LIBRARY 
 
 UNrv&RSinr op 
 
 CALiFORNIA 
 
 SAN DIEGO 
 
 J 
 
 'iJt.KXl 
 
 Uetbodist tp/sca^-c 
 
 iton
 
 IHIvriKnV Ot MIHrdBMU c«n BIESO 
 
 3 1822 01 
 
 368 0897 
 
 
 in I
 
 OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
 
 Prophecy and the Prophets 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $1.50 
 
 The Minor Prophets 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $2.00 
 
 The Worker and Hi.s Bible 
 
 IGnio. Net, 50 cents
 
 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERICK CARL EISELEN 
 
 Professor in Garrett Biblical Institute 
 
 THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN 
 NEW YORK CINCINNATI
 
 Copyright, 1912 
 FREDERICK CARL EISELEN 
 
 First Edition printed September, 1912 
 Reprinted June, 1913; May, 1916
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAOE 
 
 Preface 7 
 
 I. The New Testament View of the Old Tes- 
 
 tament 9 
 
 II. The Old Testament and Modern Science... 38 
 
 III. 'I'he Old Testament and Modern Criticism 66 
 
 IV. The Old Testament and Archaeology 110 
 
 V. The Old Testament and Comparative Re- 
 
 ligion 160 
 
 VI. The Permanent Significance of the Old 
 
 Testament 227 
 
 Index 264
 
 PREFACE 
 
 During the past half century the attitude of 
 many men toward the Bible has "undergone a 
 decided change. The old confidence seems to be 
 gone; a feeling of uncertainty and of unrest has 
 taken its place. This small volume is intended 
 to set forth the Christian view of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and to furnish answers to some of the 
 questions men are asking concerning the Sacred 
 Scriptures of the Hebrews, which the early Chris- 
 tians included in the canon of Christian sacred 
 writings. The old foundations are not shaken. 
 The Old Testament has stood the tests of the 
 past, which have been severe and often merciless; 
 and there is to-day stronger ground than ever 
 for believing that in its pages "men spake from 
 God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Frederick Carl Eiselen. 
 
 Evanston, Illinois.
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The New Testament View of the 
 Old Testament 
 
 The Christian Church has always assigned to 
 the Bible a unique place in theology and hfe. 
 What is true of the Bible as a whole is equally 
 true of that part of the Bible which is known as 
 the Old Testament. Indeed, until the middle 
 of the second century of the Christian era, the 
 only Scriptures accepted as authoritative were 
 those of the Old Testament. Even then, only 
 gradually and under the pressure of real need, 
 different groups of Christian writings were added 
 and received an authority equal to that of the 
 older Scriptures. And though in the course of 
 the centuries there have been some who denied 
 to the Old Testament a rightful place in Christian 
 thought and life, the Church as a whole has al- 
 ways upheld the judgment of the early Christians 
 in making the Old Testament a part of the canon 
 of Christian sacred writings. 
 
 It is worthy of note that the Old Testament 
 played an important part in the religious life 
 of Jesus. No one can study the records of his 
 life without seeing that he gathered much of his 
 
 9
 
 10 THE CIIKISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 spiritual nourishment from its pages. Even in 
 tlie moments of severest temptation, greatest 
 distress, and bitterest agony the words of these 
 ancient writings were on his hps, and their con- 
 soling and inspiring messages in his heart and 
 mind. This attitude of Jesus toward the ancient 
 Hebrew Scriptures in itself explains the high 
 estimate placed upon them by his followers. 
 For, in the words of G. A. Smith, 'That which 
 was used by the Redeemer himself for the sus- 
 tenance of his own soul can never pass out of 
 the use of his redeemed. That from which he 
 proved the divinity of his mission and the age- 
 long preparation for his coming must always have 
 a principal place in his Church's argument for 
 him."(») 
 
 The attitude of Jesus is reflected in his dis- 
 ciples and those who have given to us the New 
 Testament books. Nearly three hundred quota- 
 tions from the Old Testament are scattered 
 throughout the Gospels and P]pistles, and in a 
 number of passages is the value of Old Testament 
 study specifically emphasized. Perhaps nowhere 
 is this done more clearly than in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17, 
 in words written primarily of the Old Testament: 
 "The sacred writings which are able to make 
 thee wise unto salvation through faith which is 
 in Christ Jesus. Every scripture inspired of God 
 is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 11 
 
 correction, for instruction which is in righteous- 
 ness: that the man of God may be complete, 
 furnished completely unto every good work." 
 Evidently the writer of these words considers 
 the sacred writings of the Hebrews able to inspire 
 a personal saving faith in Jesus, the Christ; to 
 furnish a knowledge of the things of God; and to 
 prepare for efficient service. And these are the 
 elements which enter into the life advocated and 
 illustrated by the Founder of Christianity. 
 
 An attempt will be made in this chapter to 
 determine the New Testament view of the Old 
 Testament for the purpose of discovering what 
 is the proper Christian view of that part of the 
 Bible. For, if the teaching, spirit, and example 
 of Jesus have a vital relation to Christian belief, 
 and if his immediate followers have preserved an 
 essentially accurate portrayal of him, then the 
 modem Christian view of the Old Testament 
 should be a reflection of the view of Jesus and 
 of those who, as a result of their intimate fellow- 
 ship with him, were in a position to give a cor- 
 rect interpretation of him and his teaching. 
 
 We may inquire, in the first place, what is 
 the New Testament view of the purpose of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures? The answer to this 
 inquiry is furnished by the passage in the Second 
 Epistle to Timothy quoted above. Neither this 
 nor any other passage in the whole Bible warrants
 
 13 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 the belief that the Old Testament ever was meant 
 to teach physical science, or history, or philosophy, 
 or psychology. Everywhere it is stated or clearly 
 implied that the purpose of all biblical teaching 
 is to make man morally and spiritually perfect, 
 and to furnish him "unto every good work." 
 Therefore we may expect that where the Old 
 Testament writers touch upon questions of science 
 and history they develop them only in so far 
 as they serve this higher religious and ethical 
 purpose. This being the biblical view of the 
 purpose of the Scriptures, any theory of the Old 
 Testament which makes no distinction between 
 scientific and historical statements on the one 
 hand, and religious and ethical statements on the 
 other, is inadequate and erroneous, because it is 
 not in accord with the New Testament teaching 
 on that point. 
 
 The purpose of the Bible is intimately con- 
 nected with its nature and character. The New 
 Testament view of the nature and character of 
 the Old Testament is suggested in Heb. 1. 1, 2: 
 "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers 
 in the prophets by divers portions and in divers 
 manners, hath at the end of these days spoken 
 unto us in a Son." Four great truths concerning 
 the Old Testament dispensation are definitely in- 
 dicated in these words, with a fifth one implied: 
 CI) God spoke; (2) God spoke in the prophets,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 13 
 
 that is, in or through human agents; (3) God spoke 
 in divers portions; (4) God spoke in divers manners; 
 (5) the words imply that the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation ivas incomplete; it had to be supple- 
 mented and perfected by a revelation in and 
 through a Son. The truths expressed here con- 
 stitute the essential elements which enter into 
 the New Testament view of the Old Testament. 
 
 The two expressions, "in divers portions" and 
 "in divers manners," concern largely the external 
 form of divine revelation. The former means that 
 the revelations recorded in the Old Testament 
 were not given at one time, through one channel 
 or by one man, but at many times, through many 
 channels, by many men, scattered over a period 
 of many centuries, in places hundreds of miles 
 apart. One result of this is seen in the fact that 
 the Old Testament contains many books written 
 by different authors in successive periods of He- 
 brew history. 
 
 The latter expression has to do with the different 
 kinds of literature in the Old Testament, but it 
 goes deeper than mere literary form. It means 
 that in giving revelations of himself during the 
 Old Testament period God used various methods 
 and means, the different kmds of literature being 
 simply the outgrowth of the various modes of 
 revelation. 
 
 It is a universal Christian belief that God
 
 U THE CTTKISTIAX VIEW OF 
 
 reveals liiiiiself to-chiy in divers manners and 
 modes. Every Christian believes, for example, 
 that God reveals himself in the events of his- 
 tory, be it the history of individuals or of nations. 
 Again, to many devout persons, God speaks very 
 tlistinctly through the outward acts and cere- 
 monies of worship. To thousands of earnest and 
 sincere Christians connected with churches using 
 an elaborate ritual, this ritual is no mere form; 
 it is a means of blessing and grace through which 
 God reveals himself to their souls. Moreover, God 
 selects certain persons, especially well qualified to 
 hear his voice; these he commissions as ambas- 
 sadors to declare him and his will to the people. 
 The belief in this method of revelation is the 
 philosophical basis for the offices of the Christian 
 preacher and the Christian religious teacher. Once 
 more, in his attempt to reach the human heart 
 God may dispense with all external means; he 
 may and does reveal himself by working directly 
 upon and in the mind and spirit of the individual. 
 These are some of the "manners" in which God 
 reveals himself to his children to-day, and these 
 are some of the means and manners in which 
 God made himself known during the Old Testament 
 dispensation. Then, as he does now, he revealed 
 himself in nature, in the events of history, in 
 the ritual, and by direct impressions; and at times 
 he selected certain individuals to whom he might
 
 TTFK OT.r> TESTAMEXT 15 
 
 make himself known in all these various ways and 
 who could transmit the various revelations to 
 others. The Old Testament contains records and 
 interpretations of these manifold revelations. It 
 is self-evident that when attempts were made to 
 record these various manifestations of God difTerent 
 kinds of literature must be used in order to express 
 most vividly the truth or truths gathered from 
 the divine revelations. The several kinds of lit- 
 erature, therefore, are the natural outgrowth of 
 the manifold modes of divine revelation. In the 
 Old Testament five kinds of literature may be 
 distinguished: the prophetic, the wisdom^ the 
 devotional, the legal or priestly, and the historical. 
 In their production four classes of religious workers 
 who observed, interpreted, and mediated the 
 divine revelations, were active: the prophets, the 
 wise men, the priests (compare Jer. LS. 18), and 
 the psalmists. 
 
 The prophetic literature owes its origin to 
 prophetic activity. The prophets towered above 
 their contemporaries in purity of character, 
 strength of intellect, sincerity of purpose, intimacy 
 of communion with God, and illumination by the 
 divine Spirit. As a result of these qualifications 
 they were able to understand truth hidden from 
 the eyes and minds of those who did not live in 
 the same intimate fellowship with Jehovah. Their 
 high conceptions of the character of God enabled
 
 16 THE CIirxISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 them to appivciate the divine ideals of right- 
 eousness, and tlioy sought with flaming enthu- 
 siasm to impress the trutlis burning in their 
 hearts ui)on tlieir less enlightened contemporaries. 
 In carrying out this purpose they became states- 
 men, social reformers, and religious and ethical 
 teachers. No records have been preserved of the 
 utterances of the earliest prophets. But when, 
 witli the general advance in culture, reading and 
 writing became more common, the prophets, 
 anxious to reach a wider circle, and to preserve 
 their messages for more willing ears, put their 
 utterances into writing, and to this new departure 
 we owe the sublime specimens of prophetic lit- 
 erature in the Old Testament. 
 
 In liis direct appeal to heart and conscience 
 the ancient prophet resembles the modern preacher. 
 The wise man, like the prophet, sought to make 
 tlie divine will known to others, but in his method 
 he resembles, rather, the modern religious teacher. 
 His ultimate aim was to influence conduct and 
 life, but instead of appealing directly to the con- 
 science he addressed himself primarily to the 
 mind through counsel and argument, hoping that 
 his appeal to the common sense of the listener 
 would make an impression, the effects of which 
 might be seen in transformed conduct. The 
 prophet would have said to the lazy man, "Thus 
 saitii Jehovah, Go to work, thou indolent man."
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 17 
 
 Prov. 24. 30-34 may serve as an illustration of 
 the method of the wise man: 
 
 I went by the field of the shiggard, 
 
 And by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; 
 
 And, Id, it was all grown over with thorns, 
 
 The face thereof was covered with nettles, 
 
 And the stone wall thereof was broken down 
 
 Then I beheld, and considered well; 
 
 I saw, and received instruction: 
 
 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, 
 
 A httle folding of the hands to sleep; 
 
 So shall thy poverty come as a robber, 
 
 And thy want as an armed man. 
 
 Nothing escaped the observation of these men, 
 and from beginning to end they emphasized the 
 important truth that religion and the daily life 
 are inseparable. From giving simple practical 
 precepts, the wise men rose to speculation, and 
 the books of Job and Ecclesiastes bear witness 
 that they busied themselves with no mean 
 problems. 
 
 Of profound significance is also the devotional 
 literature of the Old Testament, In a real sense 
 the entire Old Testament is a book of devotion. 
 It is the outgrowth of a spirit of intense devotion 
 to Jehovah, and it has helped in all ages to nurture 
 the devotional spirit of its readers. Here, how- 
 ever, the term "devotional" is used in the nar- 
 rower sense of those poetic compositions which 
 are primarily the expressions of the religious 
 experience or emotions of the authors, generated
 
 18 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 and fostered by their intimate fellowship with 
 Jehovah. The chief representative of this lit- 
 erature is the book of Psalms, which is aptly 
 described by Johannes Arnd in these words: 
 "What the heart is in man, that is the Psalter in 
 the Bible." The Psalms contain in the form of 
 sacred lyrics the outpourings of devout souls — 
 prophets, priests, kings, wise men, and peasants 
 — who came into the very presence of God, held 
 conmiunion with him, and were privileged to hear 
 the sweet sound of his voice. No other literary 
 compositions lift us into such atmosphere of 
 religious thought and emotion. Because these 
 lyrics reflect personal experiences they may still 
 be used to express emotions of joy, sorrow, hope, 
 fear, anticipation, etc., even by persons who live 
 on a high(4- spiritual i)lane than did the original 
 authors. 
 
 The legal literature differs from the other kinds 
 in that it does not form separate books, but is 
 embodied in other writings, principally in the 
 l)(joks of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuter- 
 onomy. All the representatives of Jehovah — 
 prophets, priests, wise men, and even psalmists 
 — were thought competent to make known the 
 law of Jehovah, but the Old Testament makes it 
 clear that at a comparatively early period the 
 giving of law came to be looked upon as the special 
 duty of the priests. These priests constituted a
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 19 
 
 very important class of religious worlvcrs among 
 the ancient Hebrews. During the greater part of 
 the national life their chief functions were the 
 care of the sanctuary and the performance of 
 ceremonial rites. But in addition to these duti(>s 
 they continued to administer the law of Jehovah, 
 consisting not only of ceremonial regulations but 
 also of moral and judicial precepts and directions. 
 For centuries these laws may have been trans- 
 mitted by word of mouth, or were only partially 
 committed to WTiting, but when circumstances 
 made it desirable to codify them and put them in 
 writing the priests would \)c called ui)on to take 
 this advance step. Thus, while it is ({uite probable 
 that other representatives of Jehovah helped to 
 formulate laws, the legal literature embodied in 
 the Old Testament reached its final form under 
 priestly influence. 
 
 The historical literature funiislies an interpre- 
 tation of the movements of God in the events of 
 history. It owes its origin in part to prophetic, 
 in part to priestly, activity. The prophet was an 
 ambassador of Jehovah appointed to make known 
 the divine will concerning the past, the present, 
 and the future. Of the present he spoke as a 
 preacher; when his message concerned the future 
 it took the form of prediction; but the case might 
 arise that the people failed to understand the 
 significance of events in their own history, and
 
 20 THE CHKISTTAX VIKW OF 
 
 thus failed to approciato the lessons which the 
 events were int(ai(l(\l to teach. If these lessons 
 were not to be lost, some one must serve as an 
 interpreter, and who would be better qualified 
 to furnish the right interpretation than the 
 prophet? This demand made of him, in a sense, 
 an historian, not for the purpose of merely re- 
 cording events but of interpreting them at the 
 same time, and these prophetic interpretations are 
 embodied in the historical literature originating 
 with the j)r()i)hets. 
 
 But not all Old Testament history comes from 
 the prophets. As already indicated, the legal and 
 ceremonial literature is due to priestly activity. 
 Now, in connection with the recording of the 
 laws, customs, institutions, and ceremonial require- 
 ments, the origin of these laws and customs 
 became a matter of interest and importance. 
 This interest, and the demand for information 
 arising from it, led the priests also to become 
 historians. And to these priestly writers we 
 are indebted for not a small part of sacred 
 history. 
 
 The third truth taught by the writer of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews is that God spoke unto 
 the fathers in or by the prophets, which means, 
 that he used human agents to mediate his revela- 
 tions. The Old Testament may be more than a 
 human production; nevertheless, it will be im-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 21 
 
 possible to appreciate it adequately unless it is 
 borne in mind that it contains a human element. 
 In the first place may be noted the differences in 
 style between various writers. These are fre- 
 quently the outgrowth of differences in tempera- 
 ment and early training. Even the English reader 
 can notice such differences between Amos and 
 Hosea, or between Isaiah and Jeremiah. Evidently, 
 whatever divine cooperation the biblical writers 
 enjoyed, they retained enough of their human 
 faculties and powers to make use of their own 
 peculiar styk\s. 
 
 Again, the hand of man may be seen in the 
 mann(T of literary com[)osition. Most Bible stu- 
 dents are familiar with the opening wonls of the 
 Gospel of Luke: "Forasmuch as many have taken 
 in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those 
 matters which have been fulfilled among us, even 
 as they delivered them unto us, who from the 
 beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the 
 word, it seemed good to me also, having traced 
 the course of all things accurately from the first, 
 to write unto thee in order, most excellent 
 Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty 
 concerning the things wherein thou wast in- 
 structed." Evidently, the evangelist carefully 
 sifted the material at hand before he wrote the 
 Gospel, just as a modern writer would do. In the 
 Old Testament even clearer evidence is found
 
 22 THE CHKISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 that the authors of the several books were guided 
 in the process of composition by the same principles 
 as writers of extra-biblical productions. The most 
 suggestive illustrations of this fact are found in 
 the books of Chronicles, in which reference is 
 made agam and again to the sources from which 
 the compiler gathered his material. In 1 Chron. 
 29. 29, for example, mention is made of the 
 "words of Samuel the seer, . . . the words of Nathan 
 the prophet, and . . . the words of Gad the seer"; 
 2 Chron. 9. 29 refers to "words of Nathan the 
 prophet, . . . the prophecy of Ahijah, . . . the visions 
 of Iddo the seer." These are only a few of the 
 references scattered throughout Chronicles, but 
 they arc sufficient to show that in their composi- 
 tion methods employed by secular writers were 
 used. The same characteristic appears in the book 
 of Proverbs. According to its own testimony, it 
 contains several separate collections. After the 
 general title, "Proverbs of Solomon," in 1. 1, 
 the following additional headings are found: 10. 1, 
 "J^rovcrbs of Solomon"; 22. 17, "The words of 
 the wise"; 24. 23, "These also are the sayings 
 of the wise"; 2.5. 1, "These also are the proverbs 
 of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king 
 of Judah, copi(Hl out"; 30. 1, "The words of 
 Agur"; 31. 1, "The words of King Lemuel"; 31. 
 10-31 is an anonymous alphabetic acrostic. Sim- 
 ilar more or less clearly marked phenomena may
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 23 
 
 be noted in other Old Testament books, all of 
 them bearing witness to the presence of a human 
 element in these writings. 
 
 More significant are the historical inaccuracies 
 found here and there in the books. They may 
 not be serious; the substantial accuracy of the 
 writings may be established, but even the slight- 
 est inaccuracy constitutes a blemish which one 
 would not expect in a work coming directly from 
 an all-wise God. For example, 2 Kings 18. 10 
 states that Samaria was taken in the sixth year 
 of Hezekiah, king of Judah; verse 13 contains 
 the statement that in the fourteenth year of 
 Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came 
 against Jerusalem. Now, the date of the capture 
 of Samaria is definitely fixed by the Assyrian 
 inscriptions. The city fell either in the closing 
 days of B. C. 722, or the beginning of B. C. 721. 
 Assuming that it was in 722, the fourteenth year 
 of Hezekiah would be B. C. 714. But Sennacherib 
 did not become king of Assyria until B. C. 705, 
 while his attack upon Judah and Jerusalem was 
 not undertaken until B. C. 701, hence there would 
 seem to be an inaccuracy somewhere. Certainly, 
 since the primary purpose of the writings is not his- 
 torical, but religious, these inaccuracies do not affect 
 the real value of the book. Nevertheless, their 
 presence shows that the writings cannot be looked 
 upon as coming in all their parts directly from
 
 24 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 God. At some point man must have stepped in 
 and left marks of his hmitations. 
 
 I\Iore serious perhaps may appear the incom- 
 pleteness and imperfection of tlie religious and 
 ethical conceptions, especially in the older portions. 
 Read, for example, the twenty-fourth chapter of 
 Second Samuel. Jehovah is there represented as 
 causing David to number the people, and when 
 he carried out the command Jehovah was angry 
 and sent a pestilence which destroyed, not David, 
 but seventy thousand innocent men. Can any 
 Christian believe that the God of love revealed by 
 Jesus ever acted in such arbitrary manner? No! 
 The trouble lies with the author of the passage, 
 who, on account of his relatively low conception 
 of the character of Jehovah, gave an erroneous 
 interpretation of the events recorded. A later 
 writer, who had a truer conception of the God 
 of Israel, saw that a mistake had been made; 
 therefore he introduced Satan as the one who 
 caused the numbering (1 Chron. 21. 1). Or take 
 the twenty-second chapter of First Kings, espe- 
 cially verses 19 to 23. Four hundred prophets of 
 Jehovah urge Ahab to go up against Ramoth- 
 gilead. On the advice of the king of Judah, 
 Micaiah is called, who announces, after some 
 hesitation, that the expedition will end dis- 
 astrously. He then explains how it happened 
 that the other prophets told a falsehood: "There-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 25 
 
 fore hear thou the word of Jehovah : I saw Jehovah 
 sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven 
 standing by him on his right hand and on his 
 left. And Jehovah said, Who shall entice Ahab, 
 that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? 
 And one said on this manner; and another said 
 on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, 
 and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice 
 him. And Jehovah said unto him. Wherewith? 
 And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying 
 spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he 
 said. Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail 
 also; go forth, and do so. Noiv therefore, behold, 
 Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth 
 of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath 
 spoken evil concernhig thee." Can any Christian 
 believe that our God who is infinitely pure and 
 holy ever did persuade anyone to tell a lie? 
 God never changes; he has always been pure and 
 holy; but man was not able in the beginning to 
 comprehend him in his fullness. The human con- 
 ceptions of the divine were imperfect and incom- 
 plete, and these imperfect conceptions are embodied 
 in some of the Old Testament writings. True, as 
 Bowne suggests, "God might conceivably have 
 made man over all at once by fiat, but in that 
 case it would have been a magical rather than 
 a moral revelation. "(^) 
 
 Throughout the entire book these and other
 
 2G THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 indications of the presence of a human element 
 may be seen, which the reader cannot afford to 
 overlook if he would estimate rightly the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. But while they are there, 
 they must not blind the eyes of the student to 
 the fourth great truth expressed by the writer 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, namely, that God 
 spoke through these men; in other words, that 
 there is also a divine element in the Old Testa- 
 ment. In the words of S. I. Curtis: ''While it 
 seems to me that we find abundant evidences of 
 development in the Old Testament from very 
 simple concrete representations of God to those 
 which are profoundly spiritual, I am not able 
 to account for this development on naturalistic 
 principles. In it I see God at all times and 
 everywhere coworking with human instruments 
 until the fullness of time should come"(^). The 
 presence of this divine clement was recognized by 
 Jesus and by all the New Testament writers, and 
 surely it is a significant fact that in the first 
 outburst of Christian enthusiasm, and under the 
 living impression of the unique personality of 
 the Master, no doubt arose concerning the inspira- 
 tion and permanent value of the Old Testament. 
 With the Christian the testimony of Jesus and 
 his disciples carries great weight. But without 
 appealing to his authority every unbiased reader 
 may convince himself of the nature and character
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 27 
 
 of the Book; it is not necessary to depend upon 
 the testimony of men who lived centuries ago, 
 though they were inspired men. The Book is an 
 open book, ready for examination, and inviting 
 the closest scrutiny on the part of every reader. 
 
 Former generations found the principal argu- 
 ments in favor of the belief in a divine element 
 in the Old Testament in the pre.sence of miracles 
 in its records and in the fulfillment of prophecy. 
 The present generation cannot depend upon 
 these arguments exclusively. The whole question 
 of miracles in the Old Testament has assumed a 
 different aspect within recent years. In the first 
 place, it is seen that in some places where formerly 
 a miracle was thought to have been wrought 
 natural causes may have played a prominent 
 part, as, for example, in the crossing of the Red 
 Sea and the Jordan. In other cases language 
 which used to be interpreted literally is now 
 seen to be poetic and imaginative. In still other 
 cases the absolute historical accuracy of certain 
 narratives has come to be questioned. All this 
 has resulted in a weakening of the evidence relied 
 upon by former generations. Approaching the 
 subject of miracles from another side, a better 
 acquaintance with the uniformity of nature and 
 the laws of nature has led some to question even 
 the possibility of miracles, while the greater em- 
 phasis upon the immanence of God has resulted
 
 2S THE CHKISTIAX VIEW OF 
 
 in altered conceptions of the natural and super- 
 natural, if not in an almost complete obliteration 
 of any distinction between the two. Since miracles 
 are involved in so much uncertainty, they do 
 not at present constitute a very strong argu- 
 ment to prove the presence of a divine element 
 in the Old Testament to one who is at all skepti- 
 cally inclined; indeed, there are many sincere 
 Christians who find miracles useless as an aid 
 to faith. 
 
 In a similar manner, one cannot appeal with the 
 same assurance as formerly to the fulfillment of 
 prophecy. It is undoubtedly true that many 
 prophetic utterances were fulfilled; it is equally 
 true that some were not fulfilled. If, however, 
 the apologist depends upon the fulfillment of proph- 
 ecy as a proof, the nonfulfillment of even a single 
 one weakens his position. Moreover, it is recog- 
 nized at present that prophecy in the sense of 
 prediction occupies a relatively insignificant place 
 in the Old Testament. Besides, scientific methods 
 of study have shown that some passages inter- 
 preted formerly as predictions can no longer be 
 so interpreted, while in the case of others the 
 interpretation is more or less doubtful. Here, 
 again, the difficulties connected with the use of 
 the argument have become so perplexing that 
 many consider it wise not to use it at all. If 
 used with caution, prophecy, especially Messianic
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 29 
 
 prophecy, possesses ^rent evidential value; but 
 the argument from tlic lulfillnient of prophecy as 
 used formerly has lost nmcli of its worth as a 
 proof of inspiration. The arguments relied upon 
 at the present time are simpler than those of 
 the past, and are of such a nature that any fair- 
 minded student can test them. 
 
 In the first place, attention may be called to 
 the essential unity of the book. There are in the 
 Old World great and magnificent cathedrals, some 
 of which have been c(>ntiiries in building, yet in 
 all of them may be found unity and harmony. 
 How is this to be explained? Although generation 
 after generation of workmen have labored on the 
 enterprise, back of all the efforts was a single 
 plan, evolved in the mind of one man, which 
 mind controlled all the succeeding generations of 
 workmen. The result is unity and harmony. 
 The Bible has been likened to a magnificent 
 cathedral. The phenomenon to wliicli reference 
 has been made in connection with ancient cathe- 
 drals may be seen in the Bible as a whole, as also 
 in the Old Testament considered separately. The 
 latter contains thirty-nine books, by how many 
 authors no one knows, scattered over a period 
 of more than a thousand years, written, at least 
 some of them, independently of one another, in 
 places hundreds of miles apart. And yet there 
 is one thought running through them all — the
 
 30 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 gradual unfokling of God's plan of redemption 
 for the human race. There must be an explanation 
 of this unity. Is it not natural to find it in the 
 fact that one and the same divine spirit over- 
 shadowed the many men who made contributions 
 to the Book? 
 
 The proof of the presence of a divine element 
 in the Old Testament which is derived from the 
 essential imity of the book, is confirmed by the 
 response of the soul to its message, and the effect 
 which it produces in the lives of those who yield 
 themselves to its teachings. Jesus and his disciples 
 observed that its message rightly applied would 
 awaken a response in the human heart ; sometimes, 
 indeed, it produced a sense of indignation, because 
 it carried with it a sentence of condemnation; 
 at other times it led to loving obedience. And 
 they themselves experienced the effects of its 
 teaching upon life and character: it was with 
 truths proclaimed in the Old Testament that 
 Jesus overcame temptation, and the quotations 
 used in the darkest hours of his earthly life are 
 an indication that at all times he found the most 
 refreshing soul food in its pages. The same is 
 true of the early disciples of Jesus. Undoubtedly, 
 the statement in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17 is the expression 
 of a living experience; and ever since these words 
 were written millions of Christians have experienced 
 the upHfting influence of many portions of the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 31 
 
 Old Testament Scriptures. They may not enjoin 
 the finer graces of Christianity, but they insist 
 most strongly and persistently upon the funda- 
 mental virtues which go to make up a sturdy, 
 noble, righteous, uncompromising character. A 
 message which produces such divine results bears 
 witness to itself that it embodies truth which 
 in some sense proceeded from God. This is aptly 
 stated by Coleridge in these words: "Need I say 
 that I have met everywhere more or less copious 
 sources of truth and power and purifying im- 
 pulses, that I have found words for my inmost 
 thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances for my 
 hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame and 
 feebleness? In short, whatever finds me, bears 
 witness for itself that it has proceeded from a 
 Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit which 
 remaining in itself, yet regenerateth all other 
 powers, and iii all ages entermg into holy souls, 
 maketh them friends of God and prophets. "(^ 
 
 As long as the Old Testament is able to awaken 
 this response and [)roduce these effects men will 
 believe that it contains a divine element; and 
 it will accomplish these things whenever men 
 are willing to study it intelligently and devoutly. 
 What the Old Testament calls for is not a defense 
 but earnest and devout study. The words of 
 Richard Rothe concerning the Bible as a whole 
 are applicable also to the Old Testament Scriptures :
 
 32 THE CHT^TSTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 "Let the Bible go forth into Christendom as it 
 is in itself, as a book like other books, without 
 allowing any dogmatic theory to assign it to a 
 reserved position in the ranks of books, let it 
 accomi)lish of itself entirely through its own 
 character and through that which each man can 
 find in it for himself, and it will accomplish great 
 things. "(") The words of Professor Westphal are 
 also worthy to be remembered: "The only thing 
 for our more enlightened religion to bear in mintl 
 is that the proof of revelation is not necessarily 
 to be found in the formula which claims to herald 
 it, but, above all, in the specific value of the 
 thing revealed, in the divine character of the 
 inspiretl Word which forces our conscience to 
 recognize in it the expression of God's will 
 itself/'C) 
 
 The value and significance of the above argu- 
 ment cannot be overestimated. But during the 
 past century other proofs have become available 
 as a result of the careful, painstaking study of 
 the Bible by scholars in many lands and from 
 various points of view. These investigations have 
 shown the Old Testament to be a peculiarly unique 
 book when compared with other sacred literatures 
 of antiquity. This uniqueness consists principally 
 in the pure and lofty atmosphere which permeates 
 the whole from beginning to end. One maj'' 
 read its stories of prehistoric thnes, its records
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 33 
 
 of history, its law, its poetry, its proplicoy, and 
 every wlicro lie will find a religious tone and 
 spirit which, if present at ail, is much less marked 
 in the similar literatures of other nations. The 
 modern scientific student has approached the Old 
 Testament chiefly from four directions, and in 
 the pursuit of his work four distinct tests have 
 been applied to the Old Testament: the tests of 
 science, of criticism, of archaeology, and of com- 
 parative religion. These four tests and their 
 bearing upon the New Testament, or Christian, 
 view of the Old Testament are considered in the 
 succeeding pages. 
 
 Before closing this chapter one important ques- 
 tion remains to be considered. It may be for- 
 mulated in this wise: If there are limitations and 
 imperfections in the Old Testament, or anywhere 
 else in the Bible, how may they be distinguished 
 from the truth? In the case of historical or 
 scientific errors the method of procedure may 
 appear clear to those who hold the New Testament 
 view as to the purpose of the Old Testament 
 writers; but the situation seems more troublesome 
 in the case of religious and ethical imperfections, 
 because religion and ethics are the rightful sphere 
 of the biblical writings. If the Bible is not the 
 final authority, where can be found a criterion 
 by which the biblical, or Old Testament, state- 
 ments may be judged? Startling as the suggestion
 
 34 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 to judge scriptures may seem in theory, a moment's 
 thought will show that it is being done every 
 day by practically every Christian who seeks 
 spiritual nourishment in the Sacred Book. Who 
 has not passed through experiences such as are 
 suggested in these words of Marcus Dods? — "Who 
 is at the reader's elbow as he peruses Exodus 
 and Leviticus to tell him what is of permanent 
 authority and what is for the Mosaic economy 
 only? Who whispers as we read Genesis and 
 Kings, 'This is exemplary; this is not'? Who 
 sifts for us the speeches of Job, and enables us 
 to treasure up as divine truth what he utters 
 in one verse, while we reject the next as Satanic 
 ravings? Who gives the preacher authority and 
 accuracy of aim to pounce on a sound text in 
 Ecclesiastes, while wisdom and folly toss and roll 
 over one another in confusingly rapid and inex- 
 tricable contortions? What enables the humblest 
 Christian to come safely through the cursing 
 Psalms and go straight to forgive his enemy? 
 What tells us that we may eat things strangled, 
 though the whole college of apostles deliberately 
 and expressly prohibited such eating? Who as- 
 sures us that we need not anoint the sick with 
 oil, although in the New Testament we are 
 explicitly conmianded to do so? In a word, how 
 is it that the simplest reader can be trusted 
 with the Bible and can be left to find his own
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 35 
 
 spiritual nourishment in it, rojecting almost as 
 much as he receives?" (^) Those questions call 
 attention to a common Christian practice. But, 
 if the practice can be justified as Christian, the 
 principle underlying the practice may be Christian 
 also; and so it is, for it is recognized as legitimate 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 A single sentence from a New Testament book 
 suggests the answer to the above questions: "He 
 that is spiritual judgeth all things. "(^) The 
 Scriptures are included among the "all things." 
 But notice, Paul does not say that anyone may 
 set himself up as judge, but "he that is spiritual"; 
 that is, the man who is controlled by the spirit 
 of the Christ. If Jesus has given to the world 
 the highest revelation of God and truth, then the 
 expressions of all other revelations must be meas- 
 ured by his revelation, either as an external stand- 
 ard, or as an inner criterion by him who, in his own 
 experience, has appropriated the character, spirit, 
 and life of Jesus. He who has thus appropriated 
 the Christ in his fullness will be able to judge 
 all things. But until he has reached that standard 
 man's judgment will remain imperfect and more 
 or less unreliable, and though for his own guidance 
 he is still dependent upon it, he must guard 
 against the error of setting up his own imperfect 
 Christian consciousness as the ultimate criterion 
 for all.
 
 36 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Up to the prcsont time no individual has reached 
 the stage of experience where he maybe appealed 
 to as final authority for all. Perhaps the sum 
 total of the general Christian consciousness would 
 prove a more reliable guide, or the Church in so 
 far as it embodies this consciousness. But it also 
 still falls short of its final glory. It is in the 
 process of development toward perfection, but it 
 has not yet reached that stage, and will not 
 reach it until the consciousness of every individual 
 contributing to it reflects the consciousness of 
 Jesus himself. Then, and then onl}^ can it be 
 appealed to as an ultimate criterion in matters 
 religious or Christian, including the specific ques- 
 tion under consideration: What in the Old Testa- 
 ment is from God, and so, permanent, and what 
 is due to the human limitations of the authors, 
 and so, temporary and local? 
 
 It seems, therefore, necessary to appeal at 
 the present time to what may be called, in a 
 sense, an external standard: the spirit, the teach- 
 ing, and the life of Jesus as it may be determined 
 objectively from the gospel records. The supreme 
 position occupied by Jesus the Christ in Christian 
 thinking is well described by W. N. Clarke: "He 
 [Jesus Christ] has shown God as he is in his char- 
 acter and relations with men. He has represented 
 life in its true meaning, and opened to us the real 
 way to genuine welfare and success in existence.
 
 THE OJ^l) TESTAMENT 3V 
 
 What he has made known commends and proves 
 itself as true by the manner in which it fits into 
 the human scheme, meets human needs, and 
 renders thought rational and Ufe successful. God 
 eternally is such a being as Jesus represents him 
 to be — this is the heart of Christianity, to be 
 apprehended, not first in thought but first in 
 life and love, and this is forever true. And it is 
 a revelation never to be superseded, but forever 
 to be better and better known.'X") By this 
 standard, called by Clarke the Christian element 
 in the Bible, the Old Testament teaching must be 
 measured; and by the application of this standard 
 alone is it possible to separate the human from 
 the divine and to estimate rightly the permanent 
 value of Old or New Testament teaching. What- 
 ever in the Scriptures endures this test may be 
 received as of permanent religious value, because 
 it is divine in the deepest sense. 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER I 
 
 (*) Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Tes- 
 tament, p. 19. 
 C) Studies in Christianity, p. 73. 
 (') Primitive Semitic ReUgions To-day, p. 14. 
 ('') Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, Letter L 
 (') Quoted in the Old Testament Student, Vol. VIII, p. 84. 
 (*) The Law and the Prophets, p. 16. 
 (') The Bible, Its Origin and Nature, pp. 160, 161. 
 («) 1 Cor. 2. 15. 
 {") The l^se of the Scriptures in Theology, pp. 51, 52.
 
 38 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 The Old Testament and Modern Science 
 
 For many centuries during the Christian era 
 science was ahnost completely dominated by 
 theology. Whenever, therefore, a scientific in- 
 vestigator proposed views not in accord with the 
 theological notions of the age he was considered 
 a heretic and condemned as such. During these 
 same centuries theology was dominated by a 
 ^iew of the Bible which valued the latter as an 
 infallible authority in every realm of human 
 thought. The view of the Bible held then was 
 expressed as late as 1861 in these words: "The 
 Bible is none other than the voice of Him that 
 sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every 
 chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, 
 every syllable of it (where arc we to stop?), every 
 letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most 
 High. The Bible is none other than the word of 
 God; not some part of it more, some part of it 
 less, but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth 
 upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme. "(') 
 A book which came thus directly from the mind 
 of God must be inerrant and infallible; hence 
 closely associated with this mechanical view of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 39 
 
 the divine origin of the Bible was the belief in 
 its absolute inerrancy and infallibility. This is 
 clearly recogniz(>d in the words of two eminent 
 American theologians: "The historical faith of the 
 Church has always been that the affirmations of 
 the scriptures of all kinds, whether of spiritual 
 doctrine or dutj^, or of physical or historical fact, 
 or of psychological or philosophical principle, 
 are without any error, when the ipsissima verba 
 of the autographs are ascertained and interpreted 
 in their natural and intended sense. "(^) 
 
 With such an estimate of the Bible it is only 
 natural that theology should bitterly resent any 
 and all scientific conclusions which seemed to be 
 contrary to the statements of the Bible. How- 
 ever, a study of the history of Bible interpretation 
 creates a serious perplexity. The principles upon 
 which the interpretations rested were not the 
 same in all ages. As a result, the "natural and 
 intended sense" of biblical statements was vari- 
 ously apprehended. What was considered the 
 clear teaching of Scripture in one age might be 
 condemned as unscriptural in another. Moreover, 
 some of the methods of interpretation are not 
 calculated to inspire confidence in the results. 
 \\Tien, for example, the poetic passage, 
 
 Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, 
 
 And thou, moon, in the valley of Aijalon. 
 
 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, (')
 
 40 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 is considered sufficient to discredit the scientific 
 claun that the earth moves around the sun, rather 
 than the sun around the earth, one's confidence 
 in the truth of the theological view is somewhat 
 shaken. It may be insisted, then, that much of 
 the so-called conflict between science and the 
 Bible was in reality a conflict between science 
 and a misinterpreted Bible. 
 
 This, even theology seems to have recognized, 
 for again and again it changed its interpretation 
 of the Bible so as to bring it into accord with 
 the persistent claims of science. "The history of 
 most modern sciences," says Farrar, "has been 
 as follows: their discoverers have been proscribed, 
 anathematized, and, in every possible instance, 
 silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation 
 has passed the champions of a spurious orthodoxy 
 have had to confess that their interpretations 
 were erroneous; and — for the most part without 
 an apology and without a blush — have com- 
 placently invented some ncnv line of exposition 
 by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared 
 into semblable accordance with the now acknowl- 
 edged fact."(^) 
 
 The so-called historical method of Bible study, 
 which has gradually won its way, at least in 
 Protestant Christianity, has established Bible 
 interpretation upon a firmer foundation, so that 
 at present much less uncertainty exists as to the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 41 
 
 meaning of the Bible than at any preceding age. 
 In the same way scientific investigation has made 
 remarkable strides during the nineteenth century; 
 Twentieth century science is far different from 
 that of the early years of the preceding century. 
 And as scientists have had to surrender many of 
 their positions in the past it is very probable that, 
 as the result of further investigation, some views 
 held at present will be superseded by others. Nev- 
 ertheless, though science cannot as yet dispense 
 with working hypotheses which may or may not 
 prove true, and though modifications in cer- 
 tain widely accepted views may be expected, 
 there are many conclusions which may be con- 
 sidered firmly established. Tliis being the case, 
 if at the present time the conflict between science 
 and the Bible is discussed, it is a conflict between 
 scientific conclusions reached after prolonged, care- 
 ful study and investigation and the teaching of 
 the Bible as determined by the scientific use of 
 all legitimate means of interpretation. 
 
