HISTORICAL INTEGRITY

Opponents of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have called its historical character in question. One of their arguments is that the Pentateuch is not true, and, therefore, Moses did not write it. If the argument is valid, it disproves divine inspiration; for if an untrustworthy book is not to be ascribed to Moses, much less is such a book to be ascribed to God.

We maintain, however, that the Pentateuchal history is true, and, therefore, the books containing it are divinely inspired, and that they were written by Moses. Of course, the mere truthfulness of a book does not prove that it was divinely inspired, nor that it was written by the author to whom it is ascribed. But if the Pentateuchal history is trustworthy, there is reason to believe that God had something to do in the production of the books which contain it, and that they were written by Moses, or at least that they were not gotten up by a host of nameless writers, as claimed by the analysts. We do not claim that every historical statement contained in the Pentateuch can be proved to be true by external testimony. We claim, however, that its principal statements — even those that have been objected to the most— can be thus substantiated. Much has been done to vindicate the historical accuracy and truthfulness of the Pentateuch by the discoveries of antiquarian research, and the work is still going on. New discoveries are being made almost continually. The result of every fresh discovery that bears on the question is to demonstrate, or to render probable, some statement in the Pentateuchal history. Every difficulty and all possible doubts have not as yet been removed; but, judging by what has already been accomplished, we have reason to believe that, ere long, the discoveries of the Egyptologists and other archaeologists, together with what is known from history and tradition, will have convinced all, except stubborn doubters, that the Pentateuch is entirely trustworthy as a book of history.

I. Genesis does not very definitely fix the place of man's origin, but by implication it was near the garden of Eden, the place of his earliest residence. This is placed by the record "eastward in Eden," somewhere in the region of the Euphrates.¹ This account of the place of man's origin has not, indeed, been universally accepted. Darwin was disposed to place "the cradle of the human race" in Africa, for the reason that the catarrhine monkeys, from which he supposed men to be descended, had their early home in that continent.² Haeckel, though agreeing with Darwin in holding that "man has developed out of the Catarrhini,'' suggests that the primeval home of the human race was in Lemuria, an imaginary continent connecting Asia and Africa, supposed to be now lying under the Indian Ocean, but formerly inhabited by Lemurian apes.³ But history, tradition, and current opinion point to Asia as the original home of mankind. The region of the Euphrates evidently was the home of the earliest civilization and presumably of primitive men. As investigation goes on, this opinion receives additional confirmation, and is now generally accepted by mythologists, philologists, historians, antiquarians, and ethnographers. Thus the evidence is shown to preponderate in favor of the Mosaic account of the place of man's origin, early home, and geographical distribution.

2. The Mosaic account of man's primitive condition also receives confirmation from current tradition. Lenormant declares that "the idea of the Edenic happiness of the first human beings constitutes one of the universal traditions,"⁴ and that belief in a primeval age of human innocence and happiness prevailed not only among the Semitic races, but among the Aryans, as well, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Greeks, and ancient nations in general. Little need be said on this point, inasmuch as the primeval state of innocence and happiness is presupposed by the subject to which we shall immediately advert.

3. The fall of man into a state of sin and suffering is another point in regard to which the statements of Genesis are corroborated by traditions almost universally current among mankind. Some of the ancient nations, as the Hindus and Greeks, represented the primeval state of innocence as a golden age, and these, of course, conceived of the fall as an age of declension, and as a gradual lapse from virtue and happiness. But more generally the fall is represented as a single event, similar to the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as related in Genesis. Of this there are many examples. Speaking of the trees that are represented in the Assyrian sculptures, Layard says, "The sacred tree, or tree of life, so universally recognized in Eastern systems of theology, is called to mind, and we are naturally led to refer the traditions- connected with it to a common origin." In a foot-note he adds, "We have the tree of life of Genesis, and the sacred tree of the Hindus, with its accompanying figures — a group almost identical with the illustrations of the fall in our old Bibles."⁵ Lenormant remarks that this emblem is presented on the Babylonian cylinders as frequently as in bas-reliefs in the Assyrian palaces, and says, "It is difficult not to connect this mysterious plant with the famed trees of life and knowledge which play so important a part in the story of the first sin."⁶ The ancient Persian tradition is suggested in the Zend-Avesta by the declaration that" Agra-mainyus, who is full of death, in opposition to the works of the good God, created a great serpent and winter, through the agency of the demons."⁷ In some of the later parts of the Zend-Avesta, the story of the fall is given with variations. Apples, a woman, and the author of all evil figure in the fall as related in the Scandinavian Edda.⁸ The Greek traditions of Pandora and of the garden of the Hesperides, with its golden apples guarded by a dragon, may with propriety be regarded as an altered and variant story of the garden of Eden and of the fall.

