be, the Edomites hastened to form an alliance
with that foe and gladly accepted the occasion to battle against Israel.
This bad blood that existed between these races, who should have been
allied by the ties of consanguinity, resulted in the prophecies that
foretold the final overthrow of Edom and the destruction of the people.
Such a prophecy is written in Jeremiah 49, verses seventeen and twenty:
“Also Edom shall be a desolation: every one that goeth by it shall be
astonished, and shall hiss at all the plagues thereof.”
“Therefore hear the counsel of the Lord, that he hath taken against
Edom; and his purposes that he hath taken against Edom; and his
purposes that he hath purposed against the inhabitants of Teman:
Surely the least of the flock shall draw them out; surely he shall
make their habitations desolate with them.”
When Nebuchadnezzar finally took the people of Israel away into their
great captivity, the Edomites rejoiced without restraint. Their
happiness was utterly unbounded and they celebrated with every means at
their disposal. They overran the southern regions of Judah and took much
of that land for themselves during the days of the captivity.
Jeremiah, in the Book of Lamentations, reproves their unnatural
jubilation and warns Edom that the same fate that overtook Israel will
come upon them.
So also the prophet Ezekiel speaks from his refuge and warns Edom. In
the twenty-fifth chapter of Ezekiel, we read in verses twelve to
fourteen, this following warning:
“Thus saith the Lord God; Because that Edom hath dealt against the
house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath greatly offended, and
revenged himself upon them;
“Therefore thus saith the Lord God; I will also stretch out mine hand
upon Edom, and will cut off man and beast from it; and I will make it
desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword.
“And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people
Israel: and they shall do in Edom according to mine anger and
according to my fury; and they shall know my vengeance, saith the Lord
God.”
Joel adds his voice in a characteristic reference such as we find in the
third chapter and nineteenth verse of his prophecy:
“Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness,
for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed
innocent blood in their land.”
So also Amos, in chapter one and verse eleven utters this fateful
sentence:
“Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, and for four,
I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his
brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did
tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever.”
Thus the prophet is moved of God to list the continued transgressions of
Edom, and the consequent and subsequent judgment.
So literally were these words of the prophets fulfilled that Edom was
not only overthrown and its people vanquished, but for a great deal more
than a thousand years the very name of their city and people dropped out
of the memory of men. Here is one more case where a great people
catastrophically disappeared from the stage of history, leaving no
secular record of the part that they had played in the drama of human
life.
Needless to say, this was the critics’ _great_ occasion! With a
vociferous unanimity they argued and wrote that there had been no city
called Edom, and no people called Edomites. Since the word “Edom”
literally means “red,” the critics erected a fanciful demonstration
purporting to show that the Edomites would be any people with a red
complexion. According to their fanciful theory, any race or group of
people whose skin or hair was red would be poetically called Edomites.
When the defenders of the text pointed to the denunciations in the
prophets, the critics laughed them out of the picture. These utterances
were listed as pure, poetic fancy and figurative diatribes. The critics
pointed out that all such outbursts were found _in the prophecies_! As a
stated principle of higher criticism, all prophecies are repudiated.
They are held to be purely fanciful, and any fulfillment is entirely
coincidental. This attitude is the proper one for criticism to assume.
The supernatural fulfillment of prophecy is one of the strongest
evidences of the Divine origin of the Scriptures. Such demonstrations
cannot be reconciled with the critical basis of humanism. Therefore, it
is only logical that it be ignored or denied in a critical approach to
the text.
The enemies of orthodoxy had one strong argument that in the early day
seemed to be unanswerable. Their constant cry was “Where is Edom?”
Admittedly, this was a question that the orthodox believer could not
answer. The city had disappeared, the people were forgotten, and no
relic nor remnant of this race remained. It was not until the nineteenth
century of the Christian era that the resurrection of Edom began.
The first and earliest archeological reference to Edom which was
discovered, was a statement from the record of Ramses the Third, who
proudly boasted that in his great campaign he smote the people of Seir.
The next discovery came when the record of Tiglath-pileser was read. In
his story he told of the campaign against Rezin, king of Syria. He
recounted that among other vassals who yielded to his yoke, he received
homage from Quaus-Malaka of Edom. This Rezin, with whom we shall later
deal in Tiglath-pileser’s voluminous records, is the king of Syria who
is warned in the seventh chapter of Isaiah as allied with Israel against
Judah.
Following this, we have the monument of Esar-haddon. He also tells how
among his Assyrian conquests he overthrew the Edomites and forced their
king to render homage and allegiance to his power. Again, the records of
Nebuchadnezzar tell us that in his final battle with Judah, the Edomites
were among his allied forces.
Gradually, as this people began to rise from the silence and obscurity
of forgotten antiquity, something of their customs and beliefs began to
be recovered. At least three of their deities are known today. These are
Hadad, Quaus and Kozé. About 300 B. C., Edom fell into the hands of a
people who were called the Nabataeans. Their inscription claims that
they captured Edom, exterminated its then numerous population and
occupied its capital, _which was Petra_.
Here, then, is the final vindication of the text of Scripture. This
city, Petra, is variously mentioned in the Old Testament text as the
center of Edomite dominion. It is sometimes called “Sela” in the
historical and prophetical references, and twice is referred to by the
name of “Rock.” Obadiah calls the city “the rock,” the Greek form of
which would be “_he Petra_.” It is thus evident that it was known
peculiarly for its structure. This fact appeared to be of no
significance until archeology had brought it to the prominence of our
present comprehension. The issue of the National Geographic Magazine for
May, 1907, made Petra so well known to the English speaking world that
there remains little to be said of an historical nature to establish the
actuality and certainty of this great discovery.
With the collapse of the Roman empire, Petra disappeared from the
knowledge of mankind and became shrouded in mystery and darkness. It
began to emerge into the light again when a young Swiss traveler first
visited its site in 1812. The record of his discovery was not published,
however, until ten years later.
The next notice of the site of Petra was taken when two British naval
officers visited the splendid remains in 1818, and published their
observations seven years later. After this it became the custom for
adventurous travelers to take a brief look at the stupendous beauty of
this forgotten city and make some passing mention. The real exploration
of Petra, however, began some thirty years ago when certain German
scholars made a scientific investigation of the site. The results of
their labors were printed only in German, and filled a surprising number
of lengthy volumes. A large literature on Petra is now in the possession
of the English speaking world, but surprisingly little of a definite
nature is known about its earlier inhabitants.
The monuments of Petra, which we here illustrate in plates numbered
Plate 22 and Plate 23, were not built by the later inhabitants, who were
called Nabataeans. These monumental structures were carved out of the
living rock. Some of them were temples, and others were tombs. To
illustrate the extent of these works, we may note that the great
open-air theatre at Petra would comfortably seat a crowd of three
thousand spectators.
Just a word of explanation is necessary before we proceed to the
application of this discovery. Petra, the capital of Edom and the
principal city of the Edomites, is found in the most rugged region of
that part of the earth. The land is thrown up into abrupt ranges, which
are deeply incised with canyons and gorges until they form one of the
wildest and most entrancing geographical spectacles to be seen in the
Eastern world. In some regions the underlying structure is limestone.
The walls of the canyon, however, are largely porphyry and sandstone.
The sandstone is brilliantly colored with hues which run from brown
through red, to a definite purple. Some of the strata, grotesquely
twisted and torn and laid bare by erosion, are among the loveliest and
most entrancing geological studies in that region.
In approaching the site of Petra, it is necessary to journey up a narrow
canyon called in the Arabic, a siq. This approach is so narrow that
almost all of the way it is scarcely possible for two horsemen to ride
abreast. This might have been an important factor in deciding the site
of the city in antiquity. A dozen men could have successfully defended
the approaches to Petra against an entire army of invaders.
Plate 24 will give some conception of the ruggedness of the country and
the difficulty of approach. In place of a truck, such as would have been
used in flat country, we have the familiar donkey carrying the camera
and supplies. This resting place is in one of the wider sections of the
canyon. Plate 25 is the first glimpse of one of the amazing monuments of
Petra. This great structure bears the Arabic name of El Khazne. A full
view of this temple is given in plate 26.
Petra was not built after the fashion in which cities are constructed
today. Every structure was hewn out of the living sandstone. The city
has been called “The Rose Red City, half as old as time,” and this
description is perfect. When the sunlight strikes the ruins of Petra, it
is as red as blood. Edom, indeed, and Edomites, might well be applied by
the ancients to the color and beauty of this old site, as well as to its
inhabitants! In plate 27 we have illustrated this manner of carving a
dwelling from the living stone in the great structure which the Arabians
call El Deir. (See Plate 28.) Observing this photograph, you will note
that the rock wall has been hewn away into the shape of columns,
pillars, and decorated facade in the similitude of a building that has
been put together by the orthodox style of masonry. Such, however, is
not the case. Plate 29 shows some of the detail of one of these notable
monuments. It will be observed that the workers began from the top and
carved their way down. In the upper left corner of the picture a series
of holes will be seen. These were chiseled for the foothold of the
workers who started the process.
Their manner of labor was unique. The architect laid out the size,
shape, and site of the building, and the workmen began to cut away the
stone about the top of their designated area until they had a recessed
trough some ten feet deep into the face of the cliff, on the top and
both sides. Then, beginning with the top of the structure, they carved
that slab in the similitude of a building. As they worked their way
down, they shaped the pillars, carved these brilliant decorations and
recessed the cliff on both sides to make their monuments stand forth.
Plate 28 shows the result of this type of labor, looking from the bottom
upward. Reaching the bottom of their carved columns, these artisans
would then chisel away between and behind the posts that they had formed
of the face of the cliff until they had a great square entry way. The
face of this entry way would be further beautified by carving the
semblance of a doorway. A short tunnel would then be run back into the
cliff to serve as a hall, and rooms hollowed out on the inside into a
series of apartments or caves. “Cave-dwellers,” indeed, is the proper
name for these people!
Plate 24
[Illustration: The rough approach to Petra (Photo by Matson)]
Plate 25
[Illustration: Approaching Petra by way of the main siq the first
sight of the ruins]
The extent of their operations may be dimly understood from plates
numbered plate 22 and plate 23. Some of these tombs that are here
depicted, were never finished. A few of them have suffered from the
ravages of time, but the general state of preservation of these
priceless monuments of Petra is fascinating. In plate 30 we have
depicted the approach to the garden tomb. By the side of this tomb there
is the ascent to the “high place” for the sacrifices of their idolatrous
religion. In plate 31 we have shown the altar and the “high place.”
These high places of antiquity should be the subject for a volume in
themselves. They are mentioned one hundred two times in the Old
Testament. Being the altars of heathen sacrifices, they were the subject
of constant denunciation on the part of the Lord God and were a source
of trouble and distress to Israel during all her periods of apostasy.
The _groves_ to which the prophets refer and which the godly kings cut
down, were the places where Ashtoreth was worshipped. Very few systems
of degenerate religion in antiquity were more lecherous and vile than
the cult of this unclean goddess. The high places, however, were the
altars where sacrifice was made to the gods of the heathen nations. As
these sacrifices were very often human, and as it was not uncommon for
the ancients to dedicate their children to the fierce and abominable
worship of their false religion, the people of Israel were sternly
forbidden to have any contact with such idolatrous practices. So when
godly kings occupied the throne, they destroyed the “high places.” In a
time of apostasy the high places were builded and dedicated again. Some
of the most stirring denunciations of the prophetic sections of the Old
Testament are in the words that God directs against the high places of
Israel and in the announcing of His final and complete victory over
them.
This high place shown in plate 31 is characteristic, then, of the
ancient custom. It shows that the Hittites had forsaken whatever
knowledge they may have derived from their earlier Hebrew origin and
were wholly dedicated to the practices of idolatry. Incidentally, the
worship of God is still practiced by Israel, but the “high places” of
Edom and all other heathen centers are merely curiosities today!
As far as artistry and ability are concerned, antiquity knew no greater
or more capable people. The monument that they have left to mark their
mysterious disappearance is a lasting testimony to their culture and
power.
But more than that, it is a living, resurrected testimony to the truth
and credibility of the Word of God!
There is no scene of desolation and ruin that amazes the spirit of man
as much as the desolation of Edom. Forsaken of human occupants, the
wonderful Rose Red City is today a curiosity to be viewed by the hardy
adventurer who would study the antiquities of the Eastern world.
Just what hands constructed these noble temples and tombs it is not at
this time possible to say. The Nabataeans were incapable of producing
this kind of work, nor would they have invested the time. The bodies of
the departed were spread upon the field as fertilizer or buried in the
most indescribably filthy pits of their day and time. The Semitic
peoples who preceded them, however, have left this record in stone as a
testimony to their reverence for the dead. What the future will yield in
the hoped-for excavations of Petra, no one is able to say. If, however,
a spade is never sunk into soil and no more appears to the gaze of man
than is seen by the casual traveler today, we have sufficient to call
forth a doxology from the hearts of those who love and reverence the
Word of God. We cannot refrain from commenting again and again upon the
marvelous manner in which the Author of this Great Book has cared for
His own case.
The consternation and defeat of the critics have been complete in this
instance. What a quaint conceit it is in our generation to note that God
is so firm in His promised defense of His Book, that He will move to
crush the enemies of the Word even if it is necessary to smite their
fallacious fancy with a carved mountain of stone!
CHAPTER IX
The Brazen Shields of Rehoboam
In the logical presentation of this subject, we now come to that period
of history in which the pharaohs, who are named by name in the
Scriptures and are thus identified beyond question, make their
contribution to the evidence which sustains the record of the Bible.
Laying aside controversial discussions as to the identity of the various
pharaohs who preceded, we note that the first of Egypt’s many monarchs
to appear under his personal name in the Word of God is Shishak the 1st.
His name appears on the monuments of Egypt as Shashanq the 1st, but his
own records identify him as the “Shishak” of I Kings 14, and II
Chronicles 12. The outstanding accomplishments of his entire reign seem
to have been the invasion of Palestine and the capture of Jerusalem. In
the account which this monarch left in the priceless writings at Karnak,
the most noteworthy is the story told on the second pylon of the main
temple, where the conqueror has given a list of all the towns and
villages which he overthrew in Palestine. To this he added a record of
the gold and silver ornaments that he carried away from Jerusalem. He
specifically noted the bucklers and shields of Solomon and also the
golden quivers which Solomon’s father had captured from the king of
Zobah.
Once again we listen to some collateral gossip from far antiquity to see
the background of this strange invasion of Jerusalem. Weaving together
records of forgotten campaigns, homely events of family affairs, the
conduct of pragmatic generations, the history preserved in the books of
the Old Testament, together with the voices of monuments and ruins, we
gradually achieve a basis of understanding. The Pharaoh Siamen, whose
capital was at Zoan, appears to have been an ally of Edom. In the days
when secular historical records begin to coincide with the record of the
text, Edom was ruled by a regent. King Hadad was a lad of tender years,
and though he nominally was vested with the crown, his able and powerful
mother ruled in his name. The queen regent, incidentally, was an aunt of
Solomon. Holding that thought in temporary abeyance, we will continue to
investigate this quaint family alliance. David and Jonathan made a
successful assault upon Edom, which resulted in the capture of the city.
