assimilating them, so that the most recent has in its belly the fragments of the previous works in a raw state.? The Diatessaron of Tatian is a parallel to the composite structure of the Old Testament books. One passage yields the following: <402112>Matthew 21:12a; <430214>John 2:14a; <402112>Matthew 21:12b: <430214>John 2:14b, 15; <402112>Matthew 21:12c, 13; <430216>John 2:16;

<411116> Mark 11:16; <430217>John 2:17-22; all succeeding each other without a break.? Gore, Lux Mundi, 853 ? ?There is nothing materially untruthful, though there is something uncritical, in attributing the whole legislation to Moses acting under the divine command. It would be only of a piece with the attribution of the collection of Psalm s to David, and of Proverbs to Solomon.?

The opponents of the Higher Criticism have much to say in reply. Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, holds that the early chapters of Genesis were copied from Babylonian sources, but he insists upon a Mosaic or pre-Mosaic date for the copying. Hilprecht however declares that the monotheistic faith of Israel could never have proceeded ?from the Babylonian Mountain of gods ? that charnel house full of corruption and dead men?s bones.? Bissell, Genesis Printed in Colors, Introduction, iv ? ?It is improbable that so many documentary histories existed so early, or if existing that the compiler should have attempted to combine them. Strange that the earlier should be J and should use the word ?Jehovah,? while the later P should use the word ?Elohim?, when ?Jehovah? would have far better suited the Priests? Code? xiii ? The Babylonian tablets contain in a continuous narrative the more prominent facts of both the alleged Elohistic and Jehovistic sections of Genesis, and present them mainly in the Biblical order. Several hundred years before Moses what the critics call two were already one . It is absurd to say that the unity was due to a redactor at the period of the exile, 444 BC He who believes that God revealed himself to primitive man as one God, will see in the Akkadian story a polytheistic corruption of the original monotheistic account.? We must not estimate the antiquity of a pair of boots by the last patch, which the cobbler has added; nor must we estimate the antiquity of a Scripture book by the glosses and explanations added by later editors. As the London Spectator remarks on the Homeric problem: ?It is as impossible that a first-rate poem or work of art should be produced without a great mastermind which first conceives the whole, as that a fine living bull should be developed out of beef sausages.? As we shall proceed to show, however, these utterances overstate the unity of the Pentateuch and ignore some striking evidences of its gradual growth and composite structure.

The Authorship of the Pentateuch in particular. Recent critics, especially Kuenen and Robertson Smith, have maintained that the Pentateuch is

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment