by some radical fault of method. How far that sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however, to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads.
The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible to later readers, and required identification by explanatory glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim, etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions, is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved in the use of the name Dan (see on v.14). The presence of archæological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps documentary) material, though of what nature that material was it is impossible to determine.[1]—(2) The general verisimilitude of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine presupposed by the record—a number of petty kingships striving to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary alliances for that purpose—harmonises with all we know of the political condition of the country before the Israelitish occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the writer's knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the Conquest in the Book of Joshua.—(3) The consideration most relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from Assyriology that the names in v.1 are historical. The evidence on this question has been given on p. 257 ff., and need not be here recapitulated.
- ↑ It is to be observed that in no single case is the correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence (see vv.2. 3. 6. 7. 8. 17). Those who maintain the existence of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory of Wi., who holds that the basis of the narrative is a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See GI, ii. 28 ff. The question cannot be further discussed here.
