Can the Old Testament Be Trusted?
By A. T. J.
It is a historical fact that two hundred and eighty-two years before Christ, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek, at Alexandria in Egypt, and it there consisted of the same books that compose the Old Testament of to-day. "Whence it is evident that we still have those identical books which the most ancient Jews attested to be genuine." We shall not take up separately each book of the Old Testament, as that would extend this article further than would be proper, but only some of the leading ones, and as the writings of the whole Old Testament are so intimately connected, if we establish a portion of it, we confirm the validity of the whole. First we will notice the book of Daniel, and, as an introduction, offer a few lines from an editorial in the New York Independent:— "A few years ago the critics with one voice refused to see anything in it [the book of Daniel] more than an apocalyptic composition of the date of Antiochus Epiphanes. Eichorn, Bertholdt, Gesenius, De Wette, Lengerke, Ewald, and Hitzig, with the more moderate as well as the rationalistic critics, agreed in its late date, some being so precise as to fix it at 167 B. C. 'There never was any Belshazzar,' they exclaimed, and we could bring nothing to corroborate our written record. The replies made to them were feeble and unsatisfactory. But the monuments of the kings of Babylon began to be read a few years ago." The critics could assert with a great deal of assurance, that "there never was any Belshazzar," because, aside from the Bible, in none of the authorities on the subject, was there any Belshazzar named. Therefore, as the historians failed to mention him, "there never was any" such king. But the Babylonian inscriptions make all plain, and exactly confirm the Bible account. They declare that Nabu-Nahid (Nabonadius) with an army took the field against Cyrus, and left Belshazzar, his eldest son, in command of the city. Nabu-Nahid, being defeated by Cyrus, was compelled to take refuge in Borsippa, and Cyrus went on against Babylon and Belshazzar, and the city, with Belshazzar, was taken, as recorded in Daniel 5. And this condition of affairs in Babylon is the only one that will agree with the record in Daniel; for Daniel was certainly made prime minister of the kingdom, the chain of gold being the insignia of that office. Yet for all his being prime minister, he is spoken of as the third ruler in the kingdom. Dan. 5 : 7, 16, 29. How can this be? Thus: Nabu-Nahid, the first ruler, Belshazzar his son, the second ruler, and Daniel, prime minister, yet the third ruler. And in no other possible way can the records of Daniel be met; for his office was really the second in the kingdom. But how fully this illustrates the perfect accuracy of the Scriptures. Here is an important point in the history of Babylon, wholly passed over by the historians, yet Daniel records it exactly as it is, and after more than two thousand years the inscriptions of that king of Babylon declare that Daniel is correct. This also fixes the date of the book of Daniel to the time that has been claimed for it, because there is no other time in the world's history when these points in Daniel could have been written. For shortly after, Babylon fell into decay, and these inscriptions were buried out of sight, and the historians made no mention of any of them; consequently they never could have been learned afterward; therefore they were learned in Babylon at the time when they occurred, and thus the claims of the book of Daniel are correctly placed, and absolutely fixed, at the date 538 B. C. (For proofs as to Belshazzar, see "Encyclopedia Britannica," ninth edition, article "Babylonia;" Rawlinson's "Seven Great Monarchies," Fourth Monarchy, chap. 8, par. 50.) The list of instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5, 7, 15, is another proof; for this "very list is true to the time of Daniel, and would never have been thought of three centuries later." In short, "every historical or social allusion in Daniel is borne out by the facts discovered." The book of Ezekiel gives another instance of the exactness of the Bible writers, and of being true to the times in which it was written. In chap. 23:14, 15, we read: "For when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea." Of this also we may say that it is true to the time of Ezekiel in the captivity in Babylon; and would never have been thought of later, nor in any other country. In Egypt, in Assyria, in Persia, and in Greece, their art was displayed in sculpture. From the gems upon which the carving was so minute as to suggest the employment of a magnifying-glass, to the colossal bulls that guarded the palace of Nineveh from the entrance of evil spirits, all, all was sculpture. But in Babylonia it was far different. While the Assyrians had stone in abundance, the Babylonians were obliged to import it from a distance. Brick-clay, on the contrary, lay ready at hand. Where the Assyrians employed sculptured alabaster to ornament their buildings, the Babylonians contented themselves with enameled bricks, and painted plaster. Sculpture was naturally developed by the one; just as painting was by the other; and ornamentation, which could be lavished on the exterior in Assyria, had to be confined to the interior in Babylon. (Compare Eze. 8:8-10 with the text quoted above.) "The few bas-reliefs of Babylon that exist are small and inferior in execution; but brilliant coloring and a lavish use of the metals, made up for this want. The walls were covered with the most costly materials, and 'images portrayed with vermilion' excited the admiration of the stranger. The love of bright colors, in contrast with the sober hues of the Assyrian palaces, led also to the cultivation of gardens; and the hanging gardens of Babylon, raised upon tiers of arches, were one of the wonders of the world."