Fragments
“Rome was not built in a day,” is a self-evident truth: but it is
equally true that it was not _excavated_ in a day, either! In fact, as
all visitors to Italy can testify, the Department of Antiquities is
still working on some of the more ancient sites, and certain of the most
extensive ruins are just beginning to emerge for the delight of our
generation. Archeology is a very fine exposition of the truth inherent
in the old proverb of science: “Research is the examination of the tenth
decimal place.”
There are many stupendous monuments that have been uncovered with
surprising speed, but the majority of our most valuable evidence has
been derived from long and patient digging, and is often composed of
innumerable fragments from here and there. Standing alone, any one of
the many items that appear to be inconsequential would arouse no
interest in the average observer, and would be passed over without
comment. Such evidence is similar in its accumulative force to the
action of water. A drop, or any number of single drops of water,
attracts very little attention, but when enough of them combine to form
a flood, great cities and whole nations sit up in alarm and pay strict
attention to the course of the flow.
So it is today with the flood of facts that make up the great stream of
discovery, and constitute so forceful a demonstration of the value and
accuracy of the Bible. A few facts from Egypt suddenly fit into the
pattern of certain other events that occurred in Assyria, and these in
turn naturally correlate themselves with a record inscribed upon a stone
by some king of Moab. Like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, these isolated
and apparently unrelated facts make a complete picture when they are
intelligently assembled, but careless or ignorant handling can never
show the marvelous pattern in its complete beauty.
In this chapter we will offer a group of these fragments from here and
there, and show their value to the student who seeks evidence on the
question of the authority of the Holy Word. Their accumulated force is
irresistible, and their final authority cannot be refuted. Just as
grains of sand make up a mighty mound when they are assembled into one
great heap or deposit, these fragmentary facts have an imposing
authority when they are taken together. In support of this statement, we
shall cite the problem of chronology.
One of the greatest difficulties that has always faced the students of
antiquity was the construction of an accurate and detailed chronology.
The early Egyptians paid no attention whatever to chronological
sequence, but dated the episodes and events which they recorded by the
year of the contemporary monarch. Among the Chaldeans and the Sumerians,
however, lists of eponyms were carefully kept. In the Assyrian meaning
of this word an eponym was an official whose name was used in a
chronological system to designate a certain year of office. From these
consecutive records of the eponyms, king-lists of unusual and detailed
accuracy were compiled. A great deal of the difficulty in harmonizing
the chronological factors in the study of antiquity has recently been
solved by a close study of these canons, which studies were first begun
by Sir Henry Rawlinson. As an instance, we note that one such
consecutive list gives all of the eponyms from B. C. 893 to 666.
Another magnificent aid to the Biblical chronologist is found in the
astronomical data which were so carefully kept at the same historical
period. Through these credible records we have the material to check the
accuracy of the king-lists that adds to their tremendous value. For
instance, a tablet has come to us stating that in the eponym of one
Pur-sagali, there was an eclipse of the sun which took place in the
month Sivan. Since Sivan would be composed, according to our calendar,
of the last two weeks of May and the first two weeks of June, it is easy
to make an astronomical calculation to fix this date. We are delighted
to find that there was an eclipse of the sun which would have been
visible at Nineveh on June 15, 763 B. C. With this factor fixed, we can
now date all of the events of that period of antiquity from these
king-lists to the time of the beginning of the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
Another such tablet, which came from Babylon, gives us an opportunity to
check back the other way. This tablet merely states, “In the seventh
year of the reign of Cambyses, between the 16th and 17th of the month
Phemenoth, at one hour before midnight, the moon was obscured in the
vicinity of Babylon by one-half of her diameter on the north.” We then
turn to our modern astronomical sources and learn from them that there
_was_ just such an eclipse of the moon which would have been visible in
Babylon in the year 522 B. C. Since this was the seventh year of
Cambyses, it follows that he must have ascended in the year 529.