 Does such conflict exist? Many geologists, as- 
 tronomers, biologists, and other scientists have 
 claimed for some time that they have reached 
 conclusions not in accord with certain statements 
 of the Bible. Take as an illustration the biblical 
 and scientific statements concerning the age of 
 the earth, or creation in general. (') The general 
 conclusion reached by an overwhelming majority
 
 42 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of the most competent students of the Bible has 
 been that according to the information furnished 
 by the Scriptures, the date of creation was, in 
 roimd numbers, four thousand years before the 
 oi)ening of the Christian era.(^) At that time, 
 in the words of the Westminster Confession, (^) 
 "It pleased God ... to create or make of nothing 
 the world and all things therein whether visible 
 or invisible in the space of six days and all very 
 good." This was accepted as the plain teaching 
 of the first chapter of Genesis even after scientific 
 methods had been introduced in the study of 
 the Bible. Then came geology, pushing back the 
 "beginnings," adding millions of years to the age 
 of the globe, and insisting that there is abundant 
 evidence to prove the existence of life upon earth 
 many millenniums before B. C. 4,000. Other 
 scif-neos reached conclusions pointing in the same 
 din^ction, until it became perfectly evident that 
 Bible students must reckon with what seemed a 
 real conflict between the conclusions of science and 
 the teaching of the Bible. 
 
 No wonder Bible lovers were troubled when 
 scientists in ever-increasing numbers advanced 
 claims that appeared to involve a charge of 
 scientific inaccuracy against the Sacred Scriptures. 
 Many were convinced that this could not be, 
 for they feared that if the Bible contained in- 
 accuracies of any sort, its value would be com-
 
 Till-: OLD TESTAMENT 43 
 
 pictcly destroyed, and with the Bible Christianity 
 must fall into ruins. In Brother Anthony, in- 
 tended to picture the perplexed soul of a monk 
 in the days of Galileo, Mark Guy Pcarse gives a 
 vivid portrayal of the doubts and perplexities of 
 many devout Bible students in the nineteenth 
 century : 
 
 But on my fevered heart there falls no balm; 
 
 The garden of my soul, where happy birds 
 
 Sang in the fullness of their joy, and bloomed 
 
 The flowers bright, finds only winter now; 
 
 And bleak winds moan about the leafless trees, 
 
 And chill rains beat to earth the rotting stalks. 
 
 Hope, Faith, and God, alike are gone, all gone — 
 
 If it be so, as this Galileo saith. 
 
 "The earth is round and moves about the sun, 
 
 The sun," he saith, "is still, the axle fixed 
 
 Of nature's wheel, renter of all the worlds." 
 
 Galileo is an honest soul, God knows — 
 
 No end has he to serve but only truth, 
 
 By that which he declares, daring to risk 
 
 Position, hberty, and even life itself. He knows. 
 
 And yet the ages have believed it not. 
 
 Have they not meditated, watched, and prayed — 
 
 Great souls with vision purged and purified? 
 
 Had God no messenger until arose 
 
 Galileo! Long j^ears the Church has prayed, 
 
 Seeking His grace who guided into truth, 
 
 And weary eyes have watched the sun and stars, 
 
 And heard the many voices that proclaim 
 
 God's hidden ways — did they believe a lie? 
 
 The Church's holy fathers, were they wrong? 
 
 Yet speaks GaUleo as one who knows. 
 
 Shrinks all my soul from breathing any word 
 That dares to question God's most holy Book,
 
 44 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 As men beneath an avalanche pass dumb 
 
 For fear a sound should bring destruction down. 
 
 If but a jot or tittle of the Word 
 
 Do pass away, then is aU lost. And yet 
 
 If what Galileo maintains be true! — 
 
 "The sun itself worts not." The Scripture tells 
 
 At Joshua's command the sun stood still. 
 
 Doth scripture lie? The blessed Lord himself, 
 
 Spake he not of the sun that rose and set! 
 
 So cracks and cleaves the ground beneath my feet. 
 
 The sun that fills and floods the world with light 
 My darkness and confusion hath become! 
 O God, as here about the old gray walls 
 The ivy clings and twines its arms, and finds 
 A strength by which it rises from the earth 
 And mounts toward heaven, then gladly flings 
 Its grateful crown of greenery round the height, 
 So by thy Word my all uncertain soul 
 Ilath mounted toward thy heaven, and brought 
 Its love, its all, wherewith to crown my Lord. 
 Alas, the wall is fallen. Beneath it crushed 
 The clinging ivy lies; its stronghold once 
 Is now the prison house, the cruel grave. (^) 
 
 Since the scientific position seemed to many 
 devout believers to undermine the Christian faith, 
 it is not altogether strange that they should set 
 themselves against these claims with all their 
 might, though it may be difficult to justify the 
 bitterness displayed by many Christian ministers 
 in the denunciation of even devout Christian 
 scientists, as "infidels," "impugners of the sacred 
 records," "assailants of the Word of God," etc. 
 It is hardly credible that during the enlightened
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 45 
 
 nineteenth century geology should be denounced 
 as "not a subject of lawful inquiry," "a dark 
 art," "dangerous and disreputable," "a forbidden 
 province," "infernal artillery," "an awful evasion 
 of the testimony of revelation." 
 
 But the progress of science could not be blocked 
 by denunciation, and gradually the claims of 
 geology, astronomy, and other sciences respecting 
 the great age of the earth came to be accepted 
 as well established. Is, then, the scientific teach- 
 ing of the Bible false? By no means, said many 
 defenders of the faith; on the contrary, there is 
 perfect agreement between science and the Bible, 
 provided the latter is rightly interpreted. The 
 first problem was to extend what was commonly 
 taken to be the biblical teaching respecting the 
 age of the earth so as to meet the demands of 
 geology. This' was readily done by interpreting 
 "day" figuratively as meaning an indefinite period. 
 It could easily be shown that in some passages 
 "day" did not mean a day of twenty-four hours. 
 Hence, why not interpret the word metaphorically 
 in Gen. 1? It is safe to say that, had it not 
 been for a desire to harmonize the biblical account 
 with the conclusions of science, no Bible student 
 would ever have thought of this interpretation in 
 connection with the acts of creation, for a natural 
 interpretation of the writer's language makes it 
 evident that when the author of Gen. 1 speaks
 
 46 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of the successive events of creation he is thinking 
 of days of twenty-four hours, each consisting of 
 clay and night. C) Marcus Dods is right when he 
 says, "If the word 'day' in these chapters does 
 not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the 
 interpretation of scripture is hopeless." C°) No 
 permanent good can come from doing violence to 
 plam statements of the Bible by the use of methods 
 of interpretation that would be considered ille- 
 gitimate in the study of other literary productions. 
 In all the harmonizing efforts this caution has 
 been overlooked. The believer in revelation, think- 
 ing that the agreement between science and the 
 Bible must be minute, has yielded to the tempta- 
 tion to twist the biblical record into a new mean- 
 ing with every fresh discovery of science. Many 
 scientists were repelled by this arbitrary method, 
 and when they saw that agreement could not be 
 liad by legitimate methods, and knew of no other 
 way out of the difficulty, they too frequently 
 assumed a hostile attitude toward revelation. A 
 method leading to such disastrous results cannot 
 be considered altogether satisfactory. 
 
 Granting, however, for the sake of argument, 
 the possibility of interpreting "day" metaphor- 
 ically, the troubles are by no means (>nded, for 
 it Ls impossible to discover clearly defined periods 
 in the geological records such as are presupposed 
 in tlie biblical record. But there is a more serious
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 47 
 
 difficulty. The order in which the different living 
 beings and the heavenly bodies are said in Genesis 
 to have been created does not seem to be the 
 same as that suggested by geology and astronomy. 
 For example, according to Genesis, fishes and 
 birds appeared together on the fifth day, pre- 
 ceding all land animals, which are said to have 
 been created on the sixth day. According to 
 geology, fish and numerous species of land animals, 
 especially reptiles living on land, preceded birds.(") 
 Moreover, according to Genesis, the sun, moon, 
 and stars were created after the earth, a view 
 which is altogether inconsistent with the modern 
 scientific view of the imi verse, and of the part 
 the smi plays in plant and animal life upon earth. 
 True, this last difficulty is avoided by some by 
 giving to certain Hebrew words a meaning which 
 they do not ordinarily have. For example, it is 
 said, "Let there be" (verse 14) means ''Let there 
 appear"; "God made" (verse 16) means "God 
 made to appear," or "God appointed," to a specific 
 office. With this interpretation, it is stated, 
 Genesis says nothing about the formation or 
 creation of the luminaries. They may have existed 
 for a long time, only on the fourth day they were 
 made to appear — the vapor aromid the earth 
 having previously hidden them — and were ap- 
 pointed to the offices mentioned in verses 14 
 to 18. No one m\\ claim that this is a natural
 
 48 THE CTIinSTIAX A'TEW OF 
 
 interpretation of the biblical language. If the 
 writer meant "Let there appear," he could have 
 found a suitable word in Hebrew, as also to express 
 the idea ''appoint." The language of Driver is 
 not too strong: "Vcirses fourteen to eighteen cannot 
 Ix^ legitimately interpreted except as implying that 
 in the conception of the WTiter luminaries had not 
 previously existed, and that they were made and 
 set hi their places in the heavens after the separa- 
 tion of sea and land and the appearance of vegeta- 
 tion upon the earth. "(^^) 
 
 Various attempts have been made to escape the 
 difficulty caused by the conclusions of geology as 
 to the ortlcr in which different forms of life have 
 appeared upon earth. These conclusions are based 
 chiefly upon the presence of fossil remains im- 
 bedded in the different strata of the earth's 
 surface. Passing by the earlier explanations — for 
 example, that these fossil remains were placed 
 there by a direct act of God on one of the creative 
 days for sonic mysterious purpose, perhaps for the 
 trial of human faith, or that they were due to 
 the ravages of the Deluge — reference may be made 
 to two or three of the more recent "scientific" 
 attempts to harmonize the facts of science with 
 the statements of Genesis. There is, first of all, 
 the restitution theory advocated by J. H. Kurtz 
 and Thomas Chalmers. (^^) Admitting that the 
 fossil remains are important for the determination
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 49 
 
 of the age of the earth and the order in which 
 different forms of Ufe appeared upon the globe, 
 Kurtz writes: "The animal and vegetable world 
 which lies buried in the stratified formations was 
 not that which, according to the Bible, was 
 created' respectively on the third, fifth, and 
 sixth days. Its origin must belong to an earlier 
 period. "(") ^^^ other words, his view is that "the 
 main description in Genesis does not relate to 
 the geological periods at all; that room Is left for 
 these periods between verse one and verse two; 
 that the life which then flourished upon the 
 earth was brought to an end by a catastrophe, 
 the results of which are alluded to in verse two; 
 and that what follows (verses 3ff.) is the descrip- 
 tion of a second creation immediately preceding 
 the appearance of man." That this view is due 
 to a desire to harmonize the biblical account 
 with science is clearly implied in the words of 
 Kurtz intended to meet the charge of Delitzsch 
 that his view is "pure delusion." "It is," says 
 Kurtz, "merely a delusion to attempt identifying 
 the creation of the primeval fossil flora and fauna 
 with those of the third, fifth, and sixth days, 
 and at the same time to endeavor harmonizing 
 geology and the Bible. ^^ Not to speak of the 
 astronomical difficulty referred to above, which 
 remains, science has nothing whatever to offer 
 in support of this theory, while, on the other
 
 50 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 hand, the tenor of the Genesis narrative implies 
 such close connection between verse one and verse 
 two that there is no room for the alleged catastro- 
 phe. It is not strange, therefore, that modern 
 apologists have discarded the restitution hypothesis. 
 
 The vision theory has been presented most 
 forcefully by Hugh Miller. C'^') According to this 
 view "the narrative was not meant to describe 
 the actual succession of events, but was the 
 description of a series of visions presented prophet- 
 ically to the narrator's mental eye, and repre- 
 senting, not the first appearance of each species 
 of life upon the globe, but its maximum develop- 
 ment. The 'drama of creation,' it is said, is not 
 described as it was enacted historically, but 
 optically, as it would present itself to a spectator 
 in a series of pictures or tableaux embodying the 
 most characteristic and conspicuous feature of each 
 period, and, iis it were, summarizing in miniature 
 its results." 
 
 Thougli this view was presented with much 
 eloquence and skill, it has been unable to main- 
 tain its position, simply because it is based upon 
 an unnatural interpretation of the biblical record. 
 No one approaching Genesis without a theory to 
 defend would think for a moment that he is 
 reading the description of a vision. The only 
 natural interpretation is that the author means 
 to record what he considers actual fact. Moreover,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 51 
 
 where in Scripture could there be found an analogy 
 to this mode of procedure? The revelation of an 
 unknown past to a historian or prophet seems not 
 in accord with the ordinary method of God's 
 revelations to men. But, admitting the possi- 
 bility of this method of divine commimication, 
 why should the picture thus presented to the 
 mind of the author differ so widely from the facts 
 uncovered by geologists? 
 
 Similar attempts to harmonize Genesis with 
 geology have been made by other geologists, 
 among them Professor Alexander Wuichell,(") Sir 
 J. W. Dawson,C') and Professor J. D. Dana.(*') 
 The results are perfectly satisfactory to these 
 writers, but they fail to see that in order to accom- 
 plish their purpose they must have recourse to 
 unnatural interpretations of the Genesis account, 
 which in itself is sufficient evidence to show the 
 hopelessness of the task. A similar judgment 
 must be passed on the more recent attempt by 
 F. H. CapronC") to bring the biblical account 
 into harmony with the modern theory of evolution. 
 Capron is fully convinced that "the most rudi- 
 mentary knowledge of geology is sufficient to 
 satisfy any candid critic that the Genesis narrative 
 as interpreted by any one of them(^'^) cannot be 
 brought into harmony with the admitted facts of 
 science." He, therefore, attempts a new harmony 
 by trying to show that the first chapter of Genesis
 
 52 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 gives only the order in which the creative words 
 were uttered, not the order in which the resulting 
 effects were produced. Unfortunately, in accom- 
 plishing this purpose, he, like his predecessors, 
 reveals an almost complete disregard for the ob- 
 vious meaning of the Genesis narrative. 
 
 After a close study of the Genesis narrative 
 and the numerous attempts of harmonizing it 
 with science, the present writer has become 
 thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to 
 establish a complete, detailed harmony between 
 the Genesis account of creation and the established 
 facts of science without doing violence to the 
 Bible or to science or to both. The only harmony 
 possible is what has been called an "ideal har- 
 mony," that is, a harmony not extending to 
 details, but limited to salient features. But this 
 gives away the very position for which the "har- 
 monists" have contended. As Driver says, "If 
 the relative priority of plants and animals, or the 
 period at which the smi and moon were formed, 
 are amongst the details on which harmony cannot 
 be established, what other statement (in the 
 account of creation) can claim acceptance on the 
 ground that it forms part of the narrative of 
 Genesis?"(^') 
 
 Admitting now the presence of discrepancies 
 between science and the Old Testament, what be- 
 comes of the Old Testament ?(") Must it be dis-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 53 
 
 carded as no longer "profitable for teaching, for 
 reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in 
 righteousness"? Some there are who seem to 
 fear such fate for the book they dearly love. 
 On the other hand, there are multitudes who 
 calmly admit the claims of science, and at the 
 same time continue to read and study the pages 
 of the Old Testament, assured that it can still 
 furnish nourishment to their spiritual natures. 
 This attitude of confidence has been made possible, 
 on the one hand, by a broiider and truer concep- 
 tion of divine revelation, and, on the other, by 
 a more adequate interpretation of the purpose of 
 the Bible and of the biblical writers. 
 
 Believers in God have come to realize as never 
 before that God has spoken and still speaks in 
 a variety of ways. Manifestations of God may 
 be seen on every hand : 
 
 The heavens declare the glory of God; 
 And the firmament showeth his handiwork. 
 Day unto day uttercth speech, 
 And night unto night showeth knowledge. (^) 
 
 What is the universe but a manifestation of God? 
 The whole realm of nature is in a real sense a 
 record of divine revelations, which science seeks 
 to interpret. "Now," says A. H. McNeile,(2'») 
 "If God created all things and carries the universe 
 along by the utterance of his power, it is clear 
 that every fresh item of knowledge gained by
 
 54 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 scientific investigation is a fresh glimpse into the 
 will of God. Strictly speaking, there is no such 
 thing as secular knowledge. A man only makes 
 his studies secular for himself as he divorces 
 them from the thought of God, so that all the 
 scientific experiments in the world form part of 
 the study of one aspect of God's Word." 
 
 On the other hand the purpose of scripture 
 has come to be more adequately apprehended. 
 The New Testament makes it perfectly clear that 
 the aim of the Old Testament Scriptures is to 
 bring man into harmony with God, to make him 
 morally and spiritually perfect, and to point to 
 the consummation of the redemptive purpose of 
 God in and through the Christ. (^'') There is no 
 warrant anywhere for the be^Jief that the Old 
 Testament writers meant to teach science of any 
 kind. This is admitted even by some who insist 
 upon the accuracy of the scientific teaching of 
 the Bible. "It is true that the Scriptures were 
 not designed to teach philosophy, science, or 
 ethnology, or human history as such, and therefore 
 they are not to be studied primarily as sources 
 of information on these subjects. "(^'') Evidently, 
 then, wherever the Old Testament touches upon 
 questions of science it treats them only in so 
 far as they serve a higher ethical or spiritual 
 purpose. Is it necessary to have absolute scien- 
 tific accuracy in every detail in order to do this
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 55 
 
 effectively? A moment's thought will show that 
 it is not. The writer heard not long ago a power- 
 ful appeal on behalf of the boys in a certain 
 community, in which the speaker referred to the 
 "Gracchi, the most renowned citizens of Athens." 
 The historical inaccuracy in no wise affected the 
 moral force of the appeal. No one would be 
 foolish enough to assume that the spiritual and 
 ethical value of sermons preached by the early 
 Church fathers is invalidated by the fanciful 
 science mixed with their gospel message. Who 
 has not heard sermons that created a profound 
 spiritual impression, though their science and his- 
 tory were not altogether faultless? It would seem, 
 then, that in estimating extra-biblical utterances 
 the principle is recognized that "ignorance of 
 some departments of truth does not disqualify a 
 man for knowing and imparting truth about God; 
 that in order to be a medium of revelation a man 
 does not need to be in advance of his age in secular 
 learning; that intimate communion with God, a 
 spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect 
 understanding of and zeal for God's purpose are 
 qualities quite independent of a knowledge of the 
 discoveries of science. "C^) 
 
 Is it right to raise a different standard for the 
 Scriptures? "Certainly," say many, "because 
 the Bible is inspired; it is the Word of God, and 
 God cannot inspire an untruth of any kind,"
 
 56 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Now, it may be readily admitted that God cannot 
 inspire an untruth; but have we any right to 
 argue as if we knew exactly how God ought to 
 convey a revelation to man? Without entering 
 upon a discussion of the entire subject of in- 
 spiration, the question may be raised whether or 
 not inspiration covers purely scientific information. 
 The claim has been put forth by some who believe 
 that the Bible and science are in perfect agree- 
 ment that this agreement "proves that the scien- 
 tific element of scripture as well as the doctrinal 
 was within the scope of inspiration. "(^^) Con- 
 sistency might seem to require the admission that 
 disagreement would prove that the scientific 
 element does not fall within the scope of inspira- 
 tion. At any rate, it is of enormous importance 
 to remember, what should be a perfectly obvious 
 principle, that the facts presented in the Bible 
 must determine the a,nswer to the inquiry. In 
 other words, "We can learn what the Bible is 
 only from what the Bible itself says."(^'') 
 
 One thing is quite certain, namely, that the 
 Bible makes not the slightest claim of being a 
 scientific treatise complete and up-to-date. (^°) It 
 is equally true that it does not deny being such 
 a treatise, hence the inquirer is thrown back upon 
 a study of the facts presented in the Bible; and 
 upon the basis of these he must determine whether 
 or not there is reason for believing that scientific
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 57 
 
 knowledge comes within the scope of inspiration. 
 Now, the abstract possibility of God communi- 
 cating to man a knowledge of exact scientific 
 facts in a prescientific age need not be denied. 
 It is, however, a question whether God could 
 have communicated such facts to man three 
 thousand years ago without robbing him of his 
 personality and changing him into a mechanism. 
 So far as the ways of God are known from expe- 
 rience, observation, history, and other sources, he 
 has always treated with respect and consideration 
 the powers and faculties of his chief creature. 
 "Had inspired men," says Dods,(^') "introduced 
 into their writings information which anticipated 
 the discoveries of science, their state of mind 
 would be inconceivable, and revelation would be 
 a source of confusion. God's methods are har- 
 monious with one another, and as he has given 
 men natural faculties to acquire scientific knowl- 
 edge and historical information, he did not stultify 
 this gift by imparting such knowledge in a mirac- 
 ulous and unintelligible manner." The same 
 truth is expressed by H. E. Ryle in these words: 
 "We do not expect instruction upon matters of 
 physical inquiry from revelation in the written 
 Word. God's other gifts to men, of learning, 
 perseverance, calculation, and the like, have been 
 and are a true source of revelation. But scripture 
 supplies no short cut for the intellect. Where
 
 -'iS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 man's intellectual powers may hope to attain to 
 the truth, be it in the region of historical, scientific, 
 and critical study, we have no warrant to expect 
 an anticipation of results through the interposition 
 of supernatural instruction in the letter of scrip- 
 ture. . . . Scripture is divinely inspired, not to 
 release men from the toil of mental inquiry, but 
 to lead and instruct their souls in things of eternal 
 salvation. "(^) This is not an arbitrary limitation 
 of the scope of inspiration ; it is a conclusion based* 
 upon a careful consideration of the facts of science 
 and of the Bible, which seem to furnish sufficient 
 evidence that the biblical writers were not in any 
 marked degree in advance of their age in the 
 knowledge of physical facts or laws. In other 
 words, the Bible is primarily a book of religion, 
 hence religion, and not science, is to be looked for 
 in its pages. Altogether too much time has been 
 spent in an effort to find in it scientific truth in 
 a scientific form. Such attempts clearly disregard 
 the purpose of the biblical writers as interpreted 
 in the New T(;stament. 
 
 And could a Divine Providence have chosen a 
 different method? Even now discoveries follow 
 one another so fast in the realm of science that 
 no book remains a standard work for more than 
 a few years. It seems obvious, therefore, that 
 a book written thousands of years ago could not 
 remain a standard scientific work for all times.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 59 
 
 But assuming for the sake of argument that God 
 had communicated the knowledge of scientific 
 facts to these writers — evidence for which is 
 entirely lacking — what would have been the result? 
 Later occurrences suggest what might have hap- 
 pened. The great mass of people would have 
 looked upon teachers of strange science as heretics 
 and madmen, and would have rejected not only 
 their scientific teaching but their religious teach- 
 mg as well. What a loss that would have been 
 to mankind! No serious loss would come to men 
 if they were left a while longer in ignorance con- 
 cerning scientific matters, but very serious loss 
 would come to them by continuing in their lower 
 religious and ethical beliefs and practices. The only 
 way to make the higher religious truth understood 
 was to present it in a form easily apprehended 
 by the people. To do this is the chief purpose 
 of the primitive, prescientific science of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. 
 
 The peculiar element in scripture is the spirit 
 and religious atmosphere which permeate all its 
 parts and give to the Bible a unique place among 
 the literatures of the world. This is the divine 
 element due to inspiration. It is this element 
 which establishes a gulf between the Hebrew 
 account of creation and the cosmologies of other 
 nations. Though the biblical writers had very 
 much the same idea about the form and general
 
 60 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 arrangement of the visible world as we find among 
 other peoples — ideas that have satisfied at all 
 times the majority of men even among nations 
 with a pretense to culture, namely, the cos- 
 mology of appearances — these ideas were all 
 connected with their sublime faith in Jehovah: 
 to his omnipotence they referred the existence of 
 the world, and they made all its changes depend 
 entirely on his will. In their monotheistic religion 
 they secured the foundation of a clear and simple 
 cosmology different from the grotesque cos- 
 mologies of other nations and yet not beyond 
 the demands of men of a primitive type and of 
 simple mind, who were full of a lively imagination, 
 but not much accustomed to analyze phenomena 
 or their causes. 
 
 In this connection it may prove helpful to 
 remember what, according to the biblical view- 
 point and in the light of history, was the con- 
 tribution of Israel to the development of the 
 human race. "Israel," says G. W. Jordan, (^^) "is 
 comparatively young, politically it is provincial, 
 socially it is not brilliant, in the realm of science 
 it is narrow and dependent; yet when we lay 
 stress on these limitations we only cause the 
 peculiar glory of this nation's life to stand out 
 more clearly; it has its own individuality; its 
 real leaders are men of genius, their ambition is 
 to speak in the name of the eternal king; they
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 61 
 
 hear the divine message and claim for it the 
 supreme significance." This is the judgment of 
 a Bible student. The same truth is expressed in 
 the words of one who approaches the Bible from 
 the viewpoint of the scientist, namely, the eminent 
 Italian astronomer, Schiaparelli(^^) : "Their [the 
 Hebrews] natural gifts, as well as the course of 
 events, carried them to a different mission [from 
 that of Greece and Rome] of no smaller importance 
 — that of purifying the religious sentiment and 
 of preparing the way for monotheism. Of this 
 way they mark the first clear traces. In the 
 laborious accomplishment of this great task 
 Israel lived, suffered, and completely exhausted 
 itself. Israel's history, legislation, and literature 
 were essentially coordinated toward this end; 
 science and art were for Israel of secondary im- 
 portance. No wonder, therefore, that the steps 
 of the Jews' advance in the field of scientific 
 conceptions and speculations were small and 
 feeble; no wonder that in such respects they 
 were easily vanquished by their neighbors on the 
 Nile and the Euphrates." 
 
 In conclusion: Permanent harmony between 
 science and the Bible will be secured when each 
 is assigned to its legitimate sphere. Science has 
 a right to ask that, if men are seeking purely 
 scientific information, they should turn to recent 
 text-books in geology, astronomy, or the other
 
 G2 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 sciences. But in the sphere to which Jesus and 
 the New Testament writers assigned the Old 
 Testament science cannot deny or seriously ques- 
 tion its inspiration or permanent value. Un- 
 prejudiced science has never done this. It is 
 perfectly ready to recognize the inestimable reli- 
 gious and ethical value of even those Old Testament 
 narratives which refer to scientific facts, not 
 because of their scientific teaching, but because 
 of the presence of eternal truth in the crude form 
 of primitive science. Fair-minded scientists read- 
 ily admit that if anyone wishes to know what 
 connection the world has with God, if he seeks 
 to trace back all that now is to the very fountain 
 head of life, if he desires to discover some unifying 
 principle, some illuminating purpose in the history 
 of the world, he may still turn to the early chap- 
 ters of Genesis as a safe guide. 
 
 What, then, is the bearing of the conclusions 
 of modern science upon the permanent value of 
 the Old T(istament? Science has compelled the 
 Bible student to withdraw the attention from the 
 nonessential and secondary, and to concentrate 
 it upon the heart and substance. In doing this 
 it has established upon a much firmer basis the 
 conviction that, whatever the scientific value of 
 scripture may be or may not be, the apostle was 
 right when he wrote that "the sacred writings . . . 
 are able to make wise unto salvation through
 
 THE OT.l) TESTAMENT 63 
 
 faith which is in C-hrist Josus. Evory scripture 
 inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for 
 reproof, for correction, for instruction which is 
 in righteousness: that the man of God may be 
 complete, furnished completely unto every good 
 work."(^') 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER II 
 
 (') Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 89. 
 
 C) Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 238. 
 
 (0 Josh. 10. 12. 
 
 (*) The Bible — Its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 160. 
 
 (') In a brief treatment it seems preferable to confine the 
 discussion to a specific concrete case; therefore this 
 chapter deals almost exclusively with questions cen- 
 tering around the subject of cosmogony. 
 
 (*) The margin of the Authorized Version still gives the 
 chronology of Archbishop Ussher to that effect. 
 
 (') Chapter IV, 1. 
 
 i») The Expositor, 1902, pp. 159, 160. 
 
 (") It requires but a reading of the "proofs" of the op- 
 posite view to understand their weakness. Com- 
 pare Expositor, 1886, pp. 287-289. 
 ('") The book of Genesis, p. 4. 
 
 (") Another difficulty has been found in the statement of 
 Genesis that "vegetation" was complete two days 
 before animal life appeared, but the disagreement 
 is more apparent than real. The geological record, 
 it is true, shows many more animal than plant 
 remains in the very ancient rocks. It was not 
 until Devonian and Carboniferous times that the 
 plants became very abundant, as far as the geo- 
 logical records go. Indeed, in the oldest rocks in 
 which animal remains occur, no plant remains 
 have been discovered. However, this is not to be
 
 64 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 taken as proving that animals existed before plants, 
 because low forms of the latter, having no hard 
 parts, would be preserved with difficulty. More- 
 over, in some of the primitive forms, it is not easy 
 to distinguish plants from animals. But, apart 
 from the records in the rocks, both biologists and 
 geologists believe that plants existed as early as 
 animals, if not earlier, for the latter needed the former 
 to live upon. An eminent geologist, Professor U. S. 
 Grant, of Northwestern University, has expressed his 
 opinion to the writer in these words: "It seems to 
 me that, viewed in an abstract way, the Genesis 
 statement of vegetation appearing before animal 
 life is not far from correct." 
 
 (") The Book of Genesis, p. 25. 
 
 (") Natural Theology, Vol. I, pp. 229, 230. 
 
 (") History of the Old Covenant, Vol. I, p. cxxix. 
 
 (") The Testimony of the Rocks, Lecture IV. 
 
 C) Reconciliation of Science and Religion, pp. 356ff.; 
 compare also Pre-Adamites, passim. 
 
 (") Origin of the World According to Revelation and 
 Science, passim. 
 
 ('«) Bibliotheca Sacra, 1885, pp. 201flf. 
 
 {'•) The Conflict of Truth, pp. 162ff. 
 
 ('") Kurtz, Miller, Dawson, Dana, and the rest. 
 
 ('■) Expositor, 1880, p. 38. 
 
 (") The writer wants it clearly understood that an "ideal," 
 harmony, as described above, can be established. 
 He is equally certain, however, that the harmony 
 cannot be carried into details. 
 
 (») Psa. 19. 1, 2. 
 
 C*) Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20. 
 
 (") See above. Chapter I, p. 12. 
 
 i^) Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239. 
 
 (") Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, pp. 4, 5. 
 
 (=*«) Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239. 
 
 i^) Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 65 
 
 ('") Surely, there is not the slightest claim in Scripture 
 that Moses or any other biblical writer received 
 divine information concerning the beginnings of the 
 universe; nor is there anything to support the as- 
 sumption that the account of creation was super- 
 naturally revealed to Adam, and that from him it 
 was transmitted word for word through the families 
 of the pious antediluvians, of Noah, Shem, Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., until it was finally received 
 and committed to writing by Moses. 
 
 (") The Book of Genesis, p. 5. 
 
 (") H. E. Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, pp. 5, 6. 
 
 ('') Bibhcal Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 90. 
 
 ('*) Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 1. 
 
 O 2 Tim. 3. 15-17; on the permanent value and signifi- 
 cance of the Genesis narratives; see also below, pp. 
 234ff.
 
 66 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 The Old Testament and Modern Criticism 
 
 No careful observer cun doubt that modern 
 criticism has exerted a marked influence upon the 
 attitude of many Christian people toward the 
 Bible. Both those in sympathy with new ideas 
 and those opposed to them frequently speak of 
 the crisis which this criticism has brought about. 
 "It do(^s seem," says John IC. McFadyen, a be- 
 liever in the methods and results of modern 
 criticism, "that the Church to-day in all her 
 branches is face to face with a crisis of the most 
 serious kind."(') On the other hand, John Smith, 
 a detcrmhied opponent of criticism, writes con- 
 cerning tlie conclusions of the latter: "They con- 
 flict with the profoundest certitudes of the faith, 
 nmst inevitably alter the foundation on which 
 from the beginning our holy religion has stood 
 before the world, and, consequently, so far as a 
 theory can, must obstruct her mission and abridge 
 her influence. "(^) Whether the crisis is as acute 
 as is here implied or not, there seems to be much 
 concern among devout believers in the Bible 
 about the bearing of modern criticism upon the 
 value of the book they dearly love. In the nature
 
 THE OLD TESTAMEXT 67 
 
 of the case, limitation of space forbids an ex- 
 haustive discussion of this interesting subject here. 
 There are, however, throe questions which are 
 worthy of serious consideration: (1) Wliat is 
 modem criticism? (2) What are the more im- 
 portant conclusions of criticism that have secured 
 wide recognition? (3) What is the bearing of 
 these conclusions, if true, upon the Christian view 
 of the Old Testament? 
 
 \Vhat, then, is biblical criticism? It is defined 
 by Nash as "the free study of all the facts,"(^) 
 which definition McFadyen expands so as to read, 
 "the free and reverent study of all the biblical 
 facts."(*) Criticism is stiidy, which means careful 
 investigation rather than superficial reading fol- 
 lowed by hasty or unfounded conclusions. The 
 investigation is free in the sense that though it 
 is not disrespectful to traditional beliefs, it is 
 not prevented by them from marking out new 
 paths if the facts so demand. It is reverent be- 
 cause it deals with a book that has played a 
 unique part in the religious life and thought of 
 many centuries, and has been received as a 
 book in whieli tlie voice of God may be heard. 
 It is primarily a study of the facts presented by 
 the book, not of theories or speculations, though 
 in the study of these facts much may be learned 
 from the theories of the past, and the study may 
 give rise to new theories. In order to be thor-
 
 G8 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 oughly scientific, it must li;ivc due n^gurd for all 
 the facts in the case. For convenience sake it has 
 become customary to distinguish four phases of 
 Old Testament, or bibUcal, criticism: (1) Textual 
 Criticism; (2) Linguistic Criticism; (3) Literary 
 Criticism; and (4) Historical Criticism. 
 
 Close students of the Hebrew text of the Old 
 Testament have been compelled to admit that 
 even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts now known 
 are not free from errors and blemishes, and it is 
 the office of textual criticism to remove such 
 errors by the use of all legitimate methods and 
 means and to restore the ipsissima verba of the 
 author. The presence of corruptions in the text 
 is established by facts like these: (1) There are 
 passages in which the text as it stands cannot 
 be translated without violence to the laws of 
 grammar, or, which are irreconcilable with the 
 context or with other passages. For example, in 
 1 Sam. ]3. 1 the Authorized Version reads, "Saul 
 reigned one year, and when he had reigned two 
 years over Israel." This translation does violence 
 to the laws of Hebrew grammar. The Hebrew 
 reads, literally, "The son of a year was Saul in 
 his reigning," which may be rendered, "Saul was 
 a year old when he began to reign." The narra- 
 tives concerning events in the life of Saul before 
 he became king make it clear that this statement 
 is not correct. Perhaps the scribe, in writing the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 69 
 
 formula, which is the usual formula for stating 
 a king's age at his accession, left a space for 
 the numeral to l>e filled in later, and forgot the 
 omission; or the numeral has accidentally dropped 
 out. In this case, it is the duty of textual crit- 
 icism to supi)ly, if possible, the age of Saul when 
 he was made king. In the absence of all ex- 
 ternal evidence the textual critic must fall back 
 upon conjecture. This the translators of the 
 Revised Version did, for in the English Revised 
 Version we find in brackets the word "thirty," 
 in the American Revised Version "forty." In 
 this special case the assured results of textual 
 criticism are purely negative, in that they have 
 establishetl the fact that the present text caimot 
 be correct. The attempt to restore the orig- 
 inal text rests upon conjecture. (2) Parallel 
 passages differ in such a manner as to make it 
 certain that the variations are largely due to 
 textual corruption. A good illustration is seen 
 in Psa. 18, when compared with 2 Sam. 22. These 
 two passages were midoubtedly identical in the 
 beginning; but even the oldest existing manu- 
 scripts show more than seventy variants between 
 the two chapters. (3) Some of the ancient 
 versions contain readings which often bear a 
 strong stamp of probability and remove or lessen 
 the difficulties of the Hebrew text. For example, 
 in Josh. 9. 4, where the Hebrew reads, "And they
 
 70 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 went and made as if they had been ambassadors," 
 the Septuagint reads, "And they went and pro- 
 visioned themselves." The latter reading is sup- 
 ported by nearly all the ancient versions, and 
 seems more probable than that of the Hebrew 
 text. Another illustration of a similar character 
 is fomid in Psa. 22. 16c, which is translated by 
 both the Authorized and the Revised Version, 
 "They pierced my hands and my feet." This, 
 however, is not a translation of the Hebrew at 
 all, for it reacis, "I>ike a lion, my hands and my 
 feet." In this case the New Testament, as well 
 as the Latin and Syriac translations, supports the 
 reading of the Septuagint. Passages like these, 
 in which the text has evidently suffered in the 
 course of transmission, might be multiplied a 
 hundredfold, and it is generally considered a 
 legitimate ambition to attempt the restoration of 
 the Hebrew text to its original form. 
 
 Linguistic criticism deals with difficult and 
 obscure passages. Sometimes the meaning of 
 single words or phrases is uncertain, as, for example, 
 in Isa. 53. 1, which reads, in the Authorized Ver- 
 sion, "Who hath believed our report?" The 
 margin gives as alternatives for "report" the 
 words "doctrine" and "hearing." The Revised 
 Version reads, "Who hath believed our message?" 
 with a marginal note, "Or, that which we have 
 heard." In form the word translated "message"
 
 THP] OLD TESTAMENT 71 
 
 is a passive participle, meaning, literally, "that 
 which has been heard." Surely, no one would 
 consider "report," "doctrine," "hearing," "mes- 
 sage," etc., synon5mious. It is the duty of lin- 
 guistic criticism to determine the exact meaning 
 of the word. Sometimes grammatical construc- 
 tions are ambiguous. Very familiar are the words 
 in Isa, 6. 3, "Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: 
 the whole earth is full of his glory." The margin 
 suggests as an alternative for the last clause, 
 "the fullness of the whole earth is his glory," 
 which might mean something entirely different 
 from the ordinary rendering. There are other 
 passages, some among the sublimest prophetic 
 utterances, in which it is by no means clear whether 
 the reference is to the past or to the present or 
 to the future. There is, indeed, plenty of room 
 for the most painstaking work of the linguistic 
 critic. 
 
 The literary criticism concerns itself with the 
 literary history of Old Testament books. The 
 Bible may be more than a human production, but 
 in outward form it has the appearance of an 
 ordinary work of literature; and, so far as its 
 history as a collection of literary productions is 
 concerned, it has not escaped the fortunes or 
 misfortunes of other ancient literary works. It 
 is a well-known fact that extra-biblical books, 
 religious and secular, have come down from the
 
 7<} THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 distant past bearing the names of men who cannot 
 have been their authors; for example, the Gospel 
 of Peter, or the Ascension of Isaiah. Some 
 ancient books have been interpolated and added 
 to from time to time; for example, the Sibylline 
 Oracles, the religious books of the Hindus. Some 
 ancient books are compilations rather than original 
 productions; for example, the Diatessaron of 
 Tatian, or the religious books of the Babylonians, 
 which give abundant evidence of compilation. 
 The discoveries of these phenomena in extra- 
 biblical books naturally raised the question 
 whether similar phenomena might not be found 
 in the books of the Old Testament. It is the 
 duty of literary criticism to throw light on these 
 questions; to decide whether all the Old Testament 
 books are rightly ascribed to the men whose 
 names they bear, whether they are original por- 
 ductions or compilations from earlier material, and 
 whether any of the books have received additions 
 or interpolations in the course of their literary 
 history. 
 
 Hand in hand with literary criticism goes 
 historical criticism. The student of Old Testament 
 history seeks to trace the development of the 
 history of Israel by combining in a scientific 
 manner the historical material scattered through- 
 out the Old Testament. In doing this he is 
 compelled to determine the value of the sources
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 73 
 
 from which he gathers information. To do this 
 is the duty of historical criticism. It inquires, 
 for example, whether the records are approx- 
 imately contemporaneous with the events they 
 record; if so, whether the writers were qualified 
 to observe the events accurately, or to record 
 and interpret them correctly; and, if the accounts 
 were written a considerable time subsequent to 
 the events recorded, whether they were colored 
 in any way by the beliefs and practices of the 
 time in which they were written or compiled. 
 This line of investigation is almost thrust upon 
 the Bible student by a comparison of the books 
 of Kings with the books of Chronicles, which in 
 many portions cover the same ground; and yet, 
 there are marked differences between the descrip- 
 tions of the two. 
 