Such rights and powers as a conquering monarch has always abrogated to
himself, then devolved upon David in respect to Edom. When it became
apparent that the city would fall, the queen regent took her young son
and fled to Egypt for safety. In view of the fact that Edom and Egypt
were at that time allies, the royal party was well received and, with
the prodigal hospitality of that day, became guests at the court for the
balance of their lives.
Plate 26
[Illustration: “El Kahzne” (The Temple of the Urn)]
Plate 27
[Illustration: Showing the manner in which these buildings are
carved from the living stone]
In the course of the passing years, Siamen was gathered to his fathers,
and Psabekhanu the 2nd reigned in his stead. The wise mother of Hadad,
knowing that alliances do not always outlast the persons who made them
and, desiring to protect Hadad’s interests in the country that they had
lost by force of arms, entered into a typical and common intrigue. She
brought about the marriage of her son, Hadad, with a sister of
Psabekhanu. Thus, Hadad became the brother-in-law of the reigning
monarch of Egypt and, presumably, strengthened the ties that bound the
Egyptian power to the interests of his small country.
In the meantime, Solomon, who had succeeded his father, moved to protect
his inherited claim on Edom. This he did by marrying the daughter of
Psabekhanu. It is presumed that the relationship of a son-in-law might
be a stronger claim for alliance than that of a brother-in-law. Some
short while later the second daughter of Psabekhanu married the Prince
Shishak. Thus Solomon and the heir-apparent of the throne of Egypt,
Shishak, became brothers-in-law. By marriage, however, the queen of Edom
was their aunt. At a glance the student can see that affairs were a bit
messy, to say the very least. Hadad maintained his rights to Edom and
conducted at the Egyptian court an intrigue for his restoration. The
desires of Pharaoh were divided between his natural wish to keep the
peace and his interest in the importunities of his brother-in-law, as
weighed against the desires of his son-in-law. Through this tangled
scheme of alliances it came about that Solomon’s son would have some
legal rights of succession in Egypt. But Shishak’s son would have the
same claim to succession in Palestine. Solomon, being much older than
Shishak, died first. The story which now follows is recorded in the Word
of God, and on the pillars of antiquity, for, shortly after the death of
Solomon, Shishak invaded Judah.
The “why” of the matter is easily understood. The first reason was loot.
The brief account that is given in I Kings 14:25-28 is here appended to
introduce our consideration of this event:
“And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak
king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the
treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s
house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold
which Solomon had made.
“And King Rehoboam made in their stead brazen shields, and committed
them unto the hands of the chief of the guard, which kept the door of
the king’s house.
“And it was so, when the king went into the house of the Lord, that
the guard bare them, and brought them back into the guard chamber.”
In that record it is noted that among the treasures of the house of the
Lord which Shishak carried away, were the shields of gold which Solomon
had made. For a description of these shields and some conception of
their value, we turn to the tenth chapter of I Kings, verses fourteen to
seventeen:
“Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six
hundred threescore and six talents of gold,
“Besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the
spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors
of the country.
“And king Solomon made two hundred targets of beaten gold: six hundred
shekels of gold went to one target.
“And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds of
gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the
forest of Lebanon.”
The wealth of Solomon has never been adequately computed. It is stated
that from the tomb of Tutanhkamen, in the most famous excavation of our
generation, treasure to the value of $14,000,000 was recovered. The
splendor and wealth of that pharaoh were insignificant compared to that
of Solomon, the Magnificent. We see, for instance, in this fourteenth
verse that Solomon’s income in gold bullion alone was almost the exact
equivalent of $20,000,000 in our day and time. We must understand,
however, that there was a vast difference between the values of the
money standards of that time and of our own. The ratio would be about 15
to 1. For instance, a silver shekel would buy a cow; a half-shekel would
buy an ass. If we evaluate their currency by purchasing power, it would
take fifteen of our dollars to equal one of theirs. So the sum of gold,
which is the equivalent of $20,000,000 by our former gold standard
measurement, gives a conception of the annual income of Solomon, only if
it is transmuted to our present ratio of purchasing power. This figure
does not include all the tariff and income from taxes, the profit on his
merchandising and the tribute in gifts of vassal nations. He was in the
fortunate circumstance of paying income tax to himself so that his
income remained undiminished! The gold of Solomon was hoarded for a
unique and peculiar purpose.
When David desired to build a house for the worship of God, his offer
was rejected on the ground that he was a man of blood. However, the Lord
said that his son should build the house of prayer, and David began the
hoarding of gold for the erection and beautification of that temple. The
estimates of the amount of gold that went into that temple go as high as
two and one-half billions of dollars. It is not too much to say that no
building ever erected by the hands of man could excel the beauty, the
artistic perfection, the splendor, and the intrinsic value of the temple
that Solomon built.
In the Scriptural citation in I Kings, we have just read of the two
hundred targets or bucklers of beaten gold. Also, there are catalogued
the three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds of gold went into
the construction of each shield. At the present rate of gold values,
that would mean that each of these shields was worth $1680.00. There was
considerably over a half million dollars of pure gold hammered into
those shields. This glittering and entrancing treasure intrigued the
greed of every conqueror of antiquity, but no man was able to take it
from the House of God while His protection and care were upon it. It is
not to be wondered that Shishak considered the capture of that treasure
as the highest achievement of his reign.
The second reason for Shishak’s invasion, however, was mainly political.
After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided. Rehoboam,
possessing the Southern kingdom, was a weakling who was, moreover, under
the influence of vicious, untrustworthy counselors. Perhaps his tendency
towards idolatry may be traced to his mother who was an Ammonite and
whose influence, undoubtedly, turned him away from monotheism. At any
rate, Bel, Ashtoreth, Moloch and Baal were worshipped throughout the
land on every high hill and under many green trees. The most unclean
practices were indulged in by the people until the judgment of God
necessarily descended upon them. Shishak’s chief concern was not over
the idolatry of the people, however, but over the effect of their
dereliction upon the development of the kingdom. In order to protect his
possible rights of succession in Palestine, he moved to make Rehoboam a
vassal, and brought him under the yoke of bondage, making him a governor
for Egypt.
A more comprehensive account of this invasion is given in the twelfth
chapter of II Chronicles. A great many people have raised the question
as to why we have the duplication of the record in the books of Kings
and Chronicles in the Scripture. It has been argued that the same
stories told again in Chronicles are a senseless and useless repetition
of the record already written in Kings. This specific instance is
perhaps as fine an answer to that objection as can be found. It might be
said that the Books of Kings recount the _deeds_ of men and the Books of
Chronicles deal largely with their _motives_. The Books of the Kings
record history as enacted by man, while the records of Chronicles give
God’s side of the story and tell the “why” of things that would
otherwise be mysterious.
For instance, the twelfth chapter of II Chronicles begins, “And it came
to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened
himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” Here
is a bleak, unvarnished record of apostasy. The price of a man in his
own position and standing has led him to debauch a nation spiritually
and morally. Therefore, the second verse follows as a natural
consequence: “And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king
Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, _because they
had transgressed against the Lord_.” Here is an illuminating comment
upon the motives and principles that underlie this record. It is a
foreshadowing of the first chapter of Romans. When men give up God and
deny Him a place in their culture and practices, it is inevitable that
God will give them up to the consequences of their vile conduct. In this
case it was Shishak who brought judgment upon Jerusalem. His twelve
hundred chariots and sixty thousand cavalrymen were supported by so many
infantry that the number was never totaled. They are called
“innumerable,” which is a simple way of saying that the number was too
vast to take time counting them.
We are then told that when Shishak had captured all the outlying cities
of Judah and was on his way to Jerusalem, the prophet Shemaiah frankly
told King Rehoboam that his trouble had come upon him because of his
apostasy. In blunt words he delivered this graphic warning: “Thus saith
the Lord, Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the
hand of Shishak.” When this message was so courageously delivered, the
princes of Israel and the godless counselors of the apostate king
together prostrated themselves before the Lord and acknowledged that His
judgment was just and His decision was righteous. The record continues
with the fact that when the Lord saw that they had repented, He promised
to save the humbled court and the threatened city. But with the promise
of deliverance from destruction there came also the grim edict that in
order that they might learn the difference between serving God and being
under the bondage of a heathen culture, they should be subject to
Shishak and serve him.
Thus in Chronicles we do have the account repeated that was given to us
in the record of the Kings, but with additional details that illumine
and clarify the record. Shishak swept the land bare of precious metals
and took away the treasures of the temple as well. Not only did he leave
the king and the court destitute of their priceless ornaments, but he
carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.
Plate 28
[Illustration: Note how top of building seems to erupt from the
hill]
Plate 29
[Illustration: Compare size of men in the doorway of “El Deir”]
We now enter into a consideration of one of the most tragic and
humiliating spectacles in all antiquity. When the penitent and restored
king saw the effects of his apostasy, he called the people back to the
practice of their earlier faith and himself came daily to the house of
the Lord for the exercise of prayer. But as the humbled monarch knelt in
prayer, he could not keep his eyes off the vacant walls. Where the five
hundred golden objects had once hung, testifying to the wealth of that
house and the greatness of his father, there was nothing but the bare
wall. It must be remembered that those golden ornaments had not belonged
to him. They had been hung in their places to praise and glorify God by
his greater ancestor. Therefore, when an enemy came and stole them away,
it was a constant and mute reproach to him because of his own failure to
live up to the standards and greatness of a preceding generation.
The troubled king gave orders that the targets and shields should be
replaced with copies of what had been lost. There was, however, neither
gold nor silver in the land, for Shishak had made a clean sweep of all
that was valuable. Thus, having lost the reality of their treasure, the
best they could do was to make a cheap similitude in brass.
Needless to say, brass is a pitiful substitute for the precious metal
which we call gold. If it is kept in a shining condition, at first
glance brass may have some resemblance to the nobler metal, but it
quickly tarnishes and its glitter fades. For this reason, the targets
and shields of brass were stored in the house of the guard. At the hour
when the king came to the temple to pray, the guard polished these
ridiculous substitutes and hung them in their places so that the king
might delude himself by the glitter and shine, and thus have some balm
for his troubled spirit. There is, of course, an element of humour in
this tragic record!
The moral lessons are almost innumerable and would provide a minister
with sermon material for days on end. We are faced with a somewhat
similar situation in Christendom today. Upon the walls of the House of
Faith, our believing fathers hung the golden shields that constitute the
doctrines of Christianity. The brilliant glory of those foundational
treasures was never threatened as long as the church was true to God.
But we in our generation, alas, have allowed an enemy to come in and rob
us of many of those golden shields.
We cannot over-emphasize the fact that it is always an enemy who seeks
thus to despoil the House of our Faith. Though he may come in the guise
of a friend, or even of a relative, as in the case of Shishak, the man
who robs us of our golden shields is an enemy at heart and in purpose.
May we illustrate this suggestion by saying, for instance, that our
fathers believed in the golden fact of the deity of Jesus Christ. They
held as a basic fact of Christianity that in the person of our Saviour,
Almighty God was incarnated to be the Redeemer of mankind. Satan, in the
person of many of his charming and well-mannered cohorts, has stolen
that shield from many a temple of prayer. Men speak now of the
“divinity” of Jesus instead of the “deity.” Having established this
premise, they then continue with the statement that we are _all_ divine
and have this same spark of divinity within our spirits, to a greater or
lesser extent. When the golden shield of the deity of Christ disappeared
from the walls of many churches that had once been Christian, the
worshippers made a beautiful substitute with the brazen replica of
Unitarianism. The tarnished brass of that un-Christian doctrine is a
miserable substitute indeed for the blessed assurance that is resident
in the fact of the deity of the Saviour.
Our fathers believed also in the virgin birth of the Son of God. They
accepted literally the record that Almighty God himself had given of the
incarnation of His Son. Our fathers believed that the body of Jesus was
formed in the womb of a virgin woman because of the direct visitation of
the Holy Ghost. Thus, the birth of Jesus Christ was a biological
miracle, and He owed even His earth origin to His _heavenly_ Father
alone! This foundational fact of the Christian revelation has
disappeared from the walls and the worship of many a once-Christian
gathering. In the place of that golden fact there is the ghastly and
brazen substitute of an illegitimate child, who was probably the fruit
of a woman’s sin! And then men wonder that the old-time power and
greatness of the Christian faith seem lacking in much of our land today!
In like manner, the golden shield of redemption through the shed blood
of Calvary has been exchanged for the brazen substitute of a “Perfect
Example.” The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ has been bartered
for a misty idea of some sort of a spiritual resurrection that has no
bearing upon the facts of the record that God has given to man. Shield
by shield, and buckler by buckler, the things that were given to us for
our defense, gleaming with the intrinsic value of a supernatural
revelation, have been stolen away by the enemy. The humanistic
substitutes that have replaced them have left us at the mercy of the
enemy who would destroy our souls.
But great as are the moral lessons involved in this record, its
apologetical value is incalculably greater. It has been the custom in
our day to question the historical accuracy of much of the record of the
Scripture. So it is with considerable interest that we turn back to
ancient Egypt to see what can be learned from the external sources of
pure archeology concerning these sections of the Old Testament.
The visitor to the British Museum may come away well acquainted with
this man Shishak. In the fourth Egyptian Room, in Table Case “O”, there
is a pair of gold bracelets, the exhibits being numbered 134 and 135.
These beautiful ornaments are overlaid with lapis lazuli, and a blue
substance which is similar to faience. The inside of each is inscribed
with a text written in hieroglyphics stating that the bracelets were
“Made for the Princess,” the daughter of the chief of all the bowmen,
Nemareth, whose mother was the daughter of the Prince of the land of
Reshnes. This Nemareth was the descendant in the fifth generation of
Buiu-auau, a Libyan prince who was the father of Shishak the First.
In this same case, exhibit number 217 is a heavy gold ring set with a
scarab carved from soapstone, which is inscribed with a clearly cut
cartouche containing both the prenomen and nomen of Shishak the First.
Looking further in this case, exhibit number 392 is a silver ring
inscribed with the titles of an official who held many important
positions under two monarchs. He was president of the granaries, also a
prophet of the fourth order, served as a scribe and at one time was
libationer in the reigns of Psammetichus and Shishak.