4. The deluge.

The traditions of this event are nearly universal. They are found among all mankind, with the exception of the black races.⁹ Though perhaps no reason can be assigned why such traditions are not found among the African races, the evidence is none the less strong for the reality of the deluge than if their prevalence were absolutely universal. Without detailing the traditions as prevalent among the Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus, Persians, Phrygians, Greeks, Scandinavians, Cherokees, Mexicans, Aztecs, Toltecs, and other races and tribes in the Old and the New World, we will call attention only to that of Babylonia. Of this there are two versions, one given by Berosus, a Babylonian, who wrote probably about 300 B.C. He was the priest of Bel, and in that capacity had access (it is supposed) to the public archives. The similarity between his account of the flood and that contained in Genesis is very striking. Berosus relates that Xisuthrus was divinely warned beforehand of the impending deluge and was commanded to build a huge vessel and to take with him into it his family and friends, and also every species of land animals, together with a sufficient supply of food. He further relates that Xisuthrus obeyed the divine command, built the vessel, and placed in it his wife, children, and friends, who with himself were alone of all mankind saved from drowning. He states that after the waters had begun to abate Xisuthrus sent out birds from the ship, to ascertain whether the ground was jet dry, and that the ship finally landed on a mountain in Armenia, and that the people in that region scraped off the bitumen for charms and antidotes to poison.¹⁰

The other Babylonian account of the deluge, deciphered from the cuneiform tablets by the celebrated George Smith, is more ancient than that of Berosus. These tablets were copies made by Asurbanipal, the Assyrian king, about 700 B.C. The original tablets are believed to date back at least to the seventeenth century B.C. They existed, therefore, almost as far back as the time of Abraham. The traditions were, of course, older than the tablets on which they were printed. This tablet account harmonizes still more closely with Genesis than does that of Berosus. The divine premonition of the deluge and the command to build the ark, or ship; the caulking of it with bitumen or pitch; the collection of the animals and of the food; the advent of the waters; the floating of the vessel; the sending out of the birds; the landing on the mountain — in all these and in some other points there is entire agreement.¹¹ There are some discrepancies. Genesis makes the dimensions of the ark to be three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty in height. The tablets make it six hundred cubits long, sixty cubits broad, and sixty high; according to Berosus, it was five stadia long (five-eighths of a mile) and two stadia (or a quarter of a mile) wide, height not given. The tablet account states that the deluge culminated in seven days; Genesis, in one hundred and fifty. Berosus states that three birds were sent out of the ark, without naming them; the tablet names them — dove, swallow, and raven; and Genesis mentions only the raven and the dove, but states that the dove was sent out twice. Berosus mentions the landing of the ship on a mountain in Armenia; the tablets mention the mountain Nizir as the landing-place; and Genesis mentions the mountains of Ararat. The two Babylonian accounts call the builder of the vessel Xisuthrus; Genesis calls him Noah. The Babylonian accounts are disfigured with polytheistic notions, while of course Genesis recognizes but one God.

These differences, however, suggest that all these accounts have a common origin, and that the one contained in Genesis is the original and true account. It must have originated before polytheism became prevalent, if it is to be regarded as traditional at all, while the polytheistic corruptions manifest in the Babylonian accounts mark them as later variations of an older account. So, too, of the dimensions of the vessel as given in these three accounts, Genesis making the length three hundred cubits, the tablets making it twice as great (six hundred cubits, nearly a quarter of a mile), and Berosus making it eleven times greater — five furlongs (five-eighths of a mile), and two furlongs in breadth (a quarter of a mile). These facts are just such as we should expect on the hypothesis that the tablet account is later than that of Genesis, and that the account given by Berosus is still later.

Thus the Mosaic account of the deluge is corroborated in all its points by the almost universally prevalent traditions of mankind, and by traditions that are shown to have been in existence not very long after the time given as that of the deluge itself.

