As a rule, new theories on any subject should be carefully examined on their merits before we pronounce judgment on them; but when a theory is either absurd in itself, or is found to involve absurdities, we may rightly save ourselves this trouble. For example, when the idealist tells us that we have no corporate bodies, that there are no material substances in existence, but that all apparent material objects are but ideas formed within our own brains (which brains are but ideas), we may very properly save ourselves the time necessary to hear the reasoning by which he would prove his absurd proposition. So with the analytical theory of the Pentateuch. If we find that this theory, as propounded by its recent advocates, involves absurdities, we may very safely set it aside, and save ourselves the years of study necessary to trace out the interminable complications in which it is involved. We examined it February 11 from this point of view, with reference to its bearings on the Book of Leviticus; and now we propose to try it with reference to the Book of Genesis.

      The theory, as we have set it forth in former articles on the basis of Driver's Introduction, is objectionable, not because it represents the author of Genesis as using pre-existing documents in the composition of the book, and thus regarding the book as in part a compilation; for this theory, if it would still allow Moses to be the inspired author, would not detract from the value of the book, or bring reproach upon those who look upon it as a truthful record. Indeed, Dr. Astruc, the French physician who, a century and a half ago, first propounded the theory that two documents, written [22] respectively by an Elohistic and a Jehovistic writer, lay at the basis of Genesis, was a firm believer in its Mosaic authorship; and this view in a modified form has been revived recently, and argued with wonderful skill by Principal Cave, one of the foremost scholars in Great Britain, and a vigorous opponent of the theory advocated by Driver and others. Even if it should be made to appear that Moses is not the author, but that it was written, no matter when, by a man or men so inspired with a knowledge of the events that we can rely upon the truthfulness of the representations, the book would lose none of its intrinsic value. But the writers to whom the Grafian theory ascribes the book, men who lived from the eighth to the fifth century before Christ, are not credited with any such inspiration. On the contrary, it is held that the two older writers, J and E, contradicted each other in many things, and that the editor who combined their narratives into one was not always careful to remove these contradictions. The priestly writer of the captivity, who wrote a large portion, wrote for the purpose of giving the ancient history of the chosen people a priestly cast which was essentially false; and all, down to the latest Redactor, wrote without any certain information in regard to the facts.

      On this subject Driver expresses himself cautiously, but in a way not to be misunderstood. Of the two earlier writers, he says: "J and E, then (assuming them to be rightly distinguished), appear to have cast into a literary form the traditions respecting the beginnings of the nation, which were current among the people approximately (as it would seem) in the early centuries of the monarchy" (110). That is, they did not write real history from reliable information, but only the "traditions of the beginnings of the nation which were [23] current among the people," and current especially from the time of David to their own day. Of the writer P he makes three remarks short enough for me to quote, and sufficiently explicit: "His aim seems to have been to present an ideal picture of the Mosaic age, constructed indeed upon a genuine traditional basis, but so conceived as to exemplify the principles by which an ideal theocracy should be regulated." He might have cited as an illustration Sir Thomas More's "Utopia." Again: "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the representation of P includes elements, not, in the ordinary sense of the term, historical." He evidently means that they are mythical or legendary. And again: "It is probable that, being a priest himself, he recorded traditions, at least to a certain extent, in the form in which they were current in priestly circles" (pp. 120, 121, note 2).

      But while Driver is thus cautious in words, verifying the taunt which Cheyne hurls at him in a review of his work in the Expositor of last year, to the effect that he was timidly holding back, yet steadily coming on toward the more radical critics, others of his school are more outspoken. For example, Professor Ryle, of Cambridge, universally recognized as a conservative and a "devout" critic, had a series of articles in the Expository Times of last year, in which he frankly avowed the belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are purely mythical; and Professor Schultz, in his "Old Testament Theology," recently published by T. & T. Clark, is quoted by a reviewer in the Thinker, as saying, "We must hold that the people of Israel, like all other peoples, preserved the memory of its earliest days in a mythical, and not in a historical, form, unless we are to think of that people as crippled in one of the noblest attributes of [24] nationality." All who have read Professor Briggs' defense in his recent trial before the New York Presbytery will remember remarks which show that his view of the book is substantially the same. Indeed, it is impossible to accept the theory of these scholars, in reference to the origin of the book, without seeing that it leads inevitably to these conclusions.

      What now shall we say as to the value of the Book of Genesis if this theory is true? It seems strange, indeed, that any man of sense, with such a view, can say as these gentlemen do, that it is, in some sense which they do not define, an inspired book, and that it is more precious to their souls now than before they discovered these facts concerning its origin and character. Sooner or later every one of these gentlemen will find himself compelled to follow his real teachers further, and to agree with Graf, Wellhausen, and their school, in rejecting absolutely the thought that God has had any part in the composition of the book.

      The view taken of the contents of this book by Jesus and his inspired apostles, and the view which common sense would require us to take of the latter, should we accept the theory which we have been considering, must be the subject of another article.

[SEBC 22-25]