 These are the different phases of criticism. 
 Ordinarily, however, only two kinds are dis- 
 tinguished: the lower, or textual criticism, and 
 the higher criticism. The aims of textual criticism 
 are described above. The higher criticism com- 
 bines the functions of literary and historical 
 criticism, while linguistic criticism is considered 
 a part of exegesis or interpretation, not a separate 
 branch of Bible study. The legitimacy of textual 
 criticism is universally recognized. Its importance 
 in a comprehensive study of the Bible is clearly 
 implied in these words of W. H. Green, a genera-
 
 74 THE CHKISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 tion ago the best known defender of the tra- 
 ditional view of the Old Testament: "Its function 
 is to determine, by a careful examination of all 
 the evidence bearing upon the case, the condition 
 of the sacred text, the measure of its correspondence 
 with, or divergence from, the exact language of 
 the inspired penman, and by means of all available 
 helps to remove the errors which may have gained 
 admission to it from whatever cause, and to 
 restore the text to its pristine purity as it came 
 from the hands of the original writers. ... It is 
 not an arbitrary but a judicial process, based 
 on fixed and intelligible principles and conducted 
 in a determinate manner, in which all the evidence 
 is diligently collected, thoroughly sifted, and 
 accurately weighed, and the decision given in 
 accordance with the ascertained facts. "(■') 
 
 No exception is taken to linguistic criticism 
 as a legitimate part of exegesis, but at the mention 
 of higher criticism many good men and women 
 become greatly disturbed, for they seem to look 
 upon it as a handmaid of Satan. A few expres- 
 sions will illustrate the feeling with which some 
 regard this kind of study: One writer says, "Neither 
 hard times nor higher criticism nor infidelity . . . 
 has any effect upon the sale of the Divine Scrip- 
 tures." He evidently places higher criticism on 
 a par with infidelity. Again: "The so-called 
 higher critics, it is well known, are constantly
 
 TIIK OLD I'KSTAMENT 75 
 
 trying to shake the faith of the Christian by 
 telling him that the books of the Bible were not 
 written by the men whose names are usually 
 given as the human authors." Another writer 
 declares that the higher critics allege that the 
 Bible is "the off-spring of incompetence and 
 fraud." One more quotation may suffice: "Higher 
 criticism tends invariably ... to absolute rational- 
 ism and the discrediting of inspiration." Now, if 
 higher criticism is on a par with infidelity, if it 
 declares the Bible to be the "offspring of incom- 
 petence and fraud," if it constantly tries to shake 
 the faith of Christians, if it tends invariably to 
 absolute rationalism and discredits inspiration — 
 if it does these things, then the Christian Church 
 may well look upon it with dread and alarm. 
 Whether or not higher criticism is guilty of the 
 things charged against it will probably appear in 
 the further discussion, for from now on chief 
 emphasis will be placed upon the bearing of the 
 higher criticism on the Christian view of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 First of all, it may be well to define, if possible, 
 the term "higher criticism." It is too often 
 assumed by those who should know better, that 
 the adjective "higher" exhibits the arrogance of 
 those using it, who claim thereby an unwar- 
 ranted precedence for their methods. This as- 
 sumption is erroneous, for the adjective is used
 
 76 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 simply to distinguish this kind of criticism from 
 tlio lower or textual criticism, which, since its 
 purpose is to fix the exact text of a book, nec- 
 essarily precedes the application of the processes 
 of the higher criticism. The designation may be 
 unfortunate, but thus far no clearer or less objec- 
 tionable substitute has been found. But what 
 is higher criticism? Higher criticism may be 
 defined as a process of scientific investigation for 
 the purpose of determining the origin, original 
 form, and intended value of literar}'' productions. 
 It cannot be emphasized too strongly that higher 
 criticism is nothing more than a process of study 
 or investigation. It is not a set of conclusions 
 respecting the books of the Bible; it is not a 
 philosophical principle underlying the investiga- 
 tion; it is not a certain attitude of mind toward 
 the Bible; it is not a theory of inspiration nor a 
 denial of inspiration. Higher criticism is none of 
 these things. It is simply a process of study to 
 determine certain truths concerning literary pro- 
 ductions. 
 
 Again, higher criticism, as a process of study, is 
 not confined to the study of the Bible. It was 
 applied to extra-biblical books long before there 
 was any thought of applying it to the Old or 
 New Testament. Eichhorn, who first applied the 
 term to Old Testament study, has this to say: 
 "I have been obliged to bestow the greatest
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 77 
 
 amount of labor on a hitherto entirely unworked 
 fiolcl: the investigation of the inner constitution 
 of the separate books of the Old Testament by 
 the aid of the higher criticism, a new name to no 
 humanisC {^) 
 
 Once more: the higher criticism as such is not 
 opposed to traditional views. In the words of 
 Professor Zenos: "Its relation to the old and the 
 new views respectively is one of indifference. 
 It may result in the confirmation of the old, or 
 in the substitution of the new for the old. ... It 
 is no respecter of antiquity or novelty; its aim 
 is to discover and verify the truth, to bring facts 
 to light whether these validate or invalidate pre- 
 viously held opinions. "(0 It is a grave mistake, 
 therefore, to attribute to higher criticism an 
 essentially destructive purpose. In reality, it has 
 confirmed traditional views at least as often as 
 it has shown them to be untenable. It does not 
 approach its investigations even with a suspicion 
 of the correctness of tradition; it starts out 
 with the tradition, it accepts it as correct until 
 the process of investigation has brought to light 
 facts and indications which cannot be harmonized 
 with tradition. In such a case criticism believes 
 itself bound to supply a satisfactory explanation 
 of the facts, though such explanation may be 
 contrary to the claims of tradition. Any student 
 who approaches the inquiry in a spirit differ-
 
 78 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ent from that here indicated introduces into 
 his investigation elements that are not a part of 
 higher criticism as such, and the latter cannot 
 and should not be held accountable for them. 
 
 That it is desirable to answer questions con- 
 cerning the origin, form, and value of biblical 
 books no one will dispute. C. M. Mead, exceed- 
 ingly cautious and conservative, says: "I regard 
 the higher criticism as not only legitimate but 
 as useful, and indiscriminate condenmation of it 
 as foolish. Genuine criticism is nothing but the 
 search after truth, and of this there cannot be 
 too much."(*) No literary production in the 
 Bible or outside of the Bible can be fully under- 
 stood unless the interpreter has a full knowledge 
 of its origin, its author, and its first readers. 
 When, where, by whom, to whom, under what 
 circumstances, for what purpose? — an answer to 
 these and similar questions will wonderfully illu- 
 minate the message of a book. A knowledge of 
 the form of the writing is also essential to a proper 
 understanding of the same. Is it history or 
 poetry? is it narrative or prediction? or any one 
 of the various kinds of literature? In a similar 
 manner it is important, though not always easy, 
 to know the value a given literary work was 
 intended to have. Is it to be understood as 
 literal history? Is its essential purpose didactic, 
 without special regard for historic accuracy in
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 79 
 
 every detail? An; the religious and ethical truths 
 taught intended to be final, or do they mark a 
 stage in the development toward perfection and 
 finality? These and other important questions of 
 a similar nature the higher criticism seeks to 
 answer. 
 
 Some one may say, "Scholars in all ages have 
 sought to answer these questions; why is it, then, 
 that modern higher criticism reaches conclusions 
 concerning the origin, form, and value of Old 
 Testament writings not dreamed of a few cen- 
 turies ago?" This is a legitimate question, but 
 the answer is not far to seek. It may best be 
 answered by asking another question: Men in all 
 ages have studied the earth, the sun, the stars, 
 and other phenomena of nature; how is it that 
 modern scientists have reached conclusions un- 
 known and undreamed of a few centuries ago? 
 The modern higher criticism, like all modern 
 science, is the outgrowth of the awakening during 
 the Middle Ages which revolutionized the whole 
 world of science, literature, and religion. The 
 Renaissance aroused men's interest in literature 
 and science, the Reformation aroused men's 
 interest in religion as a personal experience. In 
 the Renaissance men began to think for them- 
 selves in matters of science and literature; in the 
 Reformation they began to think for themselves 
 in matters of religion. It was inevitable that
 
 80 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 the awakening of thought aiul the substitution 
 of reason for authority in science, secular Hterature, 
 and secular liistory should ultimately affect sacred 
 history and sacred literature as well.(®) 
 
 Chronologically, it is true, the work of higher 
 criticism began even before the time of the 
 Renaissance among Spanish Jews. But this Jewish 
 criticism did not at the time exert any influence 
 in the Christian Church. Only after criticism had 
 secured a foothold among Christian scholars were 
 the results of Jewish investigation made use of. 
 In the same way the purely negative conclusions 
 of some of the early Christian heretics, based 
 upon dogmatic considerations rather than his- 
 torical investigations, have no organic connection 
 with the investigations and results of modern 
 criticism. It is perfectly correct, therefore, to 
 state that the modern higher criticism had its 
 birth in the great awakening of the Renaissance 
 and the Reformation. They gave to it a life 
 and an impetus which from that day to this have 
 not abated in the least. Some of the reformers 
 themselves and their coworkers advanced views 
 which later investigation has confirmed and ex- 
 panded. Carlstadt, for example, the friend and 
 coworker of Luther, published in 1520 an essay 
 in which he argued, on the groimd that the style 
 of narration in the account of Moses's death which, 
 he believed, was not written by Moses, was
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 81 
 
 the same as in the preceding chapters, that it 
 might be held that Moses did not Avi'ite the entire 
 Pentateuch. The freedom with which Luther 
 criticized both the Old and the New Testament 
 books is well known. Concerning the Old Testa- 
 ment, he admitted tliat the books of Kings were 
 more credible than Chronicles. "What would it 
 matter," he asks, "if Moses did not write the 
 Pentateuch?" He thinks it probable that Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ecclesiastes received their 
 final form at the hands of redactors. The testi- 
 mony of the psalm titles he does not regard as 
 conclusive. He admits chronological difficulties 
 and contradictions in the statements of historical 
 facts. He concedes that we do not always hear 
 God himself speaking in the Old Testament. 
 Esther might wvW have been left out of the canon, 
 and First Maccabees might have been included. 
 If this is not criticism, what is? 
 
 The case of Luther has been mentioned simply 
 to show the absurdity of the claim that modern 
 higher criticism is the outgrowth of German 
 rationalism or English deism or infidelity; or that 
 a man who pursues Old Testament study on the 
 line of the higher criticism is necessarily an infidel, 
 a rationalist, or a fool. True, there have been 
 and are those out of sympathy with Christianity 
 or the Bible who have employed critical methods 
 in carrying on their anti-Christian warfare; but
 
 82 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 such misuse of critical methods no more proves 
 the illegitimacy of this process of investigation 
 than the employment of a surgical instru- 
 ment, which, m the hands of a skillful surgeon, 
 may be the means of saving a diseased organism, 
 by a murderer to carry out his destructive aim, 
 would prove that the use of all surgical instru- 
 ments is miscientific or criminal. The vast ma- 
 jority of the so-called higher critics do not deserve 
 the denunciations heaped upon them by some 
 who consider themselves sole defenders of the 
 faith. Most of them are Christian men whose 
 loyalty to Christ, whose devotion to the truth, 
 and whose sincerity of motive no one has reason 
 or right to question or doubt. It is exceedingly 
 unfortunate that many writers have failed to 
 recognize this fact. No one acquainted with the 
 history of biblical criticism can accept the follow- 
 ing as a true characterization of serious critics: "I 
 mean by professional critic, one who spends his 
 time and strength in trying to find some error or dis- 
 crepancy in the Bible; and, if he thmks he does, re- 
 joiceth as 'one who findeth great spoil'; who hopes, 
 while he works, that he may succeed, thinking 
 thereby to obtain a name and notoriety for him- 
 self. "(^") In a similar spirit Sir Robert Anderson 
 speaks of "the foreign infidel type of scholar ... as 
 ignorant of man and his needs as a monk, and as 
 ignorant of God and his ways as a monkey."(")
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 83 
 
 Such abuse is unchristian, and no good can be 
 accomplished by it. The truth of the matter is 
 more adequately expressed by James Orr when he 
 says: "There are, one must own, few outstanding 
 scholars at the present day on the Continent or 
 in Britain — in America it is somewhat different — 
 who do not in greater or less degree accept con- 
 clusions regarding the Old Testament of the kind 
 ordinarily denominated critical. Yet among the 
 foremost are many whom no one who understands 
 their work would dream as classing as other than 
 believing, and defenders of revealed religion. "(^^) 
 Then, after mentioning a number of scholars, he 
 describes them as "all more or less critics, but 
 all convinced upholders of supernatural revelation." 
 But even among these Christian, evangelical, 
 higher critics a distinction must be made between 
 two classes. The one may be called, for want 
 of a better name, traditional, because its adherents 
 insist that their investigations on the line of the 
 higher criticism have confirmed in all essentials 
 the positions held during many centuries. It 
 should be noted, however, that many scholars 
 who are sometimes quoted as upholders of the 
 traditional view are ready to make many con- 
 cessions to those who believe that the tradi- 
 tional views are no longer tenable. (") On the 
 other hand is a class of critics which may be 
 called nontraditional, critics who claim that
 
 84 THE CHETSTTA"Nr VIEW OP 
 
 thoir investigations, while confirming the truth of 
 many traditional positions, compel them in other 
 cases to set aside the traditional views in favor 
 of some more in accord with the facts in the 
 case. It may be difficult to state all the causes 
 responsible for the differences in the conclusions 
 of these two classes of critics. However, the writ- 
 ings of some scholars in the former class seem to 
 show that the authors are influenced, to some ex- 
 tent at least, by the fear that further concessions 
 would affect the Christian theory of inspiration. 
 Another cause may be found in the fact that 
 the pres(int generation of Old Testament scholars 
 received its training largely at the hands of those 
 accustomed to the traditional viewpoint; the influ- 
 ence of this early training manifests itself to some 
 extent in the present attitude. A more important 
 cause, however, is supplied by the nature of the 
 evidence upon the basis of which these critical 
 questions must be settled. Mathematical demon- 
 stration is impossible in very many cases. The 
 critic must be qualified to estimate probabilities, 
 and various degrees of probability, depending upon 
 the nature of the grounds on which it rests. In 
 the nature of the case, the personal element enters 
 into the estimate of the degree of probability. 
 What to some may appear a high degree of prob- 
 ability, or amount to practical certainty, may to 
 another investigator, perhaps less familiar with
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 85 
 
 the facts in the case, appear of less value and 
 lead him to reject the conclusion entirely. As 
 long as this condition of affairs continues — and 
 there is no reason to suppose that it ever will 
 be otherwise — perfect agreement among critical 
 investigators need not be expected; but a fair 
 and thorough examination of the facts by all 
 must be insisted upon. 
 
 It is not necessary to enlarge upon the views 
 of the traditional class of critics, for theirs are 
 the views with which most Christians now living 
 have been familiar since their childhood. In 
 order to understand, however, the bearing of the 
 nontraditional criticism upon the Christian view 
 of the Old Testament it is necessary to consider 
 the most important conclusions of the nontradi- 
 tional class of evangelical criticism; and to these 
 conclusions we may now turn our attention. 
 
 1. Modern criticism has placed into clearer 
 light the progressive character of Old Testament 
 revelation. God is the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and forever, but man has taken many advance 
 steps; and as he advanced his spiritual capacities 
 and powers of apprehension increased. This 
 growth enabled him to secure, from generation to 
 generation and from century to century, during the 
 Old Testament dispensation, an ever-broadening 
 and deepening conception of the nature and 
 character of God and of his will. The Old Testa-
 
 86 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ment books, says Kent, are "the harmonious 
 and many-sided record of ten centuries of stren- 
 uous human endeavor to know and to do the will 
 of God, and of his full and gracious response to 
 that efifort."(") 
 
 2. Formerly the beginning of the Old Testament 
 canon was traced to Moses. He was thought not 
 only to have written the books of the Pentateuch 
 but to have given to them official sanction as 
 canonical books. To these books were gradually 
 added the other sacred writings of the Old Testa- 
 ment on the authority of the divinely chosen 
 successors of ]\Ioses, like Joshua, Samuel, and the 
 prophets. The close of the canon was ascribed 
 to Ezra, who, according to later views, had to 
 share the honor with the men of the Great Sjma- 
 gogue. Modern criticism assigns new dates to 
 some of the Old Testament books; it believes 
 that the exile was a period of great spiritual and 
 intellectual activity, and a number of books are 
 placed subsequent to Ezra and Nehemiah, which 
 in itself would imply a denial of the view that 
 the canon was finally closed in the days of Ezra. 
 The modern critical view is that the Old Testa- 
 ment books were canonized — whatever the dates 
 of their writing — gradually and at a comparatively 
 late period. The canonization of the Law is 
 placed at about B. C, 400, that of the Prophets 
 between B. C. 250 and B. C. 180, while the third
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 87 
 
 division of the Jewish canon, the Writings, is 
 believed to have acquired canonical authority dur- 
 ing the second and first centuries B. C. 
 
 3. Formerly the order of the Old Testament 
 books determined largely the view of the develop- 
 ment of Hebrew religion. Just as in the New 
 Testament the Gospels occupy first place, the 
 Epistles being expositions of the principles laid 
 down in the Gospels, so it was thought that the 
 Law of the Pentateuch, coming from the hands 
 of Moses, served as the basis of the religious 
 development of the Hebrews during subsequent 
 centuries. The prophets were looked upon chiefly 
 as expounders and interpreters of this Law. 
 Modern criticism has introduced a change of view- 
 point. It does not deny the pre-exilic existence 
 of all law, or of sacrifice, or of a ceremonial, or of 
 other priestly elements, but it believes that in 
 the religious development of Israel, the pre-exilic 
 period was preeminently the period of the prophets, 
 while the religious life during the post-exilic 
 period was dominated by the priests, the priestly 
 type of religion finding literary expression in the 
 ceremonial system embodied in the Pentateuch. 
 
 4. According to modern criticism, compilation 
 had a prominent place in the production of Old 
 Testament books. The composite character of 
 the Pentateuch is touched upon in the next 
 paragraph, but, in addition, it is believed that
 
 88 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 there Is sufficient evidence to establish the com- 
 posite character of practically all the other his- 
 torical books. McFadyen accurately represents the 
 modern viewpoint when he says, ''In the light of 
 all these facts the general possibility, if not the 
 practical certainty, of the conipositeness of the 
 historical books may be conceded. "(^'^) Evidences 
 of compilation are seen also in several of the 
 prophetic books. The assignment of Isaiah and 
 Zechariah to more than one author each furnishes 
 perhaps the best known examples, but other 
 prophetic books are similarly divided. 
 
 5. The Pentateuch is no longer assigned in its 
 entirety to Moses; it is thought, rather, to contain 
 material selected from four different sources, 
 which the compiler had before him in writing. (*") 
 These documents did not reach their final form 
 until some time subsequent to Moses, but all of 
 them contained ancient material, much of it going 
 back to the time of Moses, some of it even to 
 pre-Mosaic days. Among the contents of the 
 Pentateuch special attention is called to three 
 legal codes — the Book of the Covenant, the 
 Deuteronomic Code, and the Priestly Code — be- 
 longing to different periods in Hebrew history, 
 and reflecting different stages in the religious and 
 social development of the nation. The Deuter- 
 onomic Code, in some form, is believed to have 
 been the basis of the reforms instituted by Josiah
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 89 
 
 and to have been written most probably during 
 the early part of the seventh century. On these 
 general questions respecting the Pentateuch there 
 seems to be general agreement among critical 
 scholars; on the other hand, there is wide diver- 
 gence of opinion concerning points of detail, such 
 as the chronological order in which the several doc- 
 uments reached their final form, their exact dates, 
 the manner and time of their compilation, the 
 detailed distribution of the material among the 
 several sources, etc. The differences of opinion on 
 these points are due to the fact that the data upon 
 the basis of which the problems must be solved 
 are not sufficiently numerous or decisive. 
 
 6. Doubt is thrown upon the authorship of a 
 number of Old Testament books, or parts of 
 books, which have been assigned to certain authors 
 by both Jewish and Christian tradition. As 
 already stated, the Mosaic authorship of the 
 Pentateuch is denied; the book of Lamentation 
 is taken away from Jeremiah; parts of Isaiah 
 and Zechariah and the whole of Daniel are assigned 
 to persons other than the prophets bearing these 
 names. The accuracy of the psalm titles is 
 questioned; few of the psalms, if any, are assigned 
 to David or his age; and most of the psalms — by 
 some scholars all — are placed in the post-exilic 
 period. A conservative scholar, like W. T. 
 Davison, is not willing to say more than " that
 
 90 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 from ton to twenty psalms — including 3, 4, 7, 
 8, 15, 18, 23, 24, 32, and perhaps 101 and 110— 
 may have come down to us from David's pen, 
 but that the number can hardly be greater, and 
 may be still less."(^0 The same uncertainty is 
 believed to exist respecting the authorship of 
 Proverbs and of Ecclesiastes, which is considered 
 one of the latest books in the Old Testament 
 canon. Other books, like Job, which in the ab- 
 sence of external testimony were formerly assigned 
 to an early date, are now placed in the later 
 period of Hebrew history. 
 
 In addition to these results touching upon 
 matters practically unrecognized before, the higher 
 criticism has emphasized some truths which, 
 though loiown, exerted little, if any, influence 
 upon the conception or study of the Old Testament. 
 Of these perhaps the most important are, first, 
 that the Old Testament is not so much a single 
 book as a library consisting of many books of 
 difTerent dates and authorship, though all these 
 books may be held together by one common spirit 
 and purpose ;(*^) and, second, that in these books 
 are represented practically all the various forms and 
 kinds of literary composition that can be found 
 in the literatures of other nations. 
 
 These are perhaps the most important con- 
 clusions reached by the nontraditional higher 
 critics. Some may not be willing to admit that
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 91 
 
 these conclusions arc well foiinded, and, indeed, 
 the cautious among the critics very candidly state 
 that in most cases scientific demonstration is im- 
 possible, that probability of varying degrees is 
 an important element in the conclusions; but 
 unless one has followed those who have reached 
 the conclusions into every detail of their mvesti- 
 gation, he is hardly competent to pass a valid 
 judgment. And it is well to remember what seems 
 to be an indisputable fact, that with very few 
 exceptions Old Testament experts everywhere 
 agree essentially on these results, and that an 
 ever-increasing number of serious Old Testament 
 students whose competency and sincerity cannot 
 be doubted feel compelled to accept these con- 
 clusions, convinced that the traditional views can- 
 not be maintained without numerous modifications. 
 This fact may not establish the truth of these 
 conclusions; nevertheless, it may serve as a suffi- 
 cient reason for the consideration of another ques- 
 tion: Should the truth of the conclusions enumer- 
 ated be established beyond a possibility of doubt, 
 what would be the effect upon the Christian con- 
 ception of the Old Testament? What would be- 
 come of its inspiration or authority, of the super- 
 natural in its history, of the work and character of 
 Moses, Isaiah, or David; and, perhaps most impor- 
 tant of all, what effect would this have upon the 
 authority of Jesus Christ himself?
 
 93 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 The 1110^ important and vital of these ques- 
 tions may be considered first. How do the con- 
 clusions of the nontraditional higher criticism 
 affect the authority of Jesus Christ? This ques- 
 tion arises chiefly in connection with investigations 
 into the authorship of Old Testament books, 
 especially of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and 
 Isaiah. It is asserted that since Christ quotes 
 and refers to passages from the books bearing the 
 names of Moses, David, and Isaiali, apparently 
 as if they had been written by these men, any 
 claim that these passages were not written by 
 the authors mentioned is an indication of un- 
 belief, an insult to Christ, and a denial of his 
 authority. "If Moses did not write the Penta- 
 teuch," says L. W. Munhall, ''or any portion of 
 it, and the highest critics (Jesus Christ and the 
 Holy Spirit) declare he did, it would be a lie. 
 It would be none the less a lie, even though the 
 Jews held traditionally that Moses was the author 
 of these books. The testimony of the Highest 
 Critics is absolutely unerringly and eternally true, 
 and he who hesitates to receive it as against all 
 other testimonies is dislo3^al to the truth."(*") 
 Clearly, this statement is based upon the assump- 
 tion that Jesus gave deliberate decisions on ques- 
 tions of authorship, which assumption cannot be 
 substantiated. In the first place, it is well to note 
 that in less than one fifth of the New Testament
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 93 
 
 quotations from tJie Old Testament is. a persona! 
 name connected with the quotation; Jesus himself, 
 in quoting from the Pentateuch and other Old 
 Testament books, frequently omits all reference 
 to the alleged author, which shows that he con- 
 sidered the question of authorship of no special 
 significance in comparison with the truth taught. 
 Moreover, in some cascjs at least, the exact form 
 of quotation is doubtful. Compare, for example, 
 Matt. 15. 4, "God said," with Mark 7. 10, "Moses 
 said"; and Luke 20. 37, "Moses showed, in the 
 place concerning the Bush," with Mark 12. 2G, 
 "Have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the 
 place concerning the Bush how God spake unto 
 him," with Matt. 22. 31, which, referring to the 
 same statement, introduces it by, "Have ye not 
 read that which wns spoken unto you by God?" 
 Which one of the evangelists has preserved the 
 actual words of Jesus? 
 
 But even admitting that Jesus used in these 
 and other passages a personal name, does this 
 imply a decision respecting authorship? In extra- 
 biblical literature no one would raise serious 
 objection to the use of the name of a man to 
 designate a book without implying that the man 
 named was the author of the entire book. This 
 is done also in the New Testament. In the 
 sermon of Peter, "Samuel" evidently is used in 
 the sense of "book of Sanmel," for the reference
 
 94 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 is not to an utterance of Samuel but of Nathan, (2") 
 and it cannot imply authorship, for some of the 
 events recorded in First Samuel and those in 
 Second Samuel occurred after Samuel's death. 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews, (^^) a psalm is 
 referred to as "David," which is not even by the 
 title assigned to the great khig of Israel. (^^) Might 
 it not be, therefore, that "Moses" was used as a 
 designation of a book, without a thought of 
 authorship. This seems to be the case in 2 Cor. 
 3. 15: "Wliensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth 
 upon their heart. "(-^) All these facts suggest 
 that while Jesus frequently quotes the Pentateuch, 
 and in some cases connects the name of Moses 
 with it, he never does so to prove that Moses 
 wrote it. W. T. Davison describes the situation 
 correctly when he writes, "A study of the whole 
 use of the Old Testament made by Christ in his 
 teaching shows that the questions of date and 
 authorship witli which criticism is chiefly con- 
 cerned were not before the mind of our Lord 
 as he spoke, nor was it his object to pronounce 
 upon them."(^^) 
 
 But even admitting that the references of Jesus 
 imply in some cases a recognition of authorship, 
 the question still remains whether the few passages 
 quoted carry with them the authorship of the 
 entire book from which the quotations are made. 
 There are even some conservative scholars who
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 95 
 
 answer this question in the negative. After 
 enumerating some of the passages referred to by 
 Jesus as coming from Moses, C. H. 11, Wright 
 continues: "All, however, that can be fairly de- 
 duced from such statements is, the Pentateuch 
 contains portions written by Moses. It does not 
 follow that the five books as a whole were written 
 by that lawgiver. "(^0 Though this explanation 
 seems satisfactory to some, others consider it 
 somewhat forced and unnatural, and they are 
 mclined to give different interpretations of the 
 words of Jesus. 
 
 Many hold that in his references to Old Testa- 
 ment books Jesus accommodated himself to the 
 usage of the Jews without mdorshig their views 
 or giving expression to his own, even though he 
 knew that the commonly held opinions as to the 
 authorship of certam Old Testament books were 
 erroneous. Those who advocate this view believe 
 that their attitude in no wise dishonors the Master. 
 Indeed, they say, one cannot easily see what 
 other course he could have taken. Jesus had 
 come to reveal the Father, to bring a fallen race 
 into harmony with a holy God. Surely, the task 
 was great, and there was but little time in which 
 to accomplish it. If he had turned aside from 
 his chief purpose to settle scientific and literary 
 questions which were not under discussion among 
 the people, he would have aroused popular opposi-
 
 96 THK CHRTSTTAX VIEW OF 
 
 tion and thus li;iv(^ hiiidcTcd liis chief work. In 
 no case do his n>lVn>ncos imply that lie desired 
 to pronounce an authoritative critical judgment, 
 and in no case does the value of the quotation 
 depend upon its authorship. Looking at the 
 matter, therefore, from a pedagogical standpoint, 
 it would seem tliat, in view of his important 
 mission in the world, he was compelled to accom- 
 modate himself to the views of the people in all 
 matters not essential to his work. 
 
 This view seems entirelj^ satisfactory to many 
 sincere Christian believers. There are, however, 
 those who maintain that it would not have been 
 legitimate for Jesus thus to accommodate himself 
 to the usage of the people if he had known that 
 tluMr views were not in accord with the facts; 
 nevertheless, they insist that his utterances do 
 not settle purely literary questions. They be- 
 lieve that Jesus shared the views of the people, 
 that he actually thouglit that Moses wrote the 
 entire Pentateuch, and Isaiah, the whole of the 
 book bearing his name ; but that this was a limita- 
 tion of knowledge on his part. And they further 
 insist that this attitude toward Jesus in no wise 
 affects the supreme and final authority of the 
 Christ over the lives of men. The entire life of 
 the Master, they say, shows that he regarded 
 his mission as spiritual; he did not come to correct 
 all errors, but merely those touching religion and
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 97 
 
 ethics; and even here he did not give detailed 
 specific rules. In many cases he simply laid down 
 great principles, which in time might be 
 worked out and applied to the details of human 
 activity. He did not abolish slavery, he made 
 no efforts to correct errors hi science; why shoukl 
 he correct erroneous views respecting literary 
 and critical questions? These were outside of his 
 immediate sphere of interest. His knowledge or 
 ignorance in these secondary matters does not 
 necessarily involve his knowledge or authority in 
 essentials. (^^) Again, while Christ was God, he 
 was also truly man. This union of the divine 
 with the human, if real, must have brought some 
 limitations. And the New Testament clearly 
 teaches that in some respects the powers of Christ 
 were limited. His omnipotence was limited, else 
 he could not have felt hunger, weariness, pain, etc. 
 As strength was needed, it was supplied. It may 
 have been there potentially, but not actually. 
 Might it not have been the same with omniscience? 
 In one case, at least, Jesus admits that his knowl- 
 edge was limiled: "But of that day or hour know- 
 eth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither 
 the Son, but the Father. "(") And, surely, that 
 which, according to this admission, was hidden 
 from Jesus was, as compared with a question of 
 the authorship of a biblical book, of infinitely 
 greater importance. It would seem, therefore.
 
 98 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 that B, P. Raymond is right when he says: "To 
 affirm that he had Imowledge of the critical 
 questions which agitate Christian scholars to-day 
 is to deny that he was made like mito his brethren. 
 It is to compromise the reality of his humanity 
 and to start on the road that leads to doeetisra. 
 Fair bairn's conclusions are just; 'The humanity 
 of the Saviour must be absolutely real.' "(^*) 
 
 There are, then, three explanations of the 
 references of Christ to the authorship of Old 
 Testament books, each one of which seems per- 
 fectly fair, natural, and, above all, scriptural; and 
 each one shows that his utterances do not finally 
 settle purely literary questions. This conclusion, 
 since it is in perfect accord with the New Testa- 
 ment, can in no wise be construed as an insult 
 to the Christ, nor does it affect in the least the 
 authority of Jesus in matters religious and ethical. 
 Whsit is said here of the words of Jesus is equally 
 true, with some slight modifications, of similar 
 New Testament references coming, not from Jesus 
 directly, but from the authors of the New Testa- 
 ment books. 
 
 From the consideration of this question of vital 
 interest we may turn to another, also of great 
 importance, namely, what is the effect of critical 
 conclusions upon the belief in the inspiration of 
 the Old Testament, in the supernatural in its 
 history, and m its authority? All these questions 
 
 \
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 99 
 
 center in one, for inspiration implies the presence 
 of a supernatural element, and the authority of 
 the Old Testament depends upon the reality of 
 its inspiration. Hence the real question is. Have 
 the conclusions of the higher criticism disproved, 
 or in any serious way affected, the reality of the 
 inspiration of the Old Testament writers? This 
 inquiry must be answered with an emphatic 
 "No." Inspiration does not depend upon the 
 fact that a certain definite individual is respon- 
 sible for a writmg. A book is inspired because 
 God is back of it and in it, and not because a 
 certain man wrote it. Nor does belief in inspira- 
 tion depend upon the knowledge of the human 
 author, else how could Christians believe in the 
 inspiration of the men who wrote boolcs like the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, the book of Job, the 
 books of Samuel, and other biblical books whose 
 authors are not named? Moreover, an inspired 
 book does not lose its inspiration because it is 
 discovered that the human agent inspired is one 
 different from the man to whom tradition has 
 been accustomed to assign the book. Would the 
 laws of the Pentateuch be any less divine if it 
 should be proved that they were the product of 
 the experience of the chosen people from the 
 time of Moses to the exile? Would the Psalms 
 cease to lift us into the presence of God, if it 
 should be demonstrated that most of them came
 
 100 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 from a period later than David? Is the book of 
 Job less majestic and sublime because we know 
 not the time or place of its birth? Are the Proverbs 
 less instructive because criticism claims that they 
 do not all come from the son of David ?(^^) 
 
 Once more: inspiration is not confined to any 
 form of literature; a parable may be as truly 
 inspired as history; and the inspiration of a book 
 does not vanish when it is assigned to one form 
 of literature rather than to another. The con- 
 clusions of the legitimate higher criticism in no 
 wise tend toward a denial of the inspiration of the 
 Old Testament. Inspiration, the special divine 
 providence over Israel, God's interference in the 
 history of the chosen people, would stand out as 
 prominently as ever if every claim of the higher 
 criticism should be proved true. Most critical 
 scholars are ready to indorse the words of Pro- 
 fessor Sanday: "My experience is that criticism 
 leads straight up to the supernatural, and not 
 away from it.'X^") But if this be true, how can 
 any authority which rightly belongs to the Old 
 Testament be affected by criticism? This author- 
 ity belongs to it by virtue of its inspiration, and 
 the voice of God is not silenced by the conclusions 
 of modem criticism. 
 
 "But," some one will say, "if this is true how 
 is it that criticism has been and still is con- 
 demned unsparingly by many men whose sincerity
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 101 
 
 and love for the truth cannot be called into ques- 
 tion?" There are several reasons for this. In 
 the first place even some very intelhgcnt men 
 seem to misunderstand both the purpose and the 
 claims of the higher criticism. Another reason is 
 that there are even among the evangelical critics 
 those who lack judgment, and who permit them- 
 selves to draw inferences unwarranted by the 
 facts in the case. As a consequence, ill-informed 
 persons have concluded that all the results of 
 criticism are unwarranted by the facts. A third 
 reason is that some critics are arrogant and 
 obnoxious in the presentation of their views, and, 
 therefore, bring the entire process into disrepute. 
 A fourth, and perhaps the most important, reason 
 is that in addition to the legitimate higher crit- 
 icism discussed in the preceding pages there is 
 an illegitimate criticism which very frequently, 
 though erroneously, is thought to be the only 
 kind of criticism practiced. This criticism also 
 studies the facts, but — and this is its distinguishing 
 feature — its investigations are colored by certain 
 presuppositions, such as the belief in a material- 
 istic or deistic evolution, in the presence of which 
 there is no room for inspiration, or for the super- 
 natural, or for miracles, in the Christian sense of 
 these terms. This kind of criticism is not legit- 
 imate, because it is not scientific, proceeding as 
 it does on the basis of an unestablished, unchris-
 
 102 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 tiaii, and impossible view of the universe. But 
 higher critics belonging to this class are few in 
 number, and fairness and Christian courtesy 
 demand that in any discussion of the subject 
 clear distinctions should be made between this 
 criticism and that process of investigation which 
 is not only legitimate, but indispensable. It is 
 also well to bear in mind that the conclusions of 
 the illegitimate criticism will never be disproved by 
 denunciation, but, rather, by the careful and pains- 
 taking labors of those critics who approach their 
 studies without these unwarranted assumptions. 
 
 One more question remains to be considered, 
 namely, What becomes of the men from whom 
 criticism takes away at least part of the writings 
 traditionally comiected with their names? Pre- 
 eminent among these are Moses, Isaiah, and 
 David. Moses is not, as is sometimes erroneously 
 asserted, removed to the realm of myths. (^*) 
 To prove this assertion it is only necessary to 
 quote the words of one who accepts the results 
 of the higher criticism as set forth above: "Moses 
 was the man who under divme direction 'hewed 
 Israel from the rock.' Subsequent prophets and 
 circumstances chiseled the rough bowlder into 
 sjnnmetrical form, but the glory of the creative 
 act is rightly attributed to the first great Hebrew 
 prophet. As a leader he not only created a 
 nation but guided them through infinite vicis-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 103 
 
 situdes to a land where they might have a settled 
 abode and develop into a stable power; in so doing 
 he left upon his race the imprmt of his o\vn mighty 
 personality. As a judge he set in motion forces 
 which ultimately led to the mcorporation of the 
 principles of right in objective laws. As a priest 
 he first gave definite form to the worship of 
 Jehovah. As a prophet he gathered together all 
 that was best in the faith of his age and race, 
 and, fusing them, gave to his people a livmg 
 religion. Under his enlightened guidance Israel 
 became truly and forever the people of Jehovah. 
 Through him the Divine revealed himself to 
 Israel as their Deliverer, Leader, and Coimselor — 
 not afar off, but present; a God powerful and 
 willing to succor his people, and, therefore, one 
 to be trusted and loved as well as feared. As 
 the acorn contains the sturdy oak m embryo, 
 so the revelation through Moses was the germ 
 which developed into the message of Israel to 
 
 humanity. "(^') 
 
 Isaiah, though losing some of the sublimest 
 passages in the book, is still the kmg among the 
 prophets. In the words of Ewald, a pronoimced 
 advocate of the conclusions of modern criticism: 
 "Of the other prophets all the more celebrated 
 ones were distinguished by some special excellence 
 and peculiar power, whether of speech or of 
 deed; in Isaiah all the powers and all the beauties
 
 104 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OP 
 
 of prophetic speech and deed combine to form 
 a symmetrical whole; he is distinguished less by 
 any special excellence than by the symmetTy 
 and perfection of all his parts. There are 
 rarely combined in one individual the profoundest 
 prophetic emotion and purest feeling, the most 
 unwearied, successful, and consistent activity 
 amid all the confusions and changes of life; and, 
 lastly, true poetic genius and beauty of style, 
 combined with force and irresistible power; yet 
 this triad of powers we find realized in Isaiah 
 as in no other prophet. "(^^) 
 
 David, indeed, loses some of his halo, if many 
 of the most beautiful psalms are taken from him, 
 3'et he remains the man after God's own heart. 
 "According to his light, he served the Jehovah 
 whom he knew with marvelous fidelity and 
 constancy. ... He ruled over the united Hebrew 
 tribes as Jehovah's representative. In his name 
 he fought the battles against Israel's foes, whom 
 he regarded as Jehovah's also. . . . From the 
 spoils which he won in his wars he provided the 
 means wherewith to build a fitting dwelling place 
 for the God of his nation. The priests found in 
 him a generous patron, and prophets like Nathan 
 were among his most trusted counselors. To do 
 the will of Jehovah as it was revealed to him was 
 the dominating principle of his life. More cannot 
 be said of anyone. "(''0
 
 THE OLD TP]STAMENT 105 
 
 A splendid summary of the bearing of modern 
 evangelical criticism upon the Christian view of 
 the Old Testament is given by Canon Driver: 
 "It is not the case that critical conclusions are 
 in conflict either with the Christian creeds or 
 with the articles of the Christian faith. Those 
 conclusions affect not the fact of revelation but 
 only its form. They help to determine the stages 
 through which it passed, the different phases 
 which it assumed, and the process by which the 
 record of it was built up. They do not touch 
 either the authority or the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament. They imply 
 no change in respect to the divine attributes 
 revealed in the Old Testament, no change in the 
 lessons of human duty to be derived from it, 
 no change as to the general position (apart from 
 the interpretation of particular passages) that 
 the Old Testament points forward prophetically 
 to Christ. That both the religion of Israel itself 
 and the record of its history embodied in the 
 Old Testament are the work of men whose hearts 
 have been touched and minds illuminated, in 
 different degrees, by the Spu-it of God is man- 
 ifest."C') 
 
 But not only has criticism not taken away 
 anything essential from the Bible; on the 
 contrary, it has resulted in some distinct gains. 
 The textual criticism has furnished the modem
 
 106 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 student with a much more accurate text of the 
 biblical books, while the linguistic criticism has 
 established the interpretation of this text upon 
 a firmer basis. The higher criticism also has 
 made invaluable contributions toward a more 
 adequate imderstanding of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. It has made impossible the arbitrary 
 and, sometimes, unreasonable interpretations of 
 scripture which in former ages have proved a 
 serious detriment to religion and theology. It 
 has restored to religious use some of the biblical 
 books almost forgotten before, and endowed 
 them with flesh and blood by throwing bright 
 light upon the circumstances connected with their 
 origin. It has made it possible to secure a "reason- 
 able, probable, and even thrilling" view of the 
 history and religion of Israel and of the steps 
 by which the records of these grew up. Many 
 of the moral, religious, and historical difficulties 
 which served as effective weapons to skeptics in 
 all ages have disappeared, and the weapons have 
 been snatched from the enemies of the Bible. 
 Many of the confusions and apparent discrep- 
 ancies, which according to former theories pre- 
 sented insurmountable difficulties, have found a 
 satisfactory explanation. "Higher criticism," says 
 R. F. Horton, "so much dreaded by pious souls, is 
 furnishing a conclusive answer to the untiring 
 opponents of revelation. "(^'') Everyone knows
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 107 
 
 that the Bible has been bitterly attacked in the 
 past, and that such attacks have not altogether 
 ceased even now; but it is sometimes overlooked 
 that in the majority of cases these attacks are 
 made by men who are, or seem to be, lamentably 
 ignorant of the attitude and results of modern 
 critical study. Their arguments become "ab- 
 solutely powerless against the modern historical 
 interpretation of the Bible; and the more that 
 interpretation underlies the teaching of the young, 
 the more certain are those attacks to die a natural 
 
 death."n 
 
 There are, indeed, few Old Testament scholars 
 who would not indorse the testimony of Professor 
 A. S. Peake, given in a paper on "Permanent 
 Results of Biblical Criticism," read before the 
 Fourth Methodist Ecumenical Conference: "Speak- 
 ing for myself, I may truthfully say that my 
 sense of the value of Scripture, my interest in 
 it, my attachment to it, have been ahnost in- 
 definitely enhanced by the new attitude and new 
 mode of study which criticism has brought to us." 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER III 
 
 0) Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, 
 p. 1. 
 
 O The Integrity of Scripture, p. 1. 
 
 f ) The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Tes- 
 tament, p. 85. 
 
 {*) Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, 
 p. 47.
 
 108 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 (*) General Introduction to the Old Testament: The 
 Text, pp. 162, 163. 
 
 (') J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 
 Preface to Second Edition. 
 
