Truth in Tradition
IN the 19th century the prevailing tone of historical research in regard to traditional beliefs was one of doubt and suspicion. All traditions were treated as “suspect,” and were presumed to be guilty of gross falsehood unless proved innocent; and such proof had to be very thorough indeed. In the present century, however, a new note is being sounded. The traditions of ancient peoples are being listened to with growing respect and are being studied with care. For example, in 1924, before the National Academy of Sciences, J. H. Breasted declared: “Not credulity, but historical method demands that we now recognize these traditions, or the nucleus of fact to be drawn from them, as a body of sources now to be restored to their proper chronological position in the succession of surviving evidences which reveal to us the past career of man on earth.” Referring to the irrational disbelief of the 19th century, he said: “Such critical negation was supreme when 50 years ago archeology began to reveal with startling vividness the facts and the daily equipment of human life in the very ages with which the rejected traditions dealt. . . Maspero’s bulky history of the oriental peoples... tells us that Menes, the first king of the First Dynasty of Egypt, was a purely mythical or legendary figure. Nevertheless we now possess his tomb, and in our collections at the University of Chicago we have a piece of his personal ornaments, a gold bar bearing his name in hieroglyphic.” In this same address the writer declares his disbelief of all miracles—an attitude of mind which makes his testimony to the real value of tradition all the more striking.
Similarly, ARTHUR WEIGALL in his “History of the Pharaohs” (Vol. II, 1927, p. 107), refers to Abraham, who, he says, “was doubtless a perfectly historical character.” So also L. A. WADDELL, in his recent book on “The Makers of Civilization,” has shown the great value of the oldest traditions of India. And let our readers weigh well this testimony by Prof. A. H. SAYCE, in his 1923 volume of “Reminiscences:” “Next to the historical books of the Old Testament the Tel el-Amarna tablets have proved to be the most valuable record which the ancient civilized world of the East has bequeathed to us.”
Naturally it has not been easy for archaeologists, trained in an atmosphere of doubt, to reach this revised view as to the value of traditions; but the change of outlook has been made necessary for them by recent discoveries and researches.
Tradition and Early Narratives of Genesis
By the end of last century a vast amount of evidence had been gathered from the oldest traditions of widely sundered peoples testifying to the universal knowledge of the facts recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis. We may add now the following particulars of beliefs current in Egypt in the earliest times—particulars given by WEIGALL in his 1922 volume on “Akhnaton.” It was believed that the first human being was formed by one of the gods from mud (cf. Gen. 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)). It was believed that the first king suffered from the venomous bite of a snake (cf. Gen. 37And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)). It was believed that in those primeval days a terrible murder of one brother by another was perpetrated (cf. Gen. 47If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Genesis 4:7)). The first blacksmith and artificer had been deified, and was worshipped under the name “Ptah;” he was the same as the European god “Vulcan,” the original form of the name being “Tubal-cain” (cf. Gen. 4:2222And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:22)). As more of these earliest traditions are discovered and studied, so more clearly shines out the Divine superiority of the accounts given in the Biblical History. And a further point of great importance is this: the recent discoveries demonstrate that, as the centuries succeeded one another, the old traditions everywhere became increasingly debased and corrupted. This proved fact is incompatible with any theory of evolution.
Civilization Before the Flood
In view of the overwhelming magnitude and long duration of the Flood (as recorded in the Bible, and also indicated by a multitude of geological and other facts), it seems hardly likely that very many relics of the great antediluvian civilization will be recovered. The critics of the Bible have indeed ridiculed not only the very idea of such a worldwide Flood, but also the possibility of any civilization whatever at such a remote period. On the other hand, the Bible, in a few verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis, draws aside the curtain of the past and grants us a glimpse of that primal world of mankind. We behold the building of the first city; we are shown the first beginnings of sciences and arts. On which side lies the truth: on the side of the Bible, or on that of its critics? Has recent archeology anything to say on this point? If so, what is its verdict?
One after another the leading archaeologists are becoming convinced by their discoveries that the great Flood was a tremendous fact of history. For instance, Professor WOOLLEY was compelled to the conclusion that the eight-foot layer of clean clay, recently revealed during his excavations at Ur of the Chaldees, represents the complete break in civilization caused by the Flood of Scripture history. Above and below that clay, were found broken relics of the art of the potter. Those found underneath it of course represented the products from before the Flood; and the discoverers state that the relics prove that the civilization destroyed by the Flood was of a higher order than that which arose after the Flood.