The most important of all the records of Shishak, of course, is the
voluminous account that he caused to be engraved at the Temple of
Karnak. A detail is added in Shishak’s record that is not contained in
the Scriptures. According to the conqueror, to strengthen the ties of
vassalage, he gave Jeroboam one of his daughters in marriage. This
complete record of Shishak’s we photographed, studied carefully, and
found eminently satisfactory, with the single exception that the king of
Judah is not named by name in Shishak’s account of this conquest. But he
does tell of the capture of Judah, the rape of Jerusalem, and gives a
categorical list of cities and villages overthrown. He specifically
mentions the bucklers and shields of gold that he took from the temple.
In a word, this science of archeology, upon the authority of men long
dead, but who have since been raised to testify, stamps an emphatic O.
K. upon this section of the Sacred Record.[1]
The next king who parades these pages under the designation of his
proper name is the Pharaoh Zera, who has also been identified with
Osarkon. Shishak’s first-born son, named both Usarkon and Osarkon the
First, succeeded his father to the throne as the last of the Tanite
kings of the twenty-first dynasty. This son, in turn, was called Shishak
and became the high priest of Amon. Osarkon the First was succeeded by
Takeloth the First, who, in turn, was followed by Osarkon the Second.
Since both of these Osarkons figure in the Scriptural account, we
briefly cover their record as it occurs in antiquity.
Being emperor of Ethiopia, as well as of Egypt, the first Osarkon, or
Zera, had a vast horde of Ethiopian allies who fought with him in his
important conquests. This entire line was of Libyan extraction. A
portion of Africa that is now temporarily possessed by the crown of
Italy seems to have given rise to this family of conquering rulers.
Undoubtedly the designation “Ethiopian” was suggested by this African
ancestry.
The Scriptural account of this man’s ill-starred military expedition is
given in the fourteenth chapter of II Chronicles. When King Abijah died,
his son Asa succeeded to the throne. The ascension of Asa was followed
by ten years of such peace and prosperity as was almost unprecedented in
those troublous times. The reason given is that Asa was a godly man and
found favour in the sight of the Lord. He shattered the images erected
to unclean idols, cut down the groves where Ashtoreth was worshipped,
demolished the altars and the high places, and purged the land of its
apostasy. He compelled the people of Judah to return to the true faith
and to obey the Lord and His commandments. He strengthened the fortified
centers and in a masterly fashion built up his reserves.
The ten years of prosperity and industry found the land of Judah in an
enviable condition that left it well worth robbing! Since the
opportunity to steal and loot was the only incentive required by the
grim pragmatists of antiquity, Zera, or Osarkon, gathered together an
army of a million foot soldiers, reinforced with three hundred chariots,
and journeyed toward Palestine to loot the land. The vicinity of
Mareshah was chosen as the site of the battle and Asa came out with his
pitiful little company to defend his possessions. The drama of this
record begins in the eleventh verse of the fourteenth chapter of II
Chronicles in the great prayer of Asa:
Plate 30
[Illustration: Enroute to the “High Place”]
Plate 31
[Illustration: The Altar of Sacrifice]
“And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing
with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power:
help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go
against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail
against thee.”
The high-hearted courage and simple faith of Asa is sufficient
introduction to the very natural result, which follows in simple words:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and
the Ethiopians fled.”
We then read a condensed account of the pursuit that Asa and his people
indulged in, chasing the horde of Egyptians all the way across their own
border. They were in such confusion that they could not recover and make
a stand, so that not even a rear-guard action was fought. The children
of Israel recaptured all of the cities that Rehoboam had lost, and with
a typical Hebraism the account concludes with the statement that “they
carried away exceeding much spoil.” Although they never recovered the
golden shields, it is to be hoped they got their equivalent in the value
of this recounted spoil.
It was the universal custom of conquerors to record their victories and
say nothing of their defeats. Therefore, it is a bit startling to find
this record of II Chronicles borne out by the account the Egyptian
monarch has left of his own campaigns. This simple paragraph is
illuminating:
“Seventeen campaigns I waged. In sixteen of them I was victorious. In
the seventeenth campaign I was defeated. Not by man, Heaven fought
against me.”
So even in the record of a defeat this man can brag that his strength
and greatness were so phenomenal that only the Lord could overthrow him.
Once again, a dead man tells a tale. He also, in the illuminating
account that he has left, rises from the dead to write “o. k.” across
the pages of Holy Writ, attesting its historical fidelity and the
accuracy of its records.
CHAPTER X
Mingled Voices
The next definite contact between Israel and Egypt is found in the
graphic and terse statement of II Kings 17:4,
“And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent
messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of
Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria
shut him up, and bound him in prison.”
From this point on, the records of Egypt and Palestine are so enmeshed
and tangled with the records of Babylon and Assyria that we cannot
separate them in their presentation. This king So is identified as the
Egyptian monarch Shabaka, who is also known by the names Sebichos,
Sabakon, Sabacoa, and Seve. He seems to have been a man of implacable
cruelty, if we may judge from the Greek record of his manner of
succession. He was preceded on the throne by Bakenrenef, who was one of
the wise and kindly lawgivers of Egypt. This noble ruler was one of the
first of all the Egyptian kings to come in direct contact with the
classical Greeks. The Dorian invasion had now come to an end and the
Greeks were free to trade and colonize in the Mediterranean, and in the
vigour of their advance they had pressed on to the mouth of the Nile.
They had established a close connection with Sais, and by 700 B. C. had
entrenched themselves strongly in the culture of that section of Egypt.
The Pharaoh of our present interest, So, invaded that section of Egypt
and captured Bakenrenef in a swift and short campaign. The Greek records
relate that after treating his defeated enemy with brutality, So then
burned him alive. He then established himself as king and ruled not only
all of Egypt but Ethiopia as well. He was thus a contemporary of
Shalmaneser, Sargon, and Sennacherib, all of whom have a direct bearing
upon the records of the Old Testament. One of the interesting
discoveries made at the royal library at Nineveh was a seal bearing the
name of Shabaka, or So. The visitor to the British Museum, upon entering
the Assyrian Room, may pause before Table Case “E” and see this
fascinating exhibit of the actualities of these events.
In about the year 700 B. C., according to the record of Holy Writ, when
Shalmaneser had dealt kindly with Hoshea, who had accepted his yoke and
agreed to pay tribute, the faithless king of Judah entered into
conspiracy with Sebakah. Since the common name, So, is the one that is
used in the Scripture, we shall refer to this pharaoh by that name from
this point on. The tribute that Hoshea should have paid to the king of
Assyria he diverted, and paid it into the hand of So for the help that
was promised him in throwing off the yoke of Assyria. There is abundant
reason to believe, from all the collateral records, that this conspiracy
was promoted by So and Hoshea.
This action on the part of the Hebrew king was entirely unwarranted and
consisted of a breach of faith on his part. Indeed, the prophet Hosea
utters a stern and unmistakable reproof against this action in the
strong words of the first verse of his twelfth chapter:
“Ephraim feedeth on wind and followeth after the east wind: he daily
increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the
Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt. The Lord hath also a
controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways;
according to his doings will he recompense him.”
As a result of this conspiracy, Hoshea was captured by the king of
Assyria and carried away into an imprisonment. The plan did not work out
as the faithless allies had intended. Shalmaneser invaded Palestine to
punish this rebellion. This wise and able general divided his forces, so
that a major portion of his military strength lay between Egypt and
Palestine at a part of the border that was easily defended. When So
found that the cost of reaching Hoshea with aid was to be a major battle
which would endanger his entire dominion, he simply defaulted and left
Hoshea to bear alone the brunt of the battle. The prophecy of Hosea was
thus literally fulfilled. With the faithlessness that Hoshea had
manifested toward Shalmaneser, he had been rewarded by the defection of
So from his covenant.
It is interesting to note that So seemed to have been a little ashamed
of his conduct, for he offers a rather flimsy excuse for his failure to
stand by his contract. His statement is that Hoshea had paid only half
of the price agreed upon and for that reason he came not to his aid.
In this invasion of Shalmaneser’s, many of the Hebrew people were taken
captive. Hoshea, after being for some time incarcerated in disgrace and
punishment, was forgiven by Shalmaneser and restored to his throne and
dominion. Shalmaneser seems to have reasoned that having once failed and
having tasted of punishment, Hoshea was now to be trusted. Thus, the
first conspiracy ended with the common people of Samaria paying the
price. Two years later the faithless and foolish Hoshea again listened
to the siren song of rebellion as it was sung by the deceitful So and
again rebelled against his over-lord and benefactor. Shalmaneser, in
great wrath, again moved against Samaria, which resisted in a bitter
struggle that lasted three years.
Although the following details are not all mentioned in the text of II
Kings, seventeenth chapter, they are emphasized by the change of person
in the record. In this bitter conflict of three years, no help came from
Egypt. The seventh verse of the text says that the children of Israel
had sinned against the Lord, their God. They had gone again into
idolatry and had put themselves back under the yoke of Egypt, from which
God had repeatedly redeemed them. The miserable and faithless So turned
out to be a bruised reed indeed! But while this campaign was being
fought, Shalmaneser disappeared. A revolution took place in the homeland
and the common oriental disease which may be described as six inches of
steel between the ribs, quietly removed Shalmaneser from the scene. A
usurper named Sargon, who writes his own genealogy and calls himself
“the son of Nobody,” succeeded to the throne.
Thus in the seventeenth chapter of II Kings we have many royal persons,
and in order to keep the records straight, we set them forth this way:
Hoshea was the king of Samaria; and he reigned over Israel nine years.
Shalmaneser the Fifth was the king of Assyria, who is mentioned in the
third verse by name.
The fourth verse continues a record of Shalmaneser, in carrying away
Hoshea and punishing him.
So is the pharaoh with whom we have been dealing.
The king of Assyria who is not named in the sixth verse, is Sargon,
who succeeded to the throne after the probable murder of Shalmaneser.
This Sargon is the second man of that name to have reigned in Assyria.
The time of his reign may be given as from 722-705 B. C. The first
Sargon reigned sometime in the twentieth century, B. C.
Sargon the Second thus reigned for almost eighteen years. He was a
war-loving monarch, and that eighteen year reign was one continuous,
unbroken series of foreign campaigns. Combining his forces with the
small host of the Philistines, he joined battle with the Egyptians at
Raphia. Going directly to this campaign, after the termination of his
campaign against Samaria, he administered a crushing defeat to the
forces of So and had no further difficulty with this pharaoh during the
balance of his reign.
In the British Museum, Table Case “B,” which occupies a section of the
second Northern gallery of the Assyrian Room, contains some magnificent
baked clay cylinders which are the original annals of Sargon. These
priceless records came from the ruins of a tremendous building excavated
by M. Botta at the ancient site of Khorsabad, which was later proved to
have been the palace of Sargon. Most of the sculptured objects from this
discovery are in the Museum at Paris. These written records, however,
which are of infinitely more value to the student, are fortunately on
deposit in the British Museum.
In the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum the interested student will
also behold an inscription bearing the identification number 12,
whereupon are recorded the names and titles of Sargon the Second,
together with a brief and epitomized account of his conquests in various
sections along the coast lands of the Mediterranean, including his
famous victory in Judah.
A more complete record is found in the Assyrian Room. In Table Case “E,”
exhibits 11 and 12, are two nine-sided prisms containing a graphic
account of the expeditions of Sargon. All of his campaigns in Palestine
are covered and include his conquest of Israel, which he calls “Omri
land.” (These exhibits are identified by the Museum numbers 22,505 and
108,775.)
A further record of Sargon’s bearing upon the text of the Old Testament
will be found in the Assyrian Room in wall case No. 9. Exhibits 1-11 are
fragments of an eight-sided cylinder containing part of the records of
Sargon, particularly recording the campaign against Ashdod, which is
also preserved for us by Isaiah in the twentieth chapter, verse one. The
people of Ashdod had made a league with Judah and this outburst of
Isaiah’s was a stern reproof against this procedure. The prophet
objected chiefly because the league depended upon the strength of Egypt.
To the end of his life, Isaiah never gave up his justified distrust of
that country. This, in a brief summary, presents the records of
Shalmaneser and Sargon as they authenticate the Biblical account of the
conduct of the wretched So. Sargon recounts that Azuri, who was king of
Ashdod, had refused to pay the tribute that was due to the Assyrians.
Consequently he was deposed by Sargon, who elevated his brother Akhimiti
to the place of dominion. Whereupon the people of Ashdod rebelled and
raised Yamini to the throne. They then entered into a conspiracy with
Philistea, Edom, Moab, Egypt, and Judah. Sargon recounts their defeat
and the bringing back under the sway of his yoke the cities and peoples
who joined the conspiracy.
A graphic and significant story is contained in the brief and short
words of Sargon’s own record—“Samaria, I looked at. I captured. 27,280
families who remained therein I carried away.” The tragic end of Hoshea
and all of his noble counselors and advisers is thus summed up in a
brief and terrible sentence.
Sargon the Second was followed in turn by Sennacherib, of whom a great
deal is known from his monuments. Their testimony coincides with the
story of the Southern Kingdom during the reign of Hezekiah. Three years
after the ascension of Hoshea to the throne of Israel, Hezekiah began to
reign over Judah at Jerusalem. He had a long and interesting reign,
occupying the throne for twenty-five years. In the course of his reign,
Sargon the Second died, and Sennacherib inherited the throne.
Encouraged by the success of his predecessor Sargon in foreign
campaigns, Sennacherib invaded Judah to round out his empire. Hezekiah
accepted his yoke without offering resistance, and paid him a vast
tribute.
We are now in the eighteenth chapter of II Kings which repeats part of
the events of the tragedy in Israel as they were observed by the scribe
in Judah. The invasions of Shalmaneser and Sargon are recapitulated and
the carrying away of the people of Samaria by Sargon is again
authenticated. But the scribe is more interested in recording the events
that make so stirring a chapter in the closing days of the kingdom of
Judah. In verses thirteen to seventeen, the story of this first invasion
and the surrender of Sennacherib, is told in these words:
“Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of
Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
“And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish,
saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me
will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of
Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.
“And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of
the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house.
“At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the
temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah
had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.”
Between the sixteenth and seventeenth verses of the eighteenth chapter
of II Kings, ten silent years roll by. They are voiceless as far as our
text is concerned, but they are vocal when we listen to the monuments.
It may have been about 705 B. C. when Hezekiah accepted the yoke of
Sennacherib. In the meantime Sennacherib had strengthened his alliances
and was prepared to essay a conflict with Egypt. The nephew of So, who
is called Tirhakah in the Bible, murdered the successor of So, which was
his son, Shabataka. Having gained an empire by this ruthless spilling of
the blood of the rightful heir, Tirhakah began an ill-fated reign. He
rashly matched strength with Sennacherib, who was more than willing to
add Egypt to the nations who bore his yoke. The armies of Assyria and
Egypt joined battle at the border at the site of Libnah and a mighty
conflict resulted. Realizing the strategic importance of an enemy who
would threaten the rear of the Assyrian host, Tirhakah made overtures to
Hezekiah and invited him to join in a rebellion to throw off the yoke of
Assyria. Hezekiah being willing to save the enormous tribute that
beggared his country annually, listened to the voice of Isaiah who
advised him to join the rebellion. So Hezekiah pronounced defiance
against Sennacherib and all of the Assyrian hordes and announced the
independence of Judah. The battle of Libnah was then fought, and
Tirhakah was disgracefully defeated. The pitiful remnant of his army
fled and left Sennacherib the unchallenged conqueror of his day.
