Full Text for Archeology - the Nemesis, part 1 (Text)
Qtnurnr~tu
m4t~1ngiral jinut~ly
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER E v.-LuTH. H OMILETIK
T HEOLOGICAL Q UARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. I V February, 1933 No.2
CONTENTS
P age
GRAEBNER, THEO. : The Modernistic Christ 81
KROEGER. A. C.: Die Stellung der Frau in der christlichen
Kirche . . ... . , 85
MAIER. W. A.: Archeology - the Nemesis ... 95
SIHLER, E. G.: Studies in Eusebius 102
KRETZMANN. P. E.: Luther und Zuelsdorf . 112
KRETZMANN. P. E.: Our Formula for Infant Baptism . 120
LAETSCH. THEO.: Divorce and Malicious De~rtion . ..... 127
KRETZMANN. P. E.: Die Hauptschriften Luthers in chro-
nologischer Reihenfolge . ... . . 133
Dispositionen ueber die altkirchliche Epistelreihe . 135
Miscellanea .. ... .. .. . .... . . . .. .. . 141
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches 145
Book Review. - Literatur.. .... ... 153
Ein Predlger mUM nleht allein Vlri p.127),
the number of scholars who doubted the validity of the transliterations
and translations ,vas not inconsiderable.
Notable in the lattcr group were critical minds that in spite of
their characteristic inclination to explore new avenues of depal'ture
l'emained anchored on their old critical basis. The great N oeldeke,
prince of Semitists, as late as 1871 declared that the results of As-
syriology both in matters of linguistics and history wel'e characterized
by "a highly suspicious air." The school of Wellhausen, with its
dominant emphasis upon the history of religion, paid scant attention
to archeology and dallied with it as a toy of sophisticated Semitism.
A perusal of Julius Wellhausen's History of israel shows the pro-
nounced indifference with which he regarded Assyriology.
This neglect has proved fatal to many of the theories which have
been set up as canons of criticism. Archeology has convincingly
demonstrated its capacities as a nemesis of higher criticism. Scores
of hasty judgments and other scores of intricate theories, spun out of
critical fancy, now appear as entirely fallacious in the light of
archeological research. And while it is a thankless task to enumerate
".) :'Diefe I5timme aus bem ~teiie unfexer fiibametifanifcl)en ~riii:Jer otingen
hlit um f.o lieber, ba bet SUttifeI 3eigt, bat aud) bDtt im 0eift bet I5d)tift gclc9tt
unb gearbeitet hlitb,ellen aud) in be3ug aUf Mefe fltaftifcl)e j}'tage. :'Die fitcl)licl)e
SUtbelt cl)tiftricl)er j}'rauen fome gan3 nnb gat unter SUufficl)t unb £eltung bet Orfs=
gemeinbe gefcl)el)en. :'Dies fclJ1ie&t feineshlegS aus, bat eine grii&exe fitcl)Iicl)e ~iit=
.perfcl)aft burd) cine f~ftcmatifcl)e Otbnung bet SUrbcit fo(cl)er j}'taucnbmine ein:
grii&ms .Bic! etteicl)en fann. ~. &. ~.
96 Archeology - the Nemesis.
negatives and to collate errors, the cumulative force of the archeolog-
ical rejection of higher critical extravagances must react very de-
cidedly in emphasizing the truth of the Scriptures.
Since higher criticism has particularly three methods of attack
by which the authenticity and the veracity of the Biblical books are
assailed: the arguments based on language, situation, and theology,
I have selected the following typical instances in which higher critical
dicta have been nullified or reversed by subsequent archeological data
in the fields of philological research, historical investigation, and the
comparative study of Semitic religions. ~When the demonstration is
completed, I leave to the individual reader the personal verdict on the
validity of the British critic's oft-endorsed statement: "The attempt
to refute the conclusions of criticism by means of archeology has
signally failed. . .. The archeological discoveries of recent years ...
