efully
made and kept, and, fortunately, large fragments of them have been
preserved. Two recensions of these eponym lists have come down. In
one only the names of the years are given; in the other references to
important events are added to the names. If, now, any one of these
events can be dated, it becomes possible to trace the dates designated
by the names on either side of the one whose date is first determined.
By means of these lists and the other records the Assyrian chronology
can be definitely fixed from about B.C. 900 on. This, in turn, enables
us to bring order into the chaos of Hebrew chronology during the most
important period of the nation's existence.
When we think of these and other gains, not the least of which is the
discovery of the contemporaneous documents, the absence of which was at
one time made the basis for the rejection of many statements found
exclusively in the Old {154} Testament, we may gratefully receive this
new light and rejoice in the advance in Bible knowledge made possible
through the excavations. What, now, is the general bearing of these
discoveries on the trustworthiness of the Old Testament?
In the first place, it is well to remember that for many periods of
Hebrew history we are still entirely dependent on the Old Testament for
direct information. For example, Professor Clay's claim concerning the
patriarchal age, that "the increase of knowledge gained through the
inscriptions of this period has in every instance dissolved conclusions
arrived at by those critics who maintain that the patriarchs are not to
be regarded as historical,"[21] is not justified by the facts. In
reality, no incident in the patriarchal story is referred to in any of
the inscriptions read thus far. On the other hand, the age of the
patriarchs has been wonderfully illuminated. "Formerly the world in
which the patriarchs moved seemed to be almost empty; now we see it
filled with embassies, armies, busy cities, and long lines of traders
passing to and fro between one center of civilization and another; but
amid all that crowded life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers
of the Hebrews; we listen in vain for any mention of their names; this
is the whole change archaeology has wrought: it has given us an
atmosphere and a background for the stories of Genesis; it is {155}
unable to recall or certify their heroes."[22] All that can be said in
this, as in other cases, is, that archaeology, by f
|