The position of Hezekiah can well be imagined. The strength and might of
Egypt had been brushed aside by the armed power of Assyria, and tiny
Judah was put in the position of defying the greatest military power of
that era. While Sennacherib was busy in a mopping-up campaign at Libnah,
he sent three trusted generals to lay siege to Jerusalem and to demand
the surrender of Hezekiah. The blasphemous oration of one of these
generals, Rab-shakeh, is given voluminously in the eighteenth chapter of
II Kings. There was a good deal of truth in some of Rab-shakeh’s
arguments. He described Pharaoh as “a bruised reed upon which if a man
leaned, it would pierce his hand and wound him to the death.” He rightly
said that no other countries had been delivered from Sennacherib by the
power of their gods. His error was in assuming that therefore the God of
Israel would also be defeated by the power of Sennacherib. He gave the
king some short while to think over the policy of surrender, and sat
down to invest the city. Hezekiah, in his bitter dilemma, sought out
Isaiah, whose advice he had followed with such disastrous results.
The thirty-seventh chapter of Isaiah contains the answer that Isaiah
made, and the exact words of his prophecy are also found in the
nineteenth chapter of II Kings, verses six and seven. To comfort
Hezekiah, Isaiah said to the king’s messenger: “Thus shall ye say to
your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words that thou
hast heard wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed
me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour,
and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in
his own land.”
It is well to keep this prophecy of Isaiah’s in mind until we see how
perfectly it was fulfilled in complete detail. In the thirty-fifth verse
of II Kings, the nineteenth chapter, the “blast” occurred. The statement
is made that the angel of the Lord went out and slew 185,000 of the
flower of the Assyrian army.
The next verse says in graphic words, “So Sennacherib king of Assyria
departed.”
The literal translation in English of that graphic word would be, “So
Sennacherib king of Assyria ‘beat it’.” We cannot blame him for the
haste of his departure. Arising after a night of slumber to find 185,000
of his best warriors mysteriously slain, terror must have smitten his
heart. At that exact moment word reached him of a rebellion in his own
land. This was the “rumour” of which Isaiah had prophesied. He returned
to put down this rebellion and never again invaded Judah.
Twenty years later he was murdered. Between verses thirty-six and
thirty-seven of the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, a full score of
years passed by. After his murder, his son, Esar-haddon, came to the
throne and continued the story of conquest and intrigue.
In the meantime, the defeated Tirhakah was unquestionably chagrined to
learn that little Judah had been delivered from the power that had
defeated him. To apologize for his own failure to support Judah,
Tirhakah claimed credit for the defeat of the Assyrian horde by claiming
that his god, Amon, had caused the camp of the Assyrians to be invaded
by millions of field mice. He claimed that these tiny rodents in one
night ate up all the bowstrings of the army and thus they were unable to
fight. His interpretation of the event is a bit sketchy, to say the
least!
In the Assyrian Room at the British Museum, a very important exhibit
will be seen in Table Case “E”. This is a six-sided clay prism
containing an unabridged record of Sennacherib’s own account of these
stirring events. Here he has given us his story of the invasion of
Palestine and the siege of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah. So
important is this record that we produce here, in its entirety, the
fifth oblique (or plane) of this great prism:
“In my third campaign I went to the land of the Hittites. I marched
against the City of Ekron and put to death the priests and chief men
who had committed the sin of rebellion and I hung up their bodies on
stakes all around the City ... but as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had
not submitted to my yoke 46 of his strong cities, together with
innumerable fortresses and small towns that depended upon them by
overthrowing the walls and open attack, by battle, engines and
battering rams I besieged I captured; I brought out of the midst of
them and counted as a spoil 200,000 persons great and small, male and
female, besides mules, camels, sheep, asses and oxen without number:
“Hezekiah himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem his
strong city. I built a line of forts against him and kept back himself
from going forth out of the great gate of his city. I cut off his
cities which I had spoiled out of the midst of his land and I gave
them to Metinti, king of Ashdod, and Padi King of Ekron and Til-Baal,
King of Gaza and made his country small. In addition to their former
yearly tribute and gifts I added other tribute and homage due to my
majesty, and I laid it upon them. The fear of the greatness of my
majesty overwhelmed him, even Hezekiah, and he sent after me to
Nineveh my royal city, the Arabs and his bodyguards, whom he had
brought for the defense of his royal city Jerusalem, and had furnished
with pay along with thirty talents.... Eight hundred talents of pure
silver, carbuncles and other precious stones, a couch of ivory,
thrones of ivory, and elephants hide and elephant tusks, rare woods of
all kinds a vast treasure, as well as Unachs from his palace, and
dancing men and dancing women. And he sent his Ambassador to offer
homage.”
This fascinating document is one of the greatest treasures that
archeology has produced for the careful student of Christian
apologetics. It is notable not only for what it tells but also for much
that is left unsaid. In the grim, brutal days of these ancient
conquerors, a defeated enemy could expect little mercy at the hands of
the victorious. The kings of Assyria ruled by fear and by the
implacable, swift certainty of punishment for rebellion. Sennacherib
here refers to a common practice of his day, that of impaling rebellious
enemies as a lesson to other vassals. In this particular document he
recounts how they hung the bodies of the rebel leaders on stakes around
their captured cities.
The technique of this execution was simple. A heavy post was driven into
the ground until it was about as high as a tall man’s shoulder. The top
of the post was sharpened to as fine a point as the tools of that day
would permit. In some cases, the rebel was picked up by a pair of burly
executioners who swung him through the air and jammed him down with
great force upon the pointed stake. There they whirled him as a sort of
a human pinwheel until life quickly fled his shattered form. This was a
comparatively merciful way of impaling. In other cases the victim was
set upon the sharpened stick until gravity bore down his suffering body
to the point where death relieved him after hours, and even days of
misery and torment.
But while Sennacherib recounted the successful punishment of the rebels
of the many cities who had joined in this uprising, it is to be
carefully noted that he changed the tone of the record in the case of
Hezekiah. He could not say that he impaled him or otherwise punished him
for the rebellion! All he could say was, “As for Hezekiah himself, I
shut him up like a bird in Jerusalem, his capital city.” Sennacherib can
tell of the fenced cities and small villages in the outskirts of Judah
which he despoiled from the hand of Hezekiah, but he never laid hand on
the person of the king himself, nor did he enter the sacred city. The
“blast” of Isaiah’s prophecy can alone account for the failure of
Sennacherib to crucify Hezekiah along with his other rebellious enemies.
Also it is to be noted that by a violation of chronological accuracy,
Sennacherib “saves face,” after the ancient custom of the Eastern lands.
A conqueror of his standing and authority cannot admit that he was
defeated before the walls of Jerusalem. Therefore, at the end of this
record he gives a list of the treasure _that Hezekiah had paid before in
his original subjection_! This listing of tribute is falsely made to
appear as though it were _after_ the siege of Jerusalem. By the simple
expedient of introducing at the end of a defeat the record of a previous
payment, Sennacherib seeks to delude posterity and wipe out the memory
of his one outstanding defeat. This great prism of this Assyrian
conqueror is unquestionably one of the strongest bricks in the wall of
defense that archeology is erecting around the Sacred Word of God.
There are many other records left by Sennacherib that are also of
tremendous importance. The British Museum has a magnificent section
which is devoted very largely to those Babylonian and Assyrian
chronicles, many of which coincide with this period of history. The
murder of Sennacherib that was prophesied by Isaiah and recorded in the
nineteenth chapter of II Kings, is accredited and substantiated by
archeological sources.
We learn from the records of Babylon that the years between the debacle
at Jerusalem and the death of Sennacherib were occupied with wars much
nearer home. We read in those chronicles that the Elamites of Suziana,
together with certain allied peoples, again rose in rebellion. It took a
number of campaigns, which ultimately ravished the whole of Suziana, to
put down this uprising. In fact, the campaigns of subjection were not
entirely successful until Babylon was destroyed in 689 B. C. In the
interim, when not busy subduing his Elamite subjects, Sennacherib
campaigned in Cilicia, where he overcame the armed force of the Greeks,
penetrating as far as Tarsus in his victorious marches. The Babylonian
records conclude by saying that he was assassinated by his sons in the
year which by our reckoning would be known as B. C. 681.
In the Babylonian Room of the British Museum, Table Case “E” contains an
exhibit which bears the Museum number 92,502. This consists of a clay
tablet which is an extensive chronicle written in the Babylonian
characters. It delineates a list of the principal events which occurred
in both Babylon and Assyria over an extensive period of time.
The history begins with the third year of the reign of Nabu-Nasir, who
ascended his throne in Babylon in 744. The record continues to the first
year of Shamash-shum-ukim, with whom we shall deal in a future
reference. In the third column of this chronicle, lines thirty-four and
thirty-five state that Sennacherib was killed by his son on the
twentieth day of the month Tebet in the twenty-third year of his reign.
This murder is rather graphically described in terse, but satisfactory
terms in the record of the nineteenth chapter of II Kings.
There is no more definite and positive example of the coincidence of
archeological discovery with the text of the Scripture than is provided
by the records of Sennacherib. Though dead for more than two and
one-half millenniums, he indeed has a tale to tell! We can condense his
record into one graphic, simple sentence which we can sign with the name
of this great king, “The historicity of the Sacred Page is
unquestionable in the light of archeology!”
The next pharaoh of antiquity who challenges our interest with his
confirmation of the Scripture, is variously known by the name of Necho,
which is his prenomen as used in the Scripture text, and by the Egyptian
forms of Nekau and Uohemibra. He was, perhaps, the greatest of the later
conquerors who sought to extend the power of Egypt, and he was certainly
the last of that remarkable group. He expended a good deal of the
revenues of the crown in rebuilding the canal of Seti the First, which
had formed a waterway between the Nile and the Red Sea. It is difficult
at times to place absolute credence upon the numerical estimates of the
ancient chronicles of Egypt, but it is highly probable that Necho
employed more than a hundred thousand men in this work. Herodotus gives
great honour to Necho, telling us that he sent out certain ships of
Phoenicia which circumnavigated Africa. He maintained a mercenary army
of Greeks, and had one fleet in the Mediterranean, and the other in the
Red Sea. His record in the Scripture is tangled inextricably with that
of Assyria and Babylonia, and for that reason we must sketch-in the
background of this coincidence and appearance.
Shalmaneser the Fifth began the phenomenal rise to ascendency of the
great power of Assyria. Babylon was the chief adversary and the
strongest foe that Assyria faced in the development of her world empire,
which ultimately climaxed in Sennacherib. Finding it impossible to
preserve the loyalty of the Babylonians, who were a proud and haughty
people, Sennacherib finally destroyed Babylon and carried away its
people into captivity. When Sennacherib died, according to the record of
the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, his son, Esar-haddon came to the
throne. Esar-haddon, more of a statesman than a conqueror, rebuilt
Babylon. He united Assyria and Babylon into one great domain, naming the
combined kingdom Babylonia. For the sake of administration and as a
gesture of amity, he made Babylon his capital. Thus the rebuilt city
became the seat of government and the center of the culture of
Babylonia.
The name Esar-haddon means “victorious,” or “conqueror.” One of the
greatest of all the mighty kings of Assyria, he was a worthy successor
of Sargon, Shalmaneser, and Sennacherib. His name occurs but three times
in Holy Writ. The first occurrence is II Kings 19:37, where it speaks of
his ascent to the throne. The next occurrence is in Isaiah 37:28 where
this record of II Kings 19:37 is confirmed by the hand of the prophet,
who was an active participant in those stirring events. Later, Ezra
refers to him in the second verse of his fourth chapter. In this latter
reference, the remnant who returned from the Babylonian captivity name
him as the cause of their captivity and acknowledged that he gave them
the freedom to worship their own God in their own way.
In the reign of Menasseh, Esar-haddon died and was succeeded by two
sons. The elder of these was the famous Assur-bani-pal, who was made
over-lord of the entire kingdom, with the section that was once called
Assyria as his particular domain. His younger brother, Shamis-shum-ukim
was given dominion over Babylon, where he reigned as vassal to his
wealthy brother. The British Museum is replete with the records and
materials from the reign of Assur-bani-pal and from the brief and tragic
rule of Shamis-shum-ukim as well.
The fine hand of Egyptian intrigue enters into the record at this point,
again tangling up the Assyrian records in a triangular bout between
Judah, Egypt, and Babylonia. The Pharaoh Necho, alarmed by the growing
power of Babylonia, gathered together a mighty host and invaded the
territory of the great Assyrian king. As a preliminary to this invasion,
the Pharaoh Necho persuaded Shamis-shum-ukim to rebel against his older
brother and to declare his independence. Into this conspiracy Necho
succeeded in drawing Syria and Judah. The blow was struck at the
dominion of Assur-bani-pal while he was battling certain tribes near his
Eastern border. When the couriers brought him word of the revolt of his
brother, and of the coalition formed against him at the instigation of
Necho, Assur-bani-pal made a swift and remarkable march, returning to
his threatened territory. Necho hastily assembled his army, and the
major battles were fought on the terrain of Syria. Syria was quickly
reduced, Babylon pacified, and Assur-bani-pal emerged completely
victorious.
Necho, not having had time to prepare his defenses, was overthrown,
defeated, and forced to bow in subjection to Assur-bani-pal. From the
record of the victorious king, we offer the following paragraph as a
condensed but detailed account of these tremendous events:
“After removing the corpses of the rebels from the midst of Babylon,
Cuthra, and Sippara, and piling them in heaps, in accordance with the
prophecies I cleaned the mercy seats of their temples. I purified
their chief places of prayer I appeased their angry gods and goddesses
with supplications and penitential psalms. Their daily sacrifices
which they had discontinued, I restored and established as they had
been of old. As for the rest of them who had flown at the stroke of
slaughter, I had mercy on them. I proclaimed an amnesty upon them. I
brought them to live in Babylon. The men of the nations whom Sam ...
had led away and united in one conspiracy, I trod down to the
uttermost parts of their borders. By the command of Assur, Beltis, and
the great gods my helpers, the yoke of Assur which they had shaken off
I laid upon them. I appointed over them governors and satraps, the
work of my own hands.”
