he informed Welcker in private. Subsequently, came out in direct opposition to Wolf, the "Historia Homeri," by Nitzsch of Kiel,-a book distinguished by acuteness, learning and sound judgment. The "Schul-Zeitung," of August, 1829, remarks that "some yet hold fast to Wolf's paradoxes." A like opinion, in respect to the decline of the Wolfian hypothesis, has been expressed by Professors Poppo and Klotz. We should not err, perhaps, in affirming that the older philologists, some of them the pupils of Wolf, still adhere to his theory, or to something akin to it. The younger scholars, many of them among the ablest philologists in Germany, have broken away from its bonds, and have adopted, more or less, the views advocated by Nitzsch. Wolf's attack on some of the Orations of Cicero has only contributed more triumphantly to establish their genuineness. The latest investigations have proved that the great critic could "sometimes sleep," as well as the great poet. Stallbaum has triumphantly vindicated the authenticity of a number of Plato's Dialogues against the objections of Schleiermacher and Ast. K. F. Hermann of Göttingen, speaks with contempt of "the prison walls which the subjective, scheming, hair-splitting acuteness of that dialectician [Schleiermacher] built as a dwelling for Plato's spirit." "Many essential passages of Plato," continues Hermann, "were rejected by Schleiermacher, because he did not know how to employ them in support of his own theory." Abundant and decisive testimonies may be adduced in regard to the high estimation in which Herodotus is now held. Prof. Ritter, the celebrated geographer, affirms, "That of all the records of ancient times, none are receiving more confirmation from modern researches in geography, archaeology, and kindred studies, than the tenth chapter of Genesis and the writings of old Herodotus." Schaff remarks, "That the accuracy of Herodotus, often assailed, is more and more confirmed by modern investigations."3 Wachler observes, "As the father of geography and history, Herodotus is held in merited and increasing respect; his fidelity and accuracy are confirmed by all the investigations of modern scholars, and defended against the doubts that have been rashly thrown out."4 Eichwald, in his Geography of the Caspian Sea, a work of high authority, remarks, "It is with reason that we are surprised Der Epische Cyclus, Vorrede, p. 8. 2 Review of Stallbaum's edition of the Phaedrus, in Jahn's Jahrbücher,1831. • Encyclopaedia, ed. 4th, by Hormann and Schinke, 1837, I. p. 37. 4 Literaturgeschichte, I. p. 141. 1845.] Credibility of Herodotus and Arrian. 369 both in respect to Herodotus' fidelity and love of truth, and his extensive geographical knowledge; this was, for the most part, the fruit of personal inquiry. Very remarkable is the exact knowledge which he possessed of the eastern shore of the Caspian, and of the particular tribes dwelling there. It may, perhaps, be assumed, that he had a more precise acquaintance with it, than was possessed by us in the last century, or in some respects even now;"-" a position," says Bähr, the editor of Herodotus, "which will hold equally good, as we are fully convinced, of several other countries, 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." 2 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." 3 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 skepticism, 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 litera 1 Review of Eichwald's "Alte Geographie des Kaspischen Meeres," by Bahr, 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." * Bahr in Jahn XVI. p. 326, XI. p. 435. Plutarch doubts the authenticity of Herodotus because some of his representations are not sufficiently favorable to the Greeks! ture was never so thoroughly understood as it is at the present time. We 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 skeptical 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, Prof. 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 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." 2 "Wherever any fact is mentioned in the Bible history," says Wilkinson, "we do not discover anything on the monuments which tends to contradict it." 3 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, 1 Bibl. Sac. May, 1843, p. 375. 2 Von Raumer's Palaestina, p. 2, where similar testimony from other travellers is quoted. Anc. Egypt. 1. 34. 1845.] Credibility of the Jewish Historians. 371 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 ground-work of the Pentateuch, and cannot be entirely separated from the laws, as they show their import and design, were written by Moses himself, and that the collecting of 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." 1 §3. 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 eye-witnesses 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, 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. 1 Hengstenberg, Beiträge zur Einl. d. Alte Test. I. Prolegomena, pp. 28-35, also, Bibl. Repos., April, 1838, pp. 440-448. 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 informaOn 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 to look into the laws and institutions of Moses. The entire silence of such writers argues either total ignorance of what was occurring in Palestine, or a contempt for its inhabitants unworthy of men of their pretensions. Essentially similar is the impression which we receive from the Roman writers. Cicero throughout his multifarious writings, makes no mention, we believe, of the Jews. The poets allude to them, in a few instances, to point a jeer or round a period. Thus Juvenal: "The laws of Rome those blinded bigots slight To Moses and his mystic volume true," etc. So remarkable is a paragraph relating to the Jews in the pages of the philosophic Tacitus that we are tempted to give the substance of it. It is found in the fifth book of his History. |