This is exactly what is demanded by the Biblical chronology accepted at
our present time. Incidentally, by correlating the prophecies and
history of the Old Testament to the proved chronological points in these
records, archeology has vindicated the historical and traditional
acceptance of those dates which criticism unsuccessfully disputed. The
kings of Israel and Judah, with the writing prophets of each monarch’s
reign, may now be correlated into this accredited system of chronology.
When this is done, the traditional and accepted dates for the prophecies
of the Old Testament which orthodox scholarship has always maintained,
are established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the confused condition of the Egyptian chronology it is difficult to
dogmatize concerning the exact identification of certain pharaohs whose
records are contained in the Sacred Text, but who are not identified by
their prenomen in Holy Writ.
A good deal of this confusion, however, is being dissipated with
surprising rapidity due to the recovery of some hitherto unknown
sources. The tendency of our present day is to concede that the Pharaoh
Thotmes, whose name is more commonly given as Tuthmosis, was the pharaoh
of the Oppression. There is a great deal of reliable authority for
adopting this view. This mighty sovereign, whose history we have partly
covered in connection with his sister, wife and domineering queen,
Hatshepsut, in the portion dealing with the times of Moses, according to
the best chronologist, reigned fifty-one years. He died in 1447 B. C.,
and was succeeded by Amenhetep the Second. This fact would make it
practically certain that the latter monarch was the pharaoh of the
Exodus.
There is a great deal of gratifying demonstration in the new chronology
which, being purged from the gross errors that naturally resulted from
chronological differences inevitable to pioneers in Egyptology, has
brought great comfort and aid to the orthodox believer in the Old
Testament. There were almost as many different dates given by the
critics for the Exodus from Egypt as there were critics. It may be noted
in passing that one of the major difficulties of criticism and one of
its foundational weaknesses is to be seen in the fact that each
individual critic is his own highest authority. The only finality that
criticism recognizes is the dogmatic decision of a particular individual
to believe one way or the other.
So it is rather hard to say that criticism in general held to any
certain thing. The consensus of opinion, as far as such can be gathered
from criticism, however, would make the date of the Exodus not any
earlier than 1220 B. C.
Plate 11
[Illustration: Cartonnage in the anthropoid sarcophagus]
Plate 12
[Illustration: Showing both outside and inside writings and
decorations on anthropoid sarcophagus]
The _new_ chronology, derived from archeological research, has utterly
and finally upset these critical conclusions. The Exodus can be credibly
dated now to within a span of ten years. The earlier probability is 1447
B. C. and the latest possible time would be 1437. It may be said that if
we consider the archeological sources alone, there is a possible spread
of thirty years, but no more. Even if we make the most liberal
concessions, the Exodus must be fitted into the record between 1447 and
1417 B. C. Allowing then for the years of wandering in the wilderness,
the fall of Jericho occurred with a possible spread of ten years,
between 1407 and 1397. The earlier date is now accepted as by far the
most credible. We may state almost with finality that Jericho was
destroyed in 1407 B. C., and remain secure in that conclusion.
Therefore, if Tuthmosis died in 1447, the reign of Amenhetep the Second
would have ended in 1421. These perplexing seals of Amenhetep, if they
have not been derived by intrusion, would thus have had a sufficient
time to reach Jericho in connection with some official business of the
kingdom in the forty years elapsing between the Exodus and the assault
on the Canaanite city.
It will be remembered that Josephus makes a passing reference to the
statement of the Egyptian historian, Manetho, that the pharaoh of the
Exodus was Amenophis. Amenophis is another form of the name Amenhetep,
which would add a great deal of authority to our present conclusions.
Josephus is not willing to acknowledge the dependability of Manetho, due
to the fact that Manetho came so long after the event. But since the
Egyptian historian preceded Josephus by some three hundred years, the
older authority would seem to be at least as dependable as Josephus!
Incidentally, this fact, if accepted, would be a confirmation of the
accepted date for the Tel-el-amarna tablets with the reign of Amenhetep.