From this account it will be seen that Assur-bani-pal slew his
rebellious brother and destroyed the principal leaders of the revolt,
with the exception of those who had pleaded for mercy. As a result of
this defeat at Charchemish, Necho was dethroned and led in chains to
Babylon. This Chaldean conqueror had a policy that was unique for his
day. It was his consistent practice to deal mercifully with the
repentant. When the Pharaoh Necho professed sorrow for his conduct,
Assur-bani-pal, following his established custom, restored him to Sais
where he was to rule Egypt as a province of Babylonia.
At this time, Josiah of Judah also accepted the yoke of Assyria and
became a vassal of Assur-bani-pal. From what we learn of the character
of King Josiah, we would expect that he would be faithful to his pledges
and promises and, indeed, this very faithfulness was the cause of his
death. The Pharaoh Necho, smarting under his defeat and wounded deeply
in his pride, quietly gathered together a tremendous army and rebelled
against Assur-bani-pal the second time.
In this second conflict, Charchemish was the chosen battle ground.
Although many strategic battles had been waged back and forth about this
important center, this is generally referred to as the First Battle of
Charchemish. This reference is undoubtedly predicated upon the fact that
the ultimate struggle between Assyria and Egypt, which gave the latter
power a world dominion, centered about this field.
In order to reach the battle ground, the Pharaoh Necho marched his horde
across the terrain of Palestine. The story of what followed is familiar
to every student of the Old Testament. In the thirty-fifth chapter of II
Chronicles, beginning with the twentieth verse and ending with the
twenty-seventh, this incidental tragedy is told. Josiah, who had taken
the pledge of fidelity to Assur-bani-pal, gathered together his small
army and sought to prevent this passage of the Egyptian army across his
domain. It is recorded that Pharaoh sent his heralds to Josiah offering
to leave the land of Palestine unmolested on condition that they gave
him no opposition in his plans for battle. The pharaoh went so far as to
claim that he was on the business of God. Although King Josiah had
disguised himself in the common dress of a humble man-at-arms, he seems
to have been recognized. The sharpshooters among the archers picked him
as their target and he fell sorely wounded. He died after being taken to
Jerusalem, and all of the people of Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.
Jeremiah the prophet deeply loved the godly king because of his fidelity
to the law, and the fourth chapter of the Book of Lamentations contains
part of the dirge of Jeremiah concerning the death of the king.
In the meantime, hindered by the abortive attempt of the faithful Josiah
to delay his passage, Necho swept on to the banks of the Euphrates where
a notable battle was fought. The assault of Necho found the Assyrian
monarch unprepared. The force that he had gathered at Charchemish was
inadequate to defend his borders, and Assur-bani-pal was defeated. In
the meantime, Jehoahaz had succeeded his father Josiah and was reigning
at Jerusalem. The sway of the young king was short and ended tragically
after ninety days. On his way home from his victory at Charchemish, the
Pharaoh Necho deposed Jehoahaz because of his father’s conduct and put
Eliakim on the throne. Thus the younger brother of Jehoahaz became king
over Judah in his place.
The Pharaoh changed the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim and once more Judah
became a vassal to the might and power of Egypt. The unfortunate
Jehoahaz, laden with chains, was carried away to Sais. There he dragged
out a miserable existence until death brought him a happy release from
captivity and degradation. The Pharaoh Necho imposed upon Palestine a
fine for their opposition which would be about the equivalent in our
modern currency of $200,000. In considering the difference in purchasing
power, however, that would be about $3,000,000 in our money.
These incidents are either expressly stated or are referred to in many
portions of Holy Writ. We first find them in the twenty-third chapter of
II Kings.
The twenty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah, verses twenty-one to twenty-three,
contains a bleak record of the hardship and oppression that resulted
when men of God were slain for speaking God’s Word concerning the events
of this grim and dismal affair.
In the nineteenth chapter of Ezekiel, the third and fourth verses of
this record, the prophet sings a lamentation over the “lion’s whelp” and
sorrows that “he shall be bound in chains in the land of Egypt.” Then
from the fifth verse on, the prophet caustically berates the land
because that another of the lion’s whelps, suddenly raised to maturity,
devoured the men who had raised him and laid waste their land and
cities.
Our present interest, however, is to be found in the records that deal
with these events in the sources of archeology. It would be
inconceivable that the mighty Necho should fail to boast of his power
and victory when he had won so notable an ascendancy over all of his
enemies. In the voluminous records of the Pharaoh Necho, the
vainglorious boasting of this long-dead monarch comes to us today as a
welcome, added voice to the rapidly swelling chorus that testifies to
the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.
Leaving the record of Necho, however, for the present moment (as he
enters the story again in the reign of the succeeding Babylonian
monarch), we turn to the sources of Babylonian and Assyrian antiquity
for the authentication of these affairs by the mighty Assur-bani-pal.
Now, indeed, it becomes difficult to choose the most effective and
pointed evidences, as we are embarrassed with so vast a wealth of
material. It would take many days indeed for a careful student to
exhaust the possibilities in that collection of the material of
Assur-bani-pal that is found in the British Museum alone. In this
notable and incomparable deposit of priceless fact and information,
there is no more striking section than that which is derived from the
works and records of this stormy ruler.
In about the year 666 B. C. this conqueror finished the third of his
campaigns against Egypt, and with the sack of the City of Thebes, again
established the dominion of Assyria over Egypt. The mighty king then
turned his military attentions to the northern regions of his empire and
thrust his borders out to an unprecedented extent. At the same time,
with a part of his forces he waged a long war with the Elamites on his
southeastern border and subjected that country to the yoke of Assyria.
Putting down the Elamite uprising with a stern and bloody hand, he left
a lesson in implacable cruelty that the Elamites never forgot.
In the Nineveh Gallery of the Assyrian section of the British Museum may
be seen great sculptured slabs from the walls of Assur-bani-pal’s
palace, which are numbered 45 to 50. At our last visit they were to be
seen on the Eastern side of the gallery. These relics completely
illustrate his conquest of Elam. Exhibits 45 to 47 further show the
crushing of the Elamite forces, and the action is so dramatically
depicted that the careful student may sense the excitement which seems
to prevail. A voluminous text accompanies the pictured action so that
there is no possibility of mistaking the meaning of the illustrations.
At this time Shamis-shum-ukim joined in the great revolt to which we
have referred in a foregoing paragraph of this chapter. There are two
accounts in the archeological records as to the end of Shamis-shum-ukim.
Although a twin brother of Assur-bani-pal, he was some hours the
younger, and thus was nominally subject to him under Assyrian law. One
account says that he was taken prisoner and that Assur-bani-pal had him
burned at the stake. The other account says that Shamis-shum-ukim,
seeing he was about to be defeated, locked himself in a small section of
the palace, which he set afire and burned himself rather than surrender.
There was at this time a revolt in the Egyptian section of the empire
which resulted in some long conflicts, which are also given in these
records. It was also at this period that Assur-bani-pal left the record
above cited, of the pacification of Babylon and the submission of
Josiah.
The British Museum has a very large collection of letters from the
library of Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh, many of which are of high
significance in the study of these historical episodes. These letters
cover a broad scope as they include the reports, requisitions, and
communications of dignitaries. Some of these came from the crown prince,
others from local governors and still more from various military
captains. They deal in specific detail with military operations,
uprisings, rebellions, and their suppression. They tell of the dispatch
of troops to the provinces, with lists of expenses and expenditures.
Such intimate details of Assyrian science as the reports of astronomers
for regulating the calendar of the year are found there, and
illuminating comments upon the political trend of the days. There are
many references to these episodes, as would naturally be expected.
One of the great monuments to be found in the Babylonian Room of the
British Museum, and numbered 90,864, is a stone stele with a rounded
top, that is a treasure indeed. The upright full-length figure of
Assur-bani-pal is shown in his capacity of high priest. This stele
contains a lengthy chronicle recording the names, honors, and genealogy
of the monarch and tells of his godly conduct and fidelity to his
religion. There is a note of sadness and an index to the character of
this great Assyrian in the line where Assur-bani-pal declares that he
himself had appointed his twin brother Shamis-shum-ukim “to the
sovereignty over Babylon so that the strong may not oppress the weak.”
Passing over a great many of these sources, we come now to the Assyrian
Room where, in Table Case “E,” we find two ten-sided prisms of
Assur-bani-pal which bear the Museum numbers 91,026, and 91,086. These
lengthy records are inscribed with the outstanding incidents in the
earlier years of his busy life. Beginning with an epitomized statement
concerning his birth and education, as all good biographies should
begin, he took occasion to recognize the great prosperity of Assyria
that immediately followed his elevation to the throne. Then quickly the
warrior king launched into some graphic descriptions of his principal
military expeditions. Here he tells of the two expeditions against
Tirhakah in Egypt, to which we have referred above. Among the allies who
accompanied him to fight under his banner, who were already subject to
him, he mentions levies from Cypress, Asia Minor, Syria, and
_Palestine_. After citing the events and victories of five campaigns,
the record then introduces the sad tragedy of Shamis-shum-ukim, a
portion of which we have cited in a preceding paragraph. In all, there
are nine campaigns covered in these prisms, and the student of
historical accuracy may find great substantiation for his confidence in
the truth and fidelity of the Word of God from these fascinating
records.
In the same case is an eight-sided clay prism of Assur-bani-pal,
numbered 93,008. This also contains a shorter reference to these same
events. To convey an adequate and detailed account of the materials
available from the time of Assur-bani-pal and his unfortunate brother
would require a large volume by itself. We have come to that point,
however, where Assur-bani-pal’s record concludes as it touches the
Scripture. So we satisfy ourselves temporarily with this brief
introduction of an epitomized section of those evidences.
Three years after the battle of Charchemish, where Assur-bani-pal was
temporarily defeated, a new and forceful conqueror appeared in the
person of Nebuchadnezzar the Second. Assur-bani-pal was succeeded by
Nabopolassar, who will be ignored in this record because of the fact
that he is not named by name in the text of the Bible. Nabopolassar,
however, had a gifted son who succeeded him as Nebuchadnezzar the
Second, and who began his training for the crown by assuming command of
the army as the chief general under his father and with his parent’s
consent.
The first great campaign that Nebuchadnezzar fought, brought Egypt back
under the dominion of Babylon. To see the background of this event, it
must be noted that after the death of Assur-bani-pal, the Medes invaded
Nineveh and captured that stronghold. Whereupon Nabopolassar reasserted
the independence of Babylon and conducted a number of brilliant
campaigns to secure the ascendency of his kingdom and to establish his
supremacy over the entire ancient world.
When Nineveh fell, the Pharaoh Necho, with whom we are now dealing,
entered the story again. Necho invaded Syria and Palestine and
successfully campaigned up to the banks of the Euphrates. At Charchemish
he met the host of Nebuchadnezzar for what is known as the Second Battle
of Charchemish. Necho entered this conflict with considerable
confidence, due to his previous victory on this same field. This time,
however, a different experience awaited him. Nebuchadnezzar crushed the
Egyptians with an overwhelming defeat and drove them back to their own
border. As a result of this battle, all Palestine, with the exception of
Judah, acknowledged the authority of Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian
general took Jehoiakim captive and slew the Pharaoh Necho.
All of these events are recorded by the Pharaoh Necho, by
Assur-bani-pal, and by certain humbler captains and leaders. The
Pharaoh’s record is complete up to the time of the second battle. But as
Necho did not survive this campaign, there is a dramatic break in his
record. However, what is wanting from the Egyptian sources, is happily
supplied from those of Babylon.
It is not to be expected that the young conqueror would remain silent
concerning his early victories. His father, Nabopolassar, also recounts
with some satisfaction the military ability of his son. Through all of
his reign, however, Nebuchadnezzar was more of a builder and architect
than conqueror, although he frequently took the field in notable
military action. Most of the relics from his reign have to do with the
building of great temples and edifices. There are, however, a number of
fragmentary chronicles such as that which, in the Babylonian Room of the
British Museum in Table Case “E,” bears the number of 33,041. This
recounts a later expedition undertaken by Nebuchadnezzar in the
thirty-seventh year of his reign. This was to put down an uprising in
Egypt.
There are innumerable tablets and records in the British Museum that
attest the order and genius of the government in the forty-two years of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. We will refer to this later when we come to the
closing period of his great career. We have introduced the historicity
of Nebuchadnezzar now, and the coincidence of his account which climaxes
the reign of Necho, to establish at one more point the historical
accuracy of the Old Testament text.
The last Pharaoh who comes into the account of the Sacred Book is
positively identified as Hophra. He is called Apris by the Greeks, and
is frequently found in the hieroglyphics under the name of Psammetichus,
the Second. His name, Hophra, occurs in the Scripture only once, which
is the forty-fourth chapter of Jeremiah and the thirtieth verse. Here
the three great characters of this last drama are found conjoined in
these simple words:
“Thus saith the Lord; Behold I will give Pharaoh-hophra king of Egypt
into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his
life; as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon, his enemy, and that sought his life.”
Hophra was a rash, inexperienced, over-confident ruler who wasted what
small strength and wealth his kingdom possessed in useless warfare
against mighty powers which were manifestly beyond his ability to cope
with. The background of his contact with the Sacred Record begins with
his conspiracy that enmeshed Zedekiah. This entire rebellion was a
faithless and degraded example of lack of honour and responsibility to a
plighted and pledged word. This is primarily so because after the defeat
of Necho and his subsequent death, Nebuchadnezzar raised Hophra, the son
of Necho, to the throne of Egypt where he governed as a satrap. He was
to reign for Babylon, and had taken the oath of fidelity to his
over-lord and master.
To make matters worse the conduct of Zedekiah added insult _to_ injury!
When Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiakim and carried him bound in chains
to his subsequent death in Babylon, he was followed on the throne by
Jehoiakin who reigned for a very brief period. Then Nebuchadnezzar
raised Zedekiah to a position of power and on his twenty-first birthday
elevated him to the governorship of Jerusalem. For the better part of
eleven years, he reigned more or less successfully. He seems to have
been a graceless scoundrel and utterly without honour. Completely
violating their treaties and their oaths of fidelity, Pharaoh and
Zedekiah joined in a conspiracy and rebelled against the power of
Nebuchadnezzar. It is a matter of wonder to the modern student that
these kings of Judah never learned their lesson.
The Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem to put down this revolt, and Hophra
marched to its aid. Because the company of Chaldeans was small, as
Nebuchadnezzar had not anticipated a strong resistance, the wise
captains of this advance-guard did not join battle with Hophra, but
retired in good order rather than fight a hopeless conflict when they
were so strongly outnumbered.