have revealed nothing which is in conflict with the generally accepted
conclusions of critics." (Driver, Inh'oduction to the Literattcre of
the Old Testament, p. XVIII.) For, while there are few "generally
accepted conclusions of critics," it will be shown that one theory after
another, defulitely accepted and endorsed by higher critical authorities,
has receded before the modern advance of scientific Old Testa-
I. Refuted Arguments from Literary Criticism.
One of the fundamental premises of higher criticism IS the
Sprachbeweis, the arguments from language, literary analysis, stylistic
]1eculiarities, syntactical developments, and the historical and etymo-
logical background of individual words. There is a certain validity
to the study of language development. In some very obtrusive respects
the postexilic Hebrew differs from the Hebrew of Israel's golden age
in the early monarchies. There are definite syntactical phenomena
which are characteristic of the late language and, just as definitely,
certain forms and expressions that are Pentateuchal. We can single
out a number of terms that are restricted to Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Ohronicles and correspondingly call attention to a series of word
forms that are limited to a much earlier age.
But higher criticism has drifted widely from these natural and
inevitable marks of literary history. It is clai.med, on the strength
of a long and definite list of words, that these individual terms
could not be used by individual authors at the time which the Scrip-
tural account presupposes. There are torms and constructions in
Davidic psalms, it is claimed, which must be postexilic and are
therefore prima-facie evidence that the poetry in question cannot
be Davidic. There are marks of foreign influences, critics say, in
l:eputedly early books which show that these writings must date
from the later years of foreign contacts. There are documents in
Archeology - the X emesis. 97
the Old Testament which by their very style repudiate the Scrip-
tural claim for their originality.
Now, some of these higher critical strictures have been repudiated
by an examination of word occurrences in the Old Testament itself.
The shortened form of the nota relationis which occurs in some of
the later books cannot be a sign of later Hebrew because it is similarly
found in a document which many critics claim to be the oldest
original part of the Old Testament, the Song of Deborah, Judg.5.
Similarly the integrity of Isaiah's prophecies is emphasized by the
recurrence of demonstrably Isaianic terms in both the "First" Isaiah
(1-39) and in the hypothetical "Second" Isaiah (40-66). Until
the beginning of the last generation practically all the arguments
against literary criticism were internal and idiomatic, drawn from
Scriptural usage and occurrence. But with the rise of the archeolog-
ical sciences external standards of judgment were afforded, and it is
here that the very stones have cried out against some of the most
ingenious and intricate theories which have been raised up on the
basis of language to challenge the Scriptural veracity. Among the
noteworthy reversals of higher critical opinion we n1a.y note the :fol-
lowing typical instances,
A. Critical Arguments Based on Word History.
It is the claim of ~Iax ~Iueller (Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 3,687)
in rE'gard to the title "I'h'UJ!. .... l," that "the Hebrews can have received
it only after 1000 B. C." Hc asserts that the term was unknown in
Egypt, in the way in which the E'arly Biblical writers know it, until
that time. If this statement were true, it would of course wipe out
with one stroke the entire Mosaic authorship of those Pentateuchal
portions which employ the teTm. As a matter of fact, howe-ver,
Mueller's contention was set aside by the archeological light on this
title, its meaning, and its abundant use long before 1000 B. C. The
occurrence of the tel'm in The Tale of Two B1'oihers shows its com-
mon employment several centuries before the time permitted by
critical analysis. It is now definitely recognized Oll all sides that
the term "Pharaoh" is the Hebraized "Per'o" (Herodotus: "Pheron").
As early as the fourth dynasty, centuries before JI.£oses' time, several
different hieroglyphics preceded the name of the Egyptian king as
distinctive titles. Among these there was a drawing of a structure
"representing the fagade of a building, perhaps a palace." Now
Alexandre Moret (The Nile and Egyptian Civilization, p. 130) sum-
marizes the meaning of this symbol: "An old term for the royal
palace establishment and estate, Per'o, 'the great house,' and this
gradually became the personal desig'nation. In the Memphite period
this came to designate the king himself."
Similar objections have been raised against the admissibility of
:!'-2~~'s_ EgYlilian ~a~ Zaphn~-p~eah, as well as against the
7
98 Archeology - the Nemesis.
name of his Egyptian wife, Asenath. It was argued that these names
were unknown in Joseph's time. For instance, Kraal, thirty-five
years ago, declared that names of this formation were not found until
the XXII dynasty, and he used this as "an important aid for the
dating of the Elohist source." Again, Oheync (Encyclopedia Biblica,
col.5,379) originally held that this was an adaptation of Pianhi,
a famous Egyptian ruler of the XXV dynasty, suggesting this as an
indication of the late date of the Joseph narrative. Later, moved by
his J erahmeel theory, he held Zaphnath as a corruption or alteration
of Zarephath, making Joseph's entire name Zarephath-J erachmeel!
