The Historians' History of the World 02

The authenticity of the various texts of the Hebrew writings need not be discussed here. It is estimated that the various manuscripts in the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other languages that are to-day preserved, present, when their texts are critically compared, about one hundred and fifty thousand discrepancies. Under these circumstances there must obviously be certain doubts about the exact reading of many texts; but it is held that the discrepancies as a whole are of minor importance; and doubtless in most instances it may safely be assumed that such is the case. In the main, the chief substance of the original text has probably been preserved, even where details have been consciously or unconsciously altered.

As to the reliability of the original records thus preserved, opinions differ widely. It seems to be generally conceded that the Hebrews were somewhat lacking in the true historical sense, being in this regard comparable rather to the Egyptians, than to their relatives the Babylonians. But on the other hand, what has already been said about the general reliability of national traditions may be applied with full force here. The most sceptical historian will hardly deny that in their broad outlines the books of the Old Testament give expression to the actual facts of Hebrew history, however prejudiced the point of view, and however lacking the sense of chronology. In any event, whatever doubt may be cast upon the authenticity of any particular Bible record, the fact remains that, generally speaking, the Bible records as a whole constitute practically our sole source for ancient Hebrew history. As has been said, the references made here and there by other nations, by which the Bible records may be checked, have abundant interest, but can hardly be said to be truly consequential. There is, indeed, but a single inscription known to us in the original which makes direct reference to a specific event mentioned in the Bible. This unique monument is the famous Moabite stone, which bears an inscription in which King Mesha refers to an encounter with the Hebrews, which is told of from the other standpoint in the Bible reference. For all practical purposes, then, it is to the Bible alone that the historian must turn in attempting to reconstruct the history of Israel. No one need be reminded with what zeal this source has been investigated.

The attitude of the modern critic towards the Hebrew texts has changed very radically within the past few generations. As long ago as the year 1753 Dr. Astruc, court physician to Louis XV, pointed out that the earlier books of the Old Testament were not homogeneous. The suggestion was at that time regarded as most iconoclastic, and it had little influence. But in the nineteenth century a new school of scientific criticism arose which went back virtually to the position of Dr. Astruc, then forged ahead to still more iconoclastic conclusions. It was pointed out that two different sources had been used in the compilation of the first two chapters of Genesis. A further analysis placed the heterogeneous nature of the Pentateuch, or as one school of critics would prefer, the Hexateuch, seemingly beyond question. The upshot of the matter, so far as this can be phrased in a few words, is that many books of the Old Testament, once regarded as of undisputed authorship, are now considered by the dominant school of critics to be anonymous. Indeed, this remark applies, according to Professor Ewald, to the narrative books of the Old Testament without exception. Ewald’s views on the subject are worth quoting in extenso as showing the opinion of a recognised leader of this new school of criticism.

“There is one general token by which, in spite of its apparent insignificance, we can at once recognise with tolerable certainty the whole distinctive character of Hebrew historiography in relation to a special science of history. This token is the anonymous character of the historical books.