Would such an
attitude be fair? If we believe that the Bible is different from the
sacred books of other nations, that it stands on a far higher plane,
unique, needing no concealment and no bolstering up with traditions and
doctrines--if that is our faith, then let us lay it down open before
the world and challenge men to read it, study it, and compare it with
all the sacred literatures of the world. The man who really believes
in the inspiration of the Bible ought not to be afraid of such a test.
He may rest assured {163} that the comparative study of biblical
literature and biblical religion will prove one of the things that work
together for good to all those who have a living faith in God.

An exhaustive discussion of the subject of this chapter would involve a
study of all the great historical religions, known better to-day than
ever before, and a comparison of them with the religion of the Old
Testament. This, however, could not be done satisfactorily within the
limits of a single chapter. It seems, therefore, advisable to confine
the investigation to the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions
of the nations with whom the Hebrews came into more or less close
contact, such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. Political
contact, which was common between these nations and the Hebrews, might
furnish occasions for exerting influence in the realms of religion,
law, and other elements of civilization. "When alien races and diverse
faiths confronted each other it might not always be the cause of war,
but it was always the occasion of psychical conflict."[2] Since the
knowledge of the religions of the nations named has been supplied very
largely through archaeological labors, this inquiry is simply one phase
of the broader question as to the bearing of archaeology upon the Old
Testament; more especially, the bearing of the archaeological material
of a religious and ethical nature {164} upon the uniqueness and
permanent significance of the Old Testament religion.

The importance of this study is suggested in the following quotation
from a prominent Assyriologist, Hugo Winckler: "We come in the end to
this, that we can distinguish only two views of the world which the
human race has known in its historical development: the old Babylonian,
and the modern empirical naturalistic, which is still in process of
development and is yet struggling with the old one in many departments
of life."[3] To avoid m