Again archeological evidence has removed these objections. The
best identification of Joseph's name is one suggested by Lieblcin, in
whose Dictionnaire de Noms, p.55, the name is explained as "the
one who supplies us the nourishment of life," on a splendid linguistic
equation of the Greek and Hebrew, in concordance with .Joseph's
situation and particularly in the closest harmony with the historical
requirements. In the XIV dynasty three kings are directly men-
tioned with the compound titles featuring the principal element in
Joseph's name.
In regard to Asenath and the critical attack upon the history
of this word (d. Hastings, Bible Dictionary, col. 2, '(75), the iden-
tification of Kyle (]J![ oses and the JJiOntLments, p. 38) shows that
archeology is again decisive in removing the unwarranted contention
that this name betrays late authorship. It has now been definitely
established that the root snt is a woman's name, which appears from
the early days of the XI dynasty on. In Hebrew, as frequently in
the case of proper foreign names, the root is prefixed with a prosthetic
aleph.
To pass by other similar instances in which higher criticism has
created a false historical background for individual Hebrew terms,
we may take a concluding example from the last pages of Israel's
history. Driver (op. cit., p.545) attacks the authenticity of the edict
of Qy~~n Ezr.'l:_~' because of the Jewish phraseology and Jewish
point of "View. The particular instance of this alleged ,Jewish
pluaseology which he urged is the employment of the term "king
of Persia." This, he claims, is non-historical, asserting: "Persia was
absorbed and lost in the wider empire of which, by Cyrus's conquest
of Babylon, the Achaemenidae became the heirs; hence after that
elate they are in royal inscriptions called regularly not 'king of
Persia' but (most commonly) 'the king.' . .. In the extant royal
inscription, 'king of Persia' occurs only once, and that in combina-
tion with other titles." In thus repeating the argument originally
adYanced by Ewald and lending to it the appearance of archeological
support, wllich Ewald could not offer, Driver again relieved himself
of one of those premature critical contentions which have been proved
Archeology - the Nemesis. 99
as false on the basis of subsequent archeological research. For in
addition to the notable work of the late Robert Dick Wilson (Prince-
ton Theological Review, 1905-6), in which the wide-spread occur-
rence of the title "king of Persia" was accurately demonstrated, we
now have complete evidence that this title was used in the royal
inscriptions by these Achaemenidae. With the discovery of additional
inscriptions since the time of Driver's indictment we have the situa-
tion summarized in the contemporaneous ReaZenzyklopaedie fuer
Keilschriftforsch~mg (I, 335): Oyrus conquered Babylon in 539. He
took into account the kingdom of Babylon and called himself "king
of Babylon and of the lands." Once, within a text, he is designated
in an exceptional way as "king of Persia" (Parstc). (Yale Oriental
Society, VII, Plate 8.) His successors, Oambyses and Darius I, re-
tained this designation (i. e., "king of Persia"). Under this light,
what becomes of the claim of Driver that the Achaemenidae after
539 are regularly not called "king of Persia" when archeological
investigation has now shown us that this is the title which the suc-
cessors of Cyrus regularly took? What verdict is to be pronounced
upon his rejection of the pdiet of C:yrm .,. n we . _ .: that Cy,"us him·
self uses the very name which Driver finds so objectionable in the
Hebrew text? It must be apparent that the nemesis of archeology has
once more pursued and overtaken the extravagant fictions of the
Spmchbeweis.
B. Critical Argument Based on Style.
But Driver, as quoted above, finds not only the phrase "king of
Persia" contrary to contemporary usage, he also brands the style of
the edict of Oyrus as expressive of "a Jewish point of view." It is
significant that Eduard Meyer took issue with this position in 1896,
in his Die Entstrhung des JudenitL1ns. He asserted: "An unbiased
historical investigAtion has led many to the conviction that the docu-
ments of the Persian period must exactly resemble the traditional
documents of the Book of Ezra." And then he uttered a prophecy
which was destined to be fulfilled in a most remarkable manner: "If
in the future a larger numbel· of Persian government edicts come to
light, these objections will probably vanish entirely."