The final word as to the date, based upon authoritative evidence derived
from the pottery culture as given by Dr. Garstang, makes the destruction
of Jericho to have been not later than 1400 B. C. Thus the pendulum of
opinion and discussion has now swung back to the point where we can
authoritatively stand upon the earlier conclusions of the Book of Joshua
and accept its credibility without the slightest question.
Most of us can remember how recently it was the fashion for the
opponents of the Bible to laugh at those who believed in the historicity
of Joshua’s strange conquest of the Canaanite city of Jericho. The
collapse of the walls of that ancient city has long been a source of
mystery to the scientific student, and of hilarity to the unbeliever.
The faith of the intelligent is vindicated, however, and the laughter of
the unbeliever is stilled, by the exhaustive work that archeology has
done in the vicinity of Jericho.
The site has been explored a number of times, but the most comprehensive
and conclusive work was done by the 1933 expedition that was headed by
Dr. Garstang. The walls of Jericho were mighty, and as long as they
stood the city was impregnable to the armed forces of antiquity. The
unusual structure of Jericho’s walls was manifested when they were
uncovered from the dirt and debris of centuries. The word “walls” is
properly given in its plural form as there were outer and inner walls
that entirely encircled the city. There was, first of all, surrounding
the city completely, an outer wall, which seemed to have been held up as
much by faith as by gravity!
Ever since we had the first opportunity of personally examining the
geology of Jericho and noting the insecure structure upon which those
walls were builded, our own private wonder has not been that the walls
fell down; rather we have been bewildered by speculating as to what in
the name of physics ever held them up! Perhaps it was the binding of the
buildings that anchored the outer wall to the inner wall, and made a
sort of tripod structure of the whole, which accounted for this
phenomenon. Some fourteen feet back from the outer wall and roughly
paralleling the convolutions of the former, there was an inner wall of
the same height as the outer one. Across these two walls great beams had
been laid, and dwellings constructed upon this unique foundation. The
outer wall was pierced by the one gate, in exact accordance with the
description in the Book of Joshua.
There is no natural explanation to account for the unique evidence of
the collapse of these walls. They were not undermined by military
engineers, for they all seem to have collapsed around the entire
circumference of the city at one and the same time. They were not shaken
down by an earthquake. This would have resulted in a haphazard piling of
the wall material in a number of different directions. It seems as
though a mighty blast had been set off in the center of the city,
thrusting the walls outward, in what might roughly be described as a
circle. This collapse of the walls naturally resulted in the wrecking of
the houses builded thereon. When the preliminary clearance had been made
and the excavators came down to these great ruins, every demand of the
Book of Joshua was satisfactorily met by the conditions there uncovered.
In the remnants of the houses found in Jericho there was overwhelming
evidence of a systematic destruction by fires that were set to sweep the
entire ruin. Among the most interesting and significant of the charred
evidences were the great stores of burned grain which showed that even
the food of Jericho had been dedicated to the fire, as Joshua had
commanded.
When the discoveries of Jericho were first publicized, Dr. Garstang
could find only one apparent contradiction between the record of Joshua
and the evidences in the city. That was in the time factor, or
chronology, that was involved. In the cemetery of Jericho upon its
excavation, there were found two seals of the Pharaoh Amenhetep the
Third. Since this monarch reigned probably at least a hundred years
after the time of Joshua, it was difficult to reconcile the apparent
discrepancy. The apparent difficulty, however, dissolves when we
consider the possibility of later intrusion.
Before the excavations at Jericho could begin, it was necessary for the
workers to clear away the remains of a fortress of Ramses, the monarch
who headed the nineteenth dynasty, which in turn followed that of the
dynasty of Amenhetep the Third. Since this site had been temporarily
used by the Egyptians two hundred years after its destruction, it is
highly probable that it might also have been temporarily visited by them
the century immediately following its destruction. If the presence of
two seals of Amenhetep are to be taken as a date factor in view of the
fact that burials at that site were by intrusion, then a great case
could be made for a later date by the ruined fortress of Ramses.
