by Dibar Apartian
The origins of the
histories of the French-speaking countries, as those of all the nations of the
world, represent an insoluble mystery for historians and
ethnologists. They recognize frankly
that the annals of ancient history are very obscure. “History doesn’t know the origin of any
people” remarked Lenormant (Ancient History of the Orient, p. 234)
adding that the farther one attempts to delve into the past, the more obscure
it becomes.
What then is the reason? Better than anyone, Paul, “the apostle to
the Gentiles,” can give us the answer in his epistle to the Romans, written
under divine inspiration:
“For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, who
hold the truth captive, because that which may be known of God is
manifest to them; for God has showed it to them . . . they became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened,” Romans
1:18-21.
Unlike the theorems of geometry and mathematics, history, to such an extent as mankind has exposed it, has given us no reliable summary, which has not been corrupted. Its knowledge is not only scanty, but also hypothetical. In the “Preface” of his work entitled Encyclopedia of World History, Mr. Langer recognizes this gap and confirms the fact that a number of historical facts are themselves contested, and so little corroborated, that they could never establish the basis of any definite testimony.
History, therefore,
has no point of departure. It
ignores that there is a source, or rather it rejects it firmly, as we are going
to see. Consequently, having no one
definite source from which it can draw its pieces of information with
the desired assurance, the historian tends to speak of the “possible” and of
the “probable.” But this possible and
this probable, by the admission of Jubinville “holds a larger and
larger place which is increased proportionally as the number of centuries
which separate us from the events,” The First Inhabitants of Europe, p.
VIII.
We live in an age in
which man has no fear of considering “obsolete” every work or treatise, or any
knowledge that is not the product of the present generation — including the
Bible! Thus, history
is doubly vulnerable, for not only does it miss necessary clues, but as well,
since it refuses to consider the Biblical date of the creation of man, its
chronology becomes almost entirely a myth!
History, as historians
tell it, depends exclusively on scientific knowledge acquired by men through
the ages. To cite an example,
bibliography, paleography, archaeology, chronology, paleontology, etc., are
some sciences related to history; because their principles change with the
course of civilization, history, in turn, remains subject to revision,
if not always unexpected, at least sometimes radical.
What is more, history
is given an essentially inductive or logical quality, seeing that it goes
back through time instead of building up on data from earlier eras, and
that it must reconstruct situations based on how things later became,
instead of the opposite. By assuming
these backward roles, the inductive and conjectural part of history ends up
becoming the most important part, and one is thus lost in false reasonings and
relying on traditions of men, and “after the rudiments of the world,” Colossians
2:8.
Another cause of the inaccuracy
of history is surely due to the sometimes overly enthusiastic patriotism of
historians, whose accounts are often presented with prejudice and
partiality:
“Is there an impartial
history? And first, what is
history?” writes Anatole France. “How
can a historian judge whether a fact is important or not? He judges it arbitrarily,” The
Garden of Epicure, p. 139.
No one can dispute
this fact. Each nation takes pride in
its past and its individual contribution to civilization. If it has some pretension to age, it tries
to prove that its history dates from a time well before the actual appearance
of man! So it is that ancient nations
such as Egypt and Persia, whose historical chronologies have inspired those of
other nations, have an extravagant system to calculate dates, even though they
offer not one historic certainty!
Where, then, is a
compass which can guide historians and scholars in their research — the official
and infallible source from which they could draw their understanding, a
source from which it would be possible to verify the authenticity of their
discoveries?
The answer is obvious:
The Bible! Unfortunately, it is discarded by nearly
every modern expert in the matter of history, under the pretext that its
accounts are not only vague and contradictory, but that they belong in the
realm of fantasy! Nevertheless, these
same experts consider in complete faith the ancient “legends,” notably of the
Greek world, passed on to us! This
paradox is inexplicable!
Thus the scientific
world rejects the authority of the Bible.
It takes offense even at the idea that the Bible could have been drafted
under divine inspiration. This truth
affronts and insults it! At most, some
consider the New Testament the sacred book of Christians, but the Old
Testament — after all — couldn’t be but a beautiful anthology of legends or
Jewish history. “The Bible is a
literary work, and not a dogma,” says philosopher George Santayana (Dialogues
in Limbo).
If the Old Testament
is nothing but a simple history of the Jewish people, don’t you think its
“authors” would have been able to at least give proof of a little more chauvinism
in regard to their country, reporting things a little more advantageously
and a little stretched?
The fact that
archaeological discoveries regularly confirm the Biblical accounts has no
effect at all on the preconceived ideas of the experts. Totally rejecting divine authority, man
seeks in any way to discredit the Bible; the historic events that it accounts
are seen only in the light of the dogmas of history. In case of contradiction or controversy, the experts always put
their trust in history — never in the Bible!
Would it then be
reckless to say that historians, in general, do not believe in God? How could they believe in Him if they reject
the truth of the events described in the Bible! The Bible is infallible; it is the WORD
OF GOD, but men don’t understand it.
Notice in this regard the response of the illustrious Tallyrand, when
asked if he believed in the Bible. He
declared that he had two invincible reasons to believe: “First, because I am Bishop of Autun;
and next, because I listen to absolutely nothing!” (Varietes, Dec. 20,
1934).
This answer is not
only comic: it is especially
tragic! For ourselves, we can declare
that we also have two invincible reasons to believe in the Bible; but
ours are much different than Tallyrand’s.
First, we are not under the yoke of human doctrines and
traditions; next, by the grace of the Spirit of God, we can understand
the Bible!