 C) The Elements of the Higher Criticism, pp. 12, 13. 
 
 C) Christ and Criticism, Preface. 
 
 C) J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the New Scholar- 
 ship, p. 87. 
 
 C^) L. W. Munhall, Anti-Higher Criticism, p. 9. For a 
 discriminating study of the theological and philo- 
 sophical bias of the more representative Old Testa- 
 ment critics, see Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1912, 
 pp. Iff. 
 
 (") The Bible and Modem Criticism, p. 19. 
 
 (") The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 7, 8. 
 
 ('') Some of these concessions are enumerated in J. E. 
 McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the 
 Christian Church, pp. 15ff. The Problem of the 
 Old Testament, by James Orr, is often quoted 
 as overthrowing entirely the positions of modern 
 criticism regarding the authorship of the Penta- 
 teuch. If, however, one reads Orr's summary of 
 the chief results of his own critical investigation 
 (pp. 371ff.), the question may well be asked. Why 
 should he be considered less of a higher critic than, 
 for example, Wellhausen? 
 
 ('*) The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testa- 
 ment, p. 30. 
 
 (") Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, 
 p. 143. 
 
 ("•) Even those who question the existence of four inde- 
 pendent documents assume the activity of at least 
 four different hands. 
 
 (") James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, 
 p. 151. 
 
 (") See above, pp. 30ff. 
 
 ('») The Highest Critics vs. The Higher Critics, pp. 7, 8.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 109 
 
 (*") Acts 3. 24. The passage in the mind of the apostle 
 seems to be 2 Sam. 7. 11-16. 
 
 C>) Heb. 4. 7. 
 
 O Psa. 95. 
 
 (^) The origin of the designations Moses = Pentateuch, 
 Samuel = books of Samuel, David = book of Psalms, 
 must be explained, and can be explained; but as 
 the mention of Samuel and David ishows, it cannot 
 always rest upon the fact of authorship, whatever 
 the popular idea may have been. 
 
 C*) James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV 
 p. 151. 
 
 (") Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 76. 
 
 (^) See above, p. 55. 
 
 (") Mark 13. 32. 
 
 C^) M. S. Terry, Moses and the Prophets, p. 194. 
 
 (^•) C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of 
 Holy Scripture, p. 26. 
 
 ('») Quoted in J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism 
 and the Christian Church, p. 253. 
 
 ('') Moses has, indeed, been removed by some investi- 
 gators to the realm of myth, but not upon the basis 
 of conclusions reached by the legitimate modern 
 criticism. 
 
 C^) C. F. Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, Vol. I, 
 pp. 44, 45. 
 
 {^) Prophets, English translation. Vol. II, p. 1. 
 
 C') C. F. Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, Vol. I, 
 p. 167. 
 
 (") Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 
 pp. viii, ix. 
 
 C) Revelation and the Bible, p. 61. 
 
 C) J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the 
 Christian Church, p. 136.
 
 110 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 The Old Testament and Archeology 
 
 A CENTURY ago the student of the world's 
 history found it exceedingly difficult, if not im- 
 possible, to paint for himself a clear picture of 
 events antedating B. C. 400. Concerning earlier 
 periods, he was, aside from the Old Testament, 
 practically without records that could claim 
 contemporaneousness with the events recorded. 
 But, one hundred years ago, men had connnenced 
 to test every statement, be it historical, or scientific, 
 or theological, by severe canons of criticism, 
 and if it could not stand the test, it was speedily 
 rejected. One result of this tendency was to 
 reject historical statements of the Bible when 
 they could not be corroborated by reliable extra- 
 biblical records. The nineteenth century has 
 wrought a marvelous change. The Old Testament 
 is no longer the **lone Old Testament," at the 
 mercy of the scientific investigator. The historian 
 and the Bible student now have at their com- 
 mand literary treasures almost without number, 
 partly contemporaneous with the Old Testament, 
 partly older by many centuries. These rich 
 treasures have been brought to light by the per-
 
 THE OLD TESTAME>s^T 111 
 
 severance and painstaking toil of archaeologists, 
 whose discoveries have shed liglit on human 
 history during a period of more than four thousand 
 years before the opening of the Christian era. 
 
 The historical movements recorded in the Old 
 Testament, in which the Hebrews had a vital 
 interest, were confined chiefly to the territory 
 between the four seas of western Asia: the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and 
 the Persian Gulf, In the East the territory might 
 be extended to include Persia; in the West, to 
 include Asia Minor; and in the South or South- 
 west, to include Egypt, in North Africa. All 
 these districts, which may be designated Bible 
 lands, have been more or less thoroughly ex- 
 plored, and in most of them excavations have 
 been carried on. The countries in which the 
 most valuable finds, so far as Bible study is con- 
 cerned, have been made are Palestine, Babylonia- 
 Assyria, Egypt, Northern Syria, Phoenicia, Moab, 
 and Asia Minor. 
 
 Even before excavations were undertaken trav- 
 elers had visited these different comitries and 
 had reported their observations, but the informa- 
 tion thus gauied was more or less vague, and in 
 many cases of no practical scientific value. (*) 
 They saw many strange moimds and ruins, and 
 noticed and occasionally picked up fragments of 
 inscriptions and monuments; but no one could de-
 
 112 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ciplier the inscriptions; hence the finds were 
 preserved sini|)ly as nunnentoes and n^lics of an 
 unknown age, from which nothing could be learned 
 concernmg the history and civiHzation of the 
 people that once occupied these lands. The mounds 
 and heaps of ruins which contained the real 
 treasures were left undisturbed until the nine- 
 teenth century. 
 
 The pioneer in the work of excavation in the 
 territory of Babylonia and Assyria was Claudius 
 James Rich, who, while resident of the British 
 East India Company in Bagdad, in 1811, visited 
 and studied the ruins of Babylon, and a little 
 later made similar investigations in the mounds 
 marking the site of the ancient city of Nineveh. 
 In the gullies cut by centuries of rain he gathered 
 numerous little clay tablets, covered on every side 
 with the same wedge-shaped characters as those 
 seen on the fragments found by earlier travelers. 
 These he saved carefully, and in time presented 
 them to the British Museum. 
 
 No systematic excavations were carried on until 
 1842, when P. C. Botta was sent by the French 
 government as vice-consul to Mosul on the upper 
 Tigris. He noticed across the riv(>r from Mosul 
 extensive artificial mounds which were supposed 
 to mark the site of the city of Nineveh. These 
 so aroused his curiosity that he began digging in 
 the two most prominent momids. Failing to make
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT lin 
 
 any discoveries, he transferred, the following year, 
 at the suggestion of a peasant, his activities to 
 Korsabad, a few miles to the northeast, where the 
 digging produced, almost immediately, startling 
 results. In the course of his excavations he laid 
 bare a complex of buildings which proved to be 
 the palace of Sargon, king of Assyria from B. C. 
 722 to B. C. 705, a palace covering an area of 
 about twenty-five acres. The walls of the various 
 buildings were all wainscotted with alabaster 
 slabs, upon which were representations of bat- 
 tles, sieges, triumphal processions, and similar 
 events in the life of ancient Assyria. He also 
 found, in the course of the excavations, scores of 
 strange figures and colossi, and numerous other 
 remains of a long lost civilization. Botta's dis- 
 coveries filled the whole archaiological world with 
 enthusiasm. 
 
 Even before Botta reached Mosul, a young 
 Englishman, Austin Henry Layard, visited the 
 territory of ancient Assyria, and was so impressed 
 by its momids and ruins that he resolved to 
 examine them thoroughly whenever it might be 
 in his power to do so. This resolution was taken 
 in April, 1840, but more than five years elapsed 
 before he began operations. It would be interest- 
 ing to follow Layard 's work as described by him 
 in a most fascinating manner in Nineveh and 
 Its Remains, and other writings, which give com-
 
 Ill THE CHEISTIAX VIEW OF 
 
 plete records of the wonderful successes he achieved 
 where\'cr lie went. 
 
 Never again did the labors entirely cease, though 
 there were periods of decline, Layard's operations 
 were conthnied under the direction of Rassam, 
 Taylor, Loftus, and Henry C. Rawlinson; the 
 French operations were in charge of such men 
 as Place, Thomas, Fresnell, and Oppert. How- 
 ever, it was not until 1873 that other startling 
 discoveries were made, chiefly under the direction 
 of George Smitli, who was sent by the Daily 
 Telegraph, of London, to visit the site of Nineveh 
 for the purpose of finding, if possible, fragments 
 of the Babylonian account of the Deluge, parts of 
 which he had previously discovered on tablets 
 that had been shipped to the British Museum. In 
 1S77 France sent Ernest de Sarzec as consul to 
 Bosra in Lower Babylonia. His interest in 
 archaeology led him to investigate some of the 
 mounds in the neighborhood, and he soon began 
 work at one called Telloh. In the course of 
 several campaigns, which continued until 1894, 
 he unearthed a great variety of material illus- 
 trative of primitive ages, among his treasures be- 
 ing palaces, statues, vases, thousands of tablets, 
 and various other articles of interest. 
 
 The first steps toward sending out an American 
 expedition for excavation were taken at a meeting 
 of the American Oriental Society in the spring of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 115 
 
 1884. In the fall of tlio same year a preliminary 
 expedition of exploration was sent out, wliich 
 completed its labors during the winter and spring, 
 returning in June, 1885. But the means for 
 excavation were not forthcoming until 1888, when 
 a well-equipped expedition was sent out under the 
 auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. Four 
 successive campaigns were carried on upon the 
 great mounds of Nuffar, the site of Nippur, a 
 center of early Babylonian life. Each expedition 
 brought to light architectural and artistic remain.-; 
 and many thousands of tablets, throwing light 
 upon all sitles of the ancient life and civilization, 
 over which hitherto there had lain almost com- 
 plete darkness. In 1899 Germany sent its first 
 expedition to Babylon and, during successive 
 seasons, extensive excavations have been carried 
 on, which have resulted m the discovery of many 
 interesting finds. At a later date excavations 
 were begun and, like those of Babylon, are still 
 continued, on the mound covering the site of the 
 ancient capital city of Assyria, Asshur, where 
 inscriptions of great value have been uncovered. 
 At the present time the Germans are perhaps the 
 most active excavators m Assyria-Babylonia, and 
 by their painstaking care to record every new 
 discovery they are boimd to increase the knowledge 
 of the early history and civilization of these 
 ancient empires. (")
 
 no THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Reference may be made also to the later ex- 
 cavations of the French at Susa, the scone of the 
 book t)f Estlier, whore thoy h;vve uncovcrocl much 
 valuable material. The most important find, made 
 in the ^\^nter of 1901-1902, is the monument upon 
 which is inscribed the legal code of Hammurabi, 
 king of Babylon, generally idontifiod with the 
 Amraphel of Gen. 14. 1. For a short time the 
 University of Chicago carried on excavations at 
 Bismiyah, in southern Babylonia, which have 
 brought to light many objects of interest, if not 
 of great historical importance. The Turkish 
 government, under whose rule the territory of 
 Babylonia and Assj^-ia now is, stimulated by the 
 example of other nations, is taking an active 
 interest in these excavations, granting the privilege 
 of excavating to an ever-increasing number of 
 scholars, and giving them protection while engaged 
 in their work. The Sultan has erected in Con- 
 stantinople a magnificent museum, where the 
 valuable antiquities are accessible to the scholar- 
 ship of the world. 
 
 The credit of having first turned the attention 
 of the West toward the monuments of Egypt, and 
 of having brought them within the reach of science, 
 belongs to the military expedition of Napoleon 
 Bonaparte, undertaken in the summer of 1798. (^) 
 In August, 1799, a French artillery officer, Bous- 
 sard, unearthed at the Fort Saint Julien, near
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 117 
 
 Rosetta, in the Nile Delta, a stone of black granite, 
 three feet five inches in height, two feet four and 
 one half inches in width, and eleven inches in 
 thickness. It is tliouglit to have been at least 
 twelve inches higher and to have had a rounded 
 top. On the upper portion of this block could 
 be seen parts of fourteen lines of characters, 
 resembling those seen everywhere on the obelisks 
 and ruined temples of the land; adjoining these 
 below are thirty-two lines of another specic^s of 
 script, while at the bottom arc fifty-four lines, 
 twenty-eight of them complete, in Greek uncial let- 
 ters. The Greek was easily read, and told the story 
 of the stone: It was set up in B. C. 195, by the 
 priests of Egypt, in honor of Ptolemy Epiphanes, 
 because he had canceled arrearages of certain 
 taxes due from the sacerdotal body. The grateful 
 priests ordered the memorial decree to be inscribed 
 in the sacred characters of Egypt, in the vernacular, 
 and in Greek. The Greek portion having been 
 read, it was conjectured that the two inscriptions 
 above the Greek told the same story. Sucli being 
 the case, the value of the documoiit for the de- 
 cipherment of the Egyptian inscriptions was at 
 once perceived, and scholars immediately set to 
 work on the task of deciphering the unknown 
 script. The honor of having solved the mystery 
 belongs to Frangois Champollion, who by 1S22 
 had succeeded in fixing the value of a considerable
 
 lis THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 portion of the ancient Egyptian signs, and at 
 the time of his death, ten 3^ears later, left behmd 
 in manuscript a complete Egyptian grammar and 
 vocabulary. 
 
 Through the discovery of Champollion the 
 interest in ancient Egypt grew in all learned 
 circles, and from his day until now efforts at 
 bringing to light tiie remains of the Egyptian 
 civilization have never ceased. The French have 
 been especially active; but other nations also have 
 been in the field and have greatly added to our 
 knowledge of ancient Egypt. Since 1883 the 
 Egyptian Exploration Fund has been at work in 
 various parts of the Nile valley; private subscrip- 
 tions have enabled the investigation of certain 
 places of special mterest; and now every 3^ear 
 new finds are made, which constantly enrich our 
 knowledge of the history, art, and civilization of 
 the land of the Pharaohs. 
 
 ''Palestine," says Dr. Benzinger, "became the 
 object of most general interest earlier than any 
 other Oriental country. . . . Nevertheless, Palestine 
 research is but a child of the century just closed, 
 the systematic exploration of the land, in all its 
 aspects, beginning properly speaking with the 
 foundation of the English Palestine Exploration 
 Fund in 18G5."(^ The reason for this delay is 
 not far to seek. From the time that Christians 
 first began to visit Palestine to a comparatively
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT lin 
 
 recent date all pilgrimages were prompted by 
 religious, not by scientific motives. The interest 
 of the pilgrims was excited only by those places 
 which were pointed out to them as the scenes 
 of sacred events, and the knowledge they brought 
 home consisted chiefly of descriptions of the 
 places held in special veneration. Li 1841 there 
 appeared in three volmnes a work entitled Biblical 
 Researches, in which Professor Edward Robinson 
 recorded the results of his travels in Palestine 
 during the year 1838. In 1852 Robinson made a 
 second journey. During these two trips he and 
 his companions worked with ceaseless industry, 
 always accurately measuring the distances, and 
 describing the route, even to the smallest detail. 
 This painstaking care made the accounts so 
 valuable that his books marked a turning point 
 in the whole matter of Palestinian research, and 
 could serve as a foundation upon which all future 
 researches might rest. 
 
 Among other travelers who have made valuable 
 contriI)utions to our knowledge of Palestine, the 
 most important are Titus Tobler, H. V. Guerin, 
 E. Renan, and G. A. Smith. But the better the 
 land came to be known, the more fully was it 
 realized that the complete systematic exploration 
 of the land was beyond the power of individual 
 travelers. Hence in 1865 a number of men 
 interested in Palestinian research met in London
 
 120 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 and organized a society known as the Palestine 
 Exploration Fund. Its object was the complete, 
 systematic, and scientific exploration of the Holy 
 Land, especially for the pm-pose of elucidating the 
 Scriptures. The idea was taken up with great 
 enthusiasm, and from the beginning until now 
 the society has been actively engaged in illuminat- 
 ing Palestine past and present. During the early 
 history of the Fund few excavations were carried 
 on, and these were confined to the city of Jeru- 
 salem; but since 1890 several mounds in southern 
 Palestine have been excavated, the most important 
 being Tel-el-Hesy, the probable site of ancient 
 Lachish, and the site of the important city of 
 Gezer. At present (1912) the site of ancient 
 Beth-Shemesh is being excavated. 
 
 The German Palestine Society was organized in 
 1877 for a similar purpose. When the English 
 surveyors were prevented by the Turkish govern- 
 ment from completing the survey of eastern 
 Palestine the German society took up the work, 
 and its results are embodied in a map now in 
 process of publication. The principal excavations 
 of the German society were carried on between 
 1903 and 1907 at Tel-el Mutasellim, the ancient 
 Megiddo, under the direction of Dr. Benzinger 
 and Dr. Schumacher. Dr. Sellin carried on exca- 
 vations at the neighboring Taanach for the 
 Austrian government between 1902 and 1904.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 121 
 
 Two other sites have been excavated — Jericho by 
 the Germans and Samaria by Harvard University, 
 and though no epoch-making finds have come to 
 light ia these two places, the results illuminate the 
 early history of Palestine. 
 
 Phoenicia has yielded some of its treasures. 
 The first of importance, found in 1855 in the 
 Necropolis of Sitlon, was the sarcophagus of 
 Eshmunazar, king of Sidon. Since then various 
 other sites have been examined, and much ma- 
 terial has been unearthed, throwing light on the 
 history, religion, art, and civilization of these 
 ancient neighbors of Israel. In the year 1868 a 
 German missionary, the Rev. F. Klein, discovered 
 at Diban, the site of an ancient royal city of Moab, 
 a large stone, with an inscription of Mesha, a king 
 of Moab in the ninth century B. C. Between 1888 
 and 1891 investigations were conducted, for the 
 Royal Museum in Berlin, at the moimd of Zenjirli, 
 once a city in the land Shamal, near the northern 
 limits of Syria, south of the Issus, about forty 
 miles inland The old citadel was uncovered, and 
 various sculptures, showing Hittite influence, a 
 magnificent statue of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, 
 a huge statue of the god Hadad, and several 
 Aramaic inscriptions of great value, as illustrating 
 early Syrian civiHzation, were found. More re- 
 cently, in 1906 and 1907, Professor Winckler 
 visited Boghaz-koei, in Asia ]\Iinor, a center of
 
 122 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 early Ilittitc civilization, where he uncovered 
 thousands of tablets which throw new light upon 
 the history of western Asia in ancient times. 
 Thus, generation after generation, amid dangers 
 and hardships, a body of enthusiastic, self-sacrific- 
 ing men have toiled almost day and night in 
 order to restore to life a civilization buried for 
 many centuries beneath the sands of the desert 
 and the ruins of ancient cities, and we are only 
 at the beginning. What revelations the next 
 fifty years may have in store! 
 
 The results of these expeditions have been 
 enthusiastically welcomed by all who are interested 
 in antiquity: the students of history, art, science, 
 anthropology, early civilization, and many others. 
 They are, however, of special interest to the 
 Bible student; and it is well to remember that, 
 whatever additional motives may be responsible 
 for excavations at the present time, from the 
 beginning until now the desire to find illustrations, 
 or confirmations of scriptural statements, has 
 played a prominent part. 'To what end," says 
 Professor Delitzsch,^^) "this toil and trouble in 
 distant, inhospitable and danger-ridden lands? 
 Why all this expense in ransacking to their utmost 
 depths the rubbish heaps of forgotten centuries, 
 where we know neither treasures of gold nor of 
 silver exist? Wliy this zealous emulation on the 
 part of the nations to secure the greatest possible
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 123 
 
 number of mounds for excavation? And whence, 
 too, that constantly increasing interest, that 
 burning enthusiasm, born of generous sacrifice, 
 now being bestowed on both sides of the Atlantic 
 upon the excavations in Babylonia and Assyria? 
 One answer echoes to all these questions, one 
 answer which, if not absolutely adequate, is yet 
 largely the reason and consummation of it all — 
 the Bible." 
 
 Our purpose is to discuss the bearing of recent 
 researches in Bible lands upon the Christian view 
 of the Old Testament, that is, the view which 
 looks upon the Old Testament as containing 
 records of divine revelations granted in divers 
 portions and in divers manners to the people of 
 Israel. Concerning this bearing, two distinct and 
 opposing claims are made: on the one hand, it is 
 said that archaeological research only confirms the 
 familiar view of the Bible as a trustworthy and 
 unique record of religion and history; on the 
 other hand, it is claimed that archa?ological 
 research has shown the Old Testament to be 
 untrustworthy as to history, and as to religion, 
 what has hitherto been regarded as original with 
 the Hebrews is claimed to have been borrowed 
 almost bodily from the surrounding nations. 
 
 What is the true situation? The archaeological 
 material which has more or less direct bearing 
 upon our inquiry may be roughly arranged under
 
 124 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 two heads: (1) The Historico-Geographical; (2) The 
 Eoligio-I^tliical. The present chapter deals with 
 the bearnig of the historico-geographical material 
 upon the Old Testament historical records, the 
 other class being reserved for the succeeding 
 chapter. The next step in the discussion will be 
 to enumerate at least the more important finds 
 having a more or less direct relation to the Old 
 Testament. Many archieological objects have been 
 brought to light, which, though they have but 
 indirect bearing upon the Old Testament, have 
 wonderfully illuminated the life of the ancient 
 East, and thus have made more distinct the 
 general historical background upon which the 
 scenes recorded in the Old Testament were enacted. 
 But a more important source of information are 
 the Lnscri{)lions which have been discovered by 
 the thousands and tens of thousands. These 
 mscriptions were written on all kinds of material 
 — granite, alabaster, wood, clay, papyrus, etc.; 
 shaped in a variety of forms — tablets, cylinders, 
 rolls, statues, walls, etc.; and they have been dug 
 out of mounds, tombs, pyramids, and many other 
 places. What, then, are the most important finds? 
 The first thing to bear in mind is that the 
 inscriptions have very little to say about the earlier 
 period of Hebrew history. Says Driver, (®) "With 
 the exception of the statement on the stele of 
 Merneptah, that 'Israel is desolated,' the first
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 125 
 
 event connected with Isruel antl its ancestors 
 wliicli the inscriptions mention or attest, is 
 Shishak's uivasion of Jutlah in the reign of Reho- 
 boam; and the first Israchtes whom they specify 
 by name are Omri and his son Ahab." Before 
 considering the statement on the stele of Mernep- 
 tah, attention may be given to certain inscriptions 
 which throw considerable light on conditions in 
 Palestuie before the Plebrew conquest, namely, 
 the so-called Tel-el-Amarna tablets.(^) These tab- 
 lets were discovered by accident in the whiter 
 of 1887-1888 at Tel-el-Amarna, the site of the 
 ancient capital of Amenophis IV of Kgypt, about 
 midway between Memphis and Thebes. On exam- 
 ination they proved to be a part of the official 
 archives of Amenophis III (1411-1375) and 
 Amenophis IV (1375-1358), consisting almost 
 entirely of letters and reports addressed to these 
 two Pharaohs by their officials in western Asia, 
 and by rulers who sustained close relations to 
 the Egyptian court. The royal letters, about 
 forty in number, are chiefly from kings of the 
 Hittites, of the Mitanni, of Assyria, and of Baby- 
 lonia. The rest of the correspondence, about two 
 hundred and fifty letters, is of much greater 
 historical interest; it consists of letters from 
 Egyptian governors in various cities of Palestine, 
 Phoenicia, and Syria, 
 These inscriptions show that about B. C. 1400,
 
 12G THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 about two liundnHl y(>ars boforo the Hebrew con- 
 quest, Palestiuc! and the neii^liboring countries 
 formed an Egyptian province under the rule of 
 Egyptian governors stationed in all principal 
 towns. At tlie time the Egyptians had con- 
 siderable diflieulty in niaintauiing their authority. 
 Their power was threatened by the Hittites and 
 other powerful neighbors, by the dissatisfied 
 native population, by the Habiri, who seem to have 
 Ix^en invaders from the desert, and by the intrigues 
 and rivalri(>s of the I<]gyptian governors themselves. 
 Practically all the principal cities of the land are 
 mentioncMl in these letters. From the standpoint 
 of Old Testament study, six letters written by 
 Abdi-hiba, Governor of Jerusalem, are of special 
 interest. He, like many of the other governors, 
 is in difficulty. The Habiri are pressing him hard; 
 the neighboring citi(>s of Gezer, liachish, and 
 Askelon are aiding the enemy; he has been slan- 
 dered before the king and accused of disloyalty. 
 In the letters he emphatically protests his inno- 
 cence. One of them reads: 'To the king my lord, 
 say also thus: It is Abdi-hiba, thy servant; at 
 the feet of my lord the king twice seven times, 
 and twice seven times I fall. What have I done 
 against the king my lord? They backbite, they 
 slander me before the king my lord, saying: 
 Abdi-hiba has fallen away from the king his lord. 
 Behold, as for me, neither my father nor my
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 127 
 
 mother set me in this place; the arm of the mighty 
 king caused me to enter Uito the house of my 
 father. Why should I commit a sin against the 
 king my lord?" 
 
 Perhaps the most surprising fact about these 
 letters is that the Palestinian governors used, in 
 the correspondence with their superiors in Egypt, 
 not the Egyptian or native Canaan ite, but the 
 Babylonian language, which seems conclusive 
 evidence that for some time ])reviously AVestern 
 Asia had been mider Babylonian influence. With- 
 out doubt this influence was primarily political, 
 but naturally it would bring with it (elements of 
 civiUzation, art, science, and religion. Now and 
 then wortls in the Canaanite hmguage occur, 
 either independently, or for the purpose of explain- 
 ing a Babylonian expression in the more familiar 
 dialect of the scribe. These Canaanite words are 
 hanJly distinguishable from the Hebrew of the 
 Old Testament. It is evident, therefore, that the 
 pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine were closely 
 akin to the Hebrews, and spoke substantially the 
 same language. The inscriptions of later Egyptian 
 kings, during the thirteenth and the early part 
 of the twelfth century, throw little additional 
 light on conditions hi Palestine, except that it 
 becomes increasingly clear that Egypt cannot 
 maintain its hold on the land. Subsequent to 
 Rameses III (119S-1167) Palestine was entirely
 
 1?S THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 lost to Egypt for several centuries, which explains 
 why the Ileljixnvs were not disturbed by the 
 empire on the Nile in their attempts to establish 
 theniselves in Palestine. 
 
 The first direct reference to Israel in the inscrip- 
 tions apparently takes us near the time of the 
 exodus. Archaeology has nothing to say directly 
 about the exodus; but in the enumeration of his 
 victories, Merneptah II, thought to be the Pharaoh 
 during whose reign the exodus took place, uses 
 these words: "Israel is lost, his seed is not." 
 The discovery of this inscription in 1896 was 
 hailed with gnvit rejoicing, for at last the name 
 "Israel" was found in an Egyptian inscription 
 coming, approximately at least, from the time of 
 the exodus; but, unfortunately, the reference is 
 so indefinite that its exact significance and bearing 
 upon the date of the exodus is still mider dis- 
 cussion. It is to be noted that, whereas the 
 other places or peoples named in the inscription 
 have the determinative for "country," "Israel" 
 lias the determinative for "men"; perhaps an 
 evidence that the reference is not to the land of 
 Israel, or to Israel permanently settled, but to a 
 tribe or people at the time without a settled abode. 
 But where was Israel at the time? To this a 
 variety of answers have been given. D. R. Fother- 
 ingham suggests that the ref(!rence is to the 
 destruction of the crops of Israel m Goshen.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 129 
 
 Israel, he thinks, had just left, with the crops 
 Luiharvested. These Merneptah claims to have 
 destroyed.(^) Others believe that the Israelites 
 had already entered Canaan when tliey suffered 
 the defeat mentioned by Merneptah. Petrie 
 thinks that the Israelites defeated were in Palestine, 
 but that they had no connection with the tribes 
 that had a part in the biblical exodus; he believes 
 that the latter were still in Goshen at the time 
 of this defeat. ('•') Still others believe that the 
 Israelites were, at the time of the defeat, in the 
 wilderness south of Palestine, and that the claim 
 of Merneptah is simply an attempt to account for 
 their disappearance from Egypt, And now comes 
 ICerdmans, of Leiden, with the suggestion that 
 the Israelites defeated by Merneptah were the 
 Israelites before they went down to Egypt. (^") It 
 is seen, therefore, that the reference on the stele 
 of Merneptah, while of much interest, because it 
 is the first mention of Israel in an Egyptian inscrip- 
 tion, after all throws little light upon the date 
 and the events of the exodus. 
 
 The next monument of importance contains an 
 account of the invasion of Palestine by Shishak, five 
 years after the death of Solomon. On the southern 
 wall of the court of the great temple of Amen at 
 Karnak the king has left a pictorial representation 
 of his campaign. A giant figure is represented as 
 holding in his left hand the ends of ropes which
 
 130 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 bind long rows of captives neck to neck. Their 
 hands are tied behind them, and the victor's right 
 hand holds a rod with which he threatens them. 
 The names of the conquered cities are inscribed 
 on shields that cover the lower part of the body 
 of each prisoner. Some of the most familiar 
 names in this list are Gaza, Abel, Adiillam, Beth- 
 horon, Aijalon, Gibeon, and Shunem.(") 
 
 From about the middle of the ninth century 
 on inscriptions containing references to kings of 
 Israel, or to events in which the Hebrews played 
 important parts, become more numerous. To the 
 reign of Omri (889-875) and his inmiediate suc- 
 cessors refers the inscription of Mesha on the so- 
 called Moabite Stone. ('^) This notable specimen 
 of antiquity is a stone of a bluish-black color, 
 about two feet wide, nearly four feet high, and 
 fourteen and one-half inches thick ; rounded at the 
 top, and, according to the testimony of the dis- 
 coverer, the Rev. F. Klein, also at the bottom, 
 which, however, is doubtful. The value of the 
 stone lies not only in the fact that it preserves 
 one of the most ancient styles of Hebrew writing, 
 but more especially in the historical, topographical, 
 and religious Information it furnishes. In 2 Kings 
 3 we read of the relations between Moab and 
 Omri antl his successors. Omri had subdued Moab 
 and had collected from her a yearly tribute. Ahab 
 had enjoyed the same revenue, amounting during
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 131 
 
 Mesha's reign to the wool of a hundred thousand 
 lambs and a hundred thousand rams. At the 
 close of Ahab's reign Mesha refused to continue 
 the payment of the tribute. The allied kings of 
 Israel, Judah, and Edom marched with their 
 armies against the Moabites, who fled for refuge 
 within the strong fortress of Kir-hareseth, where 
 Mesha offered up his own son as a burnt-offering 
 to Chemosh, his god; whereupon "there was great 
 wrath agahist Israel, and they departed from 
 them and returned to their ovm land." 
 
 The Moabite Stone was set up by King Mesha 
 to his god Chemosh in commemoration of this 
 deliverance. The opening lines read: "I am 
 Mesha, son of Chemosh-ken, king of Moab, the 
 Daibonite. My father reigned over Moab for 
 thirty years, and I reigned after my father. And 
 I made this high place for Chemosh in Korhah, 
 a high place of salvation, because he had saved 
 me from all the assailants, and because he had 
 let me see my desire upon all them that hated 
 me. Omri, king of Israel, afflicted Moab for many 
 days, because Chemosh was angry with his land; 
 and his son succeeded him; and he also said, I 
 will afflict Moab. In my days said he thus. But 
 I saw my desire upon him and his house, and 
 Israel perished with an everlasting destruction." 
 As a supplement to the Old Testament narrative, 
 his account is very instructive. The mention of
 
 132 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Yah well, the God of Israel, is of interest, as also 
 the fact that in Moab, as m Israel, national dis- 
 aster was attributed to the anger of the national 
 deity. The idiom in which the inscription is 
 written tliffers only dialectically from the Hebrew 
 of the Old Testament. Small idiomatic differences 
 are observable, but, on the other hand, it shares 
 with it several distinctive features, so that, on 
 the whole, it resembles Hebrew far more closely 
 than any other Semitic language now known. 
 In point of style the inscription reads almost like 
 a page from one of the earlier historical books of 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 From the time of Omri on Israel came into 
 frequent contact with Assyria; indeed, the fortunes 
 of Israel were closely bound up with the fortunes 
 of this great Eastern world-power. ('^) In 885, at 
 about the time when Omri had finally succeeded 
 in overcoming his rivals, Ashurnasirpal ascended 
 the throne of Assyria. He determined to restore 
 the former glory of his nation, which had become 
 eclipsed under his incompetent predecessors; and 
 with him began a period of conquest which ulti- 
 mately brought the whole eastern shore of the 
 Mediterranean under Assyrian sway. In 860 
 Shalmaneser III(") succeeded his father upon the 
 throne of Assyria, and in the following year he 
 renewed the attack upon the West. In 854 he 
 felt ])repared for a supreme effort, and it is in the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 133 
 
 account of this campaign that we read for the 
 first time the name of an Israelite king in the 
 Assyrian inscription. Shahnaneser advanced with 
 great speed and success until he reached Karkar, 
 near the Orontes, a little north of Hamath. In 
 the account of the campaign he mentions, among 
 the allies who fought against him, Ahab of Israel, 
 who, he says, furnished two thousand chariots and 
 ten thousand men. The campaign is recorded in 
 several inscriptions, in all of which Shalmaneser 
 claims a complete victory. 
 
 The most famous inscription of this king is the 
 one on the so-called Black Obelisk, an alabaster 
 monolith found at Nimrud in 1846. This monu- 
 ment is inscribed on all four sides with an account, 
 in one hundred and ninety lines, of the expedi- 
 tions undertaken during thirty-one years of the 
 king's reign. In the text of the inscription 
 reference is made to campaigns against the west 
 land (Syria and Palestine) in 859, 854, 850, 849, 
 846, 842, and 839. In addition to the inscription 
 the monument contains, on the upper portion, 
 five series of four reliefs each, each series repre- 
 senting the tribute brought to the Assyrian king by 
 kings whom he had conquered or who sought his 
 favor. In the inscription itself, no mention is 
 made of Israel or the king of Israel, but the second 
 tier of reliefs is of much interest. It depicts a 
 prince or deputy prostrating himself before Shal-
 
 134 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 maneser, and behind the prostrated figure are 
 attendants bearing gifts of various kinds. The 
 superscription reads: "The tribute of Jehu, son of 
 Oniri, silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden ladle, 
 golden goblets, golden pitchers, lead, a staff for 
 the hand of the king, shafts of spears, I received 
 of him." In 842 Shalnianeser undertook an ex- 
 pedition against Hazael of Damascus, and in the 
 account of this expedition he says, "At that time 
 I received the tribute of the Tyrians and Sidonians, 
 and of Jehu, the son of Omri." 
 
 About half a century after the occurrence of 
 Jehu's name in the inscription of Shalmaneser III 
 Israel is mentioned again as tributary to Assyria. 
 Adad-nirari IV (812-783), after enumerating other 
 countries subjugated by him, writes: "From the 
 Euphrates to the land of the Hatti, the west 
 coimtry in its entire compass. Tyre, Sidon, the 
 land of Omri, Edom, Philistia, as far as the great 
 sea of the setting of the sun (Mediterranean Sea), 
 I subjected to my yoke; payment of tribute I 
 imposed upon them." 
 
 Adad-nirari was succeeded by a series of weak 
 kings, during whose reign the power of Assyria 
 declined, but in 745 the great Tiglath-pileser IV, 
 mentioned in the Old Testament also under the 
 name Pul, ascended the throne. He succeeded in 
 reorganizing the resources of the empire and in 
 rekindling its ambitions for conquest. This ener-
 
 TTIE OLD TESTAMENT 135 
 
 getic king has left several inscriptions of much 
 interest to the student of Old Testament history. 
 In one of these, narrating an expedition against 
 northern Syria about B. C. 738, he mentions a 
 king, "Azriau of the land of Yaudi." It has 
 been customary to identify this king with Azariah 
 (Uzziah) of Judah. The contents speak against 
 this identification, and since the inscriptions found 
 in Zenjirli have established the existence in 
 northern Syria of a state called Yaudi, perhaps 
 the king mentioned in Tiglath-pileser's inscription 
 was a ruler of this northern kingdom. In the 
 annals which tell of his victory over Azriau of 
 Yaudi he mentions Menahem of Samaria as one 
 of the kings whose tribute he received. The 
 same inscription, referring to events in 734 or 733, 
 speaks of a victory over the House of Omri, and 
 the assassination of the king Pekah, but the 
 inscription is so fragmentary that the details are 
 obscure. Fortunately, the same events are re- 
 corded in another inscription, which is in a better 
 state of preservation, though it also has several 
 gaps. After enumerating several cities which he 
 captured in Palestine, among them Gaza, he con- 
 tinues: "The land of the dynasty of Omri . . . the 
 whole of its inhabitants, their possessions to 
 Assyria I deported. Pekah, their king, they slew, 
 Hoshea to rule over them appointed. Ten talents 
 of gold, a thousand talents of silver, I received
 
 136 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 as tribute." Ahaz of Judah is also mentioned in 
 an inscription of Tiglath-pilcser, as paying tribute, 
 but it is not clear to what year this refers. 
 
 Tiglath-pileser died in 727, and was succeeded 
 by Shalmaneser V, who in turn gave place in 
 722 to Sargon II. Shalmaneser is mentioned as 
 the king who attacked the northern kingdom, and 
 the Old Testament narrative leaves the impression 
 that he was the king who finally captured the 
 city of Samaria. The inscriptions show that it 
 was Sargon who overcame the city soon after the 
 beginning of his reign. In one of his inscriptions 
 he calls himself, "the brave hero . . . who over- 
 threw the Plouse of Omri." In another he says: 
 "Samaria I besieged, I took. 27,290 of its inhab- 
 itants I carried away; 50 chariots I gathered from 
 them; the rest of them I permitted to retain their 
 possessions. Over them I appointed my governor, 
 and upon them I imposed the tribute of the 
 former king." The annals of Sargon, which give 
 an account of the events during his reign in 
 chronological order, give the date of the capture 
 of Samaria. After the introduction, he continues: 
 "In the beghming of my reign and in the first 
 year of my reign, . . . Samaria I besieged and 
 took. . . . 27,290 inhabitants I carried away; 50 
 chariots as my royal portion I collected there. . . . 
 I restored and made as it was before. . . . People 
 from all countries, my captives, I settled there. My
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 137 
 
 official I appointed as governor over them. Tribute 
 and taxes like the Assyrian I imposed upon them." 
 After the destruction of the northern kingdom 
 the life of the Hebrews became centered in Judah 
 and Jerusalem. The fall of Samaria made an im- 
 pression on the South that was remembered for 
 some time. Nevertheless, the states along the 
 eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bore im- 
 patiently the Assyrian yoke, and in most cities 
 there arose a party which, relying on the promised 
 help of Egypt, was eager to free itself from Assyria. 
 That this party gained a foothold also in Jeru- 
 salem is seen from the prophecy in Isa. 20, in 
 which the prophet warns the people against trust- 
 ing in Egypt and rebelling against Assyria. In 
 the same direction points an inscription of Sargon 
 describing an expedition against Ashdod: "The 
 people of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab, 
 dwelling beside the sea, bringing tribute and 
 presents to Ashur my lord, were speaking treason. 
 The people and their evil chiefs, to fight against 
 me, to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, a prince who 
 could not save them, their presents carried and 
 besought his alliance." In all probability, Judah 
 did not become involved seriously at this time. 
 But the death of Sargon in 705 seems to have been 
 a signal for revolt in many parts of the Assyrian 
 empire. His son and successor, Sennacherib, gave 
 these rebellions his immediate attention; until 702
 
 138 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 he was kept busy in the East, but in that year 
 he turned westward, and by 701 was ready to 
 attack Judah. The campaign and the remarkable 
 deliverance of Jerusalem on that occasion are 
 recorded at length in 2 Kings 18, 19, and Isa. 36, 
 37. The account of the same campaign by the 
 Assyrian king is, from the standpoint of Old Testa- 
 ment history, perhaps the most interesting his- 
 torical inscription left by an Assyrian ruler. It 
 is found in the so-called Taylor Cylinder,(''^) 
 column 2, line 34, to column 3, line 41. The 
 most interesting portion reads: 
 
 To the city of Ekron I went; the governors 
 
 [and] princes, who had committed a transgression, I killed and 
 
 bound their corpses on poles around the city. 
 
 The inhabitants of the city, who had committed sin and evil, 
 
 I counted as spoil; to the rest of them 
 
 who had committed no sin and wrong, who had 
 
 no guilt, I spoke peace. Padi 
 
 their king, I brought forth from the 
 
 city of Jerusalem; upon the throne of lordship over them 
 
 I placed him. The tribute of my lordship 
 
 I laid upon him. But Hezekiah 
 
 of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, 
 
 I besieged 46 of his strong cities, fortresses, and small cities 
 
 of their environs, without number, [and] 
 
 by the battering of rams and the assault of engines, 
 
 by the attack of foot soldiers, mines, breaches, and axes, 
 
 I besieged, I took them; 200,150 men, young [and] old, male 
 
 and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, oxen 
 and sheep without number I brought out from them, 
 I counted them as spoil. [Hezekiah] himself I shut up like 
 
 a caged bird in Jerusalem
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 139 
 
 his royal city; the walls I fortified 
 
 against him [and] whosoever came out of the Rates of the 
 
 city, I turned 
 back. His cities, which I had plundered, I eoparated from 
 
 his land 
 and gave them to IMitinti, king of Ashdod, 
 to Padi, king of Ekron, and to Sil-Bel, 
 king of Gaza, and [tlms] diminished his territory. 
 To the former tribute, paid yearly, 
 I added the tribute and presents of my lordship and 
 laid that upon him. Ilezekiah himself 
 
 was overwhelmed by the fear of the brightness of my lordship; 
 the Arabians and his other faithful warriors 
 whom, as a defense for Jerusalem his royal city 
 he had brought in, fell into fear. 
 With 30 talents of gold [and] 800 talents of silver, precious 
 
 stones, 
 gukhli daggassi (?), large lapis lazuli, 
 couches of ivory, thrones of ivory, 
 ivory, usu wood, box wood (?), of every kind, a heavy 
 
 treasure, 
 and his daughters, his women of the palace, 
 the young men and young women, to Nineveh, the city of 
 
 my lordship, 
 I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his ambassadors, 
 to give tribute and to pay homage. 
 
