In the first place, and this is very important, modern discoveries have shown that the period of Jewish history from the time of Moses onwards was distinctly _a literary age_. In Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, and elsewhere, it was the custom, and had been for centuries, to record all important events, at least all those that were creditable to the people concerned; so it is almost certain that the Jews, like the surrounding nations, had their historians. In every age conquerors have loved to record their conquests, and why should the Jews alone have been an exception? Yet the historical books of the Old Testament have no competitors. If, then, we deny that these are in the main a contemporary record, we must either assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations, had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely; as well as being contrary to the Books themselves, where the _recorders_ are frequently mentioned, even by name.[106] Or else we must assume that their works were replaced in later days by other and less reliable accounts, which were universally mistaken for the originals, and this seems equally improbable. [Footnote 106: _E.g._, 2 Sam. 8. 16; 2 Kings 18. 18; 2 Chron. 34. 8.] Passing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be divided into two classes, geographical and historical. In the first place the _geography_ of Palestine has been shown to be minutely accurate. But this does not prove the Old Testament Books to be genuine, but merely that they were written by Jews who knew the country intimately. It helps, however, in some cases to remove apparent difficulties. Thus the discoveries at Jericho, in 1908, have shown that the place was merely a small fortified hill, the length of the surrounding wall being about half a mile, so there was no difficulty in the Israelites walking round it seven times in the day.[107] And much the same may be said of the _historical_ notices. The monumental records of the Kings of Judah and Israel have not at present been discovered, but we can often check the history by the records of other countries. And these are as a rule in perfect agreement, not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society, customs, and state of civilisation, of the period. Indeed, in some cases where this was formerly disputed, as in the importance assigned to the _Hittites_, it has been fully justified by modern discoveries.[108] But this again does not prove the genuineness of the Books, though it certainly raises a probability in their favour. [Footnote 107: Josh. 6. 15.] [Footnote 108: 1 Kings 10. 29; 2 Kings 7. 6.]