422

SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF OLD TESTAMENT

ARCHEOLOGY.

I

ARCHEOLOGY is a term very variously understood. Of Dr. Murray's two definitions, "Ancient history generally, the systematic description or study of antiquities," and "The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the prehistoric period," the former is too broad, the latter too narrow, for our purpose, neither would be in accordance with current usage as to Old Testament archæology. venture to suggest, as a convenient definition of the latter, the study of all sources of information which contain contemporary evidence as to the circumstances of the authors, books and history of the Old Testament. The direct and exclusive study of the Old Testament would not be Old Testament archæology.

This definition enables us to emphasise the claims of natural science, physiography, philology, philosophy, comparative sociology, and theology to rank with Egyptology as branches of our subject. They also enable us to supplement biblical statements by informing us as to the circumstances of Old Testament history. A quotation of Dr. Murray's from Tylor's Primitive Culture will serve to justify our classification. 'Archæology," he says, "displays old structures and buried relics of the remote past." The human mind, human nature, language, Eastern life, with its manners and customs, the physical features of Palestine, are all very old structures, and contain many buried relics of a remote past. They include the centemporary monuments of bygone ages, just as the earth of to-day includes the geological record of the formation of the world in prehistoric times. Hence the study of psychology, philology, Eastern life, and the geography of Palestine, stand on the same footing as branches of archæology.

The comparative study of sociology and religion affords contemporary information as to the Old Testament in as real, though in less obvious a way, than Semitic philology or Palestine exploration. As soon as we can discern general principles of the social and religious development of nations, we are warranted in considering that a nation now in the same stage of its growth as ancient Israel is virtually contemporary with ancient Israel, and can afford us evidence as to the probable conditions of life and thought in Old Testament times. It is this principle that underlies much of Prof. Robertson Smith's recent work.

But the most familiar branch of our subject is that comprising the literature and other remains of the nations bordering on Palestine. We are specially familiar with the names and histories of the closely connected group comprising Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and the Hittites. There is even a most unfortunate tendency to limit Old Testament archæology to the antiquities of this group, and ignore other branches of the subject. There were many points of likeness in language and religion between Tyre and Israel, together with constant intercourse and close alliance. The keen interest of the prophets in Phoenicia is well illustrated by the three important chapters which Ezekiel devotes to Tyre. A careful study of Phoenicia and her great colonies will be amply repaid in a fuller understanding of the religious and social life of Israel. Prof. Cheyne has pointed out the importance of Persian history and literature for the student of the Psalter and later books of the Old Testament; and the period of the Greek dynasties in Egypt and Syria has its bearing not only on the transmission and translation of the Old Testament, but also on the Book of Daniel, and the controversies as to the formation of the Psalter and the Maccabean Psalms. We have left-Palestine itself, with the immediately surrounding tribes, and Arabia. Palestinian antiquities seem to divide themselves for the

present between Palestine exploration and Egyptology and Assyriology. Arabia is mainly utilised by means of comparative sociology and religion, and as a source of information as to Semitic language and life.

From this very brief and imperfect review of the scope of our subject, we pass to a very general estimate of its significance. We may summarise the latter thus: Old Testament archæology enables us to confirm, and illustrate, and explain the Old Testament in detail; it gives us a broader and fuller knowledge of the historical setting of its events and writings; it enables us to realise the place of Israel in the history of Divine revelation.

The function of Old Testament archæology as to details has been largely illustrated in many standard works, and most readers will be familiar with Prof. Whitehouse's translation of Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, or, at any rate, with Prof. Sayce's little book, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, in both of which the illustrative matter from the monuments is arranged under the verses or books of the Old Testament. Indeed, this use of archæology with reference to details may be seen in any good modern commentary. Now, for instance, we see that in Ezekiel the face of the cherub is that of an ox, and in Assyria the winged bulls of the portals of the temples are called cherubs, or, again, some numeral or other word whose origin is inexplicable from the Hebrew is explained by a reference to Assyrian, or the mention of Ahab or Uzziah in an inscription enables us to fix the date of those kings; or, again, it is interesting to note that some obscure Jewish town, like Adoraim, mentioned once in the Old Testament, also occurs in a list of cities captured by Shishak, king of Egypt. Instances might be multiplied, and yet each exemplify some new class of illustration afforded by the results of archæology of the details of the Old Testament. To the intelligent reader of the Bible the

smallest detail is interesting, and true scholarship is always careful of small matters, and anxious to be accurate even in minute details. Such details may prove to be of supreme importance; it was by the addition of only a single letter, for instance, that Jewish scribes attempted to suppress the fact that the grandson of Moses became the priest of the idolatrous sanctuary at Dan. Moreover, the vividness and truth of our idea of the Old Testament depend very much on the suggestive outlines and colouring, the dramatic force, which can only be gained by the accurate setting forth of details; and unless our ideas are life-like and true, they will not be of much spiritual value.

But even in the interest of a correct understanding of detail, it is necessary to protest against a piecemeal treatment of archæology, an undue tendency to dwell on detail as detail. There is a danger that we should confine our knowledge of the subject to the scraps of information which can be connected with words or verses, paragraphs or books of the Old Testament; that in our minds the facts about Assyria and Egypt should be arranged according to the order of books, chapters, and verses in the Old Testament. Schrader and the Fresh Light are very useful for their special purpose, but they cannot be intelligently used till the student has some general knowledge of the subject, such as may be derived from any of the standard works on Egypt, Assyria, etc. Without such reading, his information becomes a loosely jointed chain of incoherent fragments torn away from their natural surroundings.

The danger of fragmentary study is much increased by the expedients of a timid and despairing apologetic. It seems to be held that the only use of archæology is to furnish confirmation of the historical details of the Old Testament, and the deeper and fuller meaning of the subject is lost in the ecstatic delight with which we are asked to hail the discovery that a city mentioned in the Book of

Chronicles was actually known to the Egyptians in the time of Rehoboam, and that manners and customs found in Genesis may be seen in Palestine to-day. Apart from the injury inflicted on the study of archæology, the Christian revelation is grievously prejudiced in the eyes of unbelievers when the faithful are seen catching at such straws to save themselves from sinking in the waves of doubt.

The various details of our subject are stones for the temple of Divine Truth, and should not be recklessly used as missiles to be thrown at the enemy, especially as they seldom hit anybody, and we have better weapons for our warfare. Unfortunately, this obsolete and ineffective artillery is not merely directed against the common enemy; it is often thought necessary to direct the battery against the most earnest and competent Bible scholars of the day. There is a Jewish legend that Hiram, the Phoenician artist whose productions adorned Solomon's temple, was killed in a quarrel with his fellow workmen. Others of God's templebuilders have since suffered and sinned in the same way. At intervals the workmen engaged upon the Temple of Truth, the masons and carpenters, as it were, of the spiritual edifice, suspend operations, that they may engage in a free fight, using as weapons their building tools and materials. The Assyriologist denounces the critic, and the critic sneers at the Egyptologist, while the students of other branches hasten to take sides.

It is evident that the different branches of our subjects must necessarily be left in the hands of experts, and the man who could be an expert in all its branches would be a transcendent genius, and such a division of his energies would involve infinite waste. We have to take our information from the experts, and experts must use each others' results; there is great need of intimate and sympathetic co-operation. We must be able to trust our experts. It is most unfortunate when the spirit and temper of a great