 These are, perhaps, the most important his- 
 torical inscriptions ilKistrating specific events in 
 the history of Israel and Judah. There are, how- 
 ever, many more that make important, though 
 more or less indirect, contributions toward a better 
 understanding of Old Testament history. Just to 
 mention a few: Tirhaka of Egypt, who, temporarily 
 at least, interfered with the plans of the Assyrians,
 
 110 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 appears several times in the inscriptions; the real 
 significance of the events recorded in 2 Kings 20. 
 12ff'., and Isa. 30, can be understood only in 
 the light of the inscriptions; an interesting side- 
 light is thrown by the inscriptions on the biblical 
 account of Sennacherib's death. In one of the 
 inscriptions of Esarhaddon, the son and successor 
 of Sennacherib, we are told that among the twenty- 
 two kings of the land of the Hittites who assisted 
 him in his building enterprises was Manasseh, king 
 of Judah. Ashurbanipal, the successor of Esar- 
 haddon, includes Manasseh in a similar list. 
 Though this king is not mentioned in the Old 
 Testament under his Assyrian name, it is very 
 probable that he is the king referred to in Ezra 
 4. 10, where it is said that the ''great and noble 
 Osnappar" brought Babylonians, Susanians, Elam- 
 ites, and men of other nationalities to Samaria. 
 The inscriptions do not throw much light upon 
 the closing years of Judah's history, but we can 
 understand the events in which Judah played a 
 part better because the inscriptions set into 
 clearer light the general history of Western Asia. 
 The advance of the Scythians, the revival of Egypt 
 in the seventh century, the fall of Nineveh, the 
 rise of the Chaldean empire, which reached its 
 highest glory under Nebuchadrezzar, the con- 
 queror of Judah — all these are described in the 
 inscriptions, or, at least, illuminated by them.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 141 
 
 In a similar way the inscriptions, though not 
 mentioning the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, illu- 
 minate the biblical records in many respects. 
 Fortunately, also, the inscriptions furnish a good 
 idea of the events leading to the downfall of 
 Babylon, which resulted in the restoration of many 
 exiles to Judah; and the restoration itself assumes 
 a new significance in the light of the inscriptions; 
 for the permission to return granted by Cyrus 
 to the Jews is seen to be in accord with the general 
 policy of the conqueror to secure the good-will of 
 the peoples deported by the Babylonians by 
 restoring them to their owti liomes. The historical 
 situation of the age may suggest another reason 
 for the kindly treatment of the Jews. It was 
 inevitable that sooner or later Cyrus, or his suc- 
 cessors, should come into conflict with Egypt, 
 At such time it would be of immense value to 
 him to have near the border of Egypt a nation 
 upon whose fidelity and gratitude he could rely. 
 Archaeology has not thrown any direct light on 
 the condition of the Jews in Palestine under the 
 Persian rule. On the other hand, we know a 
 great deal about conditions m Babylonia during 
 that period, and within the past decade several 
 important documents written on papyrus have 
 been found in Egypt which furnish mdisputable 
 evidence that the island of Elephantine, opposite 
 Assuan, a short distance north of the first cataract
 
 142 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of the Nile, was the seat of a Jewish colony at 
 least as early as the reign of Cambyses, king of 
 Persia (B. C. 529-521).(»«) 
 
 This concludes the survey of the archaeological 
 material of a historical nature. It is seen that 
 during the period from the division of the kingdom 
 siil)so(iuent to the death of Solomon to the rtestab- 
 lishuient of the Jews in Palestine after the exile 
 the inscriptions furnish most interesting and 
 instructive illustrations of events mentioned or 
 alluded to in the Old Testament. As a result the 
 history and also the prophecy of the Old Testa- 
 ment have been removed from the isolated position 
 in which they previously seemed to stand. They 
 are now seen to be connected by many links with 
 the great movements taking place in the world 
 without. 
 
 The question as to the bearing of the archaeo- 
 logical historical records on the historical records 
 of the Old Testament remains to be considered. 
 This question was asked as soon as the contents 
 of the inscriptions became known. The answers 
 have varied greatly. On the one hand, it has been 
 claimed that the Old Testament records are con- 
 firmed in every detail; on the other, those have 
 not been wanting who claimed that the inscrip- 
 tions discredit the Old Testament. Here, as in 
 other investigations, the true conclusion can be 
 reached only after a careful examination of all
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 143 
 
 the facts in the case. In the study of the question 
 there are several considerations and cautions which 
 must not be lost sight of if we would reach a true 
 estimate. Some of these cautions are suggested 
 by the nature of the inscriptions. 
 
 In the first place, it must be remembered that 
 most of the archaeological material has come 
 from lands outside of Palestine, and that the 
 testimony is that of people not friendly to the 
 Hebrews. We may expect, therefore, that at 
 times personal bias may have colored the por- 
 trayal and caused the Hebrews to appear in a 
 less favorable light than the facts would warrant, 
 or that the events in which the Hebrews took part 
 were described in a manner to make them favor 
 the interests of the writers. 
 
 Again, not every period of Hebrew history is 
 illuminated by the inscriptions. True, the earliest 
 monuments found in Egypt and Babylonia ante- 
 date the birth of Jesus perhaps more than four 
 thousand years; but it is not imtil the time of 
 Ahab, king of Israel, that the important historical 
 material begins. The references to Israel preced- 
 ing the time of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser 
 III, c. B. C. 850, are few and more or less obscure. 
 There is the monument of Shishak in the tenth 
 century; but some are inclined to believe that the 
 list of the cities alleged to have been conquered 
 by Shishak was simply taken over by him from
 
 144 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 an earlier document, and that, therefore, it is of 
 little or no historical value. Israel is mentioned 
 in the inscription of Merneptah, but, as has been 
 seen, the significance of the brief reference is 
 obscure; there is nothing concerning the stay in 
 Egypt, nothing concerning tlie patriarchs, and 
 nothing concerning the earlier period that can in 
 any way be connected with the historical records 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 Furthermore, to get at the true value of the 
 evidence from the monuments we must distinguish 
 l)etween facts and inferences from the facts. This 
 distinction, obvious as it seems, has not always 
 been maintained even by eminent archaeologists. 
 For example, Professor Sayce, who is in just 
 repute among Assyriologists, made a few years 
 ago the statement: "The vindication of the reality 
 of Menes [one of the early kings of Egypt] means 
 the vindication also of the historical character of 
 the Hebrew patriarchs." Surely, common sense 
 says that facts proving the historicity of an early 
 king of Egypt do not necessarily prove the his- 
 toricity of men living many centuries later. Many 
 similar illustrations might be given. Because 
 bricks made without straw were found it has been 
 claimed that every detail of the Old Testament 
 narrative concerning the stay of Israel in Egypt 
 was corroborated by archaeology. The finding of 
 the walls of ro3''al palaces in Babylon furnished
 
 THE OLJ) TESTAMENT 145 
 
 the claim that the story of the handwriting on 
 the wall was established beyond doubt. The find- 
 ing of images of (l(;ities has been interpreted as 
 showing beyond a possibility of question the 
 historicity of the narrative? in Daniel concerning 
 the image erected by Nebuchadrezzar, etc. There 
 can easily be too much blind dependence on 
 authority; an assumption of fact, upon the mere 
 dictum of some presumably honest and competent 
 scholar. About a generation ago a well-known 
 investigator said, "Assyriology has its guesses and 
 it has its accurate knowledge. "(^0 These words 
 might be expanded to include the whole field of 
 archaeology. Archaeology has its facts, and it has 
 its inferences. The two must not be confused. 
 
 Moreover, the possibility of inscribing lies upon 
 clay tablets must not be overlooked. Sometimes 
 it has been claimed, and that most absurdly, that 
 bc;cause an inscription has been engraved upon 
 imperishable stone or clay it has a superior value. 
 But the mere fact of a record being inscribed 
 on a tablet of clay, perishable or imperishable, 
 gives it no superiority over one written on papyrus 
 or parchment or paper. Clay tablets were to the 
 civilization of the Euphrates valley what print 
 paper is to us. We all know that paper is patient, 
 else the daily papers would be of smaller size 
 and many books would remain unwritten. The 
 same is true of clay tablets. Clay tablets are
 
 UG THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 patient. It was recognized long ago by Assyri- 
 ologists that the so-called historical mscriptions 
 are not all unbiased statements of objective facts. 
 In many cases the chief purpose seems to have 
 been the glorification of the king; victories are 
 recorded with the greatest caro, but no mention 
 is made of defeats. For example: in one of the 
 earliest inscriptions mentioning a king of Israel, 
 Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, claims a great 
 victory over the Western allies in the battle of 
 Karkar in 854; but, strange to say, the victory 
 resulted in a rather hast}^ retreat of the Assyrian 
 army. Another evidence of the ''absolute reli- 
 ability" of the historical tablets is offered by the 
 hiscriptions of the same king. In connection 
 with the battle of Karkar, one inscription declares 
 that the allies killed numbered 14,000; another, 
 20,500; while a third claims 25,000. We have, 
 indeed, reason to say that "the (evident uncer- 
 tainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat 
 the clearness of the; entire result. Tlu^ claim of a 
 great victory is almost certainly false. "(^**) 
 
 Once more: the translation of the inscriptions 
 is not in every case beyond question. For exam- 
 ple, in lines 7-9 of the Moabite Stone we read, 
 according to the common translation, "Now Omri 
 annexed all the land of Medeba, and Israel occupied 
 it his days and half the days of his son, forty 
 years." This rendering would imply that the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 147 
 
 period from the conqiu^st under Oiriri to the end 
 of the first half of Ahab's reign was forty years. 
 The chronology of Kings gives as the total of 
 the full reigns of the two kings only thirty-four 
 years, while the above translation of the inscription 
 would require about sixty — a serious discrepancy. 
 Now, it is generally conceded that the clii'onology 
 of the Bible cannot be accepted as final hi all its 
 details, and that it must be checked by the chro- 
 nology of the inscriptions wherever that is possible. 
 Yet before we can make use of the monumental 
 testimony we should be sure of its exact meaning. 
 In cases such as the one mentioned this certainty 
 is absent, and we should move very slowly. An- 
 other translation of the passage has been proposed: 
 "Omri conquered the whole land of Medeba and 
 held it in possession as long as he reigned and 
 during half of my reign his son, in all forty 
 years; but yet in my reign Chemosh recovered 
 it."(''') This translation would bring the total 
 of the two reigns to about forty years, and thus 
 the chronological difficulty apparently offered by 
 2 Kings 3 would be removed. 
 
 The five considerations to which attention has 
 been called nuist be observed if we would under- 
 stand rightly the bearing of the monuments on 
 the Old Testament, when viewed from the stand- 
 point of the inscriptions. Attention must now 
 be called to certain considerations touching
 
 148 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 primarily the Old Testament that must be re- 
 garded in forming an estimate of the value of 
 its historical records. 
 
 We must remember, for example, that the pur- 
 pose of the Old Testament is essentially and pre- 
 dominatingly religious. This is recognized by the 
 Jews, for they do not call any of the so-called 
 historical books by that name. The five books 
 of the Pentateuch they designate as Law, because 
 in these books practically all Hebrew legislation 
 is embodied. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, they 
 include in the list of prophetic books, because 
 they recognize the essentially prophetic purpose 
 of the authors. The other books belong to the 
 third division of the Jewish canon, called the 
 Writings. Concerning the books of Kings, which 
 are the principal historical books of the Old 
 Testament, it has been truly said: ''Kings, by 
 virtue of its contents, belongs as much to the 
 prophetical books as to the historical. It is not 
 a continuous chronicle; it is a book of prophetic 
 teaching in which sometimes history, sometimes 
 story, is employed as the vehicle of teaching. It 
 enforces the principle that God is the controlling 
 power and sin the disturbing force in the entire 
 history of men and nations. f°) In a similar 
 manner the religious purpose predominates in the 
 other Old Testament historical books. They do 
 not pretend to give a complete history even of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 149 
 
 the Hebrew people. The writers embodied only 
 such historical material as was thought to illustrate 
 the self-revelation of God in the history of indi- 
 viduals and of the nation, or to bear in some 
 marked way upon the coming of the kingdom of 
 God. A modern secular historian is disappointed 
 at many omissions which would be unpardonable 
 in a strictly historical production. Now, it is 
 readily seen that the religious purpose may be 
 served, and the didactic value of the narrative 
 may remain, even though historical inaccuracies 
 in details should be discovered. 
 
 Another fact to be remembered is the possible 
 difference in the viewpoint of several narrators of 
 one and the same event. In sacred, as in secular 
 history, the viewpoint of the author determines 
 to a considerable extent the character of the 
 narrative. For example: the delineation of the 
 events of the Civil War will not be the same in 
 official documents, in a secular history, in a church 
 history, or in a work containing personal memoirs. 
 Still other differences might be seen in narratives 
 confined to special incidents. Such differences in 
 viewpoint may be noticed also among the writers 
 of the Old Testament historical books. Broadly 
 speaking, part of the historical literature of the 
 Old Testament is due to prophetic activity, part 
 to priestly activity. In writing history the 
 prophets, with their broad interest in all the
 
 150 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 affairs of the nation, resemble the modern secular 
 historian. They portray events more objectively 
 than the priests, hence they are more reliable. 
 The priestly writers resemble the modern ecclesias- 
 tical historian, who judges everyone and every- 
 thing according to their attitude toward the 
 peculiar religious conceptions he represents. The 
 Old Testament contains also some personal memoirs 
 (in Ezra and Nehemiah) and some narratives of 
 special incidents (Ruth, Esther), while the his- 
 torical books in their present form embody also 
 what may have been official documents. 
 
 Moreover, in estimating the reliability of the 
 Old Testament historical books we must not 
 overlook certain unconscious references and indi- 
 cations which show that the authors exercised 
 considerable care in producing the books. In the 
 first place, historical statements appear to have 
 been preserved with considerable care, at least so 
 far as the substance is concerned. This may be 
 seen from the retention of parallel narratives of 
 the same events, without attempts at harmonizing 
 minor disagreements. In the second place, his- 
 tory was written with some discrimination. This 
 is evident especially in Kings, where the several 
 degrees in which certam of the kings departed 
 from the legitimate religion of Israel are carefully 
 indicated. A clear distinction is made between 
 the relatively pious kings, who simply did not
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 151 
 
 remove the high places (1 Kings 15. 14; 2 Kmgs 
 12. 3) and those who, in defiance of a fundamental 
 principle (Exod. 20. 4, 5), desired to represent the 
 spiritual God of Israel in images that would 
 appeal to the senses (1 Kings 12. 28, 29; 14. 
 16, etc.), and those who, in defiance of the first 
 requirement of the Decalogue (Exod. 20. 3), served 
 other gods (1 Kings 16. 31-33; 18. 22, etc.). 
 Once more: in the Old Testament records we find 
 evidence of the historical consciousness of ancient 
 Israel resting upon a very sure foundation. The 
 Mosaic age was regarded as the supreme crisis in 
 the national history. Moses was the great hero; 
 yet his grandeur was not able to extinguish the 
 consciousness of the glory of the pre-Mosaic period. 
 Throughout the entire literature Abraham and 
 Jacob and Joseph are also connected with the 
 beginnings of the Hebrew nation and with the 
 beginning of the religious mission of the people. 
 The memory of the pre-Mosaic period seems in- 
 deed to have been securely founded. 
 
 What, then, are the results of this compara- 
 tive study ? The Old Testament world has be- 
 come a new world. Dark regions were Egypt, 
 Assyria, Elam, and other countries mentioned in 
 the Old Testament before the explorers and 
 excavators entered these lands. Now it is com- 
 paratively easy to trace with considerable accuracy 
 the boundaries of empires that existed in the first
 
 153 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 and second millenniums B. C. In addition, we 
 can fix with certainty the sites of some Old Testa- 
 ment cities whose location was previously un- 
 known and, in some cases, whose very existence 
 had been doubted. The topography of cities like 
 Nineveh, Nippur, and Babylon has become quite 
 definitely fixed. 
 
 The historical gains are even more remarkable. 
 Whole nations have been resurrected. Wliat did 
 we know a century ago of Elam? Nothing but 
 the name. What of Assyria? Only a few tra- 
 ditions, sometimes untrustworthy, preserved by 
 classical writers, and the statements of the Bible, 
 some of which were unintelligible because of their 
 fragmentary character. Now these and other 
 nations pass one after the other in review, great 
 and powerful in all their ancient glory. And, 
 almost every day, new light is thrown on these 
 early centuries. Only a few years ago it was 
 thought that Assyrian history, as distinct from 
 that of Babylon, began about B. C. 1800; now 
 we know the names of many rulers who lived 
 generations and centuries before that date. 
 
 The chronological gains are especially important. 
 It is generally admitted that Hebrew chronol- 
 ogy is not always reliable, and various expedients 
 have been resorted to to remove the difficulties. 
 It was very gratifying, therefore, to discover that 
 the chronological system of the Assyrians was
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 153 
 
 more precise. Among the inscriptions are espe- 
 cially three classes of public records in which the 
 occurrences are carefully dated: (1) Records of 
 the reigns of certain kings in which their activities 
 are carefully arranged in chronological order; 
 (2) business tablets in which transactions are 
 definitely dated; and (3) the so-called eponym 
 lists. According to Assyrian custom, each year 
 was named after a prominent official. Lists of 
 these were carefully made and kept, and, for- 
 tunately, large fragments of them have been 
 preserved. Two recensions of these eponym lists 
 have come down. In one only the names of 
 the years are given; in the other references to 
 important events are added to the names. If, 
 now, any one of these events can be dated, it 
 becomes possible to trace the dates designated by 
 the names on either side of the one whose date 
 is first determined. By means of these lists and 
 the other records the Assyrian chronology can be 
 definitely fixed from about B. C. 900 on. This, 
 in turn, enables us to bring order into the chaos 
 of Hebrew chronology during the most important 
 period of the nation's existence. 
 
 When we think of these and other gains, not 
 the least of which is the discovery of the con- 
 temporaneous documents, the absence of which 
 was at one time made the basis for the rejection 
 of many statements found exclusively in the Old
 
 151 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Testament, we may gratefully receive this new 
 light and rejoice in the advance in Bible knowledge 
 made possible through the excavations. What, 
 now, is the general bearing of these discoveries 
 on the trustworthiness of the Old Testament? 
 
 In the first place, it is well to remember that 
 for many periods of Hebrew history we are still 
 entirely dependent on the Old Testament for 
 direct information. For example. Professor Clay's 
 claim concerning the patriarchal age, that "the 
 increase of knowledge gained through the inscrip- 
 tions of this period has in every instance dissolved 
 conclusions arrived at by those critics who main- 
 tain that the patriarchs are not to be regarded 
 as historical, "(^0 is not justified by the facts. 
 In reality, no incident in the patriarchal story is 
 referred to in any of the inscriptions read thus 
 far. On the other hand, the age of the patriarchs 
 has been wonderfully illuminated. "Formerly the 
 world in which the patriarchs moved seemed to 
 be almost empty; now we see it filled with em- 
 bjissics, armies, busy cities, and long lines of 
 traders passing to and fro between one center of 
 civilization and another; but amid all that crowded 
 life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers of 
 the Hebrews; we listen in vain for any mention 
 of their names; this is the whole change archaeology 
 has wrought: it has given us an atmos[)here and 
 a background for the stories of Genesis; it is
 
 'rm^: old testament 155 
 
 unable to reCcall or certify their heroes. "(") All 
 that can be said in this, as in other cases, is, that 
 archaeology, by furnishing a broad historical back- 
 ground, has established the possibility of the 
 principal events recorded in the biblical narratives 
 being correct. It is silent concerning the events 
 themselves, and, therefore, neither confirms nor 
 discredits them. 
 
 A few cases there are, especially in connection 
 with questions of chronology, where archseology 
 has modified and corrected biblical statements. 
 According to the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, 
 for example, Menahem of Israel paid tribute to 
 the Assyrian king in B. C. 738, and there is reason 
 for believing that this tribute was paid near the 
 beginning of Menahem's reign for the purpose of 
 securing the good will of Assyria. In 734 or 733 
 Pekah is said to have been slain and to have 
 been succeeded by Hoshea. Now, according to the 
 Old Testament, Menahem reigned ten years; his 
 son, Pekahiah, two years, and Pekah twenty 
 years, a total of thirty-two years. Even if we 
 assume that the tribute was paid by Menahem 
 during his last year — which is not at all likely — 
 there would remain twenty-two years to be pro- 
 vided for between 738 and 734 or 733. Evidently, 
 the Old Testament figures are too high. A 
 similar case is found in connection with events 
 that took place only a few years later. In 2 Kings
 
 15n THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 IS. 10 the statement is found that Samaria was 
 taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of 
 Judah. Then, verse 13 states that in the four- 
 teenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of 
 Assyria, came against Jerusalem. The date of the 
 capture of Samaria is definitely fixed by the 
 Assyrian inscriptions. The city fell either in the 
 closing days of B. C. 722 or the opening days of 
 B. C. 721. Assuming that it was 722, the four- 
 teenth year of Hezekiah would be 714. But 
 Sennacherib did not become king until 705, and 
 the attack upon Jerusalem was not made until 
 701. Here, again, the biblical account seems to 
 be inaccurate. 
 
 In many other cases, however, remarkable con- 
 firmations are seen. There are many persons and 
 events mentioned in the Old Testament which 
 are referred to also in the inscriptions. Think of 
 the long list of Babylonian and Assyrian kings 
 named in the Old Testament; Amraphel, king of 
 Shinar, at one time considered a mythical figure, 
 is showTi to have been one of the greatest generals, 
 wisest administrators, and fairest lawgivers among 
 the early kings of Babylon. Sargon, whose very 
 existence was once doubted, has in defiance risen 
 from the dust. In these and numerous other cases, 
 especially from the ninth century onward — as 
 may be seen from a comparison of the inscriptions 
 quoted above with the corresponding portions of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 157 
 
 the Old Testament — the archaeological records 
 furnish striking confirmations of the Old Testa- 
 ment narratives. To sum up this entire inquiry: 
 It must be apparent to every unbiased student 
 that the monuments, when read intelligently, 
 neither set aside nor discredit the Old Testament 
 documents. On the contrary, they prove their 
 substantial accuracy. They may at times modify 
 them, especially in questions of chronology; but 
 they more frequently corroborate than impugn; 
 thus they offer their services not as a substitute 
 but as a supplement, by the aid of which we may 
 study from without the history of the Hebrew 
 people. 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER IV 
 
 (') An excellent account of the explorations and excava- 
 tions in Babylonia and Assyria, and of the decipher- 
 ment of the inscriptions is found in R. W. Rogers, 
 A History of Babylonia and Assyria, Vol. I, Chapters 
 I — Vni; compare also H. V. Hilprecht, Explora- 
 tions in Bible Lands during the Nineteenth Centurj', 
 Part I. 
 
 C) Preliminary reports of the results of the German 
 excavations are given from time to time in the 
 Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft. 
 
 (') G. Steindorff, Excavations in Egypt, in H. V. Hil- 
 precht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 623-690. 
 
 (*) Opening words of I. Benzinger, Researches in Pales- 
 tine, in Hilprecht, Explorations, pp. 579-622. A 
 very complete discussion of exjjlorations and exca- 
 vations in Palestine may be found in F. Jones Bliss, 
 Development of Palestine Exploration. The prog-
 
 158 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ress of the excavations is reported in the Quarterly 
 Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 
 
 C) Opening words of the first lecture on "Babel and 
 Bible." 
 
 (') S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xlviii. 
 
 (') A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 
 Chapter XL 
 
 («) The Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 97. 
 
 (") Egypt and Israel, p. 35. Breasted also seems to think 
 that the Israelites defeated by Merneptah had no 
 direct connection with those who suffered in Egypt, 
 A History of Egypt, p. 466; compare p. 410. 
 ("») The Expositor, 1908, p. 199. 
 (") J. C. Ball, Light from the East, pp. 131, 132. 
 CO W. H. Bennett, The Moabite Stone; Hastings, Dic- 
 
 tionarj^ of the Bible, art., "Moab, Moabites." 
 (") Most of the inscriptions from this period on are found 
 in D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Archseology, 
 Part 1 — Hebrew Authority, by S. R. Driver. See 
 also T. G. Pinches, , The Old Testament in the 
 Light of the Historical Records and Legends of 
 Assj'ria and Babylonia; A. T. Clay, Light on the 
 Old Testament from Babel; A. Jeremias, The Old 
 Testament in the Light of the Ancient Orient; R. F. 
 Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature; S. R. 
 Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible. 
 The most recent and most complete collection of 
 cuneiform inscriptions throwing light on Old Testa- 
 ment religion and history is contained in R. W. 
 Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 
 which appeared after this book had gone to press. 
 (") Formerly called Shalmaneser II; see Expository 
 
 Times, February, 1912, p. 238. 
 (") A translation of the entire inscription bj' R. W. Rogers 
 ia found in Records of the Past, New Series, Vol. VI, 
 pp. SOff. These Records of the Past contain transla- 
 tions of the more important ancient inscriptions.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 150 
 
 (") The most important of these papyri is translated in 
 the Biblical World, June, 1908, pp. 448ff. 
 
 (") Francis Brown, Assyriology — Its Use and Abuse in 
 Old Testament Study, p. 3. 
 
 (") R. W. Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, 
 Vol. II, p. 80. 
 
 ('•) Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. I, col. 792, Note. 
 
 (^°) E. W. Barnes, The First Book of Kings, p. xxxiii. 
 
 (") A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 
 p. 143. 
 
 (") S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. liii, quoted in 
 part from G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the 
 Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 101.
 
 IGO THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The Old Testament and Comparative 
 Religion 
 
 The present is an era of comparative study. 
 We no longer study subjects by themselves, but 
 compare them with correlated experiences and 
 phenomena. "In the sphere of language study 
 we have the science of comparative philology. 
 Language is compared with language. By means 
 of this comparison we have found that there are 
 groups of languages closely related to one another; 
 and, comparing these groups with one another, 
 we have discovered certain universal laws of 
 language. Comparing further the languages within 
 each group, we ascertain the laws common to 
 that group. By such comparison a flood of light 
 has been thrown on language. We know Greek 
 and Latin and Hebrew to-day as our predecessors 
 did not know them."(0 The same principle of 
 comparison is now applied to the study of history, 
 of literature, of philosophy, of ethics, and of 
 religion, including the literature and religion of 
 the Hebrews. Men are laying to-day the entire 
 Hebrew literature, history, and religion alongside 
 of the literatures, histories, and religions of other
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT IGl 
 
 nations, testing them by the same methods and 
 applying to them the same rules. 
 
 What should be the attitude of the Christian 
 toward this method of study? When the science 
 of comparative philology first asserted itself many 
 good Christians set themselves against it, because 
 one of its claims was that Hebrew is not the 
 original language given by God to men. Com- 
 parative philology has won its way, and Bible 
 students are truly grateful for the light it has 
 shed upon sacred scripture. When the compar- 
 ative study of the Scriptures was first advocated 
 there were many timid souls who felt that this 
 method of study was an attack upon the Bible, 
 which could only issue in such an overturning of 
 belief that the Church would remain helpless with 
 a worthless Bible. Hence they set themselves 
 with all their might against the new study as an 
 enemy of Christianity. Is this the proper attitude? 
 In the first place, it is well to remember that the 
 Bible has withstood all attacks for thousands of 
 years. Its great river of truth has flowed serenely 
 on, watering the whole earth with its life-giving 
 streams, and refusing to be dammed up by any 
 foe. Surely, history teaches that there need be 
 no fear that any new method of study will bring 
 about an end of the Bible's reign. On the other 
 hand, history teaches the folly of resisting the 
 progress of science along any line of investigation.
 
 162 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 True science will win its way just as surely as 
 the teaching of the Bible will win its way into the 
 hearts of men. Hence it would seem the part of 
 wisdom to encourage rather than to discourage 
 the efforts of the comparative student of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 As a matter of fact, we cannot do anything else 
 unless we would stultify ourselves. We have said 
 to the adherents of every other religion: ''You say 
 your sacred books are divine, prove it; lay your 
 books open before the- jury of the world, let the 
 critics scrutinize them, analyze them, criticize 
 them, according to the canons of modern criticism 
 by which they criticize all books." And can we 
 refuse to open our Bible before the jury of the 
 world and bid it scrutinize, analyze, and criticize 
 it according to the same canons which it applies 
 to the Veda, the Koran, and other so-called holy 
 books? Would such an attitude be fair? If we 
 believe that the Bible is different from the sacred 
 books of other nations, that it stands on a far 
 higher plane, unique, needing no concealment and 
 no bolstering up with traditions and doctrines — 
 if that is our faith, then let us lay it down open 
 before the world and challenge men to read it, 
 study it, and compare it with all the sacred lit- 
 eratures of the world. The man who really be- 
 lieves in the inspiration of the Bible ought not to 
 be afraid of such a test. He may rest assured
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 1G.3 
 
 that the comparative study of bibhcal literature 
 and biblical religion will prove one of the things 
 that work together for good to all those who have 
 a living faith in God. 
 
 An exhaustive discussion of the subject of this 
 chapter would involve a study of all the great 
 historical religions, known better to-day than ever 
 before, and a comparison of them with the religion 
 of the Old Testament. This, however, could not 
 be done satisfactorily within the limits of a single 
 chapter. It seems, therefore, advisable to confine 
 the investigation to the religious beliefs, practices, 
 and institutions of the nations with whom the 
 Ilebnjws came into more or less close contact, 
 such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. 
 Political contact, which was common between 
 these nations and the Hebrews, might furnish 
 occasions for exerting influence in the realms of 
 religion, law, and other elements of civilization. 
 "When alien races and diverse faiths confronted 
 each other it might not always be the cause of 
 war, but it was always the occasion of psychical 
 conflict. "(^) Since the Imowledge of the religions 
 of the nations named has been supplied very 
 largely through archaeological labors, this inquiry 
 is simply one phase of the broader question as 
 to the bearing of archaeology upon the Old Testa- 
 ment; more especially, the bearing of the archaeo- 
 logical material of a religious and ethical nature
 
 164 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 upon tlie uniqueness and permanent significance 
 of the („)ld Testament religion. 
 
 The imjiortance of this study is suggested in 
 the following quotation from a prominent Assyriol- 
 ogist, Hugo Winckler: "We come in the end to 
 this, that we can distinguish only two views of 
 the world which the human race has known in 
 its historical development: the old Babylonian, 
 and the modern empirical naturalistic, which is 
 still in process of development and is yet struggling 
 with the old one in many departments of life."(^) 
 To avoid misunderstanding respecting the extent 
 of the Babylonian influence, he adds, 'The view 
 of the world and religion are one for the ancient 
 Oriental. "(^) In this statement Winckler robs the 
 Old Testament religion of all originality; he con- 
 siders it simply a natural development of the 
 Babylonian religion. Friedrich Delitzsch, in his 
 lectures on "Babel and Bible,"('') expresses the 
 same idea in a slightly modified form and attempts 
 to show the predominance of Babylonian thought 
 in the Hebrew conception of the origin of the 
 world, the Fall, the Flood, life after death, angels, 
 demons, the devil, the Sabbath, a large part of 
 the sacrificial cult, the directions concerning the 
 priesthood, the name and worship of Jehovah, and 
 even in the monotheistic conception of Deity. 
 How much truth is there in these claims? Or, to 
 put the question in another form, If the religious
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 1G5 
 
 ideas expressed in the Old Testament have parallels 
 among nations commonly called heathen, and if 
 these extra-biblical ideas cannot be explained as 
 dependent on the Bible, docs it follow that the 
 ideas of the Bible arc appropriated from these 
 nations, and if so, what becomes of the unique- 
 ness, the sacredness, the inspiration of the Old 
 Testament? In order to answer the question 
 adequately it is necessary to consider in detail 
 the most important i)ha,ses of the religious 
 iileas of the Hebrews on the one hand, and of 
 the nations with whom the Hebrews came in 
 contact on the other. 
 
 Fundamental to all religious thinking is the con- 
 cei)tion of Deity. The origm of the Babylonian 
 conception of Deity, which shows more striking 
 similarities to the ideas of the Old Testament 
 than do the concept icnis of the other nations above 
 mentioned, belongs to a period of which little or 
 nothing is known. But there are indications that 
 a fundamental aspect of the earliest religion of 
 the country was animism, that is, the belief that 
 every object was possessed and animated by a 
 spirit. "Life was the only force known to man 
 which explained motion, and, conversely, motion 
 was the sign and manifestation of life. The 
 arrow which sped through the air, or the rock 
 which fell from the cliff, did so in virtue of their 
 possessing life, or because the motive force of
 
 IGG THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 life lay in some way or other behind them. The 
 stars, which slowly moved through the sky, and 
 the sun, which rose and set day by day, were 
 living beings. It was life which gave them the 
 power of movement as it gave the power of move- 
 ment to man himself, and the animals by whom 
 he was surrounded. "(■'^) Besides this belief in 
 animism, the Babylonian religion shows evidences 
 of a belief in ghosts that were related to the 
 world of the dead. These ghosts were thought to 
 exercise an evil influence upon men and could 
 be cast out only by the use of incantations. 
 
 But, while these elements belonged to the early 
 religion, Baliylonian religion as it actually meets 
 us even in the earliest inscriptions has reached a 
 higher stage of development. There appear many 
 local deities; every center of human habitation 
 had its special patron deity; for example, Babylon 
 was the city of Marduk; Nippur, of Enhl; Ur, of 
 Sin; Sippara, of Shamash; Cuthah, of Nergal; 
 Asshur, of Ashur; etc. These deities are usually 
 associated with natural phenomena; foremost 
 among them stand the sun and the moon; but by 
 the side of these many other natural objects or 
 forces were personifuHl and deified. 
 
 It is probable that in the begmning, as the 
 result of limited observation and speculation, the 
 number of gods in the Babylonian pantheon was 
 relatively small. However, in the course of time,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 167 
 
 tlioy became greatly luultiplied as the result of 
 a wider observation of the phenomena of nature 
 political changes, and theological speculation. 
 Over against this tendency to multiply deities 
 there shows itself, in the course of the centuries, 
 a tendency to diminish the number of gods, and 
 in the end comparatively few remain, until in 
 the late Babylonian period the worship seems to 
 have been confined chiefly to Marduk, Nabu, Sin, 
 Shamash, and Ishtar. Some of the great thinkers 
 of Babylonia seem to have gone even so far as 
 to consider the various deities manifestation of 
 the one god Marduk. There is in existence a 
 tabk^t of the Neo-Babylonian period which states 
 that Marduk is called Ninib as the possessor of 
 power, Nergal as lord of battle, Bel as possessor 
 of dominion, Nabu as lord of business. Sin as the 
 illuminator of the night, Shamash as the lortl of 
 right, Adtlu as the lord of rain, etc.(") It is seen, 
 then, that monotheistic tendencies are not absent 
 from the Babylonian religion. But they never go 
 beyond the realm of speculation. 'The Baby- 
 lonians, with all their wonderful gifts, were never 
 able to conceive of one god, of one god alone, 
 of one god whose very existence makes logically 
 impossible the existence of any other deity. 
 Monotheism transcends the spiritual grasp of the 
 Babylonian mind."(^) In the words of Delitzsch, 
 "Notwithstanding all this, however, and despite
 
 1(>S THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 the fact tliat many liberal and enlightened minds 
 openly advocated the doctrine that Nergal and 
 Nobo, that the moon-god antl the sun-god, the 
 god of thunder, Ramman, and all the rest of the 
 Babylonian pantheon, were one in Marduk, the 
 god of light, still polytheism, gross polytheism, 
 remained for three thousand years the Babylonian 
 state religion — a sad and significant warning against 
 (lie indolence of men and races in matters of 
 r(>ligion, and against the colossal power which may 
 be ac(iuired by a strongly organized priesthood 
 based upon it."(') 
 
 Even the most spiritual expressions of the 
 Babylonian religion, the so-called penitential 
 j)salms, bear witness to the fact that the writers 
 continued to worship many deities. In one of 
 the most spiritual of these psalms, the psalmist 
 prays: 
 
 That the heart anger of my lord be appeased, 
 
 A god unknown to me be appeased, 
 
 A goddess unknown to me be appeased, 
 
 A known and unknown god be appeased, 
 
 A known and unknown goddess be appeased, 
 
 That the heart of my god be appeased, 
 
 The heart of my goddess be appeased, 
 
 God and goddess, known and unknown, be appeased. (') 
 
 Some of the hymns and prayers addressed to certain 
 deities read almost as if the authors were monothe- 
 ists. But this is due simply to the fact that just 
 at the time they are interested in the power or
 
 TIIH OLD TESTAMENT 169 
 
 splendor or favor of a specific deity. Again and 
 again the fact that they beheve in the existence 
 of other deities, and in tlieir duty to pay homage 
 to diffcr(!nt deities, crops out. At no period of 
 the reUgious history of liabylonia is there any 
 indication of a clear and well-defined monotheism. 
 
 In Egypt also a tendency toward monotheism 
 manifested itself, especially during the reign of 
 Amenophis IV, soon after B. C. 1400, ('") that is, 
 during the pcM'iod when the Hebrews were in 
 Egypt. He tried to do away with the worship 
 of many deities antl to establish as the one supreme 
 deity the orb of the sun; but after the death of 
 Amenophis, who was considered a heretic, the new 
 cult disappeared without exerting any noticeable 
 influence on h^gyptian religion. There certainly 
 is no cvid(>nce that either the Babylonian or the 
 Egyptian monotheistic tendencies influenced in 
 any direct way the development of Israel's religion. 
 
 Turning now to the religion of the Old Testament, 
 we soon discover that Hebrew religion, including 
 the conception of Deity, passed through various 
 stages of devel(){)ment, the earliest of these be- 
 longing to the period before Moses. The first 
 thing to be noted about this period is that, in 
 spite of the close relation of the ancient Hebrews 
 with Babylon, the early Hebrew conception of 
 Deity does not seem to have been influenced in 
 any marked manner by that of Babylonia; nor
 
 170 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 is there any indication of I^]gyptian influence. On 
 the other hand, the oldest Hebrew conceptions 
 show marked similarities with the religion of their 
 nomadic neighbors, as reflected, for example, in 
 the oldest traditions of the Arab tribes. This does 
 not mean that an indirect influence may not have 
 been exerted by Babylon; indeed, the absence of 
 such influence would be very strange in view of 
 the fact that, according to Hebrew tradition, the 
 truth of which cannot be doubted, the ancestors 
 of the Hebrews came from Babylonia, from the 
 city of Ur, the principal center of the worship of 
 the Babylonian moon -god. Sin. 
 
 The results of modern investigations into the 
 nature of early Hebrew religion may be briefly 
 stated as follows: Like the early Babylonian re- 
 ligion, the religion of Israel passed through a 
 stage of animism. In one form this is the belief 
 in the activity of tlie spirits of recently deceased 
 relatives. But this becomes a religion only when 
 it leads to the worship of the departed, that is, 
 ancestor worship, of which there is no definite 
 indication in the biblical material at our com- 
 mand. But there is a form of animism of which 
 there are traces in Israel as in Babylonia, namely, 
 the worship of spirits that were believed to be the 
 inhabitants and possessors of certain objects and 
 places, like trees, stones, springs, which thereby 
 assumed a sacred character. To this form of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 171 
 
 religion the name "polydcnionisin," which means 
 the worship of many demons, is ordinarily given. 
 Demon, however, is to be understood here, not 
 in the sense of evil spirit, but simply a divine 
 being of an inferior order. As illustrations of this 
 belief, attention may be called to the sacred stone. 
 Bethel, which gave the locality its name, "House 
 of God" (Gen. 28. 19), or to the sacred oracular 
 tree at Shechem (Gen. 12. 6; Deut. 11. 30), or to 
 the sacred wells at Kadesh (Gen. 14. 7) and 
 Beersheba (Gen. 21. 28-33). In general, it may 
 be said that during the pre-Mosaic period the 
 religion of Israel, whatever may have been true of 
 isolated individuals, was not essentially different 
 from the religious conceptions of the people with 
 which we have become better acquainted through 
 modem exploration and excavation. (") 
 
 Another and very difTerent conception appears 
 from the time of the exodus on. The most 
 striking feature of this new conception is that the 
 Israelites now worship one God, whom they con- 
 sider their o^^^l peculiar Deity, while they look 
 upon themselves as his own peculiar people. True, 
 the earlier conceptions did not disappear entirely 
 or immediately; but for the religious leaders 
 there was but one God who had a right to demand 
 Israel's loyalty. Jehovah, or Yahweh, w^as the 
 name of this God, and the religious watchword 
 was, "Jehovah, the God of Israel; Israel the people
 
 11-2 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of Jehovah." Now archaeology has shown the 
 nanio "Yahweh" to have been used as a divine 
 name long before the time of the exodus; but 
 archaeology has also shown that the conception 
 of the nature and character of Yahweh held by 
 the religious leaders of the Hebrews from the 
 time of Moses on is peculiar to them. Says R. W. 
 Rogers, "There can, therefore, be no escape from 
 the conclusion that the divine name 'Yahweh* is 
 not a peculiar possession of the Hebrews. "C^) 
 Then he continues: "At first sight this may seem 
 like a startling robbery of Israel, this taking away 
 from her the divine name 'Yahweh' as an exclusive 
 possession, but it is not so. Yahweh himself is 
 not taken away: he remains the priceless possession, 
 the chief glory of Israel. It is only the name that 
 is shown to be widespread. And the name matters 
 little. The great question is, What does this 
 name convey? What is its theological content? 
 The name came to Israeli from the outside; but 
 into that vessel a long line of prophets from Moses 
 onward poured such a flood of attributes as never 
 a priest in all western Asia from Babylonia to 
 the sea ever dreamed of in his highest moments 
 of spiritual insight. In this name and through 
 Israel's history God chose to reveal himself to 
 Israel, and by Israel to the world. Therein lies 
 the supreme and lonesome superiority of Israel 
 over Babylonia. "(*^)
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 173 
 
 Archeology has revealed the pantheon of Baby- 
 lonia and Assyria; the inscriptions have also set 
 in a clear light the nature and character of the 
 gods as conceived by their worshipers. For ex- 
 ample, the gods are looked upon as a part of 
 the process of creation, as may be seen from the 
 opening lines of the story of Creation :(") 
 
 When no one of the gods had been called into being, 
 And none bore a name, and no destinies were fixed. 
 Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven. 
 
