says Bähr, the editor of Herodotus," which will hold equally good, as we are fully convinced, of several other countries,

66

e. g. the interior of Africa."* Credibility and love of truth," says Bähr, "can be ascribed to scarcely any historical writer of Greece in a higher degree than to Herodotus, whom one may rightly name in this respect the Father of History." "From several very recent books of travels, especially those of Englishmen, surprising explanations have been obtained of particular parts of the history of Herodotus, and some doubtful or dark places now appear in a true light." "How many things are found even now, after the lapse of thousands of years, just as the Father of History saw and described them!"†

The credibility of Arrian, in the "Expedition of Alexander," has been fully recognized by Droysen, his latest editor. "As an historical writer, by his careful investigation and impartial criticism, he occupies an important place among the Greek historians in general, while of those who have written on Alexander, as Photius already judged, he has, undoubtedly, the first place.”‡

We might adduce many other testimonies to the same effect in relation to several of the Greek and Roman historians, but it is perhaps unnecessary. Those already referred to show clearly enough, that the tone of confident scepti

* Review of Eichwald's "Alte Geographie des Kaspischen Meeres," by Bähr, in Jahn's Jahrbücher, XXIII. p. 153. "This geography," says Bahr," has furnished a new and splendid demonstration of the veracity, credibility, and fidelity of Herodotus." Bähr in Jahn, XVI. p. 326; XI. p. 435. thenticity of Herodotus, because some of his representations are not sufficiently favorable to the Greeks.

Sintenis in Jahn, XVI. p. 132.

Plutarch doubts the au

cism, which is now indulged by some in this country in respect to the Hebrew Scriptures, has no counterpart in the spirit and method with which the study of classical philology is pursued by the ablest scholars of the present day. This result is not owing to the less profound nature of the investigations. The whole circle of classical literature was never so thoroughly understood as it is at the present time.

We e may add, that there are some indications of a return, in Germany, to a better temper of mind and a fairer style of criticism in respect to the Old Testament. It was the remark of Gesenius, that the older he grew, the more he was inclined to return in very many cases to the received methods of interpretation; and the later numbers of his Thesaurus furnish abundant testimony to the sincerity of his declaration.* In his recent writings, he expresses more doubt in relation to the theory, which he once fully adopted, of the late origin of the Pentateuch.

The younger Rosenmüller found occasion, in a number of instances, to renounce the sceptical views which he advocated in some of his earlier works. Even De Wette, in the last edition of his Introduction to the Old Testament, assigns an earlier origin to the Pentateuch than he supported in the former editions. The general current in Germany, among those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the five books, seems to be setting in the same direction. One of the latest and ablest commentators on the book of Job, Professor Stickel of Göttingen, has vindicated the speeches of Elihu as an integral part of the book of Job, a portion of it which Ewald and others had rejected. The integrity

VOL. II.

* Bibliotheca Sacra, May, 1843, p. 375.

26

of Zechariah is at length admitted by De Wette, though with evident reluctance.

Every fresh examination of the topography and geography of places, described or alluded to in the Pentateuch, shows that the writer had that exact local information which could proceed only from personal observation. "The Old Testament," says Legh, "is beyond all comparison the most interesting and instructive guide of which a traveller in the East can avail himself."* "Wherever any fact is mentioned in the Bible history," says Wilkinson, 66 we do not discover any thing on the monuments which tends to contradict it."+ These and similar facts have led such unprejudiced historians and writers as Ritter, Heeren, Leo, Schlösser, Luden, Ideler, Wachler, and others, to recognize the books of Moses as authentic history. The principal facts of the Pentateuch are acknowledged by Heeren, in his "History of Antiquity," to be historically established. John von Müller says of the tenth chapter of Genesis, that "the data are, geographically, altogether true. From this chapter universal history ought to begin." "The record of God's miraculous Providence," says Luden, in his History of Antiquity," in regard to the Israelites, the oldest monument of written history, did not preserve the people. faithful towards God." "We have come to the decided conviction," remarks Leo, " after examining what has been lately written on this subject, that the essential parts of the law, as well as a great portion of the historical accounts, which form the groundwork of the Pentateuch, and cannot be entirely separated from the laws, as they show their im

* Von Raumer's Palæstina, p. 2, where similar testimony from other travellers is quoted.

+ Ancient Egyptians, I. 34.

port and design, were written by Moses himself, and that the collecting the whole into one body, if not done by Moses himself, certainly took place soon after his time, perhaps during his life, and under his own eye."*

III. CREDIBILITY OF THE JEWISH HISTORIANS.

Our next position is, that greater credit is due to the Hebrew writers, when describing matters pertaining to Jewish history, than to Greek and Roman authors who have adverted to or delineated the same events. In the first place, the Jewish historians lived, for the most part, at or near the periods when the events which they describe occurred. Moses was the leading actor in the scenes which he professes to portray. The last four books of the Pentateuch, in a very important sense, are the memoirs of his own life. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel were eyewitnesses of the events and matters which they narrate. The prophets are historians of the periods in which they lived. They deserve, therefore, more confidence than foreign writers, who flourished centuries afterwards. We attach authority to Herodotus or Tacitus in proportion to the proximity of their lives to the events which they portray.

Again, the Hebrew writers were members of the community whose actions they record; actual residents in the countries and cities respecting which they give information. Moses was educated in the Egyptian court. He lived many years in the wilderness, and became, doubtless, intimately conversant with the whole Arabian peninsula. He does not take up his geographical notices at hearsay. The objects

*

Hengstenberg, Beiträge zur Einl. d. Alte Test., I. Prolegomena, pp. 28-35; also Bibl. Repos., April, 1838, pp. 440-448.

which he describes he did not see with the hasty glance of a traveller, but with the practised eye of a native. So with other Biblical writers. The author of the book of Job writes with the sure hand of one who had ocular proof. The scene of his poem is perfectly familiar to him. Moses does not speak of Egypt in the manner of Pythagoras or Plato, who saw the country only as travellers or temporary residents. Daniel does not write, respecting Babylon, in the manner of a Greek historian, who might have accompanied the expedition of the younger Cyrus. He professes to have lived, during the greater part of a century, in the metropolis, engaged in an employment, which would necessarily lay open to him every source of information. On the other hand, Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus lived hundreds or thousands of miles from scenes and events which they describe. They may have been observing travellers, but they could not narrate the affairs of the Assyrians as they might do those of the Athenians or Sicilians. The journal of a tourist is no adequate substitute for the knowledge which is obtained from half a century's residence in a country or city.

In the third place, some of the principal classical writers were strongly prejudiced against the Jews. The early Greek writers seem to have known or cared little for the descendants of Abraham. The literary community at Athens, though excessively fond of novelties, seem to have been wholly ignorant of the Jews, or else to have held them in profound contempt. We wonder that Herodotus, with his liberal mind, and his passion for extensive researches, did not devote part of a chapter to a land crowded with so many interesting objects as Palestine. We wonder still more, that men of the comprehensive views and philosophical liberality of Plato and Aristotle did not think it worth while.