Unbelief in the reliability of Old Testament records has resulted in the overthrow of the faith of many a promising disciple of the Master. Although the vast majority of the Jewish race failed to accept Jesus as the Saviour at His first advent, their rejection of Him as Messiah was not due to a lack of belief in the integrity of the writings of Moses and the prophets. In fact, the scholars of Israel professed unbounded faith in the Pentateuch and in the writings of the prophets. There are no ancient records extant of unbelief in the early history of the Hebrew nation or of the testimony recorded in the Pentateuch, the authorship of which has for millenniums been ascribed to Moses.
One reason why the faith of the ancients in those early records never faltered was because the leaders of Israel knew by experience and contact the truth of what occurred in and before their day. Joshua spent about twoscore years in Egypt. He was familiar with the experiences of Moses and Aaron, who repeatedly, at the command of God, visited the residence of the ruling Pharaoh. This warrior general was acquainted with the location of the Egyptian monarch's palace. He was Moses' bodyguard from the time of the Exodus until he was appointed successor to the wilderness prophet. Ex. 17:9-13; Num. 27:18-22. He spent the entire forty years of wandering in the wilderness with Moses. He and Caleb were among the spies who investigated the land of Canaan. Num. 13:6, 8; 26:63-65. The writings of the Pentateuch were familiar to him. He had opportunity of knowing whether the record of the journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to the borders of Jordan was authoritative. Num. 33:1-49.
Attacks of Modern Critics
The first command given to Joshua upon his assuming the generalship of the armies of the Hebrews, after the death of Moses was to follow in detail the writings of Moses. Joshua 1:1-8. His success depended upon his following absolutely what had been written by his predecessor. Dent. 31:9-14, 19, 22-27. Other future leaders of Israel were to heed carefully the instruction given in the Pentateuch, if they expected to be successful in their administration. Dent. 17:14, 15, 18, 19. Repeatedly we find in the book of Judges references to the experiences of Israel following their liberation
Samuel admonished the Hebrews in his day that they must heed well the instruction given them through the writings of Moses. 1 Sam. 12:6-15. The fires of faith in the records of the Pentateuch were constantly kept burning upon the altar of Hebrew hearts. Neither prophet nor messenger of God through the centuries of the monarchial rule permitted the flame of faith in the inspired testimony of the Pentateuch to become dim or to be extinguished.
The prime minister of Babylon and of MedoPersia in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius unfalteringly accepted the writings of the Pentateuch as coming from Moses. Dan. 9:11-13. Even to the time of the close of the canon of Old Testament Scripture, not the sound of a note of doubt or interrogation regarding the certainty of the Pentateuch may be
found. Dan. 9:8-15; Mal. 4:4. The writers of Sacred Scripture, from the days of Joshua to the times of Malachi, covering a period upward of a thousand years, voice the same unfaltering testimony to the accuracy, the integrity, and the inerrancy of the writings of Moses.
Not till the seventeenth century of the Christian Era do we face the starting point of adverse or destructive criticism of the Old Testament. Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher and scientist, 1632-77, is said to have been the father of modern adverse criticism of the Bible. He advocated a philosophy of reasoning out. Scripture rather than accepting it by faith as the inspired Word of God.
From Spinoza's day till the present, there have followed philosophers and Biblical critics who have insisted that the records of the Bible must be tested the same as other human writings. Acceptance or rejection of the writings depended upon the findings of these self-made authorities. Where a record in Scripture did not harmonize with the testimony of a secular authority, the proof of accuracy went against the Scripture. Many a religious mariner traveling toward the harbor of the heavenly Canaan has made shipwreck of faith because he steered his craft by the uncharted course of an adverse, critical pilot. Had such a one followed the course mapped out by the Word of God, he would have been saved.
Royal Residence of Pharaohs
In Volume V of The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,* in the issues of April, July, and October, 1918, there. appeared a series of six articles on "The Delta Residence of the Raamessides." Those articles were written by Alan H. Gardner to prove that the royal residence of the Pharaohs for many centuries was located at a town called "Pi-Ramesse." According to Mr. Gardner, a great mistake was made by the author of the book of Exodus in not making clear the difference between the Raamses built for Pharaoh by the Israelites when they were in Egypt and the royal residence at Pi-Ramesse. He says:
"It would have been strange if the early Egyptologists, always on the alert to catch at any straw of evidence bearing upon the problems of the Exodus, had failed to identify this town with the store-city of Raamses built for Pharaoh, together with Pithom by the oppressed and enslaved Israelites. (Ex. 1:11). In point of fact the temptation proved too strong ; and the consequent fusion into one of the two possible distinct places denoted respectively by the Hebrew and Egyptian names have ever since gravely complicated the topographical and historical questions arising with regard to each.
"Quite apart from the question as to whether the identification is correct, it was unjustifiable, from the standpoint of right methods, to start with such an assumption : so far as the data permitted, the position of the two towns ought to have been determined separately; the results thus obtained might then have been combined, if it still seemed likely that Pi-Ramesse and Raamses were identical."—VoZ. V, part 2, p. 127, April, 1918.
The writer of those articles should have borne in mind that Moses was fully conversant with the location of the royal residence of the Pharaohs at the time when he made such frequent contacts with the Egyptian monarch. Had Moses thought it necessary to note the names of these two royal places,—if they were two distinct towns,—he would doubtless have recorded it. The present information secured for locating Pi-Ramesse as the royal residence of the Ramessides are "the Egyptian inscriptions and papyri." It is true the monuments and papyri offer a certain amount of valuable information, but the writer of the book of Exodus was present when he recorded the location of the royal residence as it then existed. Moses was in a far better position to describe the seat of the Pharaoh's palace at that time than any one thirty-five centuries later can possibly be, with such meager and disturbed sources of information, as are relied upon by the critics.
For a number of years prior to the writing of this Gardner series of articles, different opinions had been offered respecting the relation of the two places. The scholarly H. Brugsch, author of several valuable archaeological works, claimed that Pi-Ramesse and Raamses were one and the same place. Other eminent archaeologists held the same view. These scholars maintained that Raamses could not have been distant from Goshen. The Scripture says that when the Israelites left Egypt they started from Rameses. Ex. 12:37. The royal residence could not have been very far distant from Raamses, for the record states:
"And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians ; and there was a great cry in Egypt. . . .
"And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people... .
"And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste." Ex. 12 :30-33.
Nevertheless Professor Gardner says in regard to Brugsch's view:
"Reluctant as I am to disparage the work of a great scholar who has contributed more greatly to the progress of Egyptology than almost any of the successors of Champollion, yet it seems necessary to utter a word of warning with regard to Brugsch's geographical writings."—Id., p. 128, note 2.
(To be continued)
* The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology is published by "The Egypt Exploration Society," the office of which is located at 2 Hinde St., Manchester Square. London, W.I.