5. The confusion of tongues.

The story of the tower of Babel is also corroborated by tradition, but not so fully as that of the deluge. Josephus quotes a sibylline tradition, as follows: "When all men were of one language and one speech, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon."¹² Precisely the same tradition is given by Abydenus, as quoted by Busebius: "They say that the first inhabitants of the earth, glorying in their own strength and size, and despising the gods, undertook to build a tower, whose top should reach the sky, upon that spot where Babylon now stands. But when it approached the heaven, the winds assisted the gods and overturned the work upon its contrivers (its ruins are said to be at Babylon), and the gods introduced a diversity of tongues among men, who till that time had all spoken the same language. And a war arose between Kronos (that is, Saturn) and Titan; and the place in which they built the tower is now called Babylon on account of the confusion of the languages; for confusion is by the Hebrews called Babel."¹³

Besides these traditions, the account of the building of Babel is confirmed by a number of facts and coincidences. Centralization was the aim of the Babel-builders, and even before their time Sargon, the king of Accad, aimed at universal empire. After his conquest of Syria, "he appointed that all places should form a single kingdom." Long afterward, in the century before the exodus, there was a partial realization of this dream of consolidation in the prevalence of one literary language throughout western Asia. This language was the Babylonian, which, it may be added, was at that time almost identical with that of Canaan, called Hebrew. The country where the tower was built is one of brick and bitumen, not of stone. Correspondingly Genesis states, "They had brick for stone, and slime [bitumen] had they for mortar."¹⁴ The fragment of a tablet found by George Smith tells "how small and great mingled the holy mound in Babylon and how the god in anger destro3"ed the secret design of the builders and made strange their counsel."¹⁵

6. The expedition of Chedorlaomer into Palestine, as related in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis.

Sayce claims that this account has been proved to be historical. He says, "Oriental archaeology has vindicated its authenticity in a remarkable way and disproved the ingenious skepticism of a hasty criticism." We refer the reader to his discussion of this subject.¹⁶

7. Besides the confirmation of particular narratives as presented above, the archaeologists have furnished, and are still furnishing, evidence of the truth of the Pentateuchal history in general. They report nothing that contradicts it, or is in any way inconsistent with it. Their discoveries, so far as they bear on the Pentateuchal history, demonstrate either its certainty, or probability, or possibility. The monuments do not, indeed, furnish a biography of Abraham, but the site of Ur, his native city, has been discovered, and it is claimed that the contract-tablets found there contain the names of Abram, Sarah, and Milcah. It is in evidence, too, that polytheism prevailed in that ancient city, as suggested in Joshua 24:2. The archaeologists do not report that they find the name of Melchizedek on any of the tablets, but they testify that they find that in the century before the exodus there reigned in Uru-salem (city of the god of peace) a priestly king, who, though subject to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was not appointed nor confirmed by his authority, but claimed to rule by the authority of the God-king on Mount Moriah.¹⁷ This royal priest, styled Ebedtob, might well be the successor of Melchizedek, king of Salem, and priest of the most high God.¹⁸ The name Bethel (house of God) is not given in the monuments as a place where Abraham or Jacob worshiped, but they give the significant names Jacob-el and Joseph-el as designating places in Palestine.¹⁹ It is in evidence that the Hyksos kings were expelled from Egypt, and were succeeded by a new dynast)" about the time in which, according to Exodus, " there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph."²⁰ It is ascertained that a famine, lasting many years, occurred during the time of the Hyksos.²¹ It is agreed among Egyptologists that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and his son, Menephtah II., the Pharaoh of the exodus.²² The mummy of the former has been discovered, and is on exhibition in Egypt; the mummy of the latter, whose army was overwhelmed in the Red Sea, has not as yet been heard of. Pithom, one of the store-cities²³ built by the Israelites for the king of Egypt, has been discovered — enormous brick walls enclosing a space of about fifty-five thousand square yards. These walls furnish evidence of the truth of the historical statement that the Egyptian oppressors refused straw to the Israelites for the making of brick.²⁴ Naville, using the words of another, says: "I carefully examined the chamber walls, and I noticed that some of the corners of the brickwork throughout were built of bricks without straw. I do not remember to have met anywhere in Egypt bricks so made. In a dry climate like Egypt it is not necessary to burn the bricks; they are made of Nile mud and dried in the sun. Straw is mixed with them to give them coherence."²⁵ Succoth, the first stage in the exodus of the Israelites,²⁶ has been identified as the civil name for Pithom and the country lying around it.²⁷ The other store-city, built for Pharaoh by the Israelites (Rameses), is mentioned in the papyri, and has been identified with Phacus.²⁸ At the time of the oppression and of the exodus there was in Egypt a numerous and heterogeneous race of tributaries and captives, who were much in the same condition of bondage and degradation with the Hebrews.²⁹ Thus is explained and verified the declaration that "a mixed multitude" (literally, "a very great mixture ' ') went up with them.³⁰ The route of the exodus has been determined,³¹ notwithstanding the singular opinion of Brugsch-Bey