The pharaoh who ruled in the day when Joshua led the conquest of Canaan
was most probably Tuthmosis the Third, who reigned contemporarily with
the Queen Hatshepsut until he was sufficiently entrenched to overthrow
her dominion. This queen, as all the evidence most clearly suggests, was
most probably the one who drew Moses out of the Nile. The contemporary
and collateral evidence is fairly conclusive, so that this fact is
generally accepted. Relegating the one anomalous discovery, then, to the
probability of intrusion, we find that Jericho, perhaps more than any
other site in antiquity, has vindicated the record of the Old Testament
text.
In this very connection, it is interesting to note how the queen
Hatshepsut came into the record, and first interested the student of
apologetics. The eminent archeologist, Flinders Petrie, found a tablet
on the slope of Mt. Sinai which was written in an archaic script that
baffled every attempt to decipher its mystery for nearly thirty years.
But at long last Professor Hubert Grimme, who held the chair of Semitic
languages at the University of Munster, made out two words. One of these
was the ancient Hebrew name for God, which in this form of writing
appeared as “JAHUA.” The other word that Dr. Grimme succeeded in reading
was “HATSHEPSUT,” who was known from her monuments and obelisk.
With this key, the table was quickly deciphered, and was ascribed to
Moses. The text as it appeared follows:
“I am the son of Hatshepsut
overseer of the mine workers of sin
chief of the temple of Mana Jahua of Sinai
thou oh Hatshepsut
wast kind to me and drew me out
of the waters of the Nile
hast placed me in the temple (or palace).”
On the reverse were directions for locating the place where the writer
reported he had buried certain tablets of stone, which he had broken in
his anger. Since all the landmarks the writer used to identify the place
of burial have disappeared, nothing has so far come from the search that
resulted when this tablet was at last read.
Incidentally, this queen Hatshepsut left her mark upon the age in which
she lived, as she was one of the most persistently determined women who
ever appeared upon the pages of ancient history. There is a remarkably
complete record of her history and her imperial reign which may be read
today in the relics of her times and in the ruins of the great works
which she caused to be constructed.
Her important place illustrates one of the difficulties of chronology,
which we have previously mentioned. Her background is clear and
undisputed. When Tuthmosis the First died, his son and heir Tuthmosis
the Second succeeded to the throne. He was a physical and mental
weakling, and very little is known of him from the monuments of old. But
he married his half-sister Hatshepsut, and started a train of events
that had surprising consequences. Incidentally, it was the custom for
Egyptians to marry in the closest family ties, and brother and sister
more often wed than not. In view of this famous lady’s character and
later conduct, it is highly probable that the king had no choice in
marrying his sister, but was led to the slaughter whether he would or
not! At any rate, he died very soon after the wedding, and the widow
Hatshepsut declared herself queen. To make her position secure, she
married her young stepson and half-brother, Tuthmosis the Third, who was
the legal and rightful heir to the throne. During his boyhood the queen
reigned in undisputed power, and developed the country in a surprising
manner.
She was a feminist with a vengeance, and called herself KING Hatshepsut,
and stated that she was a god and as such was entitled to worship and
obedience. What is more, she made it stick! Since she could not lead her
armies in person, she pursued the ways of peace, and the troubled land
had rest and prospered. Some of the greatest building operations of the
ancient world were begun and finished under her direction and patronage.
Plate 13
[Illustration: Detailed study of outside and inside of anthropoid
coffin. Note voluminous record]
[Illustration: inside]
[Illustration: Outside, or rectangular coffin also covered with
writing and records]
[Illustration: records]
Plate 14
[Illustration: Murals and frescoes from tomb walls]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
[Illustration: murals and frescoes]
When her husband-brother-consort became of age, he naturally rebelled
against her usurpation. He gathered a company of adventurous nobles
about him and forced the queen to abdicate, after which she disappeared
under circumstances which would have interested Scotland Yard, if that
noted institution had been in existence in that day and place! The
ambitious young king took the name of Tuthmosis the Third, and left a
brilliant record as a conqueror and builder. Counting the twenty-one
years he lived as co-regent with Hatshepsut, he ruled the land
fifty-three years, which was an enviable span for those warlike days.
