The Denison review., 1899-09-19

lClS 10 0illCl OAls llS III 81 Is SIllk dIlO
: verbose, the second is easy, flowing
picturesque. Style is usually affected by
the particular theme the author is hand
ling. We have always believed that
there was-a majesty, a stateliness, about
this first chapter of Genesis that served
to stamp it divine. Its striking charac.
teristics are what it docs not say upon
a theme that mere Imagination could
never handle without absurdity. In fact
we are inclined to think that this matter
OF difference Of style aside from the diff
ference of theme is all in the imagina=
ton of the critic. The words that are
said to be marks of p. are made marks
OF P. by certain assumptions concern
ing what P. should have written. They
are terms necessarily required by such
subjects. But it is alleged that the ac-
counts are discrepant; that the first has
the creation extended over six-day
Iperiod and the second but one day, and
that the second account has man Great
ed before animal life was created, while
in the first man is the last part of crea-
tion. Is this inference necessary from
the account? We think not. The in
spired writer passes on to give an ac-
count more particularly of man and in
general terms refers to creation, of
which man is the crowning part. Then
we have the garden of Eden and its
animal life mentioned to prepare the
way for fuller account of the creation
of woman. There is no discrepancy here
when viewed from the standpoint of the
obvious purpose of the writer. The
first chapter and the first three verses of
the second chapter may be very an
cient document. The great Hebrew
scholar, Taylor Lewis, believed it to be
an ode or chant used in patriarchal wor-
ship. Be that as it may, there is no nee
essary conflict. There is nothing con-
cealed within the Hebrew literature Of
the section that gives the Hebrew critic
any striking advantage of the plain En-
glish scholar who will bring to the study
plain common sense. We have dwelt
at this length on this instance as it is
one of the most striking examples of
critical dissection, and one most favor
able to their cause. If it cannot be
made out from this case there is scarcely
case that will furnish the requisite evil
dence.
But word further with regard to al
legged marks of diverse authorship:
Bara- ra-create-is said by the critics to
be word peculiar to P; a-sah-make
is said to be peculiar to j., and yet
a-sah occurs more frequently in the
first chapter of Genesis than bara. What
kind OF a mark of style is this? But it
can be seen at once that if you assume,
for example, that numbers, genealo-
gies and dates along with sacrifcial
terms are marks of p, and then classify
P. sections under these Marks you will
seem to make a case for your conten-
ton, and then you can turn around and
point to these as clear indications of a
distinctive style in your alleged author
P. And you might with some show OF
proof for his exclusive use of these
terms challenge your opponent to find
these terms in the other alleged -au-
thors.. But after all this is a striking
case of begging the question. You as
sumed the whole question at the start
in classifying your marks. Follow
these critics through the entire field and
you will find this thing occurring over
and over. Certain assumptions are
made concerning certain documents,
these assumptions divide literature into
several classes according to the design
and purpose of the writer, with the I'M
derlying preconception that one kind OF
literature alone can belong to one and
the same author, and thus the literary
dissection is carried out. 1t is clear
and unmistakeable begging OF the ques-
ton.
In the same way discrepancies are
manufactured. 1t is assumed that a repe-
tition is mark OF diverse authorship,
and the very brevity of the repetition is
played off against the more extended
account as divergent account because
it does not contain all that was CON
tanned in the more extended account.
This is illustrated in their handling of
the story OF the flood. Two varying ac-
counts are found in precisely this man
ner. Any repetition for any purpose
whatever is set down to account num-
Der two. But the Bible story of the
flood furnished very good example Of
the keen, critical scent cf these critics,
and we give it in detail. Would that we
could drape it in all the colors OF the
Harlequin bible. Genesis vi:5-S is as
signed to j., ix:22 to p, .vii:1-6 to J.,
verse 6 to p, verse 7 to j., 8 and 9 to
Redactor, 10 to J., II to p, IL to j.,
verse 13 to the semicolon in verse 16 to
p, the remaining words of verse 16 and