The city of Jerusalem went wild with delight and rejoicing over its
deliverance. The gloomy Jeremiah warned the leaders in vain that the
Chaldeans would return, and in overwhelming force. Refusing to listen to
the prophecies of Jeremiah, the people treated him harshly and cast him
out. While the city was rejoicing at this early victory, Jeremiah
himself gave a manifestation of confidence in the ultimate fulfillment
of his own prophecies, when he fled from the city and delivered himself
voluntarily into the hands of the Chaldeans. In the meantime, Hophra,
overcome with pride at his easy victory, boasted with blasphemy that not
even could God defeat him! The sycophantic Zedekiah acquiesced in this
boasting and blasphemy and showered the foolish Hophra with unlimited
compliments.
With Jeremiah gone and all of Judah turning to the ways of idolatry, God
did not lack champions. Messengers and prophets were sent rapidly to
Zedekiah and to the princes of the kingdom, but they mocked the
messengers of God and despised His words. They misused His prophets,
until the wrath of the Lord rose against His people beyond remedy.
Therefore, says the thirty-sixth chapter of II Chronicles,
“He brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young
men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for
age; he gave them all into his hand.”
The strongest voice that was raised for God in this dark hour was that
of Ezekiel. At this time, the prophet was in Babylon and from there he
spoke the words that are found in the first sixteen verses of his
twenty-ninth chapter. This is undoubtedly one of the most comprehensive
and remarkable prophecies concerning any nation that the student of this
fascinating subject may deal with. For the sake of refreshing the mind
of the reader, we publish here this prophecy in full:
“In the tenth year, in the tenth month, in the twelfth day of the
month, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy
face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and
against all Egypt: Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I
am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in
the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I
have made it for myself.
“But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy
rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the
midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto
thy scales.
“And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the
fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt
not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to
the beast of the field and to the fowls of the heaven.
“And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the Lord,
because they have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel.
“When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and rend
all their shoulder: and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and
madest all their loins to be at a stand. Therefore thus said the Lord
God; Behold I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast
out of thee.
“And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall
know that I am the Lord: because he hath said, The river is mine, and
I have made it.
“Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I
will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower
of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.
“No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass
through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
“And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the
countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are
laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the
Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the
countries.
“Yet thus saith the Lord God; At the end of forty years will I gather
the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered;
“And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to
return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation;
and they shall be there a base kingdom.
“It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself
any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall
no more rule over the nations.
“And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which
bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after
them: but they shall know that I am the Lord God.”
Analyzing this prophecy, we note the personal element that is introduced
when God arrayed himself against Hophra and all of the land of Egypt.
This people who, as we have seen, worshipped the Nile and counted it a
deified object, had also acquiesced in the claims of Hophra who went so
far as to state that he was the one who had made the river and caused it
to continue to flow. Adopting this figure, the prophet speaking for God,
says that Hophra shall be caught like the fish and cast into the fields
by the side of the banks.
The sixth verse states that all the population of Egypt is to be taught
a bitter lesson. They shall know forever that God is Lord, in the
punishment they shall reap for their defections against Israel.
Verse eight contains the information that this punishment is to take the
form of an invasion that shall leave the land desolate and waste. This
punishment was to come upon the land and the people because of their
idolatry and their sins against Israel.
From verses ten to twelve, a bleak picture is drawn of utter desolation
which shall prevail in their land for forty years. The prophecy then
turns upon the pivot of the thirteenth verse to a time of a partial
restoration. This restoration, however, is limited in the Divine Word to
the effect that Egypt shall be the basest of the kingdoms of the earth.
It shall never be permitted to exalt itself again in the council of the
nations. It is to be eternally diminished and debased.
The consequent history of Egypt has been a complete vindication and
fulfillment of this prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and carried
away the last remnant of that graceless people into captivity in
Babylon. All those who had joined in the defection of Zedekiah, great
and small, old and young, they slew with the sword. Then the angry
Nebuchadnezzar swept on into Egypt and devastated that land, until, it
is recorded, “not a living thing, man or beast,” was left in that once
populous country.
For forty years it lay, wasted and idle. Then the counselors of
Nebuchadnezzar advised that the land be colonized in order that it might
produce revenue for the crown. The first attempt failed because of the
climate and the unique conditions of agriculture in a country that
required constant irrigation and whose crops depended upon the sole
source of moisture the river Nile. Therefore, the counselors gathered
together such remnant of the Egyptians as remained from the captivity
and sent them back to repopulate the land.
Every student of history will recall that Egypt _has been_ the basest of
kingdoms from that hour to this. It has been dominated in turn by the
Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, the French, and
the British.
One notable effort was made in historic time to raise Egypt to its
former grandeur and power. The reader will recall the great campaign of
Napoleon by which he thought to revive this Mistress of Antiquity and
make Egypt an adjunct of his own imperial greatness. If Napoleon had
read and believed the twenty-ninth chapter of Ezekiel, he could have
spared himself this useless and expensive campaign. We all recall that
when victory seemed to be in sight, Napoleon’s power and greatness
shattered itself upon an immovable rock. This was composed of the small
remnant of indomitable British who refused to recognize the fact of
their defeat when it stared them in the face. And that courageous and
noble refusal to give up, when they were quite evidently hopelessly
overthrown, was again vindicated in the final result. The army of
Napoleon was broken, discomfited, decimated, and defeated. Finally, it
was deserted by its discouraged leader, who probably never knew why he
had failed. He was not fighting against the allies only, nor was he
defeated entirely by British valour. Napoleon was fighting against the
Word of God and the will of Him whose hand is able to raise to power and
to cast down again. From that hour to this, and even in our present
moment of historic time, Egypt remains the basest of the kingdoms of the
earth.
To come back to the miserable Hophra, his final end came when he was
assassinated by his own general, whose name is given by the Greeks as
Amasis and who appears on the monuments under the name of Iahmose.
Amasis occupied the throne until the final conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.
We note again the coincidence of ancient records with the accounts that
portray these events in the books of II Chronicles, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel. Voluminous sections of the Word of God are extended a strong
and friendly hand of historical authentication by the secular records
which have survived from that time.
In the British Museum will be found tablets, stelae, portraits, and
sculptured remnants from Egypt which have been derived from those
unsettled times. In the Egyptian collection of the British Museum, the
exhibit numbered 1358 contains a portrait of Hophra. There are also a
number of scarabs in Table Case “B” in the Fourth Egyptian Room, and a
fragmentary sistrum in the Fifth Egyptian Room, all of which bear the
name of Hophra and authenticate his record.
Thus we have seen in a brief but accurate recapitulation of generations
and centuries of history that dead men do tell tales! We have Hophra’s
record together with the annalistic tablet of Amasis to aid us in our
understanding of these stirring days. Added to that, the record of
Nebuchadnezzar brings additional confirmation of the thesis that is
maintained in this brief work.
_The evidence of archeology as it bears upon the text of God’s Word is
final and complete wherever men have delved into the records of those
days._
It may not be exactly what was in the mind of the Lord Jesus Christ when
He uttered the words, but we can certainly apply to the generation in
which we live, His striking statement:
“If men should hold their tongues, the very stones would cry out!”
And if _living_ men will not speak the truth concerning the finality of
the Bible—_dead men must!_
CHAPTER XI
Vindication of Daniel
Nowhere in all this long and profitable study has archeology more
perfectly and thoroughly vindicated the accuracy of the Scripture than
in those portions of the disputed record that are found in the Book of
Daniel.
A great deal remains to be discovered at Nineveh and Babylon, and it is
highly probable that the excavations to the present hour have but
scraped the surface of the marvelous treasure that remains to be
uncovered. It is a happy circumstance, however, that in our present
incomplete but numerous sources, a great deal of information has been
brought to light in vindication of the prophet Daniel.
In the heyday of its brief popularity, the school of higher criticism
pounced with great glee on the alleged inaccuracies and historical
errors in the Book of Daniel. The general argument against the integrity
of this writing may be summed up in a simple resumé. In the Book of
Daniel, there are supposed to be a number of outstanding philological
anachronisms. The school of higher criticism, in its weird procedure,
made great capital of the presumed cultural development of the people
with whom the record dealt.
Daniel is pictured in the Bible as having lived and written in the last
days of the Babylonian dynasties. He was carried away from his native
land as a lad when the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar was poured out on
Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah. He lived throughout the reign of each
of the last Babylonian kings, and was alive when Cyrus signed the decree
that enabled the remnant to return to Jerusalem. No leader of Hebrew
life and thought lived in a more stirring span of history than did
Daniel.
The bright minds of the higher critics, which were never limited in
their flights of fancy by historical fact, concluded that the Greek
language could not have reached the courts of Babylon until after the
conquest of Alexander. In examining the Hebrew text of this book, the
self-styled scholars claimed to have found eleven Greek words in
Daniel’s manuscript. The occurrence of these words was sufficient
evidence that the Book of Daniel was not written in the days of the
Babylonian dynasty, but must have originated after the exile and in the
days of Alexander. This was the first great argument directed against
the credibility and authenticity of this prophecy.
The second alleged fallacy in the Book of Daniel is to be found in the
predication of the entire book. The sweep and movement of Daniel’s
account begins with the adventure of certain young lads of the royal
seed who were carried away as hostages to Babylon. Daniel’s own records
state that by orders of Nebuchadnezzar these young Hebrew boys were put
in the schools of learning where they might be instructed in the wisdom
of Babylon, and taught patriotism, and affection for the conquering
power of Chaldea. To this basis of the entire narrative criticism
objected vociferously and strenuously. The argument advanced by this now
discredited school was that the brutal conquerors of that day did not
treat their hostages with such kindness and courtesy, and so the entire
record was declared to be incompatible with the known facts of history.
The third and more serious objection of the critics was directed against
the appearance in Daniel’s manuscript of certain stories which were
alleged to consist of pure myths. Among these is the story of the three
Hebrew children in the fiery furnace. The demands of intelligence were
supposed to find this utterly unreasonable and the doubters declared
that such a miracle could not have occurred.
Another weakness in the structure of the narrative was presumed to be
found in the preservation of Daniel in the den of lions. In fact, this
whole record was relegated to the realm of improbability, as this method
of execution was never practiced by the Babylonians. These objections
constituted the case in the dogmatic assertions of the advocates of
higher criticism.
The strange experience of Nebuchadnezzar for the year of his madness,
when he supposed himself a beast of the field and lived without the
benefits of his civilization, added strength to this objection against
the historicity of a book that incorporates in its structure such
palpable fables.
The final and most crushing argument, however, was the discovery of
certain alleged historical inaccuracies that permeate the text of
Daniel.
When Nebuchadnezzar died, the kingdom seems to have fallen into a
condition that was little short of anarchy. Nebuchadnezzar the Second
reigned from 604 B. C. to 561 B. C. Upon his death, he was succeeded by
Evil-merodach who reigned for two years. This unhappy monarch passed off
the scene by violence, and his murderer, Neriglissar, succeeded him to
the throne.
After a short reign he, in turn, was removed by Labshi-marduk who
reigned but the portion of a year. He also met a sudden and unfortunate
end and the succession was in a condition of anarchy.
Being backed by the army, Nabonidus, who according to most accounts was
the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, saved the throne and established
himself in power. Having the complete confidence and trust of the
military, he established his dominion and reigned from 555 B. C. to 538.
But in the year 538, Cyrus the Great captured Babylon and overran the
entire kingdom. Cyrus reigned until 529 and was followed by Cambyses. In
521, Cambyses was succeeded by Darius who, in turn, gave place to
Xerxes.
Thus we have a complete and fairly accurate record of those stirring
days that followed Nebuchadnezzar. But in all profane history there was
no record of a king by the name of Belshazzar. Yet a surprising portion
of the Book of Daniel is given over to the events and incidents in the
life and reign of this “mythical” king. According to the critics, such
historical inaccuracy was sufficient to condemn the manuscript. Upon
these and lesser grounds, therefore, criticism tore Daniel out of the
Old Testament and denied him any place in the records of credible
historians.
Had the hopeful enemies of faith waited but a few short years, they
might have saved themselves all this work and trouble. So thoroughly has
the voice of archeology accredited the accuracy of Daniel’s writings,
that those who foolishly surrendered their faith in the historicity of
this Book, have been forced to replace the disputed record, and Daniel
has been vindicated as has no other questioned writer of antiquity.
To bring a brief and simple refutation of this critical argument
concerning alleged discrepancies, we shall go back to the primary
argument.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar was characterized by a recrudescence of
architecture and busy years of building. The great king spent his
enormous revenues in the construction of public buildings, and the land
blossomed under his influence and sway. It was inevitable that the
delvings at the site of Babylon should have brought to light some of the
palaces and works of this great kingdom. It was the custom among the
Babylonian builders to mark their public buildings, even as we do in our
present culture. Upon the cornerstone of our city hall or court house,
we engrave the name and purpose of the building, with the date of its
erection. Over the doorways of our libraries and public buildings we
chisel deeply into the building stones the name of the building and a
brief dedication. It seemed to be almost providential that one of the
first great marble palaces discovered in the ruins of Babylon was
designated by the builders themselves as “The Place of Learning.” There
captive princes were taught the learning of Chaldea.
This one discovery reopened the whole case of the credibility of Daniel.
His historicity was questioned primarily upon the grounds that _such
schools did not exist_, and captives were not so treated. The
foundational vindication of Daniel that emerged from the dust of
countless centuries, caused a re-examination of the entire structure
that criticism had reared against his integrity. The result was a
complete vindication of Daniel and his record.
The argument of philology also turned against its producers and showed
that their case against Daniel was baseless. It has been shown that
eight of the eleven alleged Greek words in Daniel’s manuscript are
Sumerian and not Hellenistic. At one time the Sumerian language was the
universal language of ancient diplomacy. As French was the language of
international correspondence until recent times, when it has been
largely displaced by English, so most of the courts of antiquity
conducted much of their business in the Sumerian tongue. This custom,
however, was discontinued by the time of the Persian conquest. If there
is any value in the argument of philology for the dating of a
manuscript, the evidence is conclusive that Daniel could not have
written after the time of Nebuchadnezzar, for the Sumerian language was
no longer in use from that time on.
The three bona fide Greek words that do occur in Daniel’s writings are
an evidence for his accuracy and historical fidelity, rather than a
source of criticism, as has been implied. These three words are the
names of musical instruments that were Greek in origin. The language of
music was and is universal and it did not take generations for such
words to penetrate to the courts of other nations. As an instance, the
reader may remember that the seven-stringed harp was invented by the
Greek poet Terpander. Assur-bani-pal died twenty-five years after the
invention of this harp. He shows it, however, upon his monuments, and
the statement is made that one was buried with the king. The Babylonian
records depict this harp under its Greek name. Thus we see that instead
of taking centuries for a Greek word to reach Babylon, this word had
become a household word in a few short years. So the argument of
philology turns out to be a boomerang which returns to smite the critic
who hurled it.
The tales that are told by dead men who have no purpose in deceiving the
living, not only enhance our understanding of this disputed text, but
bring to us irrefutable evidence of its scrupulous accuracy. The case
for Daniel’s vindication is even more graphically presented when we come
to the realm of these sections of alleged folklore and fable.
