Moses and Herodotus—A Contrast
By G. W. Reeser
HERODOTUS is styled the “father of history.” This applies, of course, to profane history. If we were to select the earliest inspired historian, doubtless we would agree that Moses, who wrote the Bible account of creation, was the first. One of the convincing evidences that the pen of Moses was guided by inspiration, is found in a contrast of the writings of these two recognized historians, each the first in his class whose writings at all complete have come down to us. It is said of Herodotus that he “was of a noble family,” and that “for wide vision, for manifold suggestiveness, for noble and yet liberal spirit, for serene wisdom, . . . the father of history may challenge all those who have come after him.” With this brief introduction to Herodotus, let us observe how ridiculously his writings are at variance with science. While visiting in Egypt, he tried to account for the annual overflow of the Nile. Having overthrown, to his satisfaction, all the theories set forth, he says: “Yet if, after I have found fault with the opinions advanced by others, it becomes me to declare my own concerning so obscure a question, I will describe what, in my opinion, causes the Nile to overflow in summer. During the winter season, the sun, being driven by storms from his former course, retires to the upper parts of Libya. This in few words comprehends the whole matter; for it is natural that the country which this god is nearest to, and over which he is, should be most in want of water. . . . For he attracts the water to himself, and having so attracted it, throws it back upon the higher regions. . . . I do not think, however, that the sun on each occasion discharges the annual supply of water from the Nile, but that some remains about him.” Again, in speaking of the ocean he says: “But the person who speaks about the ocean, since he has referred his account to some obscure fable, produces no conviction at all; for I do not know any river called the ocean.” Moses spent the first forty years of his eventful life in the land where the Nile annually overflows its banks. Suppose that he had accounted for the mystery by telling us that the sun was driven south each recurring autumn by the cold north winds, and returned again to his summer station when the mild winds permitted him to come back without getting chilled. Suppose again that Moses had told us that he did not believe in the existence of the ocean, but thought that such a ridiculous idea must be a myth. In contrasting these two historians, we should keep in mind the fact that Moses was born nearly eleven centuries before Herodotus, and therefore, if left to his own wisdom, would doubtless have written things as contrary to science and fact as did the father of profane history. In making this contrast, I have no disposition to scorn Herodotus. Any man of his day would have made as great blunders as he if left to the wisdom of men. But the very fact that Moses wrote more than a millennium earlier than Herodotus, and yet not a single line from his pen is out of harmony with true science, proves that the “great lawgiver” was inspired for his work, while the “father of history” did not wield an inspired pen. If any one desires to pursue this line of thought further, let him contrast the dignity, the sublime majesty, of the writings of Moses with those of Herodotus, and at the end thank God for an inspired Bible.