 An idea of the character of these deities may be 
 gathered from the description of a heavenly ban- 
 quet scene in the same poem : 
 
 They made ready the feast, at the banquet [they sat], 
 
 They ate bread, they mingled the wine. 
 
 The sweet drink made them drunken . . 
 
 By drinking they were drunken, their bodies were filled. 
 
 They shouted aloud, their heart was exalted, 
 
 Then for Marduk, their avenger, did they decree destiny. 
 
 Certainly, not all the religious thinkers of Baby- 
 lonia held these low conceptions. In some of 
 their prayers and hymns they rise to lofty spiritual 
 and ethical conceptions which compare quite 
 favorably with expressions found in the Old 
 Testament. In a hynm addressed to Shamash, 
 the sun-god, are foimd these lines: 
 
 Who plans evil — his horn thou dost destroy, 
 Whoever in fixing boundaries annuls rights. 
 The unjust judge thou restrainest with force.
 
 174 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Whoever accepts a bribe, who does not judge justly— on him 
 
 thou imposcst sin. 
 But he who docs not accept a bribe, who has a care for the 
 
 oppressed, 
 To him Shamash is gracious, his hfe he prolongs. 
 The judge who renders a just decision 
 Shall end in a palace, the place of princes shall be his dwelling. 
 
 The seed of those who act unjustly shall not flourish. 
 ^\'hat their mouth declares in thy presence 
 Thou shalt burn it up, what they purpose wilt thou annul. 
 Thou knowest their transgressions; the declaration of the 
 
 wicked thou dost cast aside. 
 Every one wherever he may be is in thy care. 
 Thou directest their judgments, the imprisoned dost thou 
 
 hberate. 
 Thou hearest, O Shamash, petition, prayer, and appeal, 
 Humihty, prostration, petitioning, and reverence. 
 With loud voice the unfortunate one cries to thee. 
 The weak, the exhausted, the oppressed, the lowly, 
 Mother, wife, maid appeal to thee, 
 He who is removed from his family, he that dwelleth far from 
 
 his city. ("J 
 
 Far be it from the writer to rob the rehgion of 
 Babylonia of any of its glory. Nevertheless, he 
 ventures to assert without any fear of contradic- 
 tion that we may search the pantheon of Babylon, 
 from one end to the other, and we shall not find 
 one god who in nature and character can compare 
 with the Jehovah of Israel as proclaimed by the 
 great prophets and glorified by the sweet singers 
 of the nation, a God ''merciful and gracious, slow 
 to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness and 
 truth." We may well speak of a "great gulf.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 175 
 
 which is fixed between primitive Semitic concep- 
 tions of God and the noble spiritual views of him 
 set forth under divine illumination by Isaiah."('") 
 It is due to this fundamental difference in the 
 conception of the nature and character of Deity 
 that the religion of Israel became "a living and 
 ethical power, growing and increasing until Jesus, 
 greatest of the prophets, completed the message 
 of his predecessors," and Christianity was born. 
 
 From the conception of Deity we may pass 
 to a brief consideration of religious institutions and 
 beliefs. One of the most important results of 
 recent archaeological discoveries has been to show^ 
 that many of the religious rites, customs, and 
 institutions of Babylonia and Assyria, as also of 
 Egypt, resemble closely those assigned in the 
 Old Testament to the Hebrews. This cannot 
 appear strange when we remember that Israel 
 was a branch of the great Semitic race, which 
 w^as, at the time of its separation from the common 
 stock, in possession of many of the connnon 
 Semitic notions and practices. It would have 
 been impossible to rid the Israelite consciousness 
 of all of these; therefore the religious leaders of 
 the Hebrews took the better way of retaining 
 the familiar forms and pouring into them a new, 
 higher, and more spiritual significance. 
 
 One of the earliest religious institutions recog- 
 nized in the Old Testament is the Sabbath. The
 
 176 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 very fact that it is mentioned in the story of 
 creation shows that, whatever the reason for its 
 observance among the Hebrews, it was recognized 
 as a very ancient institution. Has archaeology 
 thrown any light on the origin of the Sabbath 
 day?('") In his first lecture on "Babel and Bible," 
 Delitzsch answers the question in these words: 
 "There can therefore be scarcely the shadow of 
 a doubt that in the last resort we are indebted 
 to this ancient nation on the banks of the Euphrates 
 and the Tigris for the plenitude of blessings that 
 flows from our day of Sabbath, or Sunday, rest."(^^) 
 This statement was soon criticized, because it 
 seemed to give too much credit to the Babylonians, 
 and Delitzsch later modified the statement and 
 claimed, simply, that the Hebrew Sabbath ul- 
 timately is rooted in a Babylonian institution. (***) 
 No exception can be taken to this putting of the 
 claim. 
 
 What are the facts in the case? (1) The Baby- 
 lonians observed in a peculiar way the seventh, 
 fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days 
 of the month, that is, the days on which the 
 moon entered a new phase. They also observed 
 the nineteenth day of the month, which was the 
 forty-ninth day from the beginning of the preced- 
 ing month. These days were considered unlucky 
 days, on which certain actions had to be avoided, 
 at least by important personages, like the king,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 177 
 
 priest, and physician. The prohibition reads: "The 
 shepherd (king) of the great nations shall not eat 
 roasted nor smoked meat, not change his garment, 
 not put on white raiment, not offer sacrifice; the 
 king shall not mount his chariot, as ruler not 
 pronounce judgment; the priest shall not give 
 oracles in the secret place; the physician shall 
 not lay his hand on the sick, the day being in- 
 auspicious for any affair whatever." The Baby- 
 lonians evidently observed these days by at least 
 partial cessation of work, because nothing would 
 prosper anyway on those days. In contrast, it 
 may be well to notice that in the Sabbath ob- 
 servance among the early Hebrews the human- 
 itarian element played a prominent part. (2) The 
 name Sha-bat-tu has been found in the inscriptions 
 as an interpretation of the phrase, U7n nuh lihhi, 
 which means, a day for appeasing the heart (of 
 the deity). It would seem, therefore, that the 
 Babylonian Sabbath was intended to be a day 
 of atonement or supplication, which might imply 
 cessation of ordinary labor, especially since the 
 word Sha-bat-tu may be identical in meaning with 
 gamaru, to complete or finish, which leads naturally 
 to the idea of rest, because the work is completed. 
 (3) There is no definite evidence that the five 
 days mentioned were called Sha-bat-tu; the name 
 is given rather to the fifteenth day of the month, 
 which is the day of the full moon.
 
 178 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OP 
 
 In tlic light of these facts it is not improbable 
 that there is some connection between the Hebrew 
 Sabbath and certain special days among the 
 Babylonians; but, as in other easels, the Hebrews 
 have given to the adopted institution a new 
 significance. Some of the changes introduced by 
 the Hebrews are: (a) The Hebrews observed every 
 seventh day without regard for the month or 
 the year. The Babylonians observed the seventh, 
 fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days 
 of each month, (b) The motive underlying the 
 observance among the two people differs. The 
 earliest Hebrew legislation (Exod. 23. 12) would 
 seem to indicate that humanitarian considerations 
 are responsible for Stibbath observance, not reli- 
 gious superstition, (c) The Sabbath law of the 
 Hebrews was binding on all. According to our 
 present knowledge, among the Babylonians only 
 the leaders appear to have been affected. 
 
 The Babylonians, Egyptians, and other ancient 
 peoples had in addition to the Sabbath numerous 
 other festivals, and it is not improbable that some 
 of the Hebrew festivals are connected with these, 
 though the exact relation is not yet determined. 
 
 Archeology has thrown much light on the 
 complicated ceremonial system of the Old Testa- 
 ment, though it is an exaggeration to say that, 
 "if we want to trace the origin of the late Jewish 
 ceremonial of the Priest Code, we must look for
 
 TTTE OLD ll^.STAMENT 179 
 
 it in the cuiKMform ritual texts of the Baby- 
 lonians, "(^*') Attention may be called here to a 
 few of the more marked similarities between the 
 Hebrew and Babylonian systems. (^') (1) The 
 Babylonian temple closely resembled the temple 
 of Solomon. Both had two courts, chambers for 
 the priests, the sanctuary, and the Holy of holies. 
 Externally, both were mere rectangular boxes, 
 without much architectural beauty or variety of 
 design. It was only in the possession of a tower 
 that the Babylonian temple differed from the 
 Hebrew, a difference due to a diff(>rence in the 
 conception of Deity. The temples agreed even 
 in the details of their furniture: the two altars of 
 the Babylonian sanctuary are found again m the 
 temple of Jerusalem; so also the mercy seat and 
 the table of showbread. The bronze sea of 
 Solomon was modeled after a Babylonian original. 
 The twin pillars, which Solomon erected in the 
 porch of the temple, have their counterparts in 
 Babylonian sanctuaries. Even the sacred ark 
 seems to have had a Babylonian origin, though 
 some would trace it to Egypt. (2) Every great 
 sanctuary had its chief priest. Under him was a 
 large number of subordinate priests and temple 
 ministers, such as sacrificers, pourers of libations, 
 anointers with oil, bakers, chanters, wailers, etc. 
 Connected with the sanctuaries were also the 
 prophets, augurs, soothsayers, necromancers, etc.
 
 180 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Though not all these classes of religious workers 
 arc found in connection with the Jewish sanc- 
 tuaries, the chief priest and his subordinates are 
 found there as well as in Babylon. (3) Similar- 
 ities in the details of the sacrificial system may be 
 noted. Libations were poured out before the 
 deities, consisting originally, probably, of pure 
 water, to which was subsequently added wine, 
 made either from the palm or the vine. All the 
 first-fruits of the cultivated land were offered to 
 the god; milk and butter and oil, dates and veg- 
 etables were given in abundance. So too were 
 spices and incense, brought from the southern 
 coast of Arabia, the corn that was grown in the 
 fields, garlic and other herbs from the garden, 
 and honey from the hive. Annual sacrifices were 
 not forgotten. Oxen and calves, sheep and lambs, 
 goats and kids, fish and certain kinds of birds, 
 were slain upon the altar. There are traces of 
 human sacrifice, but, as among the Hebrews, the 
 practice disappeared at an early date. "Baby- 
 lonia," says Sayce, "was the inventor of the 
 tithe, "(") which was paid by all classes, even 
 the king. One of the last acts recorded of the 
 cro\Mi prince, Belshazzar, is the payment of a 
 tithe, forty-seven shekels in amount, due from 
 his sister to the temple of the sun-god at Sippara. 
 The daily sacrifice was a fixed custom. Several 
 of the technical terms of the Old Testament are
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 181 
 
 found also in Assyrian. For example: torah, law, 
 has its counterpart in the Assyrian tertu; the 
 biblical kipper, atoiicniont, is the Assyrian kuppuru; 
 korhan, gift or offering, is the Assyrian kurhannu. 
 The names for animal sacrifice, zihu, for meal 
 offering, manitn, and for freewill offering, nidhu, 
 all are found in their Hebrew forms in the Old 
 Testament. As in the Hebrew legislation, a dis- 
 tinction is made between the offerings of the rich 
 and the poor, and the sacrificial animal was to be 
 without blemish. The Babylonian priest retained 
 certain parts for himself, which was also the 
 custom among the Hebrews (Deut, 18. 3), though 
 the parts retained are not the same in the two 
 cases. A ritual tablet shows that Babylonians 
 sprinkled the blood of the lamb that was killed 
 at the gate of the palace on the lintels, on the 
 figures flanking the entrances, and on the door- 
 posts to the right and the left, which has its 
 parallel in the Hebrew passover ceremony. 
 
 These illustrations, which by no means exhaust 
 the list, reveal close similariti(;s between the 
 Hebrew ceremonial and that of the inhabitants 
 of the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and the more we 
 know of the Babylonian ritual, the more extensive 
 and striking these resemblances become. They 
 both start from the same principles and agree in 
 many of their details. Between them, however, 
 lies that deep gulf which separates the religion of
 
 182 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Israel from that of Babylonia as a whole. The 
 one is monotheistic, the other polytheistic. Upon 
 the basis of this fundamental difference the reli- 
 gious leaders of Israel gave to the similar forms 
 adopted from other nations a new and deeper 
 meaning and significance. 
 
 Like the Hebrew religion, the religion of Baby- 
 lonia has its guardian angels. (") The Babylonian 
 rulers stood in need of hosts of messengers to 
 bear their behests into all quarters of their do- 
 minions. In a similar manner, it was thought, 
 the gods needed their heavenly hosts to carry out 
 their commissions. These angels are represented 
 under various forms, but all of them are equipped 
 with wings, so as to be able to carry upon the 
 winds of heaven the commands of the gods to the 
 children of men. Sometimes they are represented 
 with eagles' heads, perhaps to indicate that they 
 possess the keenness of vision and the rapidity of 
 flight of an eagle; sometimes they have human 
 countenances to denote their human intelligence. 
 Frequently they appear as hybrid figures, with the 
 body of a lion or bull, the wings of an eagle, and 
 the head of a man, symbolizing strength, swiftness, 
 and intelligence. 
 
 The duties of these angels are manifold. Those 
 placed at the entrances of palaces or temples are 
 to guard those entrances. The peculiar relations 
 of angels to men are suggested, for example, by
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 183 
 
 a letter of a Babylonian officer to the queen 
 mother. He writes: "Mother of the king, my lady, 
 be comforted. Bel's and Nabu's angel of mercy 
 attends on the king of the land, my lord." A 
 letter addressed to Esarhaddon contains these 
 words: "May the great gods send a guardian of 
 salvation and life to stand by the king my lord." 
 And Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldean 
 empire, and father of Nebuchadrezzar, writes: 
 "To lordship over land and people, Marduk called 
 me. He sent a cherub of mercy to attend on me, 
 and everything I undertook he aided." 
 
 Alongside of these guardian angels there appear 
 evil spirits and demons. "These demons were 
 everywhere: they lurked in every corner, watching 
 for their prey. The city streets knew their 
 malevolent presence, the rivers, the seas, the tops 
 of the mountains. They appeared sometimes as 
 serpents gliding noiselessly upon their victims; as 
 birds, horrid of mien, flying resist lessly to destroy 
 or afflict; as beings in human form, grotesque, 
 malformed, awe-inspiring through their hideous- 
 ness. To these demons all sorts of misfortunes 
 were ascribed: toothache, headache, broken bones, 
 raging fever, outbursts of anger, of jealousy. Did 
 a man lie wasting of disease and torn of pain, a 
 demon was thought to be within him, the disease 
 being but a manifestation of his malevolence. 
 There could be no return of the precious boon of
 
 184 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 good health until the demon was exorcised, and 
 it was to the exorcising of demons that so large, 
 so disproportionate a part of the religious literature 
 of Babylon and Nineveh was devoted. "(^0 Some- 
 times demons are referred to in a manner which 
 shows that the conception in Job 1. 6ff., Zech. 
 3. Iff., of the Adversary, or the Satan, is closely 
 related to the Babylonian conception of a demon 
 as accuser, persecutor, or oppressor. 
 
 The vision of the Old Testament is largely 
 confined to this world. There is little hope for a 
 man after he passes away from this earth. Indeed, 
 there are some passages which would seem to imply 
 the thought that with death existence came entirely 
 to an end. Compare, for example, Psa. 39. 13: 
 
 Oh, spare me, that I may recover strength 
 Before I go hence, and be no more; 
 
 or Job 14. 7-12: 
 
 For there is hope of a tree. 
 
 If it be cut down, that it will sprout again, 
 
 And that the tender branch thereof will not cease. 
 
 Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, 
 
 And the stock thereof die in the ground; 
 
 Yet through the scent of water it will bud, 
 
 And put forth boughs hke a plant. 
 
 But man dieth, and is laid low; 
 
 Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 
 
 As the waters fail from the sea, 
 
 And the river wasteth and drieth up; 
 
 So man lieth down and riseth not: 
 
 Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, 
 
 Nor be roused out of their sleep.
 
 T\\\<] OLD TESTAMENT 185 
 
 These are expressions of deepest despondency and 
 despair over a life soon ended, never to be lived 
 again here upon earth. 
 
 However, by far the greatest number of Old 
 Testament passages dealing with the subject ex- 
 press a belief in a continuous existence after death 
 in Sheol. Sheol is the place of departed person- 
 alities; the generations of one's forefathers are 
 there: he who dies is gathered unto his fathers; 
 the tribal divisions of one's race are there: the 
 dead is gathered unto his people ; and if his descend- 
 ants have died before him, they are there, and he 
 goes do^^^^ to them, as Jacob to his son (Gen. 37. 35: 
 "For I will go dow^n to Sheol to my son mourn- 
 ing"), and David to his child (2 Sam. 12. 23: 
 "I shall go to him, and he shall not return to me"). 
 
 There are only a few passages which go beyond 
 this, expressing a hope of immortality or a resur- 
 rection. There is, for example, the hope expressed 
 inPsa. 16.8-11: 
 
 I have set Jehovah always before me: 
 
 Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 
 
 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: 
 
 My flesh also shall dwell in safety. 
 
 For thou will not leave my soul to Sheol; 
 
 Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. 
 
 Thou wilt show me the path of life: 
 
 In thy presence is fullness of joy; 
 
 In thy right hand there are pleasiu-es for evermore. 
 
 The hope expressed here is not a hope of a resur- 
 rection, but, rather, a hope that the psalmist will
 
 186 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 be delivered from death and live in fellowship 
 with God forevermore. There are other passages 
 which recognize the impossibility of escaping 
 death, but express a hope that there will be a 
 resurrection from death. The most definite Old 
 Testament teaching of a resurrection is in Dan. 
 12. 2, ''And many of them that sleep in the dust 
 of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, 
 and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 
 
 These lofty hopes are peculiar to Israel. But 
 Israel's conception of Sheol shows very striking 
 resemblances with the Babylonian conception. 
 The descriptions found in Job, in the Psalms, in 
 Isaiah, in Ezekiel and elsewhere, are hardly to be 
 distinguished from those found in Babylonian liter- 
 ature. The opening lines of Ishtar's descent into 
 Sheol read: 
 
 To the land from which there is no return, the home of 
 
 d.arknesa, 
 Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, turned her mind, 
 Yea, the daughter of Sin set her mind to go; 
 To the house of gloom, the dwelling of Irkalla, 
 To the house from which those who enter depart not, 
 The road from whose path there is no return; 
 To the house where they who enter are deprived of light; 
 A place where dust is their nourishment, clay their food; 
 The light they behold not, in thick darkness they dwell; 
 They are clad like bats in a garb of wings; 
 On door and bolt the dust is laid. 
 
 Compare with this Job 10. 21, 22: 
 
 Before I go, whence I shall not return, 
 
 To the land of darkness, yea deepest darkness,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 187 
 
 The land dark as midnight, 
 
 Of decpppt darkness without any order, 
 
 And where the light is as midnight; 
 
 or Job 7. 9, 10; 
 
 He that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more, 
 He shall return no more to his house. 
 Neither shall his place know him any more. 
 
 Other similarities may be noted : tlie Hebrew Sheol, 
 Uke the Babylonian, was deep do\\Ti in the earth; 
 it is pictured as a cavern; silence reigns su- 
 preme, etc. There is but one explanation for 
 these similarities: When the ancestors of the 
 Hebrews left their homes in the Euphrates valley 
 they carried with them the traditions, beliefs, and 
 customs current in that district. Under new sur- 
 roundings, and especially under the influence of 
 their higher religion, new features were added and 
 old conceptions were transformed. But these 
 changes were not able to obscure entirely the 
 character impressed upon the older beliefs by 
 contact with Babylon. 
 
 Striking similarities are found also between the 
 legal systems of Babylonia and Israel. In the 
 light of recent discoveries the study of ancient 
 law begins to-day, not with the legal systems of 
 Rome, or of Greece, or of Israel, but with the laws 
 of early Babylonia. Of the beginning of the Baby- 
 lonian legal system we know nothing except a 
 few popular traditions, which trace it back to 
 some deity. It is clear, however, that long cen-
 
 188 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 tiiries before the time of Moses or Minos or Romulus 
 the people living in the lower Euphrates-Tigris 
 valley developed legal codes of a high and complex 
 order. In the legal phrase books of the later 
 scribes there have been preserved seven so-called 
 Sumerian family laws, written in the language of 
 the people occupying the southern part of the 
 Euphrates-Tigris valley before it came under the 
 sway of the Semites. These laws, in theme and 
 literary form resembling later Babylonian and 
 early Hebrew laws, were probably in existence 
 in the fourth millennium B. C; some of them may 
 go even farther back. 
 
 By far the most important Babylonian legal code 
 now known is the so-called Code of Hammurabi. (^^) 
 Hammurabi was known to Assyriologists long be- 
 fore the finding of his legal code. He reigned in 
 Babylon about B, C. 2000, was the sixth king of the 
 first Babylonian dynasty, and the first permanently 
 to unite the numerous small city states under one 
 ruler. He may, therefore, be called the founder 
 of the Babylonian empire. From his numerous 
 letters and inscriptions, as also from other docu- 
 ments coming from the same period, he was 
 knowTi as a great conqueror and statesman, 
 interested in the highest welfare of his people, 
 and persistently laboring for the improvement of 
 their conditions. The Bible student has a special 
 interest in Hammurabi, however, because in a]l
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 189 
 
 probability he is no other than the Amraphel of 
 Gen. 14. 1. 
 
 The monument on which the code is engraved 
 was found during the winter 1901-1902 by a 
 French excavator in the acropoHs of Susa, tlie 
 scene of the book of Esther. It is a block of 
 black diorite, about eight feet in height. When 
 found it was in three pieces, which, however, were 
 easily joined. On the obverse is a bas relief 
 representing the king as receiving the ruler's stafif 
 and ring from the sun-god Shamash, "the judge 
 of heaven and earth." Then follow on the obverse 
 sixteen columns of writing, containing 1,114 lines. 
 There were five more columns on this side, but 
 they were erased and the stone repolished, prob- 
 ably by theElamite conqueror who carried the moii- 
 nmciit to Snsa. On the reverse are twenty-eight 
 columns with more than 2,500 lines of inscription. 
 The English Assyriologist, C. H. W. Johns, esti- 
 mates that originally the inscription contained 
 forty-nine colunms, 4,000 lines, and about 8,000 
 words. About 800 lines are taken up by the 
 prologue and epilogue, setting forth the king's 
 titles, his glory, the extent of his rule, his care 
 for his subjects, and devotion to his gods. The 
 inscription opens with a statement of his call by 
 the gods to be the ruler of Babylon: "When the 
 lofty Aim, kmg of the Animaki, and Bel, lord of 
 heaven and earth, he who determines the destiny
 
 190 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of the land, committed the rule of all mankind to 
 Marduk, the chief son of Ea; when they made 
 him great among the Igigi; when they pronounced 
 the lofty name of Babylon, when they made it 
 famous among the quarters of the world, and in 
 its midst established an everlasting kingdom, 
 whose foimdations were firm as heaven and earth 
 —at that time, Anu and Bel called me, Ham- 
 murabi, the exalted prince, the worshiper of the 
 gods, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to 
 destroy the wicked and the evil, to prevent the 
 strong from oppressing the weak, to go forth like 
 the sun over the blackhead race, to enlighten the 
 land and to further the welfare of the people." 
 
 According to the closing statement of the 
 prologue he faithfully executed this commission: 
 "When Marduk sent me to rule the people and 
 to bring help to the country, I established law 
 and justice in the land and promoted the welfare 
 of the people" (V. 14-21). To better care for 
 the welfare of the people he set up the code of 
 laws. In column XLI, a part of the epilogue, he 
 says: "Let any oppressed man, who has a cause, 
 come before my image as king of righteousness! 
 Let him read the inscription on my monument! 
 Let him give heed to my weighty words! And 
 may my monument enlighten him as to his cause 
 and may he understand his case! May he set his 
 heart at ease!" (1-19.) He recognizes the value
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 191 
 
 of his law code and advises his successors on the 
 throne to make good use of it: "In the days that 
 are yet to come, for all future time, may the king 
 who is in the land observe the words of righteous- 
 ness which I have written upon my monument! 
 May he not alter the judgments of the land which 
 I have pronounced, or tlie decisions of the country 
 which I have rendered! May he not efface my 
 statues! If that man have wistlom, if he wish 
 to give his land good government, let him give 
 attention to the words which I have written upon 
 my monument! And may this monument en- 
 lighten him as to procedure and administration, 
 the judgments which I luive pronounced, and tlie 
 judgments which I liavo rendered for the land! 
 And let him rightly rule his blackhead people; 
 let him pronounce judgments for them and render 
 for them decisions! Let him root out the wicked 
 and evildoer from the land! Let him promote the 
 welfare of his people!" (59-94.) 
 
 The epilogue closes with a blessing upon the 
 king who will observe the laws, and curses upon 
 him who will disregard or alter them (XLII- 
 XLIV). The pronomicement of blessings is very 
 brief; the curses are reiterated m various forms, 
 and numerous gods and goddesses are appealed 
 to by name to destroy the evildoer and his reign. 
 The section begins (XLII, 2-49): "If that man 
 pay attention to my words which I have written
 
 192 TTTE CHRTSTTAN YTEW OF 
 
 upon my monument, do not efface ni}^ judgments, 
 do not overrule my words, and do not alter my 
 statues, then will Shamash prolong that man's 
 reign, as he has mine, who am king of righteous- 
 ness, that he may rule his people in righteousness." 
 It continues: "If that man do not pay attention 
 to my words which I have written upon my 
 monument; if he forget my curses and do not fear 
 the curse of god; if he abolish the judgments 
 which I have formulated, overrule my words, alter 
 my statues, efface my name written thereon and 
 write his own name; on account of these curses 
 commission another to do so — as for that man, 
 be he king or lord, or priestking or commoner, 
 whoever he may be, may the great god, the father 
 of the gods, who has ordained my reign, take from 
 him the glory of his sovereignty, may he break 
 his scepter and curse his fate!" 
 
 Between the prologue and the epilogue is the 
 law code proper. Originally there appear to have 
 been 282 separate enactments (this is the estimate 
 of the French Assyriologist, Father Scheil, who 
 first edited the code, and is commonly accepted 
 as correct); of these 66-99 are now missing as a 
 result of the erasure to which reference has been 
 made. The code covers a variety of topics. Laws 
 dealing with the same subject are ordinarily 
 grouped together; sometimes the principle of 
 arrangement is the class or profession concerned.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 193 
 
 A brief outline will give at least a general notion 
 of its contents: 1, 2, False accusation of a crime; 
 3, 4, False witness and bribery; 5, Alteration of 
 judgment by a judge; 6-S, Theft; 9-13, Concealing 
 of stolen property; 14, Kidnapping; 15-20, Assist- 
 ing in the escape of slaves; 21-25, Burglary and 
 brigandage; 26-41, Rights and duties of officers, 
 constables, and taxgatherers; 42-52, Renting of 
 fields for cultivation; 53-56, Care of dykes and 
 canals; 57, 58, Shepherds allowing their sheep to 
 pasture on the fields of another; 59, Unlawful 
 cutting down of trees; 60-65, Duties of gardeners; 
 66-99, (lost); 100-107, Relation of merchants to 
 their agents; 108-111, Regulations concerning 
 wine-sellers, always women. It may be interesting 
 to note that with them the law was very severe. 
 Of the three crimes condemned — minor crimes at 
 that — one is to be punished by throwing the wine- 
 seller into the water, the second by putting her 
 to death, the third by burning her. 112, Loss of 
 goods intrusted for transportation; 113-119, Secur- 
 ing settlement for debts; 120-126, Liability for 
 deposits; 127, Slander; 128, Marriage contract; 
 129-132, Adultery, rape, and suspected unchastity; 
 133-143, Separation and divorce; 144-149, Con- 
 cubines; 150-152, Marriage dowry; 153, Murder of 
 husband for the sake of another; 154-158, Illegiti- 
 mate sexual intercourse; 159-161, Breach of 
 promise; 162-164, Disposition of dowry after the
 
 104 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OE 
 
 death of the wife; 165-177, Inheritance of sons 
 in polygamous relations; 178-182, Inheritance of 
 priestesses; 183, 184, Inheritance of daughters of 
 concubines; 185-194, Treatment of adopted chil- 
 dren; 195-214, Offenses against limb and life; 
 215-225, Operations by doctors and veterinary 
 surgeons. For example, "If a physician cause a 
 man a severe wound with a bronze lancet and 
 cause the man's death, or, in opening an abscess 
 of a man with a bronze lancet, destroy the man's 
 eye, they shall cut off his fingers" (218). 226, 227, 
 Unlawful branding of slaves; 228-233, Liability of 
 negligent builders. For example, "If a builder 
 build a house for a man, and do not make its 
 construction firm, and the house which he has 
 built collapse and cause the death of the owner 
 of the house, that builder shall be put to death" 
 (229). 234-252, Hired animals—the injuries they 
 cause or suffer; 253-277, Rights and duties of 
 workmen ; 278-282, Selling and treatment of slaves. 
 In addition to this very complete code there is 
 a vast amount of information from both early and 
 late periods concerning legal practices, to be 
 gathered from the thousands of tablets recording 
 business and legal transactions of various sorts: 
 Marriage and dowry contracts, partnership agree- 
 ments, records of debts and promissory notes, 
 leases of land, houses, or slaves; records of sales 
 of all kinds of property, mortgages, documents
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 195 
 
 granting the power of attorney; concerning adop- 
 tion, divorce, bankruptcy, inheritance — in short, 
 almost every imaginable kind of contract. 
 
 Over against this complex legal system of 
 Babylonia we may place the legal literature of the 
 Hebrews. (^®) Anyone who approaches the study 
 of Hebrew laws is met by two difficulties. In the 
 first place, the legal portions do not form separate 
 books, but are embodied in writings belonging to 
 other kinds of literature ; in the second place, there 
 is a lack of system in the arrangement of the laws. 
 The abrupt transitions from one subject to another 
 are almost as marked as they are in the book of 
 Proverbs. "Civil and ceremonial, criminal and 
 humane, secular and religious, ancient and late 
 laws and precedents are all mingled together, 
 with little trace of systematic arrangement." 
 
 The legal literature is found mainly in the books 
 of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; 
 outside the Pentateuch the most important piece 
 of legislation is Ezek. 40-4S. This legal material 
 may be separated from its surroundings and 
 arranged by itself. Indeed, this has been done, 
 and modern scholars are quite generally agreed 
 that the Pentateuch contains several distinct legal 
 codes belonging to different periods in the history 
 of Israel and reflecting different stages of political, 
 social, and religious development: (1) The Dec- 
 alogue; (2) the Book of the Covenant; (3) the
 
 19fi THE CHETSTIAN YJ¥M OF 
 
 Deuterononiic Code; (4) the Code of Holiness; (5) 
 the Priestly Code. Of these five codes the last 
 two are almost entirely religious and ceremonial, 
 and as the similarities between the Babylonian 
 and Plebrew ceremonial have already been pointed 
 out, they need not be considered in this connection. 
 The other three contain much legislation concern- 
 ing social, civil, and criminal relations, just like 
 the Babylonian legal provisions, and therefore 
 may be considered somewhat more in detail. In 
 connection with the Deuteronomic Code, however, 
 it may be noted that thn^e fourths of the laws 
 in the earlier codes are reproduced in some form 
 in Deuteronomy; so that for purposes of com- 
 parison, the Deuteronomic Code does not furnish 
 many new elements. It is seen, therefore, that for 
 a comparative study, the Code of Hammurabi on 
 the one hand, and the Decalogue and the Book 
 of the Covenant on the other, furnish the most 
 important material; and since the Code of Ham- 
 murabi contains no religious and ceremonial pro- 
 visions, the material of that nature in the Hebrew 
 codes may be omitted in this connection. 
 
 That there exist similarities between the legisla- 
 tions of the two nations even a superficial reading 
 will show. One is immediately struck, for example, 
 by the similarity in the application of the lex ialionis: 
 Ham. 196, "If a man destroy the eye of another 
 man, they shall destroy his eye"; 197, "If one
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 197 
 
 break a man's bone, they shall break his bone"; 
 200, "If a man knock out the tooth of a man of 
 his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth." 
 With this compare I^^xod. 21. 23-25, "Thou shalt 
 give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 
 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe 
 for stripe"; or Deut. 19. 21, "Thine eyes shall 
 not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth 
 for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Compare 
 also Lev. 24. 19, 20, "If a man cause a blemish 
 in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be 
 done to him: breach for breach; eye for eye, 
 tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in 
 a man, so shall it be rendered to him." This 
 principle is applied very extensively in both codes 
 in providing restitution for damage done. 
 
 The use of "the oath of innocence" is also 
 enjoined in both codes: Ham. 249, "If a man hire 
 an ox and a god strike it and it die, the man 
 who hired the ox shall swear before god and shall 
 go free." With this may be compared Exod, 22. 
 10, 11, "If a man deliver unto his neighbor an 
 ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep, 
 and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man 
 seeing it, the oath of Jehovah shall be between 
 them both, whether he hath not put his hand 
 unto liis neighbor's goods, and the owner thereof 
 shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution." 
 The illustrations might be multiplied manifold.
 
 198 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Jeremias points out twenty-four similarities be- 
 tween tlie Code of Hammurabi and the Book of 
 the Covenant alone; ("') which number is greatly 
 increased if the comparison is extended so as to 
 include the entire Pentateuch. 
 
 The spirit permeating the two systems is one of 
 humaneness and kindness. Hammurabi describes 
 himself as a shepherd chosen by the gods to care 
 for his people, to lead them into safe pastures 
 and to make them dwell in peace and security. 
 He compiled the code, "that the great should not 
 oppress the weak; to counsel the widow and 
 orphan, to render judgment and to decide the 
 decisions of the land, and to succor the injured." 
 This is the same spirit that permeates the Penta- 
 teuchal legislation. 
 
 The picture at the head of the code, representing 
 Hammurabi standing before the sun-god Shamash, 
 "the supreme judge of heaven and earth," is very 
 suggestive, for it reminds one of the narrative in 
 Exodus which represents Moses as receiving the 
 Hebrew laws directly from Jehovah. 
 
 Certainly, there are also differences between the 
 two systems; and this is only what we should expect, 
 since the civilization of Babylon was far in ad- 
 vance of and much more complex than that of the 
 Israelites, even during the period of the latter's high- 
 est development. Besides, the lower religious con- 
 ceptions would inevitably influence the legislation.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 199 
 
 Attention may be called also to some similarities 
 between the Decalogue and certain requirements 
 in Babylonia, the existence of which is implied 
 in an incantation (^'*) in which these questions are 
 asked: Has he broken into the house of his neigh- 
 bor? Has he approached the wife of his neighbor? 
 Has he spilled the blood of his neighbor? Has 
 he grasped the garment of his neighbor? These 
 questions would seem to imply the existence of 
 laws like these: Thou shalt not break into the 
 house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach 
 the wife of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not spill the 
 blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not grasp the 
 garment of thy neighbor. 
 
 In view of all those similarities, the question 
 naturally arises whether the Babylonian legal 
 system exerted an}- influence upon the lawmakers 
 of the Hebrews, for the resemblances are too close 
 to be explained entirely on the basis of coin- 
 cidence. Those who admit some relation between 
 the two legislations are not in agreement as to 
 the nature of the connection. Some hold that 
 there is direct dependence; that the author or 
 authors of the laws of the Pentateuch was or 
 were acquainted with the laws of Hammurabi, 
 and made these laws the basis of the Hebrew 
 legislative system. The possibility of such de- 
 pendence cannot be denied. Surely, an acquaint- 
 ance with the Code of Haiimmrabi in the Arabian
 
 200 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 desert or in Palestine at tlio time of the exodus 
 or later cannot appear strange in view of the 
 evidence of the Tel-el-Anuirna tablets, showing 
 that some time before the exodus intercourse 
 between Babylon and the West was frequent; that 
 religious, political, and literary influence was wide- 
 spread, and that the language of Babylon was 
 the lingua jranca throughout Canaan. On the 
 other hand, there are those who believe that the 
 parallels and analogies between the two codes are 
 due to the common Semitic origin of the two 
 systems. The Babylonians and the Hebrews were 
 Semites, originally dwelling in a common home. 
 When they left this home they carried with them 
 their common traditions, laws, customs, and prac- 
 tices. In their new homes they developed them 
 and impressed upon them their own individuality. 
 The result among the Hebrews, determined in a 
 large measure by their peculiar religion, is seen 
 in the legislation of the Pentateuch, while the 
 outcome in Babylon is best represented by the 
 Code of Hammurabi. 
 
 Which of these two explanations is correct it 
 may be impossible to say with absolute certainty. 
 To me it seems that both contain elements of 
 truth. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other 
 may be correct, while in other cases the similar- 
 ities may be due to coincidence. In any case, 
 the value of the Pentateuchal legislation remains
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 201 
 
 unaffected, for it depends, not upon its origin or 
 process of growth, but, rather, upon its inherent 
 spirit and cluiractcr. 
 
 Attention may further be called to the existence 
 in Babylonia of stories showing almost startling 
 resemblances to the accounts of the creation of 
 the world, of the origin of man and of sin, of a 
 Deluge, and other narratives contained in the 
 first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis. 
 Sevenil distinct creation stories, originating in 
 different religious centers, have been handed 
 down. The most remarkable of these, called 
 Enuma elish (when above), from its opening words, 
 has been deciphered from tablets found in the 
 Ubrary of Ashurbanipal in the ruhis of Nineveh. 
 These tablets represent a copy made in the seventh 
 century B. C. The time of the composition, or 
 compilation of the story, is not known. However, 
 pictorial representations of some of the scenes in 
 the epic, and allusions in other literary productions 
 whose dates can be fixed, make it certain that the 
 story, or at least the most important component 
 elements of the story, existed before B. C. 2000. 
 In its present form it belongs to a period later 
 than the elevation of Babylon to be the national 
 center, which took place under Hammurabi, about 
 B. C. 2000, for the chief place is assigned to Marduk, 
 the god of Babylon. (^^) 
 
 Echoes of this story are found in several Old
 
 202 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Testament passages, especially in the poetic and 
 proplietic writings. In these Jehovah is repre- 
 sented as having contended with a great primeval 
 monster, called in some passages Rahab, in others 
 Leviathan, or Dragon. This being seems to sym- 
 bolize chaos, or to personify the primeval ocean, 
 which existed when the process of creation began. 
 In the conflict between Jehovah and this monster 
 the hostile creature and its helpers were over- 
 thrown, after which the heavens and the earth 
 were created. A few of these passages may be 
 quoted : 
 
 O Jehovah God of hosts, 
 
 Who is a mighty one, lilie unto thee, O Jehovah? 
 And thy faithfulness is round about thee. 
 Thou rulest the pride of the sea: 
 When the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. 
 Thou Jiast broken Rahab in pieces, as one thai is slain; 
 Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength. 
 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: 
 The world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them, 
 The north and the south, thou hast created them (Psa. 89. 
 8-12). 
 
 Rahab is a reflection of the Babylonian Tiamat; 
 Jehovah takes the place of the Babylonian god, 
 Marduk, the conqueror of Tiamat; the enemies 
 are the helpers of Tiamat mentioned in the Baby- 
 lonian poem. The order of events is the same in 
 the two accounts: first the conflict, then creation. 
 
 He atirreth up the soa with liis power. 
 
 And by his understanding he smileth through Rahab,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 203 
 
 By his Spirit the heavens are garnished; 
 
 His hand hath pierced the swift serpent (Job 26. 12, 13). 
 
 God will not withdraw his anRcr; 
 
 The helpers oj Rahab do stoop under him (Job 9. 13). 
 
 Yet God is my King of old, 
 
 Working salvation in the midst of the earth. 
 
 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: 
 
 Thou brakcst the heads of (he sca-mo?is(ers in the waters. 
 
 Thou brakest the heads of levinthnn in pieces; 
 
 Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the 
 
 wilderness. 
 Thou didst cleave fountain and flood: 
 Thou driedst up mighty rivers. 
 The day is thine, the night also is thine: 
 Thou hast prepared the light and the sun. 
 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: 
 Thou hast made summer and winter (Psa. 74. 12-17). 
 
