The Denison review., 1899-09-19


the dissection. Another discrepancy
which they believe they find is in the
accounts of the length of the time the
flood prevailed, and the details in regard
to its rise and abatement One account
makes it year and ten days, the other
/, Io1 days or sixty-one days. The critics
are not all agreed as to which should
be regarded as theycorrect number. They
are content with the discrepancy which
! their scheme has created. But there are
no discrepancies other than such as are
made to grow out of the dissection Of
the account into fragments as above
given. To the individual not conver-
SAINT with the methods of these destruc-
tive critics it would appear that they
present an immense amount of evidence
sn detail in support Of their hypothesis.
But careful, scrutinlzing OF each item
will show that it is all hypothetical also.
It is suppositions brought forth to sus-
tain more general suppositions The
student will find large catalogues Of
terms severally labeled marks OF E., of
p, of j., of D., Of JE., ETC., etc. But
by hypothesis each mark is segregated,
then after while it is brought forward
to show how beautifully it supports the
main hypothesis. Again the records of
similar events are brought forth as
proof that they are divergent accounts
OF the same event. By no manner of
means are we allowed to think that
there could be two events in Bible his
tory somewhat similar. AS, for example,
Abraham's passing Sarah off at the
court of Pharaoh for his sister, and do
ing the same thing again at the court
of Abimelech, king of Gerar, and Isaac
repeating the same mistake with refer
ence to Rebekah at the court of another
Abimelech. Great stress is laid upon
the fact that in two of these instances
the kings bore the same name-Abimel-
ech. But the name in Hebrew means
father-king, and may be used in the
same sense that Pharaoh is used, gem
ericly. Nor is it remarkable thing that
kings should have the same name There
were two Rameses and three Sets in
Egypt shortly after this. In reply to the
inference drawn from these three ac-
counts, Professor Green calls attention
to two great battles fought at Bull Run,
in both of which the union army was
defeated. What field this will present
to the radical critic of coming ages?
Two great battles on the same battle
field in the same war one year apart!
No, these are discrepant accounts OF the
same event. But there is trouble for the
critics here, as the two accounts of Abra-
hams deception present the critics
marks of the same authorship. The
first they assign to ]. The second must
be divided between J. and E. according
to the alleged marks. The case of Isaac
and the second Abimelech they assign
in the main to ]. That is the probabili-
ties are on their own theory that the
Hypothetical ]. wrote all three OF the
accounts. He, therefore. believed they
were not identical. So did R. Now, if
we substitute Moses for R.. and drop ].
out, we have a rational explanation OF
the literary characteristics OF the three
accounts, and are just as near to an eN-
planation of the fact that there are the
three accounts, as we are with all the
cumbrous hypothesis of the critics.
Moses, therefore, believed there were
three different events, as did also hypo
thetical ]. and hypothetical redactors
But some one will say, is it not singular
that Abraham should make the same
mistake twice and Isaac should repeat
lit? Yes, but singular things very fire.
Guently happen. The hypothesis of re-
daction demands the elimination of just
such difficulties, especially since the re-
daction is assumed to have been artful
and with design to change the history
| in the premises. Why was it not done?
| But the fourteenth chapter OF Genesis
is the one that is just now giving the
critics the most trouble They had dis
posed of it sometime ago as mere flc-
ton, the main part of which was pro-
duced after the exile possibly by p, but
this was believed to have been consid-
erably modified by subsequent redac-
ton. Its characters were all said to be
fictitious. 1t was put into the text Of
Genesis to glorify Abraham, the reput
ed progenitor of the 1sraelites. The
masterfulness of the higher criticism
was displayed in dealing with this. 1t
served to point the fact not once to be
disputed, that the Bible contained pure
myths, which were put forth as sober
history. But archaeological discoveries
have called halt right at this point,
with the suggestion that it is best not
to know too much through guessing.
The names of Chedorlaomer, Amraphel,
Arioch and Tidal, are found to belong
to veritable historical characters, of that