—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia. At no time in the world's history later than this, could such a thing as Ezekiel describes be said of the Babylonians. For only a little while afterward the kingdom of Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and Persians, who took possession of it, and these Babylonish peculiarities were lost to the world. But how plainly these words of Ezekiel bring before us the Babylon of his day, when Nebuchadnezzar reigned, whose utmost endeavors were put forth in the building and decoration of his capital city, when all the skill of his splendid artists was employed in blending the brilliant colors that ornamented the walls of his pleasant palaces, and Babylon sat as mistress of the world in that pitch of pride and grandeur, "the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency!" And by all this we know of surety that the book of Ezekiel is correctly placed at B. C. 604-561. Now we turn to the books of Kings and Isaiah. In Isaiah 36:1 and 2 Kings 18:13, we read: "Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." This is placed in our Bibles at the date 713 B. C., which does not exactly correspond with the Assyrian inscriptions, but is only twelve years out of the way, being that much too early. The native monuments state that Sennacherib ascended the throne the 12th of Ab (part of July and August), 705 B. C., and place his invasion of Judah in 701 B. C. In verse 14 of this same chapter in 2 Kings, we read:—
"And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold." This is the only record that the Bible makes of this point, and so far as the Bible goes we do not know wherein he had "offended," nor why he should confess so readily, and offer to bear whatever Sennacherib should put upon him. Sennacherib, however, tells the whole story. The trouble arose as follows:— The Philistine city of Ekron revolted from Assyrian rule, but Padi, their king, still retained his friendship for the king of Assyria, and so opposed the rebellion. Thereupon the Ekronites entered into negotiations with Ethiopia and Egypt and obtained promise of their help, and also seized Padi, made him prisoner, and sent him to Hezekiah for safe keeping. By thus accepting this charge, Hezekiah made himself a partner in the Ekronite rebellion. So after Sennacherib had defeated the Egyptians, recovered Ekron, and punished the leaders in the rebellion, he went up against Hezekiah, not only to compel him to release Padi, but to punish him for his offense. Then it was, and this is why it was, that Hezekiah confessed to Sennacherib, "I have offended." A number of points could be given from Sennacherib's narrative, every one confirming that in the Bible, but this one will suffice to show the perfect veracity of the Scripture account. For the full account see "Rawlinson's Seven Great Monarchies," Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 164-168; Geikie's "Hours with the Bible," vol. 4, chap. 17, par. 4-21. Again, in Isaiah 37:37, 38 and 2 Kings 19:36, 37, it is said: "So Sennacherib, king of Assyria, departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezar his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead." The inscriptions declare that Sennacherib was "building a palace for himself at Nineveh on a grander scale than had ever been attempted before. His works were interrupted by his murder, in 681, by his two sons, who, however, soon found themselves confronted by the veteran army of Esarhaddon, their father's youngest and favorite son, who, in January, 680, defeated them at Khaninabbat, and was proclaimed king."—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia; Seven Great Monarchies, Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 193; Ancient Empires of the East, chap. 2, par. 36. Here, then, is the confirmation of every point in these Scriptures, and in this single instance the slight difference in the dates will bear nothing against the truthfulness of the narrative, nor against the general correctness of the time in which the books were written. Indeed, the Scripture narrative would seem to demand more time than is there given for these occurrences. The invasion, return, and dwelling, of Sennacherib, are all placed by the dates, within 710-9 B. C., which is hardly time enough, especially as it is said that he "returned and dwelt at Nineveh;" and this short period would hardly justify the statement that he dwelt there. But the native monuments remove all difficulty, by showing that he did actually dwell at Nineveh after his return, being employed in building a palace in honor of his god. In this, therefore, is proof that Isaiah and this part of Kings were written as far back as the former half of the seventh century B. C. (To be concluded next week.)