 The similarities between the Babylonian story 
 called Enuma elUh and the narrative of creation 
 in Gen. 1 are especially pronounced: (1) Both 
 accounts recognize a time when all was chaos. 
 In the Babylonian conception this chaos is per- 
 sonified in Tiamat; in Gen. 1. 2 occurs the word 
 tehom, translated "deep," which is the same as 
 Tiamat, changed but slightly in passing from one 
 language to the other. (2) In Genesis light dispels 
 darkness and order follows; in the Babylonian 
 account, Marduk, the god of light, overcomes the 
 demon of chaos and darkness. (3) The second 
 act of creation is the making of the firmament, 
 which "divided the waters which were under the
 
 204 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 firmament from the waters which were above the 
 firmament" (Gen. 1. 6-8); in the Babylonian 
 poem the body of Tiamat is divided and one half 
 becomes the firmament to keep the heavcmly 
 waters in place. (4) The third and fourth acts 
 of creation in the Hebrew story are the creation 
 of earth and the beginning of vegetation (Gen. 1. 
 9-13); the corresponding Babylonian story has 
 been lost, but it seems quite probable that these 
 acts were described in the same order on the 
 fifth tablet. Berosus, in his sunmiary of the 
 Babylonian account, says that Bel formed the 
 earth out of one half of Omorka's body — Omorka 
 is probably a corruption of Ummu-Khuhur, a 
 title of Tiamat — and as in every instance where 
 the narrative of Berosus has been tested it has 
 proved to be correct, we may assume that in this 
 also he gives a correct reproduction of the Baby- 
 Ionian tradition. Moreover, at the beginning of 
 the seventh tablet Marduk is hailed as ''bestower 
 of fruitfulness," "founder of agriculture," "creator 
 of grain and plants," he "who caused the green 
 herb to spring up." (5) The fifth act of creation 
 is the making of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 
 14-19). With this the Babylonian parallel shows 
 close similarities, for it states that Marduk 
 
 Made the stations for the great gods, 
 
 The stars, their images, as the constellations he fixed, 
 
 He ordained the year, marked off its divisions. ('")
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 205 
 
 (6) The sixth and seventh acts of creation were 
 the creation of fishes and birds and of land ani- 
 mals (Gen. 1. 20-25); the Babylonian parallels 
 in Enuma elish are wanting at present; but Berosus 
 hints that they were created at the same time 
 as man, so that it is probable that the account 
 of these acts of creation appeared somewhere in 
 the lost portions of the fifth or sixth tablet. From 
 allusions in other writings we learn that Marduk 
 was looked upon as the creator of the animals 
 and other living creatures of the field. (7) The 
 eighth act of creation, that of man (Gen. 1. 26-31), 
 finds its parallel upon the sixth tablet: 
 
 When Marduk heard the word of the gods 
 
 His heart moved him and he devised a cunning plan. 
 
 He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spoke, 
 
 That which he had conceived in his heart he made known 
 
 unto him. 
 "My blood will I take and bone will I fashion, 
 I shall make man that man may . . . 
 I shall create man, who shall inhabit the earth, 
 That the service of the gods may be established and that 
 
 their slirines may be built." C\) 
 
 In order to estimate rightly the relations be- 
 tween the Babylonian and Hebrew accoimts the 
 differences between the two must also be noted. 
 To begin with, the order of the separate acts of 
 creation is not quite the same. For example, 
 in the Babylonian account, the creation of the 
 heavenly bodies follows immediately upon the
 
 206 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 making of the firmament, while in the Hebrew 
 story it follows the making of the earth and the 
 springing up of vegetation. Certainly, this differ- 
 ence is of no special significance, and the change 
 may easily be explained as due to the desire of 
 the Hebrew writer to crowd the creative acts 
 into the six working days of the week. The real 
 difference is more fundamental and appears espe- 
 cially in the conception of the nature and char- 
 acter of Deity. The Babylonian story opens with 
 these words: 
 
 When above the heaven was not named 
 
 And beneath tlie earth bore no name, 
 
 And the i)rimeval Apsu, who begat them, 
 
 And Mummu-Tiamat, the mother of them all — 
 
 Their waters were mingled together, 
 
 And no reed was formed, no marsh seen, 
 
 When no one of the gods had been called into being, 
 
 [And] none bore a name, and no destinies [were fixed]. 
 
 Then were created the gods in the midst oj {heaven\. 
 
 Compare with this the simple, yet majestic, 
 conception, "In the beginning God created the 
 heavens and the earth." In one case many gods, 
 m the other one God almighty; in one case the 
 gods are a part of the process of creation, in the 
 other the uncreated God is in the beginning. 
 Genesis presents God as almighty, but also as 
 kind, beneficent, loving; Marduk, the Babylonian 
 creator, is represented as a great hero, but exceed- 
 ingly selfish. He undertakes the mighty task of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 207 
 
 overcoming Tiamat only after making arrange- 
 ments for a suitable reward. The description of 
 the heavenly banquet scene, to which reference 
 has been made earlier in the cliaptcr, implies a 
 conception of the character of the gods which is 
 separated by an impassable gulf from the Old 
 Testament ideal. 
 
 No one can read with an unbiased mind the 
 two accounts without realizing the great differ- 
 ences between the mythological, polytheistic ac- 
 count of the Babylonians and the simple, solemn, 
 sublime, monotheistic picture in Genesis. The 
 soberness, the dignity, the simplicity of the 
 Hebrew account lift it far above its Babylonian 
 counterpart. From it the crude nature myths 
 have all been stripped away. No drunken gods 
 hold revels in its solenm lines. Above and behind 
 and in all is one righteous and beneficent God. 
 In this sublime ethical monotheism the Hebrew 
 story rises infinitely above the story that originated 
 in the Euphrates-Tigris valley. 
 
 Another Babjdonian tradition, the close relation 
 of which to the biblical account has long been 
 recognized, is the story of the Deluge. In its 
 cuneiform text it was first discovered on fragments 
 of tablets brought from the library of Ashurbanipal. 
 But that the Babylonians possessed a story of 
 the Flood was known before from an outline 
 preserved by Berosus. The tradition brought to
 
 208 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 lif::lit by archaeology forms an episode in an epic 
 which narrates the exploits of Gilgamesh and 
 occupies the eleventh of the twelve parts into 
 which the epic is divided. Gilgamesh sprang 
 from a city, Shurippak, which afterward com- 
 pletely disappeared. He became king of Erech, 
 where he ruled as a tyrant until the gods created 
 Ea-bani to destroy him. The two, however, 
 became bosom friends. Together they delivered 
 Erech from the Elamite oppressor, Kliumbaba. 
 Ishtar, the goddess of love, then offered her hand 
 to Gilgamesh in marriage, which he spurned with 
 scorn. Out of revenge, she sent a scorpion, 
 whose sting proved fatal to Ea-bani. Gilgamesh 
 himself she smote with an incurable disease. To 
 find relief, the latter set out for the dwelling 
 place of his great-grandfather, Ut-napishtim, far 
 away on the isles of the blessed. When he finally 
 reaches him the latter tells him all about the 
 great Flood from which he escaped to enjoy 
 eternal life.C^^) 
 
 The most striking resemblances between the 
 Babylonian and Hebrew stories of the Flood may 
 now be noted: (1) Compare the instruction given 
 by God to Noah (Gen. 6. 13-22) with the words 
 addressed by the god Ea to Ut-napishtim: 
 
 O man of Shurippak, son of Ubaratutu, 
 
 Pull down thy house, build a ship, 
 
 Leave thy possessions, take thought for thy life,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 209 
 
 Thy property abandon, save thy life, 
 Bring living seed of every kind into the ship. 
 The ship that thou shalt build, 
 So shall be the nicjusurc of its dimensions. 
 Thus shall correspond its breadth and height, 
 Into the ocean let it fare.(^^) 
 
 (2) In botli accounts the destruction is due to 
 sin. This is definitely stated in Gen. G. 5-7. 
 For the Babylonian story it is unplied in the 
 rebuke given to Bel by Ea: 
 
 On the sinner lay his sin, 
 
 On the transgressor lay his transgression. 
 
 Forbear, let not all be destro3'ed. ('''') 
 
 (3) In both accounts, only a seed of life sufficient 
 to replenish the earth is saved. Compare Gen. 6. 
 19, 20 with the command, ''Bring living seed of 
 every kind into the ship," or with the statement: 
 
 I brought into the ship my family and household; 
 The cattle of the field, the beasts of the field, craftsmen, all 
 of them I brought in.(^^) 
 
 (4) Both stories tell of a great storm and deluge 
 of water. Gen. 7. 11 reads, "The fountains of 
 the great deep were broken up, and the windows 
 of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon 
 the earth forty days and forty nights." Com- 
 pare with tliis: 
 
 The dawning of that day I feared, 
 
 I feared to behold that day. 
 
 I entered the ship and closed the door. 
 
 When the first flush of dawn appeared 
 
 There came \ip from the horizon a black cloud.
 
 210 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Adad thundered within it, 
 
 While Nabii and Marduk went before. 
 
 They go jis messengers over mountain and valley. 
 
 Nergal bore away the anchor. 
 
 Ninib advances, the storm he makes to descend. 
 
 The Anunaki lifted up their torches, 
 
 With their brightness they light up the land. 
 
 Adad's storm reached unto heaven, 
 
 All light was turned into darkness. 
 
 It [flooded] the land like . . . 
 
 the storm 
 
 Raged high, [the water climbed over] the mountains, 
 Like a besom of destruction they brought it upon men.C^") 
 
 (5) In both instances the structure rests upon a 
 mountain in the north. Gen. 8. 4 reads, "And 
 the ark rested . . . upon the mountains of Ararat," 
 that is, Armenia. The Babylonian story reads: 
 
 To the land of Nisir the ship made its way. 
 
 The mount of Nisir held it fast that it moved not.(") 
 
 Mount Nisir is east of the upper Tigris. (6) In 
 both cases birds are sent out to ascertain the con- 
 dition of the land. Compare Gen. 8. 6-12 with 
 these lines: 
 
 When the seventh day approached 
 
 I sent forth a dove and let her go. 
 
 The dove flew to and fro. 
 
 But there was no resting place and she returned. 
 
 I sent forth a swallow and let her go; 
 
 The swallow flew to and fro, 
 
 But there was no resting place, and she returned. 
 
 I sent forth a raven and let her go; 
 
 The raven flew away, she saw the abatement of the waters,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 211 
 
 She drew near, she waded (?), Bhe croaked, and came not 
 
 back. 
 Then I sent everything forth to the four quarters of 
 
 heaven. (**) 
 
 (7) Sacrifice is offered by Noah and Ut-napishtim, 
 acceptable to the God of Noah and to the gods 
 of the Babylonian hero, in both cases resulting 
 in a promise not to repeat the Flood. Compare 
 Gen. 8. 20-22 with: 
 
 I offered sacrifice, 
 I made a Ubation upon the mountain's peak. 
 By sevens I set out the sacrificial vessels, 
 Beneath them I heaped up reed and cedar wood and myrtle. 
 The gods smelt the savor, 
 The gods smelt the sweet savor. 
 The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer. ('') 
 
 Other similarities might be noted, such as the 
 use of bitumen, the arrangement of the ship in 
 stories, and, what seems more striking, the fact 
 that the hero of the Babylonian story is the 
 tenth antediluvian king, while Noah is the tenth 
 antediluvian patriarch. 
 
 As in the stories of creation, marked differences 
 may also be noted between the two representations 
 of the Flood; and these differences appear where 
 they are most significant, namely, in the spirit 
 and purity of conception permeating the entire 
 Hebrew account. For example, the book of 
 Genesis introduces the divine displeasure with sin, 
 the ethical element, as a fimdamental note; then,
 
 '31? THE C^ETSTIA^T VIEW OF 
 
 when the divine mercy is aroused, the Flood 
 ceases; according to the Babylonian story, the 
 Flood is caused by the capricious anger of Bel, 
 the idea of punishment for sin cropping out only 
 as an incident in the conversation between Ea 
 and Bel at the end of the story. The Flood 
 ceases because the other gods are terrified, and 
 Ishtar intercedes for her own creation. Moreover, 
 the whole Hebrew conception of the Divine differs 
 from the Babylonian. In the Hebrew account we 
 find ourselves in an atmosphere of ethical monothe- 
 ism that is unknown apart from the chosen people. 
 Disappeared have all the gods who war with one 
 another, who rejoice in successful intrigues, who 
 do not hesitate to tell untruths or instruct their 
 favorites to do so; the gods unstable in all their 
 ways, now seeking to destroy, now flattering 
 their creatures; the gods who, terrified by the 
 storm, "cower like dogs" at the edge of heaven, 
 and who "gathered like flies" around the sacrifice 
 of the saved hero. All these characteristic features 
 of the Babylonian account are absent from the 
 Bible. Surely, there is no connection between 
 these deities and the one sublime and gracious 
 God of Genesis. 
 
 Lack of space will not permit us to institute 
 detailed comparisons between other narratives in 
 the early chapters of Genesis and Babylonian 
 literature. It may be sufficient to say that the
 
 'VWK OLD 'I'ESTAMENT 213 
 
 resemblances are not confined to the stories of 
 creation and of the Flood. True, no complete 
 Babylonian story of paradise and of the fall is 
 at present known; nevertheless, there are certain 
 features in the biblical narrative which strongly 
 point to Babylonia, and in the light of the known 
 fact that elements in the two important narratives 
 of creation and of the Flood are derived from 
 Babylonia, it may be safe to infer that in this 
 case also echoes of Babylonian beliefs supplied, 
 at least in part, the framework of the Hebrew 
 representation. The antediluvian patriarchs also 
 seem to have their counterparts in Babylonian 
 tradition, and the story of the Tower of Babel, 
 though it does not seem to be of Babylonian origin, 
 presupposes a knowledge of Babylonia, and it is not 
 impossible that some Babylonian legend served as 
 the basis of it. 
 
 In closing this discussion, attention may be 
 called to a few general considerations that must 
 be borne in muid in any attempt to answer the 
 question whether the religious and ethical ideas 
 of the Hebrews which show similarities with the 
 ideas of other nations were borrowed bodily from 
 these nations, or, after all, contain elements that 
 were original with the Hebrews. 
 
 In the first place, it must be remembered that 
 similarities between the customs or beliefs of two 
 peoples do not necessarily imply the dependence
 
 214 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 of one upon the other; much less do they indicate 
 which is the original. Where similarities are 
 found at least four possibilities should be recog- 
 nized: A may depend upon B; B may depend 
 upon A; both A and B may have been derived 
 from a common original; or A and B may have 
 developed independently, the similarities being 
 merely coincidence. Which interpretation is the 
 right one in a given case does not lie on the surface; 
 it is only by careful, patient, unbiased study that 
 one may arrive at a proper understanding. Take 
 as an illustration the Decalogue. The Buddhists 
 have "ten prohibitory laws," sometimes called the 
 "Buddhist Decalogue." The first five read, "Thou 
 shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt 
 not lie; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou 
 shalt not get drunk." Three of these correspond 
 exactly to three of the demands in the Jewish 
 Decalogue. Does it necessarily follow that the 
 Decalogue was borrowed from Buddha? The 
 Egyptians also had a sacred law. The law itself 
 has not yet come to light, but the Book of the 
 Dead indicates its existence. In the one hundred 
 and twenty-fifth chapter of this book we read 
 the justifications offered by the dead: "I have 
 not acted with deceit or done evil to men; I 
 have not oppressed the poor; I have not judged 
 unjustly," etc. These negations seem to implv 
 the existence of a law, either oral or written,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 215 
 
 forbidding those things. From the negations, "I 
 have not acted with deceit; I have not committed 
 murder; I have not been unchaste," etc., one 
 may infer that the Egyptians had precepts 
 corresponding substantially to some of the require- 
 ments in the Decalogue. Docs logic demand, 
 therefore, the conclusion that the Decalogue owes 
 its existence to the saci-ed law of the Egyptians? 
 Among the Babylonians also we find evidence of 
 the existence of, at least, some of the requirements 
 of the Hebrew Decalogue: "Thou slialt not break 
 into the house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not 
 approach the wife of thy neighbor; Thou shalt 
 not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt 
 not grasp the garment of thy neighbor." Do 
 these similarities prove beyond question the 
 dependence of the one upon the other? 
 
 There are, then, marked resemblances between 
 the Hebrew Decalogue, certain requirements among 
 the Babylonians, among the Egyptians, and 
 among the Buddhists. I know of no one who 
 claims that the Decalogue was borrowed from 
 Buddha; some, however, seem to think, that in 
 part at least, it was dependent upon Babylon; 
 others, that Moses is indebted for it to Egypt. 
 True, in the minds of most scholars the dependence 
 is not direct; there would be room, according to 
 their theory, for the work of the Spirit in the 
 selection of these fundamental, ethical conceptions
 
 216 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 from the great mass of requirements, the majority 
 of which are far inferior to the Decalogue. Such 
 dependence, even if it could be proved, would 
 not rob the Decalogue of inspiration or permanent 
 value; but it seems to me that the similarities 
 do not warrant the claim of even such dependence. 
 Is it not more likely that these similarities are 
 due to the mstinct implanted in man by the 
 Creator, which recognizes the sanctity of life, of 
 family relations, and of property rights? But this 
 instinct does not account for the obvious differ- 
 ences between the Hebrew Decalogue as a whole 
 and the legislations of other peoples. These must 
 be traced to the special activity of a Spirit who 
 produced among the Hebrews a collection of 
 commandments such as natural instinct, if left 
 to itself, could not have produced. 
 
 It is different, perhaps, when we consider the 
 relation of the more comprehensive civil legislation 
 of the Pentateuch to the Code of Hammurabi. 
 There the resemblances are numerous and striking 
 enough to justify the inference that there exists 
 some relation of dependence, and yet by no means 
 that the legislation of the Pentateuch is borrowed 
 directly from the other, or even that there is a 
 literary dependence. How extensive this depend- 
 ence is only careful examination can show; but, 
 however complete, it will not destroy the fact 
 that the laws of Israel are permeated by a Divine
 
 Till-: OI.l) 'I'KS'l'AMKNT 217 
 
 Spirit, The iniportunt question is not, Where do 
 we find the natural basis upon which the system 
 is built up by men under divine guidance? but, 
 Does the spirit and character of the system indi- 
 cate such guidance? 
 
 In the second place, in seeking the truth about 
 this relationship assumption must not be confused 
 with knowledge. Motlern archaeologists seem to 
 be in peculiar danger of taking things for granted. 
 It is not without reason that a prominent Old 
 Testament scholar proposes to change the title 
 of the third edition of a book entitled The Cunei- 
 form Inscriptions and the Old Testament into The 
 Cuneiform Scholar and the Old Testament, It is 
 stated, for example, without qualification by 
 Delitzsch that the name "Yahweh" has been 
 discovered on inscriptions belonging to the period 
 of Hammurabi, No hint is given that the read- 
 ing is questioned by many Assyriologists. There 
 is, at least, a possibility, no matter how small, of 
 a different rendering, with, of course, a vastly 
 different conclusion. But admitting, as I believe 
 we must do, that the name does occur, the hi- 
 ference drawn from this occurrence by Delitzsch, 
 and expressed in the following words, is an assump- 
 tion and misleading, unless it is materially modi- 
 fied: "Yahweh, the abiding one, the permanent 
 one, who, unlike man, is not to-morrow a thing 
 of the past, but one that endures forever, that
 
 218 THE CTIKISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 lives and labors for all eternity above the broad, 
 resplendent, law-bound canopy of the stars — it 
 was this Yahweh that constituted the primordial 
 patrimony of those Canaanite tribes from which 
 centuries afterward the twelve tribes of Israel 
 sprang, "C*") The fact is that you may search 
 the Babylonian pantheon from one end to the 
 other and you will not find one god who in nature 
 and character can compare with the Jehovah of 
 Israel, "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and 
 abimdant in loving-kindness and truth." 
 
 Another instance of the same character is the 
 story of the fall. One thing we know, namely, 
 that a story of the fall of man, similar to that 
 in Genesis, has not as yet been found among the 
 fragments of Babylonian libraries. Certainly, such 
 story may have existed, and probably did exist; 
 it may even be, as has been asserted, that some 
 connection exists between the scriptural story of 
 the fall and the picture on an old Babylonian 
 seal cylinder having in the center a tree with 
 fruits hanging down, on each side a figure, and 
 behind the figure at the left a mark which may 
 represent a serpent. But the interpretation is by 
 no means certain. The fact that an assertion is 
 made by an expert favors the presumption, but 
 does not prove, that the statement is true. 
 
 Some archaeologists claim that the monotheism 
 of Israel was derived from outside of Israel,
 
 THE OLD 'I'KSTAMENT 219 
 
 either from Arabia(") or from Babylonia ("). 
 Among the arguments in favor of this claim is 
 the occurrence of ):)roper names which are alleged 
 to imply the existence of monotheism; for example, 
 Yasma-ilu, which may be translated "God hears," 
 implying the existence of but one God. However, 
 it might mean also "a god hears," or *'god" — 
 referring to one of many — "hears," the giver of 
 the name singling out the one for special con- 
 sideration. And as there are clear indications of 
 polytheism in southern Arabia, where the name 
 is found, the name, in all probability, means the 
 latter, thus implying polytheism. The same may 
 be said of the names found in Babylonia. What- 
 ever the primary meaning of ilu, these names do 
 not in themselves prove the existence of monothe- 
 ism. They may be translated in perfect accord 
 with logic and grammar as admitting the existence 
 of more than one god. Indeed, the historical 
 facts demand such interpretation. If we find, for 
 example, "Sin-muballit" ("the moon-god brings to 
 life") as the name of the father of Hammurabi, 
 and "Shamshu-iluna" (in all probability, "the 
 sim-god is our god") as that of his son, the facts 
 surely indicate that the monotheism of the period 
 was not very distinct. The testimony of the Code 
 of Hammurabi points in the same direction, as 
 also the most spiritual utterances of religion in 
 the Euphrates valley, the penitential psahns.
 
 220 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 It is seen, then, that facts do not warrant the 
 claim, made by some, that that upon which rests 
 the significance of the Bible m the world's history, 
 namely, monotheism, was taken over by the 
 Hebre^^'s from the Babylonians. Josh. 24. 2 re- 
 mains uncontradicted: "Your fathers dwelt of 
 old time beyond the River, even Terah, the 
 father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; 
 and they served other gods." It is only in Israel 
 that we find a clearly developed monotheism. 
 Assumption and facts are not quite the same. 
 
 Another hnportant point, to which attention has 
 already been called, is the marked difference 
 which obtains between the literature of the Old 
 Testament and that uncovered by archaeology. 
 True, there are points of contact; indeed, strange 
 it would be if there were none; for, like the Baby- 
 lonians, the Hebrews were Semites. Surely, it is 
 not strange that nations of the same race, originally 
 in the same home, should possess similar traditions, 
 customs, beliefs, and practices. When they left 
 their common home they carried with them their 
 common traditions, customs, and beliefs; in their 
 new homes they developed them and impressed 
 upon them their own individualities. We are 
 nowhere informed in the Old Testament, and it 
 would seem contrary to reason to suppose, that 
 at the time of Abraham, Moses, or at any other 
 period, God emptied the Hebrew mind and con-
 
 THE OLD ^PKSTAMENT 221 
 
 sciousness of all the things which had been the 
 possession of the Semitic race from the bcgiiming. 
 Is it not more likely that '^he inspired teachers 
 and writers employed for then- loftier purposes 
 the ancient traditions and beliefs familiar to their 
 contemporaries? In doing so they took that 
 which was, in some cases, common and unclean, 
 and, purifying it under the guidance of the Divine 
 Spu'it, made it the medium by which to impart 
 the sublimest truths ever presented to man. Ob- 
 viously, the special religious value of the Old 
 Testament literature does not lie in what Is common 
 to it and l^>abyl()n, but hi the elements in w^hich 
 they differ. 
 
 The points of contact nmst not blind the eye 
 to the points of contrast. These points of con- 
 trast are in the spirit and atmosphere pervading 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, which are quite distinct, 
 not simply from Babylonian, but from all other 
 literatures. These essential differences occur, as 
 we have seen, throughout the entire religious 
 and ethical literature. In many cases is agree- 
 ment in form, but how far superior the spirit 
 and substance of the Hebrew! Think of the 
 different conceptions of the nature and character 
 of God, of God's relation to man, of the divine 
 government of the world, and many other truths 
 precious to Christians in all ages. There is, indeed, 
 in the Hebrew record "an intensity of spiritual con-
 
 522 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ception, a sublimity of spiritual tone, an insight into 
 the unseen, a reliance upon an invisible yet all-con- 
 trolling Power, that create the gap between the 
 Hebrew and his brother Semite beyond the River," 
 
 How are we to account for these differences? 
 Professor Sayce has suggested an answer in these 
 words: "I can find only one explanation, un- 
 fashionable and antiquated though it be. In the 
 language of a former generation, it marks the 
 dividing line between revelation and unrevealed 
 religion. It is like that something hard to define 
 which separates man from the ape, even though 
 on the j)hysiological side the ape may be the 
 ancestor of man."(^^) Though the language of 
 this statement may be mifortmiate, especially 
 where it implies that there is no revelation in the 
 ancient religions outside of the Old Testament, it 
 does call attention to tlie secret of the fundamental 
 difference between the Old Testament sacred 
 literature and that of the surrounding nations. 
 There is in the former abundant evidence of the 
 activity of a Spirit whose presence is less manifest 
 in the sacred literatures of other ancient nations. 
 
 True, the monuments have not spoken their 
 last word; but if we have the right to draw in- 
 ferences from the known, we may safely affirm 
 that though the monuments may swell into 
 infinity, they will offer nothing to equal, much 
 less to supersede, in substance and spirit, our
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT S23 
 
 Old Testament. We iriay receive gratefully every 
 ray of light, but the time has not yet come, nor 
 ever will come, when we may lay aside the Old 
 Testament and accept as a substitute the legends 
 and myths of heathen lands to give to us the 
 bread of life which the Saviour found in the 
 pages of the Old Book. Let us welcome the 
 light and knowledge God has bestowed upon us; 
 let us rejoice in them with perfect assurance that 
 they are for good and not for evil; let us learn 
 to use them wisely and honestly, and let us still 
 be ever alert listening for other words, uttered 
 ages ago, but not yet audible to modern ears. 
 ''It is for us to catch these messages, and to 
 understand them, that we may fit them into the 
 great fabric of apprehended truth to the enrich- 
 ment of ourselves, and to the glory of our common 
 Lord." 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER V 
 
 C) J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the New Scholar- 
 ship, p. 92. 
 
 C) S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, p. 20. 
 
 0) Hugo Winckler, Himmels- und Weltenbild der Baby- 
 lonier, p. 9. 
 
 (*) Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, of the University of 
 Berhn, delivered three lectures on the relation of 
 Babylonian religion to the religion of the Old Tes- 
 tament, under the title, "Babel und Bibel." 
 
 C) A. H. Sayce, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and 
 Babylonia, pp. 276, 277. 
 
 (') A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the 
 Ancient East, I, p. 86,
 
 ,??4 THE CHKTSTTAX VIEW OF 
 
 C) R. W. Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and As- 
 8>Tia, p. SS. Practically all the cuneiform inscrip- 
 tions quoted or referred to in this chapter arc trans- 
 lated in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 (^) Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, 
 published by Open Court Co., p. Go. 
 
 (•) A translation of the entire psalm is found in Sayce, 
 The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 
 419-421; also in Rogers, ReUgion of Babylonia 
 and Assyria, pp. 182-184; R. F. Harper, Assyrian 
 and Babylonian Literature, pp. 436-439. 
 
 (") Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, 
 pp. 35, 93, 195. A translation of a hymn composed 
 by this king to his supreme god is found in J. H. 
 Breasted, A History of Egyi)t, pp. 371ff. 
 
 (") An excellent brief survey of the religious conceptions 
 of the pre-Mosaic period is given in the article on 
 "Religion of Israel," by E. Kautzsch, in James 
 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., 
 pp. 613ff. 
 
 (") The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 95. 
 
 (") Ibid., p. 97. 
 
 (") The most recent and most satisfactory edition and 
 translation of the entire Babylonian story of crea- 
 tion is by L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Crea- 
 tion. The two quotations given are Tablet I, lines 
 7-9, and Tablet III, lines 133-138. 
 
 (") Additional portions of this hymn are found in R. W. 
 Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 170ff. 
 
 (") S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religions To-day, p. 14. 
 
 (") A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 
 p. 15; A. H. Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and 
 Babylonia, pp. 476ff.; M. Jastrow, in American 
 Journal of Theology, 1898, pp. 315-352; A. Jere- 
 mias, The Old Testament in the Light of the An- 
 cient East, I, pp. 198ff.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 325 
 
 (") Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 38. 
 
 n Ibid., p. 101. 
 
 C) Paul Ilaupt, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical 
 Ritual, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1900, p. 61. 
 
 (^*) The details of this question have been discussed very 
 extensively. Admirable discussions of the entire 
 subject are found in Sayce, Religions of Ancient 
 Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 448-478; Jeremias, 
 Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, II, 
 pp. 112ff. 
 
 C^ Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p, 469. 
 
 (") DeUtzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, pp. 53ff. 
 
 (**) R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 
 p. 145. 
 
 (") R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi; art. on the 
 same subject in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, 
 Extra Vol., pp. 584ff.; W. W. Davies, The Codes 
 of Hammurabi and Moses. 
 
 (^*) The best and most complete recent treatment of the 
 legal literature of the Old Testament is found in 
 C. F. Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, 
 which is Vol. IV in The Student's Old Testament. 
 
 (") Johannes Jeremias, Moses and Hammurabi, pp. 31ff. 
 
 (^') R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 
 p. 158. 
 
 C) L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, Two 
 Vols.; a translation is also found in R. F. Harper, 
 Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, pp. 282ff. 
 R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 
 pp. 107ff. 
 
 ("») Tablet V, lines 1-3. 
 
 (") Lines 1-8. 
 
 (") An English translation of the entire epic is found in 
 R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, 
 pp. 324ff.; the Deluge story is given by R. W. 
 Rogers, ReUgion of Babylonia and Assjria, pp 
 199ff.
 
 226 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OE 
 
 (») Lines 23-31. 
 
 C*) Lines 184-186. 
 
 H Lines 27, 85, 86. 
 
 C«) Lines 92-111. 
 
 (") Lines 141, 142. 
 
 O Lines 146-156. 
 
 O Lines 156-162. 
 
 (*°) Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 62. 
 
 (**) F. Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, pp. 75ff. 
 
 («) F. Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, pp. 58ff. 
 
 (*^) Preface to Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.
 
 THE OLD ^rESTAMENT 227 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 The Permanent Sic.NiFicANrE of the 
 Old Testament 
 
 In the opening paragraphs of Chapter I, atten- 
 tion is called to the unique place occupied by 
 tlie Old Testament in the thought, life, and theology 
 of the early Church. Throughout tlie Middle 
 Ages, and in the eyes of the Protestant reformers, 
 the two great divisions of the liible, the Old and 
 New Testaments, continued to command equal 
 respect and attention. The legal principles of the 
 Pentateuch have determined the legal systems of 
 all civilized nations; the bold and fiery sermons 
 of the prophets have been the chief inspiration 
 on the fierce bjittles for righteousness in all ages; 
 and the sublime religious lyrics of the Psalter 
 have ushered millions into the very presence of 
 God. Indeed, the Old Testament has exerted an 
 incalculable influence on the development of 
 religion and civilization. 
 
 However, it must be admitted that during the 
 latter part of the nmeteenth century a change of 
 attitude toward the Old Testament seems to have 
 taken place. True, from nearly the beginning of 
 the Christian era again and again voices have
 
 '??8 THE CHT^TSTTAN VIEW OF 
 
 been hoard denying to the Old Testament a place 
 in Christian thought and life, but not until com- 
 paratively recent times has this sentiment become 
 widespread. Says a writer in a book published 
 a few years ago: "The Bible was never more 
 studietl nor less read than at the present day. 
 This paradox is true, at least, of the Old Testa- 
 ment. For two generations scores of patient 
 scholars have toiled on the text, scanning each 
 letter with microscopic care, and one result of 
 their labors has been that to the majority of 
 educated men and women of whatever belief, or 
 no belief, the Bible has become a closed, yea, a 
 sealed, book. It is not what it used to be; what 
 it has become they do not know, and in scorn 
 or sorrow or apathy they have laid it aside. "(0 
 There may be some exaggeration in this statement, 
 but it cannot be doubted that there is consider- 
 able justification for the complaint. C. F. Kent 
 makes the admission that "with the exception of 
 a very few books, like the Psalter, the Old Testa- 
 ment, which was the arsenal of the old militant 
 theology, has been unconsciously, if not delib- 
 erately, shunned by the present generation. "(2) 
 And the words of Professor Cheyne are aknost 
 as applicable to-day as they were when they 
 were first written, more than twenty years ago: 
 "A theory is already propounded, both in private 
 and in a naive simple way in sermons, that the
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 22:j 
 
 Old Testament is of no particular moment, all 
 that we need being the New Testament, which 
 has been defended by our valiant apologists and 
 expounded by our admirable interpreters. "(^) 
 
 If this represents in any sense the true state of 
 affairs; if, on the other hand, the words of the 
 apostle are true, that ''every scripture inspired 
 of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, 
 for correction, for instruction which is in right- 
 eousness, that the man of God may be complete, 
 furnished completely unto every good work"; 
 and if these words are applicable to the Old 
 Testament, as the writer intended them to be— if, 
 I say, these things are true, then Christians 
 appear to be in great peril of losing sight of one 
 of the important means of grace, on which were 
 nourished Jesus and his disciples, and millions in 
 former generations, and for the restoration of 
 which the reformers risked their very lives. 
 
 The change of attitude toward the Old Testa- 
 ment may be traced to a variety of causes, all 
 of which affect very vitally modern religious 
 thought and life. There are, for example, many 
 who feel, and that with some justice, that the 
 New Testament is in a peculiar sense the sacred 
 book of Christianity. Wliy, they ask, go to the 
 Old Testament when we have the New with its 
 more complete and perfect revelation? But this 
 attitude reflects only a half truth, which is often
 
 ?30 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 more deceptive than an out and out falsehood. 
 Certainly, Christijuis find their loftiest inspiration 
 in the study of the life, character, and teaching 
 of the Master and of his disciples; but the New 
 Testament has by no means displaced the Old. 
 The early Christians were right in placing it beside 
 the New, because the former is still of inestimable 
 value. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the 
 New Testament properly unless one has an ade- 
 quate knowledge of the Old. Moreover, there are 
 many truths taken for granted in the New Testa- 
 ment for a biblical statement of which we must 
 turn to the Old. Will the revelation of the nature 
 and character of God contained in the Old Testa- 
 ment ever lose its doctrinal value? And even in 
 cases where both Testaments cover the same field 
 the Old retains a peculiar value. True, the New 
 Testament presents a more complete and perfect 
 revelation, but there are few New Testament 
 truths which have not their roots in the Old. 
 The former presents the full-grown revelation; 
 nevertheless, a vast number of people, who have 
 not yet reached a state of perfection, will under- 
 stand even New Testament truths more readily 
 as they are presented in the Old Testament; for 
 here they can see the truths in more concrete 
 form; they have flesh and blood; they are struggling 
 for victory over darkness and superstition. Nearly 
 all the great and vital doctrines of the Church,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 231 
 
 though founded principally on the New Testament, 
 are illustrated, are made more real and human, 
 become more impressive and forceful as we study 
 their development and growth under the Old 
 Testament dispensation. 
 
 The neglect of the Old Testament is due, in 
 the second place, to a reaction against its misuse 
 by former generations. (0 Puritanism and the 
 theology of the past three centuries were largely 
 rooted in the Old Testament. From it the stern 
 Puritans drew their spirit of justice, their zeal 
 for righteousness, and their uncompromising con- 
 demnation of everything that appeared wrong. 
 Their preachers nobly echoed the thmiders of 
 Sinai and the denunciations of Elijah and Amos; 
 but in doing this they failed to recognize the 
 divine love back of the prophetic message, and 
 by their narrow interpretation of the letter, and 
 their emphasis upon the more primitive and im- 
 perfect teaching of the Old Testament, they were 
 often led to extremes that were neither biblical 
 nor Christian. Against intolerance and persecu- 
 tion the human heart rebels, and with it comes 
 a feeling of resentment against the cause. Thus 
 it happened that the reaction against Puritanism 
 brought with it a disregard of the Old Testament, 
 which was followed either by the exaltation of 
 the New Testament, whose spirit is more merci- 
 ful and tender, or by hostility against the entire
 
 333 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Bible and Christianity as a whole. This abuse 
 of the Old Testament was due in large part to 
 the use of faulty, or erroneous, methods of inter- 
 pretation. And since there seems to be even now 
 a tendency in some places to defend these methods, 
 which are out of keeping with the spirit of sci- 
 entific investigation in this age, many intelligent 
 men have come to look with su.si)icion upon a 
 book in the study of which miscientific methods 
 continue to be used. 
 
 Another important cause of the change of 
 attitude toward the Old Testament is to be fomid 
 in the labors expended upon the Old Testament 
 by able scholars in the pursuit of a careful, critical 
 study of the ancient records. As has been stated 
 in another connection, these studies are not the 
 outgrowth, as is often erroneously assumed, of a 
 desire to discredit the Bible, to displace it from 
 the heart and confidence of the people, or to 
 attack its teaching or inspiration. 'Tt would be 
 a most hopeless thing," says W. G. Jordan, "to 
 regard all this toil as the outcome of skepticism 
 and vanity, a huge specimen of perverse ingenuity 
 and misdirected effort. "(') They are simply the 
 results of Protestantism and the Renaissance. (®) 
 But whatever the spirit back of the study, and 
 whatever the gains of this investigation, one 
 result is that many Christians feel perplexed with 
 regard to the true position of the Old Testament-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMKiNT 233 
 
 What of its claims? What of its inspiration? 
 How far is it human in origin? How far divine? 
 These and similar questions are asked by men 
 everywhere. Never was there more interest, more 
 inquiry, and, perhaps, more unrest and disquietude 
 among thoughtful people. 
 
 Surely, it is high time to realize tliat all this 
 investigation has had no harmful effect upon 
 the substance of the divine revelations conveyed 
 in the Old Testament records. In the words of 
 Jordan, 'To me, with my faith that the whole 
 universe is filled with the presence of the living, 
 self -revealing God, I cannot conceive . . . that the 
 most severe criticism can ever banish the divine 
 power from that great literature which is one of 
 the choicest organs of its manifest ations."(^) As 
 has been pointed out in the preceding chapters, 
 some long-cherished notions and interpretations 
 have been overthrown; to some extent our ideas 
 concerning its literary forms have had to be 
 modified, but its substance has not been disturbed. 
 On the contrary, it has come to be seen with a 
 clearness unrecognized before that it bears the 
 indelible stamp of God. 
 
 This being the case, students of the Bible 
 should return to a more just appreciation of that 
 part of Sacred Scripture which is so intimately 
 connected with the training of Jesus and his 
 disciples. If the Old Testament contains records
 
 234 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 and interpretations of divine revelations, those 
 who claim to be children of God should be willing, 
 yea, anxious, to put forth some efforts to familiar- 
 ize themselves adequately with these records. But 
 the sense of gratitude and appreciation for these 
 self-revelations of God is not the only reason which 
 should prompt the Christian to turn more fre- 
 quently to the pages of the Old Book. A much 
 more important consideration is the fact that the 
 lessons taught in the Old Testament are of pro- 
 found significance to-day, and that they cannot 
 be neglected without serious consequences. Again, 
 attention may be called to the fact that the 
 Founder of Christianity and his disciples found 
 nourishment in its pages, and that they con- 
 stantly exhorted their followers to do the same. 
 Now, Jesus is recognized by all Christians as a 
 model worthy of imitation in every relation of 
 life. Would it not be well to imitate him in the 
 use of the Old Testament Scriptures? If he found 
 in the pages of the Old Testament weapons with 
 which to put to flight the Evil One, might not we? 
 Aside from these general considerations, it is 
 easily shown that every part of the Old Testa- 
 ment is full of teaching which is of the highest 
 value even in the twentieth century of the Christian 
 era. Consider, for example, the first eleven chap- 
 ters of Genesis, around which much controversy 
 has raged. In former days these chapters were
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 235 
 
 thought to give an absolutely accurate account of 
 creation and the early history of mankind. How- 
 ever, various lines of investigation have shown 
 this view to be untenable. "We are forced, 
 therefore," says a recent writer, "to the con- 
 clusion that, though the writers to whom we 
 owe the first eleven chapters of Genesis report 
 faithfully what was currently believed among 
 the Hebrews respecting the early history of man- 
 kind, yet there was much they did not know, 
 and could not take cognizance of. These chapters, 
 consequently, contain no account of the real 
 beginnings, either of the earth itself, or of man 
 and human civilization upon it."(^) All this 
 need create not the slightest difficulty for one 
 who holds the scriptural conception of the nature 
 and purpose of the biblical writings. It is true 
 of these chapters, as of other parts of the record, 
 that "the only care of the prophetic tradition is 
 to bring out clearly the religious origin of hu- 
 manity. "(") If anyone is in search of accurate 
 information regarding the age of this earth, or 
 its relation to the sun, moon, or stars, or regarding 
 the exact order in which plants and animals have 
 appeared upon it, he should go to recent text- 
 books in astronomy, geology, and paleontology. 
 It is not the purpose of the writers of Scripture 
 to impart physical instruction, or to enlarge the 
 bounds of scientific knowledge. So far as the
 
 336 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 scientific or historical information imparted in 
 theac chapters is concerned, it is of httle more 
 vakie than the similar stories of other nations. 
 And 3'et the student of these chapters can see a 
 striking contrast between them and extra-biblical 
 stories describing the same unknown ages handed 
 down from pre-scicntific centuries. Here comes 
 to view the uniqueness of the Bible. The other 
 traditions are of interest only as relics of a by- 
 gone past. Not so the biblical statements; they 
 are and ever will be of inestimable value, not 
 because of their scientific teaching, but because 
 of the presence of sublime religious truth in the 
 crude forms of primitive science. If anyone 
 wishes to know what connection the world has 
 with God, if he seeks to trace back all that now 
 is to the very fountain-head of life, if he desires 
 to discover some unifying principle, some illumi- 
 nating purpose in the history of the earth, he may 
 turn to these chapters as his safest and, indeed, 
 only guide to the information he seeks. 
 
