ARCHAEOLOGY AND HIGHER CRITICISM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1037, 28 January 1911, Page 9

ARCHAEOLOGY AND HIGHER CRITICISM.

Tho clay tablets relating ;to ' tho reign.of Ahab,' which, according to a recent cablegram, have been discovered in Samaria, are not tho first that havo been unearthed relating to .tho lifeand times of King Ahab (son of Omri), who was King of Israel from about S7o to 853 B.C. In tho history of tho epoch which covers tho Book of Kings wo havo other source's of information besides tho Old Testament, and tho first Hebrew names discovered on Assyrian tablets arc Omri and Ahab. Tho"'names of Bcnhadad (who was King over Syria during tho reign ,of Ahab), Jehu, Hazael, Pckah, Aim, and Hezokiah aro also mentioned, and reference is made to Tiglath-Piloser's invasion of Palestine, Sargon's conquest of Samaria, and Syria's overthrow by Sennacherib. Ahab was the most.noted King of.his dynasty, and directed an extensive foreign policy. From a secular point of view he was an able and.energetic ruler, who died fighting for his people. 'Tho religious innovations connected with his name and his marriage, with Jezebel have, however, brought him into disrepute, and ho is generally regarded as a bad King by Hebrew writers.

An interesting controversy lias arisen of late years regarding the bearing of tho discoveries of the archaeologists on the results of tho Higher Criticism. Professors Sayco and Hommel have asserted that "archaeology is on the side of tradition and not of tho critics," at any rate as regards the dates and composition of the Hexateucli (the first six books of the Bible). On the [side of tho Higher Critics, however, it is contended "with groat ability by such authorities as Professors Driver and G. A. Smith that they arc quite ready to accept the discoveries of tho Archaeologists, These new facts may- simple-

ment, modify, correct, or confirm the views of the critics ou certain points, but they have in no way discredited their methods or the main results arrived • at. "The fact is," says . Dr. Driver, "the ■ antagonism which somo writers have sought to establish between criticism and archaeology is wholly factitious and unreal. Criticism and archaeology deal with antiquity from different points of view, and mutually supplement one another.' . The" monuments witness to nothing which any reasonable critic has over doubted.".