Excavations at other places are yielding similar evidence: Kish near Babylon, Tel Halaf in Upper Mesopotamia, Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast, and Jericho.
Archeology and Evolution
The ancient cemetery at Ur, and the still more ancient one at the neighboring site called Al-Ubaid, testify strongly not only against evolutionary theories, but also to the accuracy of the Bible in ascribing long life-periods to primeval mankind. On this point it will be very apposite indeed to quote the words of such a determined evolutionist as Sir ARTHUR KEITH, from the volume on “Al Ubaid.” Sir Arthur assumes that the cemetery there is two thousand years older than the one at Ur. In summing up the evidence he says, on p. 240: “Certainly, as physical anthropologists measure people, the later people of Ur wen not the equal of the earlier people found at Al-Ubaid.” He says also (p. 225): “The ancient Sumerians were a large-headed, large-brained people, approaching or exceeding in these respects the longer headed races of Europe. They had many points of resemblance to a predynastic people whose remains have been found in cemeteries of Upper Egypt.” As to the greater longevity in the earlier human period, his conclusion is equally significant (p. 229): “The teeth of the early Sumerians of the Al-Ubaid cemetery were worn down to an extraordinary degree—much more than those of the people buried in the later cemetery at Ur itself.” The interval of time between these two cemeteries was probably only about three hundred years. In that case the testimony for deterioration and against evolution becomes all the more emphatic. Now although the people found buried at Al-Ubaid lived probably some centuries after the Flood, the argument remains valid as revealing a tendency which had been continued from the preceding age. These facts should surely make critics of the Bible pause.
Ancient Epic Poems
Ridicule was a weapon greatly used by 19th century critics against the Biblical accounts of the Creation and the Flood. They were eager and persistent in their efforts to prove that these accounts were composed from several distinct and contradictory narrations of unhistorical legends. Those critics allotted these assumed “sources” to imaginary writers denoted by such letters as “E.,” “J.,” etc. As the critics were strongly opposed to certain basic teachings of the Bible, they sought in this way to discredit its authority and inspiration. One of their great assumptions was that miracles never have happened; for the occurrence of miracles cannot be reconciled with their favorite theory of evolution. Faced therefore with the accounts of the miracles of the Creation and the Flood, they tried to show that those accounts had no historical value. It is true that their theories were manufactured in ignorance of the results of modern discovery; and so perhaps we ought to mingle pity with our blame.
In Mesopotamia there have been unearthed copies of several distinct Epic Poems which embody old traditions of the Creation and the Flood. One copy of the most ancient of these poems was found at Nippur (the “Calneh” of Gen. 10), and was translated by Professor LANGDON in 1912. This poem was written a thousand years before the time of Moses, and some 1800 years before the dates assigned by the critics to “E.” and “J.” Now in a striking way this ancient poem testifies to the unity of the accounts in Genesis, because in it are found already united the various elements which the critics tore asunder and allotted to various “sources.”
A further very important fact emerges from a comparison of this early Sumerian Epic with the much later Babylonian Epics. During the centuries that intervened, there was an increasing degradation in religious ideas, the later poem being much more corrupted by polytheistic and idolatrous conceptions. It is true that even in the later poems there still remain very striking resemblances to the pure and sober Biblical narratives; but the resemblance of the earlier Sumerian poem to the Genesis accounts is much closer.
This fact affords another decisive testimony to the truthfulness of the Bible and against the evolutionary hypothesis. In the absence of Divine revelation, the unvarying tendency in religion is not towards improvement, but towards degradation. Moses lived in an age of growing religious corruption; and nothing short of Divine inspiration can account for the simplicity and purity of the accounts which he wrote.
Some Primeval Inventions
According to the Biblical History the two great classes of musical instruments (wind-instruments and stringed-instruments) were invented a thousand years before the Flood. The critics of the Bible, however, in learned ignorance and unbelief, denied the accuracy of this representation, and said that not even in David’s days had many, if any, musical instruments been invented. It is true that, because of discoveries made before the end of last century, this criticism has ceased to be voiced; but the critics have never made any acknowledgment of their error.
To mention only one of the “finds” that have forever silenced that particular criticism—those magnificently made stringed-instruments found at Ur of the Chaldees, and buried there some 1500 years before the time of David, demonstrate that centuries must even then have elapsed since the first inventions in that sphere.
The Scripture relates that at about the same time as musical instruments were invented, men found out how to make and to work in copper and iron (see Gen. 4:21, 2221And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:21‑22)). Until very recently, however, it has been the fashion even among arch2eologists to dispute the accuracy of this statement; and it was assumed that the use of iron dates from a much more recent period.