If the present accepted chronology is right, he came to the throne in
1501 B. C. and died in the year 1447. This would have made him the
Pharaoh of the Oppression! In which case, the queen Hatshepsut would
have unconsciously offended him in elevating Moses to a place of
prominence and power, which might explain why Moses felt it necessary to
flee from Egypt when he was in trouble. At any rate, out of this tangled
skein of human conduct and ambition, some present help is offered to the
learning of our day by the known facts that have been clearly
established from the relics of this embattled couple. The name of the
queen Hatshepsut was abhorrent to her brother-husband-regent-successor;
and he tried to obliterate it wherever it appeared. But she had built so
many great works and had left such ample records that his actions in
this matter came to nought, and she lives today to shed the assurance of
probability upon the record of Moses.
We have seen her obelisks, her records and some of the ruins of her
great works, and the entire pattern is of a piece with the demands, both
chronological and ethnological, of the text of the Scripture. It is
apparent that not only dead _men_, but also dead _women_, may tell
tales, if their voices are heeded and the ears of the listener are not
stopped with the wax of infidelity and disbelief.
The amazing and scrupulous accuracy which is maintained by the Old
Testament in its historical statements is once again demonstrated by the
record of Ahaz as it is given in the Old Testament and found on the
monuments in Assyria. We read in II Kings and the sixteenth chapter,
these words:
In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of
Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen
years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of
the Lord his God, like David his father.
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son
to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the
heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.
And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the
hills, and under every green tree.
Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel,
came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not
overcome him.
At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and dwelt
there unto this day.
So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria saying, I
am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of
the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which
rise up against me.
And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the
Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a
present to the king of Assyria.
And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria
went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it
captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
The visit of Ahaz which closes this record was made in 732 B. C.
Tiglath-pileser has left his own story of these stirring events and has
called Ahaz by name upon his monument. The unfortunate action of Ahaz in
calling for Assyrian aid against his enemies Pekah king of Israel and
Rezin king of Syria, resulted, according to Tiglath-pileser’s account,
in his invasion of both Syria and Palestine. From thence he carried away
into captivity the two tribes of Reuben and Gath, and the half tribe of
Manasseh. The distress of Israel was not ended until Hoshea, shortly
afterward, became the new king of Israel. As a matter of policy he
formally accepted the yoke of Assyria and became the vassal of
Tiglath-pileser.
In the Assyrian Room of the British Museum, Wall Cases 14 to 18 contain
a valuable collection of inscribed bowls, ostraca, and fragments of
records which extend from the days of Assur-resh-shi, down to the end of
the Assyrian dynasty. Among them are fragmentary inscriptions from the
reign of Tiglath-pileser the Third. He is known in the Scriptures also
by his Babylonian name of Pul. In I Chronicles 5:26 both names are found
in the one verse, as though the scribe were anxious that the
identification should be complete:
And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria,
and the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he carried them
away, even the Reubenites and the Gadites, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the
river Gozan, unto this day.
Tiglath-pileser again appears under the name of Pul in II Kings 15:19:
And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave
Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to
confirm the kingdom in his hand.
In the twenty-ninth verse of this chapter, however, his Assyrian name is
given alone, as is done in the sixteenth chapter.
In the above cited wall cases, exhibit K 2751, is an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser’s setting forth some of his conquests, and an account of
certain of his building operations. Among the tributary kings who
accepted his yoke, he _specifically mentions Ahaz king of Judah_.
