EARLY HISTORY 109 



may say, and she is beginning strongly to lift her 

 voice against the destructive criticism of the Penta- 

 teuch. In a recent article, Professor Sayce, one of 

 the best-informed experts in these subjects, uses the 

 following language : 



* Naturally, the " higher criticism " is disinclined to 

 see its assumptions swept away along with the con- 

 clusions which are based upon them, and to sit humbly 

 at the feet of the newer science. At first, the results 

 of Egyptian or Assyrian research were ignored ; then 

 they were reluctantly admitted, so far as they did not 

 clash with the preconceived opinions of the " higher " 

 critics. It was urged, unfortunately with too much 

 justice, that the decipherers were not, as a rule, trained 

 critics, and that in the enthusiasm of research they 

 often announced discoveries which proved to be false 

 or only partially correct. But it must be remembered, 

 on the other side, that this charge applies with equal 

 force to all progressive studies, not excluding the 

 " higher criticism " itself. 



' The time is now come for confronting the con- 

 clusions of the " higher criticism/' so far as it applies 

 to the books of the Old Testament, with the ascertained 

 results of modern Oriental research. The amount of 

 certain knowledge now possessed by the Egyptologist 

 and Assyriologist would be surprising to those who 

 are not specialists in these branches of study, while 

 the discovery of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets has poured 

 a flood of light upon the ancient world, which is at 

 once startling and revolutionary. As in the case of 