Archeological investigation made this supposition of Eduard
Meyer a startling reality. In the ruins of the frontier fortress at
Elephantine in Egypt, papyri were recovered in 1904 among which,
in addition to private papers, there were several official decrees of the
Persian government and a number of official reports on the Jewish
community at Elephantine. Here at last was an opportunity for the
comparison of the official documents preserved in the Scripture and
those originating directly in the Persian governmental circles. Meyer,
definitely and sometimes radically critical, sums up the result of this
comparison and says triumphantly: "These documents, resurrected
100 Archeology - the Nemesis.
from the ruins, agree in style and vocabulary with the documents in
the Book of Ezra in such detail that no doubt may be entertained any
longer in regard to the authenticity of the latter." (Del' Papyrusfund
von Elephantine, p.4.)
Similarly another stylistic argument was advanced against the
sunp"QI'"intimw ro-F the psalms. It was held that they could not be an
~';thentic and integraf part of the original record of the psalms, added
by the author himself. Thomas Ohalmers ::Jiul'l'ay, in his Lectures on
the Origin and GTowth of the Psalms, p. 102, says that the first reason
why these titles are regarded by all scholars whose opinions carry
weight as of editorial origin is that "it is contrary to all we know of
Shemitic style for the author to add notes or superscriptions such as
these to his poems or works." That objection might have had some
appeal to skeptical minds in 1880, when Murray published his book;
but in the half century that has intervened since then hundreds of
Babylonian psalms have been uncovered, literary productions that
were written centuries before David's time. They afford a very def-
inite means of checking Murray's statement. And once again
2l'cheology l'cp'ldiates higher criticism. rnL~._"O_ L:-' --!-» Hnd Sume-
rian psalms hfrve superscriptions exactly parallel in principle to those
of the Hebrew psalms and containing some of the definite annotations
(e. g., in regard to musical instruments, purpose, melody, etc.) found
in the titles to the various Scriptural psalms. Thus, while higher
criticism definitely insisted that the Psalter titles were sui geneTis
and later additions. it is now found that they are part of the literary
conventions in at least large portions of the Semitic world.
C. Critical Arguments Based on Aramaisms.
One of the commonest objections of literary criticism against
the authenticity of many books of the Bible is the alleged presence
of :tUamais!Qs, words that were taken over into the Hebrew from the
cognate Aramaic. These were regal'Cled as definite marks of late
authorship. It is commonly held that these Aramaisms crept in at
a time when the Aramaic influence was strongest, i. e., in the exilic
and postexilic periods, when the Hebrew was gradually crowded out
by the ascendency of the northern speech. Oonsequently the claim
is made that, whenever an Old Testament book contains these
Aramaisms, it betrays its late, postexilic, origin. This use of Ara-
maisms as age markers has been a standard part of the stock in trade'
of modern criticism. It pervades commentaries like those of Briggs-
and Gunkel; it is repeatedly employed by Driver and has been
developed into book form, for example, by Kautzsch, Die Aramaismerl!
irn Allen Testament.
Until the horizon of ancient linguistics was widened by the
scientific study of comparative languages which archeological research
made possible, the only explanation to which conservative interpreters;
Archeology - the Nemesis. 101
could take recourse was to show first that ATamaic is a very ancient
language, its early occurrence being endorsed by the Aramaic of
Laban in Gen. 31, 47. This, it was correctly inferred, must demon-
stTate conclusively that Aramaic cannot be employed as an age marker
since, with this evidencc of early occurrence, Aramaisms could have
been adopted by the Hebrcws from the patriarchal times.
