Dead Men Tell Tales

by Harry Rimmer

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.