Modern man is so used to the phenomena that make up the miracle of our
modern living that such fascinating possessions as this are not
generally appreciated and properly valued. Here, however, we hear again
the voice of a man who died in the year 727 B. C. The phenomenon is seen
in the fact that in spite of the indescribable vandalism and wreckage
wrought by those intervening ages, a fragment of clay persisted, and
remained in existence until it could be uncovered from the dust heaps of
antiquity by _the one generation that desperately needed its testimony
and was able to interpret and prize its record_!
Here indeed is a dead man who tells tales, and who tells them with such
authority and accuracy that the mouth of criticism is stopped and the
Word of God completely vindicated. Incidentally, Tiglath-pileser’s
record corroborates the prophecy of Isaiah, concerning the destruction
of both Israel and Syria, because they had joined their forces to make
war upon Judah.
This prophecy is given at length in the seventh chapter of Isaiah and
was the instance of introducing the greater prophecy of the final
redemption of the people with the coming of Messiah. He was to be
identified, according to Isaiah, by means of the miracle of the virgin
birth.
When Omri, the general of the armies of Israel, was elevated by popular
acclaim to the throne of dominion, he climaxed an astonishing career
that left a deep impression upon antiquity. At the beginning of his
reign the nation was divided in its allegiance and this division
resulted in a civil war that was bitter, though brief. The power and
might of Omri quickly pacified and subdued the land, which accepted his
dominion, and for twelve years his hand guided the helm of the ship of
state. One of his earlier acts was to buy the hill of Samaria for a sum
that is given as two talents of silver, which would be in the
neighborhood of $4,000 in our reckoning. So impressive was his
personality that from his day on to the end of the kingdom, the land of
Israel was generally known among the Assyrian peoples as the Land of
Omri.
On the black monolith for instance, which was set up by Shalmaneser the
king of Assyria, there are many sculptured pictures which illustrate the
text of this priceless historical record. One of the scenes shows that
among the conquered rulers, one is entitled “Jehu the son of Omri.” A
record is made of the silver, gold, lead, vessels of gold, and of other
materials that Jehu brought in tribute to Shalmaneser. (See Plate 18.)
This black obelisk may be seen in the Nimrud Central Saloon of the
British Museum in London. That this was a general is seen from the fact
that on the nine-sided prism which gives the record of Sargon concerning
his conquests in Palestine, the great Assyrian lists the people of
Israel whom he calls “Bit-Khu-um-ri-a” (Omri-land), among other subdued
races. Omri was succeeded on the throne by Ahab, who was a young man
when he came to the throne. He left an unenviable record of apostasy and
idolatry, but was none-the-less a courageous and able administrator
whose work strengthened the realm greatly. In the twenty-two years of
his reign the Word of God was ignored and unbelief swept over the land.
In his day the first persecution of God’s people, which was directed
against their ministry, began when his wife Jezebel caused the slaughter
of the prophets.
The entire career of Ahab occupies considerable space in the records of
the Old Testament and is almost as prominent in the monuments of
antiquity. One of the most outstanding and notable of his early acts was
the famous overthrow of Benhadad, the king of Syria. The invasions of
Israel by Benhadad are fully covered in the historical texts of the Old
Testament, so they need no recapitulation here. When the Syrian king
suffered an overwhelming and crushing defeat at the hands of Ahab, he
submitted himself to the king of Israel with a humble plea for mercy. In
spite of the denunciation of the prophet, who warned that Benhadad would
bring disaster upon the realm, Ahab restored him to his Syrian dominion
and made a covenant of brotherhood with him. Later on, Ahab and Benhadad
united in a rebellion against their Assyrian overlord in one of the most
disastrous acts of his career. The battle that decided the campaign was
fought at Karkar.
In the British Museum, the Nimrud Central Saloon exhibits a stele of
Shalmaneser the Third which bears the identifying number of 88. The
inscription sets forth the names, titles, and ancestry of the king and
gives a complete account of several of his military adventures. He
states that in the sixth year of his reign, he battled against certain
allies who had rebelled against his authority. Among them he lists “Ahab
of the land of Israel.” Shalmaneser tells how he defeated this coalition
and slew fourteen thousand of the Syrian warriors in one great battle.