Voltaire objected to the statement that the Israelites in the time of Moses conquered sixty fortified cities, besides many unwalled towns, in the region of Argob in Bashan, on the ground that it is improbable that so many cities and towns existed in one small canton, and he suggests, in the style that has become very prevalent, that some reviser has exaggerated the number.³² Modern research, however, has demonstrated that ancient Bashan was exceedingly populous. The density of its ancient population is attested by the number of ruined towns and cities found to-day in the country. Burckhardt found the ruins of two hundred villages within a short distance of one another. Dr. Robinson gives the names of more than two hundred places in the Hauran and more than eighty in Batanea or Bashan.³³ Tristram says, "The ruined villages lie thick in every direction, seldom more than half a mile apart."³⁴ The ancient fertility of the soil is also abundantly attested. Voltaire's objection is groundless.

Furthermore, the names of Kadesh, Megiddo, and of nearly all the cities and towns are found in the inscriptions, tablets, or other monuments. In the same way the existence of the Hittites, Amorites, and other Canaanitish races and tribes referred to in the Pentateuchal history has been demonstrated. It is shown that in the century before the exodus the Hittite kingdom in Palestine was strong enough to withstand the Egyptian empire, then the most powerful in existence, and to compel its head, the great Rameses II., to enter into a league with it on equal terms.³⁵ It is further shown that the races and tribes in Palestine had been so weakened by long-continued wars immediately before the advent of the Israelites as to be incapable of making effectual resistance.

But for the want of space many other illustrations might be given of the way in which archaeology is vindicating the historical character of the Pentateuch and other portions of the Bible. We close this chapter with a quotation from Professor Sayce: "What has been achieved already is an earnest of what will be achieved when the buried cities and tombs of the East have all been made to deliver their dead. We cannot expect to find everything verified, but the historian will be content if it is permitted him to turn with the same confidence to the books of Moses as he does to Thucydides or Tacitus." And again, "In glancing over the preceding pages, we cannot fail to be struck by the fact that the evidence of Oriental archaeology is, on the whole, distinctly unfavorable to the pretensions of 'the higher criticism.' "³⁶

1) Gen. 2:8, 14.

2) Descent of Man, p. 1.55.

3) History of Creation, "Vol. II., pp. 326, 400. 

4) Beginnings of History, p. 67.

5) Nineveh and Its Remains, p. 356.

6) Beginnings of History, p. 83.

7) Vendidad, 1:5-8. (Spiegel's German translation, pp. 61, 62.)

8) Beginnings of History, p. 81.

9) Beginnings of History, p. 382.

10) Cory's Ancient Fragments, pp. 56-63.

11) Smith's Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 263-294; Leuormant's Beginnings of History, pp. 575-588.

12) Antiquities, 1:4:3.

13) Cory's Ancient Fragments, p. 55.

14) Gen. 11:3.

15) Smith's Chaldaic Account of Genesis, p. 160; Sayce, Fresh Light from the Monuments, pp. 35, 36.

16) Fresh Light from the Monuments, pp. 44-47; Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 161-169.

17) Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 174-178.

18) Gen. 14:18.

19) Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 337.

20) Ex. 1:8.

21) Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pp. 121, 122.

22) Idem, p. 318.

23) Ex. 1:11.

24) Ex. 5:7-19.

25) Store-city of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, pp. 10-12.

26) Ex. 12:37.

27) Brugseh-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pp. 96, 317.

28) Idem, p. 96.

29) Idem, pp. 301, 317, 318.

30) Ex. 12:38.

31) Naville, Store-city of Pithom and Route of the Exodus, pp. 27-31.

32) Dictionnaire Philosophique, Article "Moses."

33) Biblical Researches, Vol. III., App., pp. 150-159.

34) Land of Moab, p..330.

35) Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pp. 258-286.

36) Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 233, 561.