ogists. For example, Professor
Sayce, who is in just repute among Assyriologists, made a few years ago
the statement: "The vindication of the reality of Menes [one of the
early kings of Egypt] means the vindication also of the historical
character of the Hebrew patriarchs." Surely, common sense says that
facts proving the historicity of an early king of Egypt do not
necessarily prove the historicity of men living many centuries later.
Many similar illustrations might be given. Because bricks made without
straw were found it has been claimed that every detail of the Old
Testament narrative concerning the stay of Israel in Egypt was
corroborated by archaeology. The finding of the walls of royal palaces
in Babylon furnished {145} the claim that the story of the handwriting
on the wall was established beyond doubt. The finding of images of
deities has been interpreted as showing beyond a possibility of
question the historicity of the narrative in Daniel concerning the
image erected by Nebuchadrezzar, etc. There can easily be too much
blind dependence on authority; an assumption of fact, upon the mere
dictum of some presumably honest and competent scholar. About a
generation ago a well-known investigator said, "Assyriology has its
guesses and it has its accurate knowledge."[17] These words might be
expanded to include the whole field of archaeology. Archaeology has its
facts, and it has its inferences. The two must not be confused.

Moreover, the possibility of inscribing lies upon clay tablets must not
be overlooked. Sometimes it has been claimed, and that most absurdly,
that because an inscription has been engraved upon imperishable stone
or clay it has a superior value. But the mere fact of a record being
inscribed on a tablet of clay, perishable or imperishable, gives it no
superiority over one written on papyrus or parchment or paper. Clay
tablets were to the civilization of the Euphrates valley what print
paper is to us. We all know that paper is patient, else the daily
papers would be of smaller size and many books would remain unwritten.
The same is true of clay tablets. Clay tablets are {146} patient. It
was recognized long ago by Assyriologists that the so-called historical
inscriptions are not all unbiased statements of objective facts. In
many cases the chief purpose seems to have been the glorification of
the king; victories are recorded with the greatest care, but no mention
is made of defeats.