NEW CHAPTERS IN THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE. 723 



lowed that the book of Jonah, so far from being the work of the 

 prophet himself, can not have been written until the Assyrian 

 Empire was a thing of the past ; that the book of Daniel contains 

 serious mistakes; that the so-called historical chapters of that 

 book so conflict with the monuments that the author can not 

 have been a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus; that 

 " the story of Belshazzar's fall is not historical " ; that the book 

 must have been written at a period later than that of Alexander 

 the Great; and that it associates persons and events which are 

 really many years apart. He also acknowledged that the book of 

 Esther " contains many exaggerations and improbabilities, and is 

 simply founded upon one of those same historical tales of which 

 the Persian chronicles seem to have been full." Great was the 

 dissatisfaction of the traditionalists with their expected cham- 

 pion ; well might they repeat the words of Balak to Balaam, " I 

 took thee to curse mine enemies, and behold ! thou hast blessed 

 them altogether." * 



No less fruitful have been modern researches in Egypt. 

 While, on one hand, they have revealed a very considerable num- 

 ber of geographical and archaeological facts proving the good 

 faith of the narratives entering into the books attributed to Moses, 

 and have thus made our early sacred literature all the more valu- 

 able, they have at the same time revealed the limitations of the 

 sacred authors and compilers. They have brought to light facts 

 utterly disproving the sacred Hebrew date of creation and the 



* For Prof. Brown's discussion, see his Assyriology, its Use and Abuse in Old Testament 

 Study, New York, 1885, passim. For Prof. Sayce's views, see The Higher Criticism and 

 the Monuments, third edition, London, 1894, and especially his own curious anticipation, 

 in the first lines of the preface, that he must fail to satisfy either side. For the declaration 

 that the " higher critic " with all his offenses is no worse than the orthodox " apologist," 

 see p. 21. For important admission that the same criterion must be applied in researches 

 into our own sacred books as into others, and even into the mediaeval chronicles, see p. 26. 

 For justification of critical skepticism regarding the history given in the book of Daniel, 

 see pp. 27, 28, also chap. xi. For very full and explicit statements, with proofs, that the 

 " Sabbath," both in name and nature, was derived by the Hebrews from the Chaldasans, see 

 pp. 74 et seq. For a very full and fair acknowledgment of the " Babylonian element in 

 Genesis," see chap, iii, including the statement that the expression in our sacred book, 

 " The Lord smelled a sweet savor," at the sacrifice made by Noah, is " identical with that 

 of the Babylonian poet," and " it is impossible to believe that the language of the latter was 

 not known to the biblical writer," on p. 119. For an excellent summary of the work, see 

 Dr. Driver's article in the Contemporary Review for March, 1894. For the inscription on the 

 Assyrian tablets relating in detail the exposure of King Sargon in a basket of rushes, his 

 rescue and rule, see George Smith, Chaldsean Account of Genesis, Sayce's edition, London, 

 1880, pp. 319, 320. For the derivation of the Hebrew Sabbath, not only the institution 

 but the name, from the Chaldaean, see ibid., p. 308. For various other points of similar 

 interest see ibid., passim, especially chaps, xvi and xvii ; also Jensen, Die Kosmologie der 

 Babylonier, and Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament ; also Lenor- 

 mant, Origines de l'Histoire. 