Plate 15
[Illustration: Commemorative stele]
Plate 16
[Illustration: Ancient boundary markers]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
[Illustration: boundary marker]
On the monolith of Shalmaneser the record begun on this stele is further
continued. This battle, according to Shalmaneser’s chronology, would be
about 854 B. C. This Benhadad is known on the Assyrian monuments
variously by the names of Hadad-ezer and Hadad-idri. He is authenticated
by the finest type of historical proof that the most carping critic
could demand. Incidentally, Benhadad is one of the forty-seven kings
mentioned in our preliminary remarks, who were supposed to be legendary
characters, until archeology called them forth from the dead to testify
in their own behalf.
Ahab was one of the most industrious builders who ever occupied the
throne of Israel. Although he lacked the resources of Solomon, there are
a number of records in the Scripture that shed light upon his
architectural interests. In I Kings 22:39 all of this activity is
summarized in their brief epitome:
Now the rest of the acts of Ahab and all that he did, and the ivory
house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not
written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
The hill of Samaria, which Omri had purchased, passed by inheritance to
Ahab. The ivory palace that is mentioned in I Kings 22:39 was built on
this site. Solomon may have had his throne of ivory, but Ahab improved
upon that idea, as this text seems to imply. This summer palace which he
built for himself and Jezebel on the crest of the hill of Samaria has
been the scene of recent expeditions. A great deal of archeological
industry has been expended in reconstructing the beauty and marvel of
this palace of Ahab. It has been discovered that the walls were
decorated with ivory carvings, and that much of the furniture was inlaid
with ivory. This valuable substance was used with a profligate hand to
construct one of the most splendid edifices of all antiquity.
Some of the most skilled craftsmen of human history were employed by
this enterprise. To show something of the ability of these ancient
artists, we present a photograph of the figure of an ivory lion which
came from the site of Ahab’s palace. The illustration is magnified four
times, but tiny as this priceless relic is, the lines and perfection of
the carving cannot be excelled by any craftsman today.
The Harvard expedition under Dr. Reisner, and the joint expedition of
1931, both made delighted comment on the unprecedented perfection of the
structure of this great palace. It covered an area between seven and
eight acres in extent; the masonry of the building was no less than
marvelous in the perfection of its structure and joining. Concerning
these ivory miniatures, inlays, and friezes, the leader of the
expedition said, “These ivories are the most charming example of
miniature art ever found on an Israelite site.” By referring to the
ivory lion in Plate 19 the reader can see that this is indeed the fact.
The excavations at Samaria have been going on since the Harvard
expedition began in 1908. Among the valuable finds from the ivory palace
of Ahab must be listed a group of seventy-five ostraca. These ancient
fragments of pottery, inscribed and engraved with the homely affairs of
the daily life of Ahab’s time, contain the same script as is found on
the Moabite stone.
This great relic of antiquity has had a fascinating but unfortunate
history in itself. It will always be a matter of sincere regret that the
first discoverer of the Moabite stone did not make a copy of its
complete text. The Moabite stone states that Ahab reigned forty years.
The Scripture record, however, makes his reign to be twenty-two years.
According to the credible chronology of II Kings, upon the death of
Ahab, his son, Jehoram, ascended to the throne and reigned twelve years.
Mesha, who had accepted the lordship of the able Ahab, rebelled against
the weaker son.
At some time during this reign, Mesha, a minor king of Moab, tired of
paying to Israel the annual tribute of one hundred thousand lambs, plus
one hundred thousand rams, with the wool thereof. He rebelled against
the overlord of Israel and successfully threw off the yoke. On an
enormous stele which was erected at Dhiban by the successful king we
find these words:
“I Mesha, son of Chemosh-melech, king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father
reigned over Moab 30 years and I reigned after my father. I have made
this monument for Chemosh at Qorhah, a monument of salvation for he
saved me from all invaders and let me see my desire upon all my
enemies. Omri was king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for
Chemosh was angry with his land. His son, Ahab followed him and he
also said: I will oppress Moab. In my days Chemosh said: I will see my
desire on him and his house and Israel surely shall perish forever.
