The Denison review., 1899-09-19

II
means, it does not refer to the king ol
Egypt. 1t is true that this is 500 years
after Abraham, yet it shows what in all
probability was the character OF the ruler
OF Uru-Salim in the days of Abraham.
We here give Sayce's rendition of the
| cuneiform tablet of this Ebed-tob. He
says, Neither my father'nor my mother
exalted me in this palace. The prophe-
cy or oracle of the mighty king has
caused me to enter the house of my
father Behold, I am not vassal OF
the King my Lord. Neither my father
nor my mother, but the oracle Of the
mighty king established me in the house
OF my father" Sayce and Hommel
think that mighty king" may mean the
same as El-Elyon OF the chapter in the
Bible. Uru-Salim is known in the Tel
el-Amarna literature as "Har-el''-
Mount Of God" But it may be said
that this does not prove the historical
character of Abraham's expedition, or
the existence OF Melchizedek. True,
but it does present a series of historic
facts that make the story very probable,
and demonstrates that it will require
more than guess to overthrow it. In
other words, the story stands until con-
Trajectory data can be furnlsned. It also
proves the widely extended use of the
Babylonian language at this time, and
contradicts the assumption of the bar
barous condition of the people OF this
section of the globe at this time. In
harmony with these pregnant archaeo-
logical facts is the Messianic prophecy
of the 10th Psalm: The Lord hath
sworn. and will not repent, thou art
priest forever after the order of Mel
chizedek." The critics were compelled
by their theories to put the composition
of the Psalm at a long period after the
exile, in order to get it subsequent to
the production OF the story, or they
were compelled to explain away the per-
sonality of Melchizedek. Is not scheme
presumptively false that is compelled to
resort to such violent dealing with the
whole structure of the literature of a
people. But it may be rcsorted by the
critics that there are in the Pentateuch
examples of additions to its text subse-
quent to the time of Moses, and atten-
ton is uniformly called to the kings of
Edom spoken OF in Genesis xxxvi:31-43,
and the name Dan applied to Laish pos
sibly in Genesis xiv:l4, and the account
of Moses death in Deuteronomy
XXXIV. Admitting that these are clear
cases of after nterpolations-that Moses
certainly did not write an account OF his
own death, does this necessarily require
the hypothesis of series OF documents,
redacted, modified after the exrraordin-
ary manner in which it is assumed that
the Old Testament has been according
to these critics? All the requirements of
the case are met by supposition sufh-
cient to account for all these peculiari-
ties. The editing of the books by some
subsequent hand will meet all the de-
mands in the premises. Any hypothesis
more than this are gratuitous and can
not cite these facts as making demand
for them. But those who take such
large liberties with the sacred text, and
bring forward such revolutionary hy-
potheses cannot we'll object to hy-
pothesis so simple and SO natural as the
p,,< II
venture the assertion that the peculiari-
ties we have referred to never prompted
the suppositions of the divisive critics.
They have come from another demand
outside the text itself-a demand for
a purely naturalistic Interpretation.
! That the name Dan could be substituted
by subsequent editor for Laish is no
more violent an assumption than that a
historian writing Of the history of New
York at the time of its first settlement,
should call it New York and not New
Amsterdam, which was, in fact, its name
at that time That an editor should add
an account OF Moses death to the docu-
ments ascribed to him rather than to
subsequent documents, is no violent as
sumption, but, on the contrary, one al
together natural. One question will set
tie this: Where would we expect to find
an account OF Moses death-in the first
part of the Book of Joshua, or in the
last chapter of the books OF Moses? Evil
IDENTIFY, at the close of his work, and
not at the beginning OF another mans.
Now, as to the kings of Edom that were
the kings before there reigned king
over Israel. What more natural than
that copyist seeing list OF the dcs-
cendants of Esau, the dukes of Edom,
in this place in the book of Genesis,
should complete the list by transfer
from the first chapter OF First Chroni-
cles OF the additional list to be found
there. We can very readily concede
that this might have been done even
/ in tho dovc of E1r, p,,% - g. , .,,,.,,.1