But when the mounds of Babylonia and Assyria were uncovered
and thousands of tablets in the related cuneiform were brought to
light, it became possible to use these and other associated discoveries
for a systematic and scientific comparison of the various Semitic
languages. This collation showed that Old Testament words which
were regarded as ATamaisms (chiefly because they weTe hapaxle-
gomena in HebTew, while they occurred more frequently in Aramaic)
were in reality often paTt of the common Semitic vocabulary, words
which doubtless would have found repeated expTession in the HebTew
had an extant liteTature in that language not been restricted to the
relatively small portions preserved for us in the Old Testament Scrip-
tures. By exhaustive comparisons of the Semitic languages and
difllActf<, \V" - --- -,- --- ~,- -, -ccording to the la'.'.'3 of COCl30Cl!lllhl
changes that exist among all Semitic nations not more than five or
six roots can definitely be saiel to have been bonowed from the Ara-
maic by the Hebrew. And such borrowing, the natural and inevitable
procedure among neighboring nations (especially among those with
such close racial and linguistic relations as existed between the
Hebrews and the Arameans), can by no cogent reasons be made evi-
dence of exilic authorship. On the contTary, Hermann Gunkel, who
had previously made liberal use of the argument from alleged Ara-
maisms, now warns: "The task of distinguishing Aramaic words
which are to be found in the most ancient texts from those which
were not introduced until later times is a problem for the future. In
the mean time it is only with the greatest reservation that we should
draw the conclusion of a late origin from Aramaisms." (Old Testa-
ment Essays, 1927: "The Poetry of the Psalms," p. 119.) The
discovery of Oappadocian cuneiform tablets dating from before
2000 B. O. show distinct Aramaizing tendencies and give evidence of
the early existence of the ATamaic and its wide contacts. Bauer and
Leander have thrown a bombshell into the critical camp by asserting
that the oldest Hebrew showed Aramaic TootS. - An this again dem-
onstrates that the higher critical dating of the Psalms and of other
sections of the Scriptures which are assigned to a postexilic age be-
cause of alleged Aramaisms must be sunendered.
D. Critical Arguments Based on Word Forms.
This attack of higher criticism is highly technical. It seizes, for
example, certain words of particular form or ending and asserts that
these peculiarities betray a literary age which contradicts the Biblical
102 Studies in Eusebius.
authorship. In the case of Ecclesiastes, for example, the abstract
ending uth is one of the main philological arguments against the
Solomonic authorship, the critical contention alleging that this
ending is late. But since these claims have been advanced, new
archeological discoveries have enlarged the comparative Semitic
vocabulary, and it has become evident that these abstract endings,
branded as signs of late authorship, occur in the Assyrian or Baby-
lonian of the Oode of Hammurabi and the Tel-el-Amarna letters, in
the historical and omen inscriptions of Assyria, and in other records
from the time of 2000 B. O.
Even more thoroughly has tho similar theory involving nouns
ending in on and an been scouted by the advances of Semitic lin-
guistics. For the Babylonian, Assyrian, Arabic, and Aramaic can
now be shown to have contained many words with these terminations.
As the field of literary attacks on the Hebrew of the Old Testa-
mcnt is surveyed from these various angles, one gains the conviction
that in the coming years, as the conquest of Semitic philology in-
creases, other assa,ults 0:£ the Spr(!;chbeweis will be destined to similar
frustration and that indecd the othel' contentions from comparative
history and comparative rcligion, on which the subsequent article
will dwell, are doomed to the same end. W. A. MAIER.
(To be conoluded.)
Studies in ~usebius .... ~.
(Ooncluded.)
Melito, bishop of Sardis, in a lett or presented to Aurelius, called
Christianity "the philosophy which llegan under Augustus." (Euse-
bius, IV, 26.) The narrative about the persccution in Gaul under
Marcus Aurelius, in V, is among the most important in the Oh.urch
Histor'Y of the bishop of Oaesarea, untainted by the flattery of his later
references to Constantine. This persecution occurred in 177 A. D.,
especially in Lugdunum and Vienne on the Rhone. The report given
by the churehes there, sent to the churches in the provinces of Asia
and Phrygia, is the longest citation in the whole histoTy of Eusebius,
and it seems to have been composed in Greek. One is almost com-
pelIed to infer that Greek was still the language in which Scripture
was read in the services and perhaps also the language of the sermons.
Irenaeus was trained in Asia Minor and wrote Greek. Socially even
the Ohristians (Eusebius, V,l) had become marked men, being ex-
cluded from the public baths and the market-place. The leaders of the
Ohristians were fearless. The report quotes Rom. 8, 18 precisely:
"I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to