ned to special incidents. Such differences in
viewpoint may be noticed also among the writers of the Old Testament
historical books. Broadly speaking, part of the historical literature
of the Old Testament is due to prophetic activity, part to priestly
activity. In writing history the prophets, with their broad interest
in all the {150} affairs of the nation, resemble the modern secular
historian. They portray events more objectively than the priests,
hence they are more reliable. The priestly writers resemble the modern
ecclesiastical historian, who judges everyone and everything according
to their attitude toward the peculiar religious conceptions he
represents. The Old Testament contains also some personal memoirs (in
Ezra and Nehemiah) and some narratives of special incidents (Ruth,
Esther), while the historical books in their present form embody also
what may have been official documents.

Moreover, in estimating the reliability of the Old Testament historical
books we must not overlook certain unconscious references and
indications which show that the authors exercised considerable care in
producing the books. In the first place, historical statements appear
to have been preserved with considerable care, at least so far as the
substance is concerned. This may be seen from the retention of
parallel narratives of the same events, without attempts at harmonizing
minor disagreements. In the second place, history was written with
some discrimination. This is evident especially in Kings, where the
several degrees in which certain of the kings departed from the
legitimate religion of Israel are carefully indicated. A clear
distinction is made between the relatively pious kings, who simply did
not {151} remove the high places (1 Kings 15. 14; 2 Kings 12. 3) and
those who, in defiance of a fundamental principle (Exod. 20. 4, 5),
desired to represent the spiritual God of Israel in images that would
appeal to the senses (1 Kings 12. 28, 29; 14. 16, etc.), and those who,
in defiance of the first requirement of the Decalogue (Exod. 20. 3),
served other gods (1 Kings 16. 31-33; 18. 22, etc.). Once more: in the
Old Testament records we find evidence of the historical consciousness
of ancient Israel resting upon a very sure foundation. The Mosaic age
was regarded as the supreme crisis in the national history. Moses was
the great hero; yet his grandeur was not able to extinguish the
consciousness of the glory of the