The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-15
BIBLE STORIES.
Expert Comment on the "Discovcrics"
Of Camden Cobcrn.

To THE EDITOR or The SrS--Sr: Is
Professor Camden Cobern myth? And
Is the amazing account OF his "discov-
eries' as given in Sundays SuN hoax.
designed, like the Donation OF Constan-
tine. the False Decretals and the Lend
Plates OF Granada, TO tickle the clerical
mind by forged and fictitious assur-
ances? Or must we believe that there
actually Is man calling himself a
professor. an Archaeological, a discoverer.
who can utter such nonsense to n world
In which there are still some people not
wholly illiterate? Such of the Biblical
''discDveries' attributed TO the professor
as are true have been known to stu
dents for from ten to thirty years and
such of the refutations OF "scept cal
scholars" as are credited to his archa-
illogical activities are simply and totally
baseless pretence.
We are told that the professor
CLEANED from letters on papyrus
buried in the earth for thousands OF
years that doctors permanently dis
abling a patient by an operation had a
hand cut of a. penalty: that a builder
was put to death whose structure fell
on people and killed them and that n
provincial governor was responsible for
all sums stolen in his Jurisdiction. Now
these specimens OF ancient law we know
IIOUl lHt tOue VI Irf
Babylonian king, and have known ever
since the discovery OF the Code at Susa
In 1901. What Is the meaning Of the
preposterous claim that the professor
has Just Cleaned the information from
"papyrus buried In the earth for thou
sands of years.?
Forty years ago. continues the pro-
fessor. sceptics questioned whether
Moses ever existed. But now from
the depths of the earth numerous in
sriptions have come to light verifying
the Biblical story of Moses From the
depths OF the earth has como not a
shred or scrap Of evidence that Moses
ever existed That he did exist is a
high historical probability: but "A prob
ability which no excavations have in
the slightest degree affected II Pro
fessor Cobern has a single inscription
which by name or by implication refere
to Moses. q world of scholars still
sceptical will be as delighted as aston
ished to receive II.
Next We have the discontinue Of
Professor Cheyne by Professor Cobern.
Cheyne, Il is said. spoke OF mi axes
Of the Bible" IN the Britannica:
Bu, the mass OF the literature un-
earthed within recent years proves that
the Biblical stories are accurate ana the
mention OF q mistake in the Bible.
All this Is an outrage upon intelli-
gcnce. The Oriental Inscriptions thus
far discovered which in any measure
can be brought 10 bear on the truth OF
Biblical narratives are very few. the
most notable OF them being a Babylon
ian fragment which probably testifies
to the military operations described in
the fourteenth chapter ~ Genesis. Put
the great mass OF Biblical stories are
not in the least referred 10 In these
extraneous sources and Cheyne. Gum
kel. Gressmann, Loisy and a hundred
other specialists grow more radical In
their dsnials OF Biblical hstoriclty
every year.
Another slap a; Bible critics who
have been contending that the early
books OF the Bible were written in an
age OF myth Is the fact that ~ the
six great creative epochs OF the worlds
history. three were past and gone before
Moses was horn" II IL a cryptic utter
ance hut Il seems 20 mean that the
thirteenth century before Christ was too
late and too enlightened for myth Yet
a vastly more intellg gent people than
the fellow trihesmen OF Moses namely
the Greeks. formed almost all their
mythology at a date much later In
the professor prove that the age OF
myth Is with us still
That the New Testament r. mainly writ
ten n the everyday Language OF Greek
provinces, the "Kolnt' as IL Is called Is
perfectly true: but the statement has
no place IN a story OF ID. scoveries.' for
II has been long known and this field
of pathology has been masterfully cult
waited by Professor Deissmann OF Rer-
In.
one more discovery must mention
IN this marvellous collection. II 10 that
every doctrine faith and fact known
to US In connection with the old h Bile
was known 10 those early Christians in
the first century" How. then. does the
Syrfac Sinaitic version contain a versa
which afirms Joseph's paternity with
regard TO Jesus? How does It happen
that early versions existed which omit
lin the name OF tho Father. and OF the
Son. and OF the Holy Ghost from
Matthew, xviii. 10? How Is T.. likewise.
that there was such a protr, tied de-
bate over the canonical acceptance OF
Revelation, How IS Il that Christian
orthodoxy respecting the person OF Jesus
CROPPED It's way TO final definition
through so many conte nttons. hes.ta-
lions. oppositions even IN the fathers q.
the church.
Rut II would serve no purpose 70
prosecute the inquiry further. Unless
the whole matter Of these discoveries
is n poor Joke II is deeply infected with
fraud The structure OF biblical science
- established on too careful scrutiny
too patient and thorough a scholarship
20 be shaken by vague references 10
unnamed excavations and dccla n,a.orv
appeals 10 unspecited and undated
potsherds. papyr, and what not This
latter sort Of method is scandal t.
schola rS1ip and in tho dong run
damage 20 religion.
WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN
NEW YORK, April -