 The purpose of the narratives being primarily 
 religious, it is only natural that their lessons 
 should be religious lessons. The one supreme 
 lesson taught throughout the entire section is 
 *Tn the beginning, God." But each separate 
 narrative teaches its own pecuHar lessons. The 
 more important of these are briefly summarized 
 bv Driver as follows: "The narrative of creation
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 237 
 
 sets forth, in a series of dignified and impressive 
 pictures, the sovereignty of God; his priority to 
 and separation from all finite, material nature; 
 his purpose to constitute an ordered cosmos, 
 and gradually to adapt the earth to become the 
 habitation of living beings; and his endowment 
 of man with the peculiar, unique possession of 
 self-conscious reason, in virtue of which he be- 
 came capable of intellectual and moral life, and 
 is even able to know and hold communion with 
 his Maker. In chapters two and three we read, 
 though, again, not in a historical but in a pictorial 
 and symbolic form, how man was once innocent, 
 how he became conscious of a moral law, and 
 how temptation fell upon him and he broke that 
 law. The fall of man, the great and terrible truth, 
 which history not loss than individual experience 
 only too vividly teaches each one of us, is thus 
 impressively set before us. Man, however, though 
 punished by God, is not forsaken by him, nor 
 left in his long conflict with evil without hope 
 of victory. In chapter four the increasing power 
 of sin, and the fatal consequence to which, if 
 unchecked, it may lead, is vividly portrayed in 
 the tragic figure of Cain. The spirit of vindictive- 
 ness and the brutal triumph in the power of the 
 sword is personified in Lamech. In the narrative 
 of the Flood God's wrath against sin and the 
 divine prerogative of mercy are alike exemplified;
 
 238 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OE 
 
 Noah is a standing illustration of the truth that 
 'righteousness delivereth from death/ and God's 
 dealings with him after the Flood form a striking 
 declaration of the purposes of grace and good 
 will with which God regards mankind. The 
 narrative of the Tower of Babel emphasizes 
 Jehovah's supremacy in the world, and teaches 
 how the self-exaltation of man is checked by 
 God."( ) 
 
 These chapters are followed by the stories of 
 the patriarchs. Missionaries say — and experience 
 at home has confirmed the claim — that the pa- 
 triarchal narratives are of inestimable value to 
 impress lessons of the reality and providence of 
 God, and to encourage the exercise of faith and 
 confidence in him. There is nothing that can be 
 substituted for them in religious instruction. Lack 
 of space will not permit to point out in detail 
 the educational value of these documents; how- 
 ever, in passing, mention may be made of the 
 fact that Professor W. W. White enumerates 
 twenty-one Christian virtues that are illustrated 
 and enforced in the life of Abraham. (") He 
 was (1) steadfast, (2) resolute, (3) prudent, (4) 
 tactful, (5) candid, (6) kind, (7) self-controlled, 
 (8) obliging, (9) self-denying, (10) condescending, 
 (11) unselfish, (12) peaceable, (13) hospitable, 
 (14) courteous, (15) humble, (16) thankful, (17) 
 reverent, (18) prayerful, (19) worshipful, (20) faith-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 239 
 
 ful, (21) obedient. Not one iota of their value 
 for purposes of instruction in righteousness have 
 these records lost because doubt has been cast 
 upon their absolute historical accuracy. "Abra- 
 ham is still the hero of righteousness and faith; 
 Lot and Laban, Sarah and Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, 
 and Joseph, in their characters and experiences, 
 are still m different ways types of our own selves, 
 and still in one way or another exemplify the 
 ways in which God deals with the individual soul, 
 and the manner in which the individual soul 
 ought, or ought not, to respond to his leadings."(") 
 What if some of these figures pass before us on 
 the stage rather than in real life, do they on that 
 account lose their vividness, their truthfulness, 
 their force? "If," says J. E. McFadyen, (»^) "it 
 should be made highly probable that the stories 
 were not strictly historical, what should we then 
 have to say? We should then have to say that 
 their religious value was still extremely high. 
 The religious truth to which they give vivid and 
 inunortal expression would remain the same. 
 The story of Abraham would still illustrate the 
 trials and the rewards of faith. The story of 
 Jacob would still illustrate the power of sin to 
 haunt and determine a man's career, and the 
 power of God to humble, discipline, and purify 
 a self-confident nature. The story of Joseph 
 would still illustrate how fidehty amid tempta-
 
 240 THE CHRISTIAN A^EW OE 
 
 tion, wrong, and sorrow is crowned at last with 
 glory and honor. The spiritual value of these 
 and similar talcs is not lost, even when their 
 historical value is reduced to a minimum, for the 
 truths which they illustrate are truths of uni- 
 versal experience." The present writer is con- 
 vinced that even as historical documents these 
 narratives are of immense value. Nevertheless, 
 it may be well to remind ourselves again that the 
 apostle does not point his readers to the Old 
 Testament Scriptures for instruction in ancient 
 history, but he claims that they are profitable 
 "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for 
 instruction which is in righteousness"; and these 
 records, whatever their historical shortcomings 
 may be, are most assuredly profitable for all 
 these pur}:)osos. 
 
 The historical books of the Old Testament are 
 a continuous illustration of the reality of a Divine 
 Providence, by revealing on almost every page 
 the hand of God in human history. Only as we 
 trace the history of the Hebrews can we under- 
 stand the unfolding in the mind of man under 
 the influence of the Divine Spirit of the great 
 religious ideas and conceptions which have become 
 the mainspring of human progress; the ideas 
 which may be seen in crystallized form in modern 
 Judaism, in perverted form in Mohammedanism, 
 and in expanded and spiritualized form in Chris-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 241 
 
 tianity. Preeminent among these conceptions is 
 the idea of one personal holy and righteous God. 
 The Hebrews were also the first to teach man 
 that the supreme goal of life is righteousness, and 
 thus they became the ethical teachers of the 
 human race. They first gave objective expression 
 to pure and lofty ethics in law. To-day the 
 principles of Hebrew legislation are still the bone 
 and marrow of the world's greatest legal systems. 
 Though the Romans may be, to a large extent, 
 responsible for the form which modern legal 
 systems have adopted, the substance must be 
 traced back to Hebrew legislation. 
 
 Moreover, the Hebrews prepared the way for 
 Christianity. Jesus himself recognized that the 
 faith he proclaimed was not a new creation. 
 "Think not," said he, "that I came to destroy the 
 law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but 
 to fulfill. "CO He came to fill up, to spiritualize 
 and intensify the religious and ethical teaching of 
 the great leaders of the Hebrews. Men needed 
 the preliminary training of the Old Testament 
 dispensation before they were ready to appreciate 
 the fuller revelation in and through Jesus the 
 Christ, and Christianity could never have tri- 
 umphed had it not been for the preparatory work 
 of the religious and ethical teachers of the He- 
 brews, whose activity was very largely determined 
 by the course of the nation's history. Again,
 
 242 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Jesus, according to the flesh, was a descendant of 
 Abraham, reared in a Jewish home, and under 
 Jewish mfluences. He studied Jewish Uterature 
 and Jewish ideals were held up before him. All 
 this must have made some impression upon the 
 mind and life of the Master. He and his teaching 
 can be understood only if he is studied in the 
 light of Jewish thought and Jewish religion reach- 
 ing back to the very beginning of Hebrew history. 
 All this shows how important is the study of the 
 historical books of the Old Testament to one 
 who desires to appreciate fully the Christian 
 religion. 
 
 It is impossible to estimate too highly the 
 eternal value of the devotional literature of the 
 Old Testament as illustrated, for example, in 
 the book of Psalms. Well has it been said, 
 ''What the heart is in man, that is the Psalter 
 in the Bible."(''') The Psalms touch the heart, 
 because they are the expressions of the deepest 
 feelmgs of the writers; and because these lyrics 
 express personal experiences they may be, and 
 are, used even to-day to express the various emo- 
 tions of joy, sorrow, hope, fear, anticipation, etc., 
 of persons who live even on a higher plane than 
 did their authors. "Wliat is there," says Richard 
 Hooker, (*") "necessary for man to know which 
 the Psalms are not able to teach? Heroical 
 magnanimity, exquisite justice, grave moderation,
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 243 
 
 exact wisdom, repentance unfeigned, unwearied 
 patience, the mysteries of God, the sufferings of 
 Christ, the terrors of wrath, the comforts of grace, 
 the works of Providence over this world, and the 
 promised joys of that world which is to come; 
 all good, necessarily to be either known or done, 
 or had, this one celestial fountain yieldeth; let 
 there be any grief or disaster incident to the soul 
 of man, any wound or sickness named for which 
 there is not in this treasure-house a present com- 
 fortal^le remedy at all times ready to be found." 
 
 Manifold indeed are the contents of the Psalter; 
 manifold the moods of the authors; and manifold 
 the experiences they express. But there is one 
 bond which imites them all into one living unity, 
 namely, a sublime faith in Jehovah, the God of 
 Israel. This variety on the one hand, and essential 
 unity on the other, are the qualities which have 
 given to the book in all ages a unique place in 
 the religious life of the individual and of the 
 Church of God. With full justice says Perowne :(") 
 "No single book of Scripture, not even the New 
 Testament, has, perhaps, ever taken such hold 
 on the heart of Christendom. None, if we dare 
 judge, unless it be the Gospels, has had so large 
 an influence in molding the affections, sustaining 
 the hopes, purifying the faith of believers. With 
 its words, rather than with their own, they have 
 come before God. In these they have uttered
 
 244 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 their desires, their fears, their confessions, their 
 aspirations, their sorrows, their joys, their thanks- 
 givings. By these their devotion has been kindled 
 and their hearts comforted. The Psalter has been 
 in the truest sense the prayer book of both Jews 
 and Christians." 
 
 Equally profitable is the study of the Wisdom 
 literature. The wise men accepted the great 
 religious truths proclaimed by the prophets; it 
 was their business to apply them to the details 
 of everyday life, and instruct their contemporaries 
 in that application. They did an important and 
 necessary work; they pointed out constantly and 
 persistently that religion cannot be separated 
 from the daily life. But the wise men were 
 dealing with persons who had hardly gone beyond 
 the childhood stage in things religious and ethical, 
 hence they must put the most profomid truths 
 in the simplest possible form. They must abstain, 
 as far as possible, from all speculation, and con- 
 fine themselves to simple, practical precepts which 
 would appeal to the ordinary practical common 
 sense of the hearer. "The great desire of the 
 sages," says Marshall, "was to reduce the lofty 
 theistic morality which underlies Mosaism to brief, 
 pithy sayings, easily remembered and readily 
 applicable to the everyday life of man."(*^) Cer- 
 tainly, in time they would be compelled to rise 
 above simple precepts and try to solve some of
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 245 
 
 the more perplexing problems of life; on the 
 other hand, there would always be a demand for 
 the more simple sayings of these moral guides. 
 The Old Testament contains specimens of these 
 different productions of wisdom activity. The 
 book of Proverbs is a collection of the more simple, 
 practical precepts, while the books of Job and 
 Ecclesiastes illustrate speculative wisdom. 
 
 The charge has sometimes been made against 
 the book of Proverbs that it is not truly religious, 
 that it moves on a lower plane, and contemplates 
 lower aims than the other books of the Old Testa- 
 ment; but this is only a half truth. That the 
 book differs from other books is undoubtedly true, 
 but that is due to the purpose of its author. He 
 did not mean to collect prophetic discourses or 
 sublime religious lyrics, but those simple precepts 
 of life which, though simple, are ever needed for 
 the proper conduct of man. There are two 
 phases of religion: the one internal, the religious 
 experience; the other external, the religious life. 
 The two go together, though at times the one, 
 at times the other, may be emphasized. The 
 authors of the Proverbs emphasized chiefly the 
 latter. They teach the most difficult of all 
 lessons: how to practice religion; how to fulfill 
 the duties and overcome the temptations of 
 everyday life. But these wise men rested their 
 practical teaching upon a religious basis. Their
 
 34fi THE CHEISTIAX VIEW OP 
 
 religion may not be on a New Testament level, 
 but in this they resemble other Old Testament 
 writings; their conceptions of reward and punish- 
 ment may be crude, and at times materialistic, 
 but this peculiarity they share with all those 
 saints of Israel whose vision is limited to this 
 world. 
 
 Underneath all their teaching there is a firm 
 belief in the existence of a righteous God and the 
 reality of his rule over the world, as also in the 
 other great religious verities taught by the proph- 
 ets. Far from disregarding religion, the writers 
 of the Proverbs sought to make it the controlling 
 motive of life and conduct. A profound religious 
 spirit pervades the whole book; but in addition 
 there are many passages which give definite 
 expression to the lofty religious conceptions of 
 the wise men.(*'') Nevertheless, as is natural in 
 view of the purpose of the wise men, greater 
 stress is laid upon ethics, the practice of religion. 
 Nothing and no relation of life seems to have 
 escaped the attention of the writers. Precepts are 
 given concerning ordinary everyday conduct, the 
 relations of men to their fellows, domestic rela- 
 tions and happiness, national life and the proper 
 attitude toward the government, and other rela- 
 tions and interests of life. The permanent value 
 of the book is suggested in these words of 
 Davison :(-") "For the writers of Proverbs religion
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 247 
 
 means good sense, religion means mastery of 
 affairs, religion means strength and manliness and 
 success, religion means a well-furnished intellect 
 employing the best means to accomplish the 
 highest ends. There is a healthy, vigorous tone 
 about this kind of teaching which is never out 
 of date, but which, human nature being what it is, 
 is only too apt to disappear in the actual pre- 
 sentation of religion in the Church on earth." 
 
 From simple practical precepts the wise men 
 rose to speculation. Their speculative philosophy 
 is theistic, for it starts from the conviction that 
 there is a personal God. The best specimen of 
 this type of Wisdom literature is the book of 
 Job, which deals with the perplexing problem of 
 evil and suffering. The book recounts how Job, 
 a man of exemplary piety, was overtaken by an 
 unprecedented series of calamities, and it reports 
 the debate between Job and other speakers to 
 which the occasion is supposed to have given 
 rise. The experiences of the perfect Job raised 
 the perplexing question. How can the suffering 
 of a righteous man be harmonized with the belief 
 in a holy and just God? The popular view, re- 
 flected in the greater portion of the Old Testament, 
 was that suffering was always punishment for 
 sin, prosperity reward for piety. Such belief seemed 
 in accord with the righteousness of Jehovah. 
 Undoubtedly, exceptions to the rule might be
 
 248 THE CIIEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 noted, but as long as the individual was looked 
 upon simply as an atom in the national unit, 
 the apparent inequalities in the fortunes of indi- 
 vidiuUs would not constitute a pressing problem. 
 When, however, especially through the teaching 
 of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the individual received 
 proper recognition, an experience like that of 
 Job was bound to create difficulties, for the suffer- 
 ing of a righteous man would seem to point to 
 unfairness on the part of God. That this per- 
 plexity was felt is seen from allusions in the 
 prophetic books. At last the time came when a 
 wise man in Israel sought to solve the problem 
 in the light of the religious knowledge he possessed. 
 The probl(>m, then, tliscussed by the author of 
 the book of Job is. How can the sufferings of a 
 righteous man be harmonized with belief in a 
 holy and righteous God? Various solutions of 
 this problem are suggested in different parts of 
 the book: (1) The solution of the prologue — 
 Suffering is a test of character. (2) The solution 
 of the friends — Suffering is always punishment 
 for sin. (3) The solution of Job — Job struggles 
 long and persistently with the problem; a few 
 times he seems to have a glimpse of a possible 
 straightening-out of the present ine(iualities after 
 death, but it is only a glimpse; he always sinks 
 back to a feeling of uncertainty and perplexity. 
 His general attitude is that there must be some-
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 240 
 
 thing out of gear in the world, for the righteousness 
 of God cannot be discerned as things arc going 
 now. (4) The solution of Elihu — P^lihu agnies 
 with tlic friends tliat suffering is closely connected 
 with sin; but he emphasizes more than they the 
 disciplinary purpose of suffering, which, he points 
 out, is the voice of God warning men to return 
 to Him. (5) The solution of Jehovah — The 
 whole universe is an unfathomable mystery, in 
 which the evil is no more perplexing than the 
 good. In the presence of all mysteries the proper 
 attitude is one of humble submission. (6) The 
 solution of the epilogue — Returns to the opinion 
 of the friends, for it teaches that righteousness 
 will sooner or later be rewarded with prosperity 
 even in this world. 
 
 It is chiefly in the solution of this age-long 
 problem suggested by the author of the book of 
 Job that the real value of the discussion lies. 
 The author nowhere states which of the above- 
 mentioned conclusions he accepts as true. As a 
 result, he has been charged with raising a pro- 
 found problem, discussing it with relentless logic, 
 and then leaving it unsolved. This, however, is 
 not quite fair to this ancient wise man. "With 
 a touch too artistic to permit him to descend to 
 a homiletic attitude, the poet has shown that his 
 solution of life's problem is a religious one. He 
 had portrayed with great power the inability of
 
 250 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 man's mind to comprehend the universe or to 
 understand why man must suffer; but he makes 
 Job, his hero, find in a vision of God the secret 
 of Hfo. Job's questions remain unanswered, but 
 now that lie knows God, he is content to let them 
 remain unanswered. He cannot solve life's riddle, 
 but is content to trust God, of whose goodness 
 he is convinced, and who, Job is sure, knows the 
 answer. The poet has thus taught that it is in 
 the realm of religion, and not in that of the in- 
 tellect, that the solution of life's mysteries is to 
 be found."(^^) Even Christianity has no other 
 solution of the problem to offer; it must still 
 insist upon a solution of faith, with a lofty con- 
 ception of God, and a vision of life broad enough 
 to include eternity, when the apparent inequal- 
 ities of this life may be adjusted by a loving 
 and righteous God. 
 
 The book of Ecclesiastes, dealing with the 
 perplexities of life in general, full of pessimism 
 and skepticism, is not without its permanent 
 value. The author of the book has passed through 
 many disappointments, and his spirit has grown 
 somewhat skeptical and pessimistic. Everything 
 has proved vanity: riches, pleasure, honor, even 
 the search for wisdom; and he is not sure con- 
 cerning his destiny after death. But over against 
 his experiences in life there is a faith in God who 
 governs the world. The book, which portrays
 
 THE OLD TP]STAMENT 251 
 
 the struggle between experience and faith, has 
 aptly been called "a cry for light." The author 
 does not see the light clearly, though here and 
 there he may have a glimpse of it. The real 
 perplexity is due to the fact that the author's 
 horizon is bounded by the grave. In this life he 
 sees no hope, therefore he looks with longing for 
 a possible reckoning in an after life; but it remains 
 a hope and cry, it never grows into a conviction. 
 The more significant is the retention of his faith 
 in God. He is conscious of a moral order in the 
 world, though its operation is often frustrated; 
 he is aware of cases in which the God-fearing 
 man had an advantage over others. Hence, with 
 all his uncertainty and doubt, he holds that it 
 is his duty, and the duty of everyone else, to fear 
 God and keep his commandments; God, somehow, 
 will care for the mysteries and perplexities of life. 
 Even the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon, 
 often an object of ridicule, when rightly inter- 
 preted, is seen to bring suggestive lessons to the 
 present age. The book owes its place in the 
 canon of Sacred Scripture to the allegorical inter- 
 pretation given to it from the earliest times. The 
 Jews interpreted it as picturing the close relation 
 existing between Jehovah and Israel; the Chris- 
 tians, as picturing the intimate fellowship between 
 Christ and his bride, the Church. At present it 
 is quite generally held that this interpretation
 
 253 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 docs not do justice to the primary purpose of 
 the book; but as to its original purpose two differ- 
 ent views are held. According to both interpreta- 
 tions, the subject of the book is love — human 
 loves the differences of opinion are with reference 
 to the manner in which the subject is treated. 
 Some think that the book is simply a collection 
 of love or wedding songs, all independent of one 
 another. Others feel that there are too many 
 evidences of real unity in it to permit this inter- 
 pretation; they see in the book a didactic drama 
 or melodrama, the aim of the author being the 
 glorification of true human love. 
 
 The drama centers around three principal 
 characters — Solomon, the Shunammite maiden, 
 and her shepherd lover. The book relates how 
 the maiden, surprised by the king and his train, 
 was brought to the palace in Jerusalem, where 
 the king hoped to win her affections and to in- 
 duce her to exchange her rustic home for the 
 enjoyment and honor the court life affords. She 
 has, however, already pledged her heart to a 
 young sho])herd; and the admiration and blan- 
 dishments which the king lavishes upon her are 
 powerless to make her forget him. In the end 
 she is permitted to return to her mountain home, 
 where at the close of the poem the lovers appear 
 hand in hand and express, in warm, glowing 
 words, the superiority of genuine spontaneous
 
 THE OLIO TESTAMENT 253 
 
 affection. The real aim of the book, therefore, 
 seems to be to glorify true love, and more specif- 
 ically, true betrothed love, which remains stead- 
 fast even in the most dangerous and most seductive 
 situations. 
 
 In this age, when the responsibility of the 
 individual Christian and of the Christian Church 
 toward the practical, social, religious, and moral 
 problems and evils is recognized more than at 
 any other previous time, the prophetic literature 
 is worthy of the most careful study on the part 
 of all Christians who recognize and who are 
 willing to meet their obligations to their day and 
 generation. The prophets of old met in the 
 strength of God, and at the divine impulse, 
 the problems and evils of their own age. They 
 had to face the problems of materialism and com- 
 mercialism; the evils resulting from the accumula- 
 tion of wealth, power, and resources in the hands 
 of a few; very serious economic problems; cruelty, 
 oppression, arrogance on the part of the rich pro- 
 prietors; corruption in government and in the 
 administration of justice; they had to grapple 
 with a cold, heartless formalism that threatened 
 to destroy pure, spiritual religion. Against these 
 evils and wrongs the prophets of old raised their 
 hands and voices. "When the old tribal customs 
 and bonds were weakened by the growth of cities 
 and the cultivation of commerce they saw that
 
 254 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 society must be set upon a moral basis or suffer 
 destruction. When the nation itself was about 
 to be broken to pieces they saw in this a call 
 for a deeper spiritual life. . . . They were in- 
 terested in politics, but not as a profession in 
 wliich to show their skill, or out of which they 
 might gain wealth or glory. Politics for them 
 meant simply the life of the nation in its relation 
 to God and to the great outside world. They 
 were social reformers. To the earlier prophets 
 man was regarded always as a member of society 
 rather than as an independent individual. ... In 
 opposition to a showy ritual, they set up their 
 demands for justice between man and man."(^^) 
 Surely, it is a part of the Christian's duty to do 
 his share toward a Christian solution of the social 
 and religious problems of our day. We can 
 hardly claim to have reached the full stature of 
 Christian manhood or womanhood until we have 
 acquired the knowledge and power to cope with 
 these difficulties in the spirit of the Master and 
 with the methods best adapted to the Christian- 
 izing of modern society. In these our efforts to 
 lift humanity nearer to God, or to bring God 
 nearer to humanity, we may learn much from 
 the prophets of old. 
 
 To sum up the results of our study: As Chris- 
 tians we may find our loftiest inspiration in the 
 study of the life, the character, and the teachings
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 255 
 
 of the Master, and of the words of his disciples. 
 But the New Testament is Uttle more than a 
 quarter of the Bible. In the preceding pages the 
 attempt has been made to emphasize the permanent 
 value of the larger division of the Sacred Book. 
 It has been carefully scrutinized, tested in furnaces 
 heated seven times, but out of the fire it has 
 come bearing the stamp of God, testifying more 
 confidently than ever before that God in olden 
 times spake unto the fathers, and that in its 
 pages may be found records and interpretations 
 of these revelations. The features of the Old 
 Testament which assure to it a permanent place 
 in religious thought and life may l^ briefly indi- 
 cated as follows : 
 
 The Old Testament will always prove attractive 
 as literature. The more we know of other lit- 
 eratures of antiquity, the more evident it becomes 
 that even from the literary viewpoint the Old 
 Testament is far superior to any other literary 
 remains of ancient civilization. 'Tf the inimitable 
 fresluiess of life is preserved in Homer, it is not 
 less preserved in the epic stories of the Old Testa- 
 ment; while the still more intangible simplicity of 
 the idyl is found perfect in Ruth and Tobit, the 
 orations of Deuteronomy are as noble models as 
 the orations of Cicero. Read by the side of the 
 poetry of the Psalms, the lyrics of Pindar seem 
 almost provincial. The imaginative poetry of
 
 256 THE CHRISTIAN YIEW OF 
 
 the Greeks is perfect in its own sphere, but by 
 the Hebrew prophets as bold an imagination is 
 carried into the mysteries of the spiritual world. 
 If the philosophy of Plato and his successors has 
 a special interest as the starting point for a pro- 
 gression of thought still going on as modern 
 science, yet the field of biblical wisdom offers an 
 attraction of a different kind, in a progression 
 of thought which has run its full round and has 
 reached a position of rest. . . . And in the inner 
 circle of the world's masterpieces, in which all 
 kinds of literary influences meet, the Bible has 
 placed Job, the Isaiahan Rhapsody, . . . unsur- 
 passed and unsurpassable. "(^^) 
 
 From the standpoint of history the Old Testa- 
 ment still occupies, and ever will occupy, a unique 
 position. Important as are the contributions of 
 archaeology, the student of ancient history can 
 by no means spare the testimony of the Bible. 
 The Old Testament is still the main source of 
 information for the national history of the He- 
 brew people, and it is and will remain a very 
 important secondary source for the history of 
 the surroimrling nations. It also retains a unique 
 place in the history of religion, for without it 
 the religious development of the Jews could 
 not be traced; and since the Jewish religion 
 is the foundation upon which Christianity was 
 developed, ignorance of that earlier religion
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 257 
 
 would prove a serious handicap to the student of 
 Christianity. 
 
 The Old Tcstaiuent will always be of value 
 because of its intimate connection with the New. 
 From the purely linguistic standpoint a knowledge 
 of the former is essential for an understanding 
 of the latter. New Testament modes of thought 
 and expression are inexplicable without a study 
 of the Old. There are many passages in the New 
 Testament taken from the Old and referring back 
 to it which cannot be properly understood unless 
 we examine them in their original context. But 
 the connection is even more vital, for in a very 
 real sense the new dispensation has its roots in 
 the old. It is one kingdom of God that is the 
 subject of the history in both, and the Bible as 
 a whole can never be rightly understood until 
 the two Testaments are comprehended in their 
 unity and harmony, for they are joined in in- 
 separable unity in Christ himself. 
 
 Most important of all, the Old Testament 
 retains, and ever will retain, a unique religious 
 value. It will ever be important in the field of 
 doctrine. True, the New Testament is the primary 
 source for the doctrines of Christianity, but there 
 are some thmgs which the New Testament takes 
 for granted, and for which we must turn to the 
 Old. Will the revelation of the nature and 
 character of God contained in the Old Testament
 
 258 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 ever lose its doctrinal value? — God, a spirit, 
 personal, with a clearly defined moral character, 
 in his mercy condescending to enter into covenant 
 relations with his creatures, loving man and 
 desiring to be loved by him, his anger aroused 
 by sui, but gracious toward the repenting sinner? 
 Again, have those early chapters of Genesis lost 
 their doctrinal value? Has anyone supplied a 
 substitute for the simple "In the beginning God 
 created heaven and earth"? 
 
 The Old Testament is of permanent religious 
 value because of its keen insight into human 
 nature. The Bible has been called "the family 
 album of the Holy God"; we might compare it, 
 rather, to a picture gallery. What a variety! 
 Everywhere we see them flesh and blood! Why 
 is it they impress us so? Is it not because the 
 pictures are so true to human nature that in 
 spite of the difference in time, place, and circum- 
 stances they may serve even us as mirrors? 
 
 The Old Testament will always deserve study 
 from the religious standpoint, because of the 
 ideal of character it sets before us. "It presents 
 to our souls characters that are supremely worthy 
 of our reverence because consciously centered in 
 God and full of his power. It permits us to share 
 the enthusiasm of the men who discovered the 
 fundamentals of our religion and the character 
 of our God. It is indispensable to complete the
 
 TTTE OLD TESTAMENT 259 
 
 disciplesliip of Christ, because it is the creator 
 of the mold which his soul expanded. "(^) Its 
 types of character may lack the finer graces, 
 yet they are types we may do well to imitate. 
 Will the lives of Abraham, Joseph, Samuel, Elijah, 
 David, and many others ever lose their lessons? 
 What sublime ideals even the Christian minister 
 may find in the lives of the prophets! 
 
 Will we ever get beyond the moral duties which 
 are, according to the Old Testament, obligatory 
 upon man? Purity of thought, sincerity of mo- 
 tive, singleness of purpose, truthfulness, honesty, 
 justice, generosity, love — these are some of the 
 virtues which again and again are in the strong- 
 est language insisted upon in the pages of the 
 Old Book. Indeed, the Old Testament empha- 
 sizes the loftiest ideals of human life and society, 
 anticipating the time when in all the world the 
 universal Fatherhood of God and the common 
 brotherhood of man would be realized. In an 
 editorial in the Expository Times, commenting 
 upon a paper read before the First International 
 Moral Education Congress, are found these sug- 
 gestive words: "It is when the teaching of the 
 Old Testament is simple, frank, and historical 
 that it becomes the best text-book of ethics in 
 the world, for it possesses these two incomparable 
 advantages — it is full of humanity, and it is full 
 of variety. The epics of Joseph and David, the
 
 260 THE CHRISTIAN YWM OF 
 
 tragedies of Elijah and Isaiah have an undying 
 charm. And the exaniples are varied as they are 
 interesting. It offers examples of almost every 
 stage of moral development. Whatever the pupil's 
 moral attitude, there is some Jewish hero that 
 appeals to him. That hero's actions can be 
 traced to their motives and followed to their 
 consequences. He can be treated with sympathy 
 m so far as he attains the standard of his times, 
 and yet criticized in so far as his motives are 
 not those which we recognize as absolute. So 
 the pupil may learn at once to appropriate those 
 Tuedia aximnata which fit him, and yet realize 
 that there is something beyond and above 
 
 them."C') 
 
 The Old Testament is of permanent significance 
 because of its insistence on pure and spiritual 
 religion, and its condemnation of all cold and 
 external formalism. These words of the prophet 
 Isaiah imply a lofty conception of true religion: 
 "Wliat unto me is the multitude of your sacri- 
 fices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the 
 burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; 
 and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of 
 Iambs, or of he-goats. Wlien ye come to appear 
 before me, who hath required this at your hand, 
 to trample my courts? Bring no more vain 
 oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; 
 new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 261 
 
 — I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn 
 meeting. Your new moons and your appointed 
 feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto 
 me; I am weary of bearing them. And when ye 
 spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes 
 from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I 
 will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash 
 you, make you clean; put away the evil of your 
 doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 
 learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, 
 judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. "(^^) 
 And the prophetic definition of religion, "He hath 
 showed thee, man, what is good; and what 
 doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, 
 and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with 
 thy God?"(^^) is in no wise inferior to that given 
 in the New Testament: "Pure religion and unde- 
 filed before our God and Father is this, to visit 
 the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and 
 to keep oneself mispotted from the world. "(^^) 
 
 Finally, how can we estimate highly enough 
 the devotional value of the Old Testament as 
 illustrated, for example, in the book of Psalms? 
 Here we have the outpourings of human souls in 
 the closest fellowship with their God, giving 
 without restraint expression to the most various 
 emotions, hopes, desires, and aspirations. What 
 other literary compositions lift us into such 
 atmosphere of religious thought and emotion?
 
 262 THE CHEISTIAN VIEW OF 
 
 Surely, the sweet singers enjoy a preeminence 
 from which they can never be dethroned. 
 
 It is quite safe, therefore, to assert, that as 
 long as human nature is what it is now the Old 
 Testament must remain an ever-flowing fountain 
 of living truth, able to invigorate and to restore, 
 to purify and to refine, to ennoble and to enrich 
 the moral and spiritual being of man. "No 
 man," says A. W. Vernon,(='®) "save Jesus, ever 
 had the right to lay the Book . . . aside, and he 
 made it immortal." 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER VI 
 
 (') J. C. Todd, Politics and Religion in 'Ancient Israel, 
 p. vii. 
 
 C) The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testa- 
 ment, p. 7. 
 
 (^) Contemporary Review, August, 1889, p.232. 
 
 (*) C. F. Kent, The Origin and Permanent Value of the 
 Old Testament, pp. 5ff. 
 
 C) Biblical Criticism and Modem Thought, p. 6. 
 
 (') See above, p. 79. 
 
 (') Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 230. 
 
 (") S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xlii. 
 
 C) A. Westphal, The Law and the Prophets, p. 43. 
 
 (*") S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. Ixx. 
 
 (") W. W. White, Studies in Old Testament Characters, 
 p. 14. 
 
 (") S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. Ixviii. 
 
 (") Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, 
 p. 335. 
 
 ('*) Matt. 5. 17. 
 
 (") These words of Johannes Arnd are used by Franz
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 263 
 
 Delitzsch aa the motto for his Commentary on the 
 Psalms. 
 
 (") Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter XXXVII, 2. 
 
 (") The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. 18. 
 
 ('*) J. T. Marshall, Job and His Comforters, p. 4. 
 
 n For example, 3. 5-7; 16. 3, 6, 9; 23. 17. 
 
 (20) ^ -p. Davison, The Wisdom Literature of the Old 
 Testament, pp. 134, 135. 
 
 O G. A. Barton, The Book of Job, p. 12. 
 
 C^) W. G. Jordan, Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, 
 pp. 284, 285. 
 
 {^) Richard G. Moulton, The Modern Reader's Bible, 
 One Vol. ed., p. x. 
 
 ('^) A. W. Vernon, The Religious Value of the Old Testa- 
 ment, p. 80. 
 
 (^) Expository Times, November, 1908, pp. 54, 55. 
 
 n Isa. 1. 11-17. 
 
 (") Mic. 6. 8. 
 
 n James 1. 27. 
 
 ('') The Religious Value of the Old Testament, p. 81
 
 INDEX 
 
 Abraham, 238. 
 
 Adad-nirari IV, 134. 
 
 Ahab, ISlff. 
 
 Angels, lS2f. 
 
 Animism, 165f., 169f. 
 
 Appeal to the soul, 30ff. 
 
 Archaeological material, 123f. 
 
 ArchiPology, llOff. 
 
 Ashurbanipal, 140. 
 
 Assumption versus knowl- 
 edge, 217ff. 
 
 Authorship, of Pentateuch, 
 88f.; other books, 89f. 
 
 Conflict between science and 
 Genesis, 41flf. 
 
 Contrasts, 221f. 
 
 Cosmology of appearances, 
 59f. 
 
 Creation, 41ff.; story of, 
 201fl.; permanent value, 
 235f. 
 
 Criticism, 66ff . ; benefits, 
 lOSff.; definition, 67f.; 
 Jesus and c, 92ff.; in- 
 spiration and c, 98ff., 105. 
 
 CjTUS, 141. 
 
 Babylon, faU of, 141. 
 Benefits of criticism, 105ff. 
 Bible and Reason, 33f. 
 Bible lands. 111. 
 Black Obelisk, 133f. 
 
 Canon, 86f. 
 
 Ceremonial system, 178flF. 
 
 Character study, 238, 258f. 
 
 Christian consciousness, 36. 
 
 Comparative religion, IGOfT. 
 
 Comparative study, IGOff.; 
 aim, IGO; attitude toward, 
 161f.; importance, 1G4 
 
 Compilation, 87f. 
 
 Composition, 21-23. 
 
 Confirmations, 156. 
 
 David, 104. 
 
 Day of Creation, 45f. 
 
 Decalogue, 199, 214ff. 
 
 Deity, conception of, 165ff., 
 206f., 212; Babylonian, 
 165-169, Egyptian, 169, 
 Hebrew, 169-172; Charac- 
 ter of D., 173ff. 
 
 Demons, 183f. 
 
 Devotional literature, 17f., 
 242f. 
 
 Divine element, 26ff. 
 
 Doctrinal value, 257f. 
 
 Ecclesiastes, 250f. 
 Elephantine, 141. 
 Eponym lists, 153. 
 
 264
 
 INDEX 
 
 265 
 
 Esarhaddon, 140. 
 Excavations, 112ff.; ABsyrio- 
 
 Babylonia, 112- 116; 
 
 Egypt, 116-118; Palestine, 
 
 118-121; Phoenicia, 121; 
 
 Moab, 121; Syria, 121; 
 
 Asia Minor, 121f. 
 Exile, 141. 
 Exodus, 128f. 
 
 Facts versus inferences, 144f. 
 
 Fall, 213. 
 
 Festivals, 178. 
 
 Flood, 207ff. 
 
 Fulfillment of prophecy, 28f." 
 
 Gains from excavations, 
 ISlff.; chronology, 152f., 
 155; geography, 151f.; his- 
 tory, lo2. 
 
 Gilgamesh, 208. 
 
 Hammurabi, code of, 188ff. 
 
 Harmonizing science with 
 scripture, 45ff. 
 
 Harmony between science 
 and Genesis, 61f. 
 
 Hezekiah, 13Sf. 
 
 Higher criticism, 73ff.; defi- 
 nition, 76; extra-biblical, 
 76f.; tradition and h. c, 
 77; importance, 7Sf.; ori- 
 gin, 79ff.; reformers and 
 h. c, SOf.; loyalty to Christ 
 and h. c, 82f.; traditional, 
 
 83; non-traditional, 83fT.; 
 conclusions, 85ff . ; illegiti- 
 mate, lOlf.; Jesus and 
 h. c, 92ff.; inspiration and 
 h. c, 98ff.; Mo.ses and 
 h. c, 102f.; Isaiah and 
 h. c, 103f.; David and 
 h. c, 104. 
 
 Historical criticism, 72f. 
 
 Historical hteraturc, 19f., 
 240ff., 256f. 
 
 Human element, 20fT. 
 
 Ideal harmony, 52. 
 Illegitimate criticism, lOlf. 
 Imperfections, 24f. 
 Inaccuracies, 23f., 55fT. 
 Infallibility, 38f. 
 Inferences versus facts, 144f. 
 Inspiration and criticism 
 
 98ff., 105. 
 Interpretation, 39f., 45ff. 
 Isaiah, 103f. 
 
 Jehu, 134. 
 
 Jesus, the supreme revealer, 
 35fT.; limitation of knowl- 
 edge, 97f.; criticism and J., 
 92ff.; the Old Testament 
 and Jesus, 9f ., 26, 36f., 234. 
 
 Job, 247-250. 
 
 Knowledge versus assump- 
 tion, 217ff. 
 
 Legal literature, 18f.
 
 266 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Legal syatoni, Babylonian, 
 187ff.; Hebrew, 195f.; re- 
 lation between the two, 
 199f. 
 
 Linguistic criticism, 70f. 
 
 Literary criticism, 71f. 
 
 Literature, kinds of, 15fT., 90. 
 
 Merneptah, 128f. 
 Miracles, 27f. 
 Mission of Israel, 60f. 
 Misuse, 23 If. 
 Moabite Stone, ISOff. 
 Monotheism, 167f., 218f. 
 Monotheistic tendencies, 167- 
 
 169. 
 Moral teaching, 259. 
 Moses, 102f. 
 
 Nature of Old Testament, 
 
 12f. 
 Nebuchadrezzar, 140f. 
 Neglect, 227f.; causes of, 229- 
 
 233. 
 New Testament, superiority, 
 
 229f., 254f.; estimate of 
 
 O. T., lOf. 
 
 Old Testament, nature, 12f.; 
 reliability, 150f.; as litera- 
 ture, 255f.; in Christian 
 church, 9; New Testament 
 estimate of, lOf.; Old Tes- 
 tament and interpretation 
 of New Testament, 257; 
 
 Jesus and Old Testament, 
 
 9f., 26, 36f., 234. 
 Omri, 130f. 
 Opposition to criticism, 74f., 
 
 82, 101. 
 Order of creation, 47ff. 
 
 Patriarchal age, 154; narra- 
 tives, 238f. 
 
 Pekah, 135. 
 
 Penitential Psalms, 168. 
 
 Pentateuch, authorship of, 
 88f. 
 
 Permanent value, 59fif., 227ff. 
 
 Polydemonism, 171. 
 
 Polytheism, 166ff. 
 
 Priesthood, 179f. 
 
 Prophecy, fulfillment of, 28f. 
 
 Prophetic literature, 15f., 
 253f. 
 
 Proverbs, 245-247. 
 
 Psahns, 242-244, 261. 
 
 Purpose of Old Testament, 
 llf., 53ff., 148. 
 
 Reliabihty, of O. T. history, 
 
 150f. 
 Religion, development of, 87. 
 Religious imperfections, 24f.; 
 
 r. institutions, 175ff. 
 Restitution theory, 48f. 
 Revelation, 53ff.; methods of, 
 
 13f.; progressive, 85f. 
 
 Sabbath, 175ff.
 
 INDEX 
 
 267 
 
 Sacrifice, ISOf. 
 Samaria, capture of, 136f. 
 Sargon II, 136. 
 Science, 38fT. 
 Sennacherib, 137ff. 
 Shalmaneser III, 132f. 
 Shalmancser V, 136. 
 Sheol, 184ff. 
 Shishak, 129f. 
 Similarities, 220. 
 Song of Songs, 251-253. 
 Spiritual appeal, 29ff.; judg- 
 ment, 35f.; unity, 29f. 
 Style, 21. 
 
 Tiglath-pilcHcr IV, 134ff. 
 
 Tirhaka, 139f. 
 
 Tithe, 180. 
 
 True religion, 260f. 
 
 Uniqueness, 32f. 
 Unity, 29f. 
 Unrest, 42fT., 232. 
 Use of archaeological material, 
 143ff. 
 
 Veracity of inscriptions, 14of . 
 View point, 149f. 
 Vision theory, 50f. 
 
 Taylor Cylinder, 138f. 
 Tel-cl-Amarna tablets, 125ff. 
 Temple, 179. 
 Textual criticism, 68ff., 74. 
 
 Wisdom literature, 16f., 244ff. 
 
 Yahweh, 171ff., 217. 
 Yaudi, 135.
 
 UCSOllTHfP.NRfOlOfjAL 
 
 LIBRARY fACILITV 
 
 AA 000 813 052 8