Once more it has turned out that those who simply believe the Bible are after all the best informed; for within the last few years definite proofs have been found at Eshnunnak, one of the capitals of Sargon the Great, that iron weapons were manufactured four or five hundred years before the days of Abram. It has escaped the notice of many investigators that iron soon rusts away, and all traces of it are apt soon to disappear.
Climatic Effects of the Flood
It is evident that the Great Flood, as described in the Bible, must have left, as it receded, vast lakes or inland seas in the interiors of the continents. There has thus been going on ever since a process of dessication, resulting in a gradual decrease of rainfall and a gradual increase of desert regions.
Recent archeology has something to tell us about this also. For example, Prof. R. E. NEWBERRY, President of the Anthropological Section of the British Association, in 1923, said: “Much is known about the ancient fauna and flora of the desert wadies (of Egypt) from the paintings and sculptured scenes in the tombs of the Old and Middle Kingdoms and of the Empire.” This information, he goes on to say, proves that “the vegetation of the wadies was much more abundant then than now, and this again presupposes a greater rainfall than we find at present.” He further points out that the archeological evidence shows that in the still earlier predynastic times there were in Egypt such animals as the elephant, the marabou stork, etc. and he remarks: “From the nature and habits of these mammals and birds it is evident that there must have been a considerable rainfall in the valley of the Nile north of Aswan when they frequented Egypt.... The flora of the valley of the Lower Nile also points to the same conclusion.”
A vast amount of similar evidence to the truthfulness of the Biblical account of the Flood is at present rapidly accumulating from archaeology, geology, and other branches of science.
The Mesopotamian King-Lists
Several very ancient “King-Lists,” found recently in Mesopotamia, have created tremendous interest. They are lists of kings who reigned in various specified cities of Southern Mesopotamia. They distinguish between the kings who reigned before the Flood and those who reigned after the Flood. In the present connection we are concerned chiefly with two of these lists which were obtained in 1922-3, by the Weld-Blundell Expedition, and are called WB. 62 and WB. 444. The Babylonian King-List (WB. 62) says that ten kings reigned in succession before the Flood; and the Bible gives exactly ten generations from Adam to Noah. The Isin Dynastic Prism (WB. 444), while giving eight as the number of pre-Flood kings, makes some very significant statements:
Line 1, “kingship which from heaven descended.”
Line 39, “the deluge came up (upon the land).”
Line 40, “after the deluge had come.”
Line 41, “kingship which descended from heaven.”
This reference to Heaven’s appointment of kingship on earth is a memory of the facts recorded in Gen. 1. 26-28 and 9:1, 2. Any ordinary flood would come down from the higher parts of the country; but of this Flood it is here stated that it came up. Now in the Biblical History the breaking up of “all the fountains of the great deep” is recorded before the opening of “the windows of heaven,” as being the more important of the two factors which produced the Flood. Before the continued rainfall had time to inundate the Mesopotamian region, those populous plains were swept and submerged by the uprush of inconceivably immense tidal waves from the Persian Gulf. Then we notice that in these King-Lists, just as in the Bible narrative, this Flood is represented as causing a complete break in civilization and history.
It should be remembered that these King-Lists are not poems, but matter-of-fact records of the names and reigns and cities of kings of various Mesopotamian dynasties. It is indeed true that in some of the Lists, as we have them, enormously long reigns are credited, especially to pre-Flood kings. Thus in WB. 62, the reigns of the ten kings who ruled before the Flood range from 72,000 to 21,600 years. In WB. 444, the average pre-Flood reign is 30, 150 years; and the average for the next 23 kings (at Kish, after the Flood) is 1066 years. The explanation is probably as follows: When these portions of the Lists were translated into the language in which we now possess them, a mistake crept in from misunderstanding of the unit of measurement. The old Babylonian “sarus” had two values: one was 181 years, and the other was 3600 years. Substituting the smaller value for the greater, we get the following: According to WB. 62, the reigns of the pre-Flood kings ranged from 360 to 108 years; according to WB. 444, their average reign was 151 years. Now according to Gen. 5, the average length of the generations before the Flood was 156 years. It would thus appear that in the King-Lists there are enshrined facts from before the Flood handed down through many centuries with great accuracy, and confirming in many ways the Biblical History. In the light of these facts, it can be seen how premature and unwise was the ridicule poured by the critics upon the first chapters of Genesis.