Plate 9

The advocates of British-Israel heresy claim that the pyramids were never used as burial sites. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. They were nothing but stupendous graves.

We have ourselves been in the burial chambers of the Great Pyramid and have seen the sarcophagi.

We have had the pleasure of examining the great stone casket that was taken out of the pyramid, containing the mummy of the buried king, as well as the replica thereof which was put back into this burial chamber to satisfy the interest of visiting tourists.

We have been in the burial chamber of the queen and the royal children as well.

We have seen these mummies that came out of the Great Pyramid, have poked our way into the treasure room and have seen some of these recoveries which were made when the pyramid was entered.

To show something of the interest the kings of antiquity had in their resting places, it is recorded on credible ancient authority that the building of this Great Pyramid occupied twenty years, and that three hundred thousand men were employed in the building. Ten years were occupied in the one task of quarrying the stone. Another decade passed by in the erection of the monument. Herodotus states that the men worked in groups of ten thousand, laboring three months at ashift. The records of Herodotus contain a description of the construction of earthen ramps up which the stones were skidded by means of wooden machines.

The Cairo Museum contains a number of very valuable exhibits from this greatest of all burial mounds. So also has the second pyramid of Gheza, in turn, yielded its mummies, as have the others which have since been breached.

We cannot ignore the great evidence given by the type of monument composed of the obelisks, the erection of which delighted the ancient conquerors. These consisted of enormous stone shafts that towered into the air sometimes to a distance of seventy feet. These great spires were engraved with the name of the monarch, a description of his greatness, and some of the more important records of his reign.

In closing, we must not neglect to mention also the boundary markers that were so common in the Assyrian culture. These engraved stones, often illustrated with sculptured figures in high relief, are of unique importance not only because of their written records but also because of their ubiquity. Throughout all of the ancient world of Mesopotamia they seem to have been in general use. Since they were an important factor in deciding the title of a section of land, they were carefully made and preserved. The date factor isgenerally a certain year of the reign of a given king, and the historical information derived from monuments of this type is practically unlimited. (SeePlate 16.)

Also, since the ancients had no hinges, it was customary in constructing a door to have it turn upon a pivot. Beneath the door sill was a hollowed stone customarily called an ouch. This acted as a bearing which supported the weight of the door and enabled one man easily to swing a very heavy structure. These ouches were generally engraved with the name of the building, the purpose of the building and, perhaps, the cost and record of the construction. (SeePlate 17.)

From all these scattered sources, then, we gather together the unified testimony of multiplied thousands of men once dead who speak from the long silence of their forgotten era. Their united testimony is an unbroken chorus of assurance for those who are concerned over the integrity of the text of the Scripture.

In the bewildering mass of all this evidence which together would weigh so many tons that the figure, if computed, would appear fabulous, there is not one word, one testimony, or one fact that has contradicted or disproved a single line of the Holy Bible.

Herds of cattle, such as the Hyksos kings possessed

Ancient mural of the slaughter of cattle

Papyrus showing the capture of quail

“Rome was not built in a day,” is a self-evident truth: but it is equally true that it was notexcavatedin 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 verylittle 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 alwaysfaced 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 therewasjust 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 historicaland 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 factwould 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.

Cartonnage in the anthropoid sarcophagus

Showing both outside and inside writings and decorations on anthropoid sarcophagus

Thenewchronology, 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 cameso 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 conclusivework 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 waspierced 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 firstpublicized, 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 mostprobably 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 Hatshepsutoverseer of the mine workers of sinchief of the temple of Mana Jahua of Sinaithou oh Hatshepsutwast kind to me and drew me outof the waters of the Nilehast placed me in the temple (or palace).”

“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 theFirst 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.

Detailed study of outside and inside of anthropoid coffin. Note voluminous record

inside

Outside, or rectangular coffin also covered with writing and records

records

Murals and frescoes from tomb walls

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 Hatshepsutwas 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 deadmen, but also deadwomen, 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.

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. Fromthence 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 againstthe 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, hespecifically 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 bythe 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 completelyvindicated. 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, whichwas 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. (SeePlate 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 themonuments 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.

Commemorative stele

Ancient boundary markers

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 thebuilding 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 inPlate 19the 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. AndChemosh 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 wasnotmade; and the evidence that has been derived is of such nature that this portion of the sacred Bookmustbe 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 imaginedminorerrors in the text, so intrenched is critical dogmatism that nothing but amajorrebuttal will be heeded. Happily, a major structure may be erected from minor materials: and thus thesefragmentsserve their destined purpose.

Back to Index Next