Omri took the land of Medeba and dwelt in it during his days and half
the days of his son, altogether 40 years. But Chemosh gave it back in
my days. I built Baal-Meon and made therein the ditches; I built
Kirjathaim. The men of God dwelt in the land of Ataroth from of old,
and the king of Israel built there the city of Ataroth; but I made war
against the city and took it. And I slew all the people of the city,
for the pleasure of Chemosh and of Moab and I brought back from the
Arel of Dodah and bore him before Chemosh in Qerioth. And I placed
therein the men of Sharon and the men of Mehereth. And Chemosh said
unto me: Go, seize Nebo of Israel and I went in the night and fought
against it from the break of dawn till noon; and I took it, slew all
of them, 7,000 men and boys, women and girls and female slaves, for to
Ashtar-Chemosh I devoted them. And I took from thence the Arels of
Yahwah and bore them before Chemosh. Now the king of Israel had built
Jahaz and he dwelt in it while he waged war against me, but Chemosh
drove him out from before me....”
When this great monument was first discovered in 1868, its value was of
course not appreciated and no copy of the text was made. The Museum of
Berlin heard of it and moved for its purchase. An employe of the French
Consulate heard of the negotiations, and offered a large bribe for the
possession of the stone. The Turkish officials then interfered. The
superstitious Arabs, believing that the monument must have some magical
value, broke it into a number of fragments and distributed the pieces as
amulets, or charms. A French agent, however, industriously pursued these
fragments and with the help of a squeeze which he had made,
reconstructed the major portion of the writings. The ancient name of
Jehovah occurring on this text was an additional delight to these
students of antiquity.
Certain small cities that Israel had wrested from Moab were returned to
Mesha at the time of this rebellion. Jehoram, and Jehoshaphat, the kings
of Judah, later battled against the increasing power of Moab and
administered a crushing defeat to the Moabites sometime after the
successful uprising that is recorded here in this text.
Among the ostraca excavated at Samaria, were some that mentioned many of
the historical personages of the Old Testament, which also enhanced
their value in the eyes of archeologists.
The later expedition to Samaria which was working in 1931, apparently
reached the foundations of the first buildings of Omri. They have left a
record stating, “No remains earlier than the building of Omri are to be
found upon this site.” This being so, we cannot question the statement
of the text that Omri was the original builder on the crest of the hill
of Samaria, which fact is in itself of considerable importance to the
subject of our present study. The question has been raised as to what
the effect would have been on the problem of the integrity of the text
of the Scripture if this site had proved to have been like the other
regions excavated, and was occupied by many older and underlying ruins!
The simple answer is that such a discovery was _not_ made; and the
evidence that has been derived is of such nature that this portion of
the sacred Book _must_ be accepted by the intelligent and informed
scholar.
These fragmentary events and references are of as much value as are the
individual bricks that make up the mass of a wall or a building. One or
two standing alone would be relatively unimportant, but when scores of
such evidences are gathered into a composite unit, they offer a
formidable and impressive structure of evidence that is extremely
difficult to refute. Although it has been the custom to construct the
critical argument against the integrity of God’s Word from imagined
_minor_ errors in the text, so intrenched is critical dogmatism that
nothing but a _major_ rebuttal will be heeded. Happily, a major
structure may be erected from minor materials: and thus these
_fragments_ serve their destined purpose.
Plate 17
[Illustration: Stone ouches, or door-sockets]
[Illustration: door-sockets]
Plate 18
[Illustration: The famed Black Obelisk, which confirmed the record
of Jehu]
[Illustration: Hamath Inscription]