we must here refer to works specially devoted to the subject.[1]
Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been
modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made by
Professor Orr, whose book, The Problem of the Old Testament, deservedly
ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent.
that has recently appeared in English. Dr. Orr admits (a) that Astruc
was right in dividing a considerable part of Genesis into Elohistic and
Yahwistic sections; (b) that Eichhorn's characterisation of the style of
the two documents has, in the main, 'stood the test of time'; (c) that
Hupfeld's observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis
'in substance corresponds with facts'; and (d) that even Graf and We.
'mark an advance,' in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis
than JE (pp. 196-201). When we see so many defences evacuated one
after another, we begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how
a theory which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin
clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is going to be
prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading havoc over the
'believing view' of the OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent by
adopting two relatively conservative positions from Klostermann.
(1) The first is the denial of the distinction between J and E (216 ff.).
As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to
have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disentangled
are really parts of J (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter
is not quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The
distinction in the divine names remains; and so he is driven to admit that
J and E were, not indeed independent works, but different literary recensions
of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two
versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had currency
as separate documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his
readers some explanation; if there were two recensions they certainly
existed separately; and he cannot possibly know how far their agreement
extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is,
nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that J and E are independent
recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they;
- ↑ The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds2, i. (1885) [Eng. tr., The Hexateuch (1886); and Gesammelte Abhandlungen (transl. into German by Budde); Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, etc. (21889); and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (61905) [Eng. tr. 1885]; Westphal, Les Sources du Pent. (1888, 1892); Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften. des ATs (21890); Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (21892); Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the OT (81909); Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hex. (1893); Cornill, Einleitung (61908); König, Einl. (1893); Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of the Hex. (1902) [= vol. i. of The Hexateuch (1900)].