It is of course necessary that the careful scholar walk warily so as not
to over-emphasize the facts at his disposal. There is a tendency among
those who have a justified confidence in the Book of God to allow their
natural elation over the illuminating vindication wrought for the
Scripture by archeology to result in an unfortunate over-emphasis. Here
is where we face an illustration of such a tendency.
In one of the earlier excavations at Babylon a peculiar building was
uncovered which at first sight appeared to be a firing kiln in which
bricks or pottery might be baked. It was rounded in the typical shape
common to the ancient beehive, which is preserved even among some of our
kilns of the present generation. When the inscription was deciphered
that designated the purpose of the building, however, it was startling
to read, “This is the place of burning where men who blasphemed the gods
of Chaldea died by fire.” The tremendous significance of this discovery
becomes at once apparent. The tendency would be to explain with delight,
“We have discovered the fiery furnace where Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego walked with the Son of God.” Such an application of this fact,
however, would not quite be warranted. This may or may not have been the
Scriptural site of that great miracle. We can say, however, that the
three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace can no longer be consigned to
the columns of mythology and dismissed as simple folklore. This
discovery has showed us without doubt that there _was_ such a furnace as
Daniel depicts. It was customary to punish blasphemy in this fashion,
and the Chaldean monuments and annals are replete with instances of men
being burned alive, who had angered the king or rebelled against his
sovereignty.
So, then, the implacable, unrelenting voice of archeology penetrates the
innermost retreats of higher criticism to destroy, in this instance,
their familiar and favorite argument of folklore and mythology.
No less dramatic and interesting was the accidental experience of the
famed excavator Dieulafoy, who fell into what at first sight would have
been called an ancient well. Being rescued by his companions from his
uncomfortable, but in nowise dangerous, situation, they proceeded with
their work to the point of identification. The well turned out to be a
pit which was used as an open cage for wild animals, and upon the curb
was found the inscription, “The place of execution where men who angered
the king died torn by wild animals.”
Once again we must tread cautiously, for we cannot say with dogmatic
finality, “This is the place of Daniel’s experience.” We _can_ say,
however, with positive assurance that _there was such a pit of
execution_, and the only unusual feature in Daniel’s experience was that
he came out alive under the defense and protection of the God whom he
served.
In the excavation of the palace at Shushan, an ancient record was
uncovered giving a list of four hundred eighty-four men of high degree
who thus died in a den of lions. The name of Daniel was not found among
them. This might be accepted as collateral evidence that Daniel escaped
alive from that place of execution.
Even the strange experience of Nebuchadnezzar, who dreamed that he would
be turned into a wild beast and roam the fields like an ox, has also
been accredited. It will be remembered that the mighty monarch dreamed
of a tree that stood in the center of the earth and grew to an
unprecedented height. Its towering branches swept the heavens and from
all the ends of the earth its foliage was visible. Fruit hung upon this
tree that satisfied the needs of men, and the very beasts of the field
shadowed themselves under its spreading branches. Even the fowls of the
air dwelt safely therein, and all living things drew strength and
protection from this mighty growth.
The dream continued to the point where a Holy One came down from heaven
and ordered the destruction of the tree. The trunk, the branches, the
leaves, and the fruit were all to be swept away, but the stump and roots
were to be undisturbed. The heart was to be changed from a man’s heart,
and the heart of an animal was to be given it until seven times should
pass over that stump. This drastic action was explained by the Holy One
as being intended to teach the high and lordly king that only the Most
High rules in the kingdom of man, and that He gives dominion to
whomsoever He will. He has the right and authority to make the basest of
men to sit in the places of highest power and to humble the most lordly.
Upon coming to Daniel with his troubled spirit, the king sought an
interpretation of the dream. Daniel recounts that for the passing of an
hour he was so astonished and troubled in heart he could not find the
strength to speak. The king, whose kindly affection for Daniel is one of
the wonders of that day, besought him to speak frankly and not to allow
his affection and regard for Nebuchadnezzar to hinder him from telling
the complete truth to the troubled king. Daniel’s interpretation was
given in simple but graphic words: The tree which grew and reached the
heavens, whose leaves, branches, and fruits sheltered and nurtured all
flesh, was a symbol of the mighty Nebuchadnezzar. (It is true that in
the day of Nebuchadnezzar he builded a world empire, as far as the
cultured races of mankind extended.) But because of the high pride which
was natural to the human heart over such great accomplishments, the Most
High God had decreed that the king should be humbled. He should forsake
the councils and fellowship of men and sleep in the open fields, wet
with the dew of heaven; imagining himself to be one with the beasts of
the earth, Nebuchadnezzar was to learn humility.
Daniel then pleaded with the king that by repentance and restitution he
should forsake his sins and dedicate himself to the pursuit of
righteousness. Thus by showing mercy, he might receive grace and his
iniquities be blotted out.
Twelve months later the prophetic dream was fulfilled. As the king
strolled on the roof of his great palace, he surveyed the might of
Babylon and boasted in his heart saying, “This great Babylon have I not
myself built it; have I not erected this kingdom and this house by the
might of my own power and for the honour of my majesty.” While this
exalted boast was still echoing upon the king’s lips, there fell a voice
from heaven which said that the hour of the fulfillment of the prophecy
had come.
Madness fell upon Nebuchadnezzar, and he fled from the presence of men.
Sleeping in the open fields and dwelling with the beasts of the earth,
his hair grew as long as an eagle’s feathers and his nails became like
the claws of a bird. During those seven years of the madness of
Nebuchadnezzar, his faithful counselors administered his kingdom,
apparently in the earnest hope that the reason of the king would be
restored. Their confidence was justified, for at the end of seven years
the king recounts that he lifted up his eyes to heaven and understanding
returned to him. Thereupon he blessed the Most High God and swore that
he would bless and honour Him that liveth forever. He confessed that the
dominion of God is an everlasting dominion and His kingdom is eternal.
His psalm of praise exalted Almighty God above the reach of men.
When his reason had thus been restored, the king again occupied the
throne of Babylon and profited by this experience. The glory and honour
of his kingdom he henceforth attributed unto the majesty and kindness of
God. The king testified personally that the words of God are true and
His judgments righteous. He turned to monotheism, and became the
greatest convert, perhaps, that Daniel had made in all of his ministry.
This brief account of those amazing seven years is given by Daniel in
the fourth chapter of his great prophecy. The literal words of the king
are preserved for us in that historical record. This is perhaps the most
outstanding instance of critical repudiation of the text that we have in
the Old Testament. The whole record was uncompromisingly declared to be
a fabrication of a vivid imagination.
_It fell to the lot of the great Sir Henry Rawlinson to find the
original document wherein Nebuchadnezzar tells this episode exactly as
Daniel had given it._
The most dramatic and astonishing vindication of the integrity of the
text that the Book of Daniel has sustained, providentially occurred in
that field of criticism which was supposed to be the strongest evidence
that criticism possessed. This was in the realm of the historical
accuracy of the Book of Daniel. The basis of the critical contention was
right to a certain extent. Profane history possessed no record of a king
in Babylon by the name of Belshazzar. When the period of anarchy in
Babylon ended by means of the military coup that placed Nabonidus upon
the throne, it took a short while to quiet the realm and reëstablish the
authority of the crown. Nabonidus then gave himself to a period of
construction and rehabilitation. In the course of his work on the
fortifications of his capital city, Nabonidus was strengthening the
walls at certain neglected points. Delving deeply, to buttress the
foundations, he came upon the ruins of an ancient palace which had been
built centuries before by Narum-sin.
The discovery so delighted king Nabonidus that he became a confirmed
archeologist. He reconstructed this palace of Narum-sin and turned it
into a museum of antiquity. The delight of discovery drove the energetic
Nabonidus into expeditions far and wide. The administration of the
kingdom became of secondary importance to him. He had a son whose name
appears in the ancient records as “Belt-sar-utzar,” which is given in
the record of Daniel as Bel-shazzar. Upon the thirtieth birthday of his
son, Nabonidus made him regent, and the throne of Babylon was
thenceforth occupied jointly by Nabonidus and Bel-shazzar. Because the
more common form is familiar to our readers, we will from this point on
designate him by the Biblical name of Belshazzar.
The decrees and laws were signed, of course, by the seal of Nabonidus,
the senior monarch, but the practical administration was left in the
hands of the regent. This will explain why Belshazzar, wishing to honour
Daniel for the interpretation of the writing upon the wall, with which
we shall deal later, offered to make him the _third_ ruler of the
kingdom. This, of course, is eminently unorthodox! It was always the
custom in antiquity, if records can be trusted, to honour a man by
giving him the hand of the king’s daughter in marriage and making him
ruler over _half_ the kingdom. Belshazzar could not go so far as this.
Nabonidus, his father, was the number one ruler as long as he lived.
Belshazzar, the regent, was the second ruler of the realm. Therefore, if
Daniel became prime minister and had an office second in authority to
Belshazzar, _he would be the third ruler in the kingdom_.
How amazing indeed is the historical accuracy of this ancient Book!
These writers were faultless in their efforts to keep the Scripture in
line with the historical facts. In this case they have been inspired
even in their choice of numerical descriptions in the honours conferred
upon their heroic characters.
So now we peer into ancient Babylon through the telescope of archeology
and we see a quaint situation. Nabonidus, the kind and able monarch,
fascinated with the study of antiquities, has left the active control of
the kingdom to his son and heir, Belshazzar. The prince regent, however,
was not able to stand prosperity. He seems to have degenerated into a
drunken profligate who spent all of his time in the dubious pleasures of
sin. The administration of the kingdom fell on evil days during the
brief span of time that Belshazzar was in authority. As nearly as we can
build an accurate and credible chronology from the now available records
of Babylon, Belshazzar became regent in 541 B. C., and in the year 538
B. C. the Babylonian dynasty disappeared.
In those three years great and marvelous events were being shaped in the
womb of time. Cyrus, thereafter called the Great, had previously begun
his phenomenal rise to power. Apparently he had been born a minor prince
in an obscure tribe of the Medes, but was endowed with genius and
brilliancy from his early youth. The picture that is now painted of
Cyrus, as we see him in the treasured records, depicts this fascinating
personality engaged first of all in welding the scattered families of
the Medes into a close, binding organization that made them a power. So
rapid was his climb to dominion, there is no other explanation to
account for the phenomenon than that of Isaiah, who in his forty-fifth
chapter, states that the Lord God Almighty Himself had raised Cyrus to
the position of world dominion. This prophecy we shall refer to later;
but our present purpose is to show the conjunction of Cyrus with
Belshazzar.
We come to a period of time when the records are fragmentary, but it is
evident now that Cyrus the Mede became naturalized as a Persian that he
might occupy that throne and combine it with his own kingdom. When the
youthful Cyrus had combined Media and Persia into one great dominion, a
new world empire was born, although it was not immediately apparent.
After a number of successful forays and campaigns that enlarged his
possessions and strengthened his position until he felt himself to be
well nigh invincible, the ambitious Cyrus turned his eyes toward
Babylon. He realized that if he possessed Babylon, he would indeed be
the master of the earth.
Cyrus is reported to have sent an ambassador to Nabonidus saying, “Come
thou under my yoke and I will be thy protection and defense.” The modern
system of ‘muscling in’ is supposed to be a development of the
racketeers of our generation. These modern pragmatists, however, are
merely amateur performers at an old game, at which the ancients were
masters. This invitation of Cyrus, of course, could be interpreted only
one way. In the vernacular of the modern day, it was a case of
surrender, “or else.” When the Persian ambassador arrived at the court
of Babylon, Nabonidus was absent on one of his many expeditions.
Belshazzar, as usual, was in the midst of a drunken orgy and was more
concerned with the hilarity of the hour than with the future safety of
the kingdom. With that ill-guided and perverse humour which is
characteristic of the insanity of drunkenness, the Regent conceived a
brilliant jest. He caused the ambassador to be hewed into pieces and
packed into a basket which was returned to Cyrus with a note saying,
“This we will do to you and your army if you invade our empire.”
When this insult was delivered to Cyrus, the outraged king was so wild
with indignation that he could not contain himself long enough to
assemble his army. He ordered Darius the chief of his bodyguard, who was
one of his Median counselors and companions, to assemble an advance
force and lay siege to the city. While Darius invested the city, Cyrus
was to follow with the balance of his cohort. Thus the scene was set for
the most singular episode of those stirring days.
It occurred on the birthday of Belshazzar, which marked the beginning of
the third year of his regency. The ignoble king had gathered to himself
all the lords and ladies of his court, the thousand dissolute companions
who were the fellows-in-drunkenness of this king. Belshazzar again
conceived a drunken jest, which struck him as highly humourous. In the
midst of their debauch, he ordered that the sacred vessels, which his
grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, had taken from the temple of God in
Jerusalem, should be brought to the table to be used as flagons for
their drinking bout. This was done, and as this godless and idolatrous
crew drank from the holy implements dedicated to the God of Israel, they
toasted the idols of Babylon and sang their praise.
Even while they were thus engaged, according to the fifth chapter of
Daniel, a hand appeared which wrote on the wall and pronounced the doom
of the kingdom. Almost at this exact hour, Darius, the counselor, friend
and commander of the vanguard of Cyrus’ army, appeared before the walls
of Babylon!
To the surprise of the great Median general, the gates of the city were
open. This is according to his own record. It being the birthday of
Belshazzar, the entire city was celebrating in a fashion made popular
and characteristic by the debauched ruler. Wine had been provided for
the guards that they also might share in the happy celebration of the
king’s natal day. The drunken soldiers had failed to close the city
gates with the coming of nightfall, and by the time Darius appeared
before the city, they were in a stupor of drunkenness. The able Mede,
skilled in all the arts of ancient warfare, moved swiftly, well knowing
the value of a surprise attack. His company, although few in number when
compared to the complete might of the armed forces of Cyrus, was
sufficient to hold the city, if it could be gained.
Daring men fell upon the drunken guards and slew them. Leaving a small
company to guard the gate and keep it open, Darius’ troops swept through
the city to the very palace of Belshazzar. Slaying all whom they met
upon the way, they fell upon the royal company with a shock of complete
surprise. Scarcely had the voice of Daniel finished interpreting the
words that the hand of God had written upon the wall, when the sword of
Darius fulfilled the prophecy by slaying Belshazzar. Darius caused the
head of Belshazzar to be sent to Cyrus with a grim and brief note,
saying “The kingdom is thine. Do thou enter.” When Cyrus, therefore,
came with his mighty company, the city already had been captured by
Darius and Cyrus had only to make a triumphal entry.
In the meantime, Nabonidus heard that his kingdom was invaded, so he
gathered a force and marched to the relief of Babylon. When he arrived,
however, he found that the city was already in the possession of Cyrus.
