Chapter II: The Composition of the Pentateuch (3)

This, however, is beginning to be doubtful, in view of the discoveries
made by Messrs. de Morgan and Amélineau in 1886-87.

Footnote 127:

For the logical goal of the ‘Higher Criticism,’ see Bateson Wright,
_Was Israel ever in Egypt?_ (1895.)

Footnote 128:

The theory of Jean Astruc, the French Protestant physician, was set
forth in his _Conjectures sur la Genèse_ published anonymously at
Paris in 1753. In this he assumes that Moses wrote the book of Genesis
in four parallel columns like a Harmony of the Gospels which were
afterwards mixed together by the ignorance of copyists. Astruc
intended his work to be an answer to those who, like Spinoza, asserted
that Genesis was written without order or plan. It is interesting to
note that Dr. Briggs in his able defence of the ‘critical’ hypothesis
(_The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch_, pp. 138-141) quotes with
approval Professor Moore’s appeal to Tatian’s _Diatessaron_—a mere
‘patchwork’ of the Gospels—in support of the literary analysis of the
Pentateuch.

Footnote 129:

See Bissell, Introduction to _Genesis printed in Colours_ (1892), pp.
xi-xiii; also p. vii, where he says: ‘The argument from language
outside the divine names requires extreme care for obvious reasons. It
is admitted to be relatively weak, and can never have more than a
subordinate and supplementary value. There is no visible cleavage line
among the supposed sources.’ Professor Bissell’s work is an attempt to
represent by different colours the text of Genesis as it has been
analysed and disintegrated by the ‘higher critics,’ and the result at
which he arrives in his Introduction is that the analytical theory is
a house built upon sand. As regards the account of the Flood, in which
‘it is claimed’ that two distinct narratives can be distinguished from
each other, he remarks: ‘Two flood-stories, originating, according to
the theory, hundreds of years apart, and literally swarming with
differences and contradictions ... are found to fit one another like
so many serrated blocks, and to form, united, a consecutive history
whose unity, with constant use for millenniums, has been undisputed
till our day. Is this coincidence, or is it miracle? But let us take a
closer look. We shall find no loosely joined, independent sections,
but mutually dependent parts of one whole. An occasional overlapping
of ideas, a repetition for emphasis, or enlargement, in complete
harmony with Hebrew style, there undoubtedly is. But there is also a
marked interdependence and sequence of thought wholly inconsistent
with the theory proposed. Let the reader test what J’s story would be
alone. Beginning it has none; no preliminary announcement of the
catastrophe; no command to make preparations; no report of Noah’s
attitude.... And so P’s story, taken by itself, would be equally
incomplete.... As to the alleged discrepancies in other respects, they
appear, as we have seen, to be true in other cases, only after the
text is rent asunder. The lighting system of the one does not exclude
the one window of the other; nor the covering for the roof, the door
in the side. Without the door, for which one document alone is
responsible, how is it supposed that the occupants of the ark got in
and out of it? If objects are thrown out of their due perspective, as
in a mirage, it need surprise no one if they appear distorted and
grotesque.... It is particularly in the matter of language and style
that resort is taken to this illogical and dangerous means of
text-mutilation. There are certain stylistic peculiarities of one or
the other document, it is claimed, which are fixed from the usage of
previous chapters. But unfortunately for the scheme, they appear not
unfrequently in the wrong place. For instance, the expression “male
and female” is held to be characteristic of P, J using another for it.
In vii. 3, 9, J uses this expression twice, and our critics must make
the redactor deny it. The oft-recurring formula, “both man, beast, and
creeping thing and fowl of the air,” is found in the first chapter of
Genesis, and so is said to be characteristic of P. Here J has it in
vi. 7 and vii. 23, and the redactor is called in to square the
document to the theory.... In all these changes we are supposed to
have the work of a redactor. How is it possible? What motive could a
redactor have had for it? It is claimed by our critics that he has
left the principal points of contrast between the two great documents
from which he compiled in their original ruggedness. The principal
changes made, with rare exceptions, are of single words, detached
phrases, verses or parts of verses,—every one of them changes in what
was originally homogeneous matter to what is now heterogeneous, from
what was once true, from the point of view of the document, to what is
now false!’

Footnote 130:

Cf. the plates in Flinders Petrie’s _Tel el-Amarna_ (Methuen and Co.,
1894).

Footnote 131:

Literally, ‘Aten-Ra! the Record Office.’ Many of the bricks with the
inscription upon them still lay on the spot when I visited it in 1888.

Footnote 132:

See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 222.

Footnote 133:

Hommel, _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Kunde der Sprachen, Literaturen
und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_, pp. 2 _sqq._

Footnote 134:

See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 56
_sq._

Footnote 135:

The Elohist and the Chaldæan story further agree in making the hero of
the Deluge the tenth in descent from the first man.

Footnote 136:

See my _Archæological Commentary on Genesis_, in the _Expository
Times_, July and August, 1896.

Footnote 137:

Cf. Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 114.

Footnote 138:

See above, p. 13.

Footnote 139:

Naville, _Das aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie_,
Einleitung; Maspero, _Études de Mythologie et d’ Archéologie
égyptiennes_, i. pp. 325-387.

Footnote 140:

_Sanctuary and Sacrifice_, by W. L. Baxter (Eyre and Spottiswoode,
1895).

Footnote 141:

Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a Portion of
Ecclesiasticus_, p. xviii.

Footnote 142:

Ham for Am or Ammon, and Zuzim for Zamzummim (Gen. xiv. 5); see my
_Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 160, 161.

Footnote 143:

This probably stands for the Babylonian al-Larsa, ‘the city of Larsa.’

Footnote 144:

_Contemporary Review_, February 1890, p. 221.

Footnote 145:

Mesha says in the inscription (l. 8): ‘Omri took the land of Medeba,
and [Israel] dwelt in it during his days and half the days of his son,
altogether forty years.’ The real length of time was not more than
fifteen years.

Footnote 146:

Oppert dates the reign B.C. 2394 to 2339; Sayce, B.C. 2336-2281;
Delitzsch, B.C. 2287-2232; Winckler, 2264-2210; and Peiser, 2139-2084;
while Hommel suggests that the compiler of the list of dynasties has
reversed the true order of the first two dynasties in it, and
accordingly brings down the date of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel three
hundred and sixty-eight years. This would better suit the Biblical
data, but so far nothing has been found on the monuments in support of
the suggestion. Dr. Hales’s date for the birth of Abraham was B.C.
2153.

Footnote 147:

_Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1889, pp. 97-105.

Footnote 148:

The ‘prince’ of Thebes who revolted against Apophis was Skenen-Ra Taa
I., whose fourth successor was Ahmes.

Footnote 149:

_Revue Archéologique_, March 1865.

Footnote 150:

E. Naville, _The Store-city of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus_
(1885).

Footnote 151:

_Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1872, p. 18; see also J. de
Rougé, _Géographie ancienne de la Basse-Égypte_, pp. 93-95.

Footnote 152:

Cf. the articles of Sayce and Hommel in the _Expository Times_ for
August, October, and November 1896, pp. 521, 18, and 89.