A writer in the Expository Times for August sets forth the state of critical opinion in Germany with respect to Hommel's assault on destructive criticism in his "Ancient Hebrew Tradition." He tells us that since the appearance of that book "a copious stream of literature has flowed, dealing with its merits and demerits," and he places the highest estimate on two reviews, one by Zimmern, and the other by Meinhold. The former admits that Hommel is right on the nomenclature of Genesis 14, and also that such a campaign as is described in the chapter is "historically quite conceivable;" but he insists that this does not prove that the campaign actually took place. Of course it does not. To prove that any event is possible is quite distinct from proving that it occurred. Nevertheless, Hommel's victory over the destructive critics is still complete; for they contended that no such campaign could have taken place--that an Elamite king, under the existing state of affairs, could not have made an expedition so far to the west and south as Chedorlaomer is said to have done. When, then, it is [351] demonstrated that he could have done so, and when the names of himself and his subordinates are proved to be suited to the times and conditions, the attack upon the author of Genesis is broken, and the assailants are put to flight.

      The same writer reports Zimmern as denying that Hommel has proved the actual existence of Abraham, or that he was heir to a primitive revelation. But Hommel did not attempt to do either; and as to the latter, it would be very foolish in Hommel, or any one else, to attempt to prove a primitive revelation by archæology, the only line of evidence which Hommel employed. As well try to prove it by mathematics.

      When the critics whom Hommel rebuked are brought to such straits as these in order to make a show of defense, it is very clear that they are badly crippled.

[SEBC 351-352]