Acting with characteristic wisdom, he laid down his arms, surrendered to
Cyrus and cast himself upon the mercy of the great king. He was well
received, and lived as an honoured guest in the court of Cyrus until he
died a natural death several years later.
Cyrus ruled Babylon through Darius, his counselor and friend, whose
courage and strategy were rewarded when the king made him satrap of
Babylon. Herein is found a reconciliation of the apparent contradiction
between the two statements made by Darius and Cyrus concerning the fate
of the king of Babylon. Although the critics never bothered to notice
such, archeology has its difficulties as well as has Scripture.
Darius tersely recounts, “In the night that I captured Babylon, I slew
the king.”
The annalistic tablet of Cyrus, however, contains this note, “In the day
that I entered Babylon, I made the king my captive.”
The contradiction is more fancied than real. The two generals are
speaking about two different kings! Darius killed King Belshazzar; Cyrus
made King Nabonidus his captive and friend.
Because of the insult that Belshazzar had offered to his majesty, Cyrus
caused the Regent’s name to be stricken from all the available records
and thus Belshazzar’s name passed out of history and faded from the
memory of men. _For twenty-five hundred years the only record of the
name of Belshazzar that was preserved for posterity was found in the
writings of Daniel. This very historic accuracy of Daniel was the source
of a great deal of the critical rejection of his notable writing!_
The first discovery in archeology that shed light upon these events was
the prayer cylinder of Nabonidus. Upon the ascension of Belshazzar to
the regency of the kingdom, Nabonidus caused to be engraved in all the
temples of Bel a prayer for the protection, praise, and prosperity of
his son, Belt-sar-utsar. In the excavations at Mukkayyar, one of the
great buildings uncovered was the temple of the moon god. In each of the
four corners of the building, Nabonidus, who had rebuilt the temple, had
caused a clay cylinder to be buried containing the record of the work.
On this cylinder, which dedicated the rebuilding of an ancient temple
which was originally constructed about seventeen centuries before the
day of Nabonidus, the kindly king engraved the prayer for his son and
heir, to which we have previously referred.
The name of the moon god was Sin, and he was one of the chief deities of
the land of Babylon. The wording on the cylinder that particularly
interests the student of historical accuracy is found in these words:
“Oh, Sin, thou lord of the gods, thou king of the gods of heaven and of
earth, and of the gods of the gods, who dwellest in heaven, when thou
enterest with joy into this temple, may the good fortune of the temples
E-sagil, E-zida and E-gish-shirgal, the temples of thine exalted godhead
be established at thy word. And set thou the fear of thine exalted
godhead in the hearts of my people, that they sin not against thine
exalted godhead, and let them stand fast like the heavens. _And as for
me, Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, protect thou me from sinning against
thine exalted godhead and grant thou me graciously a long life and in
the heart of Belshazzar, my first born son, the offspring of my loins,
set the fear of thine exalted godhead so he may commit no sin and that
he may be satisfied with the fullness of life._”
In the British Museum, Table Case “G” in the magnificent Babylonian Room
contains these cylinders, which are numbered 91,125 to 91,128; the
cylinders of Nabonidus are many. Some of them recount his building
operations, while others give the record of his discoveries of some of
the great monuments of antiquity in the search for which he spent so
much of his time and treasure. Perhaps no single event in the long
records of archeology so startled and delighted the careful students
whose interest was in the authority of the Word of God, as did this
discovery of the name of Belshazzar. In one magnificent demonstration
archeology thus accredited the _history_ included in the prophecies of
Daniel, and shattered the conclusions of criticism beyond the
possibility of recovery.
Also in this same section and case of the British Museum, there is a
portion of a baked clay cylinder inscribed by Cyrus. This bears the
Museum number of 90,920 and is a priceless record. We are tempted to
believe in the providential preservation of this fragment, since the
balance of the tablet has been destroyed and is missing. In this
particular record, Cyrus describes his conquest of Babylon, following a
recital of some of the chief preliminary events in the early part of his
reign. He ascribes his good success to the god Marduk. He tells how he
had forced all nations to accept his standard until finally, under
divine command, Marduk caused him to go to Babylon. Because of the
significance of this statement and its bearing upon our foregoing
paragraphs, we reproduce this much of the words of Cyrus, “Marduk the
great lord, the protector of his people beheld his good deeds and his
righteous heart with joy. He commanded him to go to Babylon and he
caused him to set out on the road to the city and like a friend and
ally, he marched by his side; and his troops with our weapons girt about
them, marched with him in countless numbers like the waters of a flood.
Without battle and without fighting, Marduk made him enter into his city
of Babylon; he spared Babylon tribulation and Nabonidus the king who
feared him not, he delivered into his hands.”
The Babylonian sources of the British Museum also contain an amazing
number of highly important documents which cover every year of the reign
of Cyrus in Babylon, namely, B. C. 538 to 529. These records are
concerned with commercial transactions, legal business and documents
that deal with the personal and public life of the people. Such homely
affairs as a deed recording a loan of three thousand bundles of onions
from one man to another is legally dated by the year of the ascendency
of Cyrus. The apprenticeship of slaves to various masters in the arts
and sciences, the worship of the people, the blossoming of prosperity
under the firm but kind rule of Cyrus, all make up a wonderful picture
of those days and times. Therein are included apparently unconscious
references to the historic events that are of such tremendous interest
to those who today read the Word of God in the light of this historical
illumination.
There are, of course, also many private and public letters preserved
from this period which are found in Table Case “H” of the Babylonian
Room, where they are available to the student who cares to delve into
the minute evidences of those days and times.
We shall have to condense a great deal of this material, however, into
the one simple statement that _the Book of Daniel is historically
accredited by these voluminous records_! Thus there is only one possible
basis whereupon criticism of Daniel may be continued today. In all
kindness, but in absolute assurance, we must say that the rejection of
the historicity of Daniel by our generation can be predicated only upon
complete ignorance of an amazing body of historical knowledge that is
available to the student. Either that, or there is a sad desire in the
heart of the critic to frustrate the purpose of the Word of God even at
the expense of the surrender of personal integrity. The original
construction of the case against Daniel did appear formidable at first.
It has turned out, however, to be a tissue of falsehood, and Daniel has
emerged from the den of liars unharmed and under the continuing
protection of God, even as he came forth in safety from the den of
lions.
With the coming of Cyrus, the Assyrian and Babylonian dynasties ended
and Persian history began. Much of this period of the Persian sway was
contemporaneous with the times of the Maccabees, and is of tremendous
importance and interest to the student of the history of Israel. But
since that same period parallels the four hundred silent years, during
which the voice of God was not heard through the prophets, and sacred
revelation is awaiting the appearance of Jesus Christ, there is very
little of archeological value from those years that can be useful to the
establishment of our present thesis.
The exception to this would be seen in the case of the return of the
people to rebuild Jerusalem, and to establish a Jewish culture, so that
Jesus could be born in the land of Israel, and minister to the people of
Israel, as the prophecies had foretold. The events of this return are
told in the prophecies of Ezra and Nehemiah, which are abundantly
substantiated by secular evidence, and have thus not been questioned or
disputed by criticism to any major extent. Cyrus has left an account of
this return, and the great king seemed to be vastly elated over the
opportunity thus to show kindness to the people of Israel.
According to the record that is generally received, Cyrus the Great
signed the decree authorizing the return of the children of Israel to
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the temple of God, primarily because
of one of those fascinating anticipations of coming events which is the
peculiar field of prophecy.
It is recorded that the scribe Zerubbabel entered the presence of Cyrus
and with the grandiloquent salutation of that day bowed himself and
said, “Oh king live forever! Be it known unto my lord the king that our
God hath named him by name in the prophecy of His sacred writings
generations before the king was born.” When Cyrus expressed a desire to
inquire into this wonder, there was brought into his presence the scroll
of the prophet Isaiah and to him was read the forty-fifth chapter. The
opening verses of this chapter contained this statement:
“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I
have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins
of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall
not be shut.
“I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will
break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of
iron:
“And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of
secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee
by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and
Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have
surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.”
This is a significant prophecy indeed! Isaiah wrote these words about
the year 712 B. C. Cyrus took over the dominion of Babylon 538 B. C. So
in this ancient prophecy the conqueror is named by name some century and
a half before he was born. His conquest of all nations was clearly
delineated and the explanation was given that God had pre-named him for
the sake of the thing that he should later do for Israel. Astounded and
deeply moved by this evidence of divine favour, Cyrus wrote a notable
decree which is preserved for us in these exact words:
“Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of Heaven hath given me
all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an
house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all
His people? his God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem, which
is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the
God,) which is in Jerusalem, and whosoever remaineth in any place
where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver,
and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, besides the free-will
offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”
With this authority, the remnant returned to start that magnificent epic
of the history of Israel that climaxed with the coming of the Redeemer
of whom also Isaiah had written.
There is a sense of frustration that is inevitable to any writer who
attempts to cover so vast a subject as this present work in the limits
of one small volume. The difficulty has not been in finding evidence to
support the thesis that “dead men tell tales” which vindicate the
historical infallibility of the Bible. We have been embarrassed by too
much evidence! So we have sought to present only the most striking
cases, such as can be confirmed by any reader, without the background of
years of archeological education. Unlimited tons of material have been
passed over with scarcely a mention, due to the limitation of time and
space.
The author has hoped to achieve one purpose in this volume, namely, the
arousing of a definite interest in the average reader which will cause
that person to study the sacred page with understanding and appreciation
of its force and authority. “These Scriptures,” said the Apostle Paul,
“are able to make thee wise unto salvation.” It is imperative in the
light of this purpose, that they be able to sustain their claim to
divine origin as well. With the prayer that God will bless His Word to
the salvation of the many in these closing days, we have thus offered
you the testimony of men long dead, whose words nevertheless live on in
the records of tablets and tombs. And with those evidences, we have also
an increased assurance in the infallible character of the Bible, and are
historically justified in receiving it “as it is in truth, the Word of
God.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baikie, James The Amarna Age
Baikie, James Lands and People of the Bible
Baikie, James A History of Egypt (Two Volumes)
Bennett, Charles W. Christian Archeology
Blackman, A. M. Luxor and Its Temple
Boscawen, W. St. Chad The Bible and the Monuments
Boulton, W. H. Egypt
Budge, E. A. Wallis From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt
Budge, E. A. Wallis Books on Egypt and Chaldaea
Budge, E. A. Wallis The Literature of the Egyptian
Chiera They Wrote on Clay
Clay, Albert T. A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform
Clay, Albert T. Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites
Cobern, Camden M. The New Archeological Discoveries
Deissman, Dr. Adolf Light from the Ancient East
Delitzsch, Friedrich Babel and Bible
Gadd, C. J. A Sumerian Reading Book
Gadd, C. J. History and Monuments of Ur
Gardiner, Alan H. Egyptian Grammar
Garstang, J. Burial Customs of the Ancient Egyptians
Garstang, J. The Land of the Hittites
Goodspeed, George Stephen A History of the Babylonians and
Assyrians
Grenfell, B. P. Tebtunis Papyri
A. S. Hunt
J. G. Smyly
Grenfell, B. P. Greek Papyri
Habershon, Ada R. The Bible and the British Museum
Hilprecht, Herman V. Recent Research in Bible Lands
Hilprecht, Herman V. Explorations in Bible Lands During the
19th Century
Hogarth, D. G. Authority and Archeology, Sacred and
Profane
Huffman, Prof. J. A. Voices from Rocks and Dust Heaps of
Bible Lands
Kennedy, Sir Alexander B. W. Petra, Its History and Monuments
Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
King, L. W. Assyrian Language (Vol. 5)
Koldewey, Robert The Excavations at Babylon
Kyle, Melvin Grove The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in
Biblical Criticism
Kyle, Melvin Grove Excavating Kirjathsepher’s Ten Cities
Laurie, Rev. Thomas Assyrian Echoes of the Word
Layard, Austen Henry Layard’s Discoveries at Nineveh
Lynch, W. F. Expedition to the Dead Sea and The Jordan
Marston, Sir Charles The Bible is True
Marston, Sir Charles New Bible Evidence
Martin, Percy F. Egypt—Old and New
Maspero, Gaston New Light on Ancient Egypt
Maspero, Gaston Egypt—Ancient Sites and Modern Scenes
Milligan, George Greek Papyri
Miller, H. S. General Biblical Introduction
Moulton, James Hope From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps
Murray, Margaret A. Egyptian Temples
Nelson, Byron C. The Deluge Story in Stone
Orr, James The Bible of the Old Testament
Orr, James The Bible Under Trial
Petrie, Flinders Measures and Weights
Petrie, Flinders Royal Tombs
Petrie, Flinders Researches in Sinai
Pilter, W. T. The Pentateuch. A Historical Record.
Politeyan, J. Discoveries from the Nile to the Tiber
Ramsay, Sir William St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen
Luke the Historian
The Trustworthiness of the New Testament
in the Light of Recent Discovery
Rawlinson, Canon Egypt and Babylonia
St. Clair, George Creation Records
Smith, George The Chaldean Account of Genesis
Smith, G. Elliott and Egyptian Mummies
Warren R. Dawson
Stadelmann, H. Cleopatra
Tischendorf, Dr. C. Codex Sinaiticus
Todd, J. A. The Banks of the Nile
Weigall, Arthur The Life and Times of Akhnaton
Weigall, Arthur E. P. A Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt
Wiseman, P. J. New Discoveries in Babylonia About
Genesis
Woolley, Sir Leonard Abraham. (Recent Discoveries and Hebrew
Origins)
Woolley, Sir Leonard Ur of the Chaldees
Woolley, Sir Leonard The Sumerians
Worrell, William H. A Study of Races in the Ancient Near East
Wright, G. F. Scientific Confirmations of Old
Testament History
Wright, William The Empire of the Hittites
_Publications of the British Museum_:
A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities
The Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamesh
The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and
the Dragon
The Book of the Dead
The Mount Sinai Manuscript of the Bible
The New Gospel Fragments
The Rosetta Stone
_Pamphlets_:
The Bearing of Archeological and Historical Research Upon the New
Testament. By the Rev. Parke P. Flournoy.
The Witness of Archeology to the Bible. By A. M. Hodgkin.
Biblical History in the Light of Archeological Discovery Since A. D.
1900. By the Rev. D. E. Hart-Davies.
The Value of the Spade. By the Rev. M. G. Kyle.
The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names. By F. C. Burkitt.
FOOTNOTES
[1]As this book goes to press, the grave of this Shishak has just been
discovered in the famous Valley of the Kings. The first word is that
the grave is intact, unspoiled by robbers. If this proves to be so,
much material of value to the Biblical student will probably be
recovered.
Transcriber’s Notes
—Silently corrected a few typos.
—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.
—Canonically replaced “plate number” with “plate” in plate references.
—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Dead Men Tell Tales" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.