THE ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE.
By D. J. Weiss
In this century of infidelity and unbelief concerning the inspiration of the Bible, and especially that of the Old Testament, it is providential that God has permitted a new witness to arise and confirm the statements made in the Old Testament canon. While the so-called “higher criticism” has been undermining faith in the word, the testimony of the mute monuments of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, have, on the other hand, lent remarkable confirmation to the Biblical record, even in minor points that would naturally be overlooked. Many such instances could be given, but the scope of this article will not admit of more than one. In 2 Kings 23:29 are the following words: “In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates.” The marginal date for this event is given as 610, and this is approximately correct, reckoning by the chronology given in the Bible. Now in Canon Rawlinson’s important work the fall of Assyria is dated 624 B.C. (“Seven Great Monarchies,” vol. 1, p. 500.) Here is plainly a conflict between the Scriptures and secular history; for it is self-evident that if Assyria fell 624 B.C., the advance of Pharaoh against that kingdom, spoken of in sacred history as occurring fourteen years afterward, must be an error. Or perhaps the inspired writer made a mistake and should have written Babylon instead of Assyria, as Babylon was the great power immediately succeeding Assyria. But neither of these conclusions is necessary, nor are they true. The statement is true as it stands. The primary evidence upon which the date 624 B.C. rests is upon Ptolemy’s Canon and the classical writers. Ptolemy dates the accession of Nabopolassar king of Babylon 624 B.C., and the classical writers furnish the statement that in his first year he threw off the Assyrian yoke, and, together with Cyaxares, king of the Medes, occasioned the downfall of the Assyrian Empire. If the accuracy of the classical writers could be depended upon, the above conclusion would be well-nigh unavoidable, for Ptolemy’s Canon is one of the most authentic and trustworthy documents extant. But, unfortunately, the statements of the classical writers regarding the dates of events are not rated very high, and they have repeatedly been shown to be in error. Since the publication of Canon Rawlinson’s work new light has been obtained from the monuments, and the most critical orientalists have now accepted a date which approximately agrees with the Bible. In one of his latest works the above author himself places the revolt of Nabopolassar in 610 B.C. See “Origin of Nations,” p. 38. In that well-known authority, the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article “Persia,” the date given is 607 B.C. These facts may be summed up as follows: Nabopolassar was appointed viceroy of Babylon 624 B.C., and for fifteen years or so continued to serve as a faithful vassal, and then revolted from his suzerain, the king of Assyria. It is probable that Necho was a party with Cyaxares and Nabopolassar in the alliance which overthrew the Assyrian Empire. (“Sacred Chronology,” ad. voc. Asshur.) But it is perhaps better to suppose that he seized this as a favorable opportunity for extending his dominion. While Assyria was hard pressed by her enemies, it would be a favorable chance for Egypt to even up the score with her old oppressor, and extend her dominion to where it had not been since the reign of Thothmes and Rameses. These statements from such acknowledged authorities show that the sacred history has been honored by the complete concurrence of profane history with it. The acceptance of either of these dates would clear the difficulty (610 or 607); for it shows in either case that Assyria still existed at the time of Pharaoh’s advance to the Euphrates. God designs that these monuments which have been deciphered should cause deeper faith in his word, and lead men to accept the Scriptures as their rule of life. May we learn the lesson which God has in it for us.