RECENT ORIENTAL DISCOVERIES ON OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 169 



story was re-fleveloped by the uniting of the two parts — the 

 two documents — in the Biblical narrative in Genesis. 



The story one in 2000 B.C. — then divided — then united — ONE 

 again in Genesis as it had been before. 



Is it reasonable of the critics to expect all this to be 

 believed ? 



It is a remarkable circumstance that Dr. Driver seems 

 never to have attempted to answer this attack made on the 

 Hexateuchal criticism by Professors Sayce and Bissel. 



In Authority and ArcJueoloqy , a book published in 1899, to 

 which Dr. Driver contributed an essay on " Hebrew Authority," 

 he would seem to have had an excellent opportunity of 

 opposing the conclusions of these two writers, because the 

 connection between the account of the Deluge given in Genesis, 

 as compared with the Babylonian Flood story, was one of the 

 points discussed in his essay. In a footnote on another point 

 connected with the Flood he refers to Professor Sayce's iDook, 

 Early History of the Hebreivs, showing that he must of course 

 have been well aware of the conclusions put forward in that 

 book. Nevertheless, in his essay, the critical point is evaded 

 in the following words : — 



"It would have been interesting to point out in detail in what 

 respects each of these versions resembled in turn the Babylonian 

 narrative ; but for our present purpose the question of the distinction 

 of sources in the Biblical account is unimportant.''^ p. 27 note. 

 (The italics are mine.) 



It seems strange that Dr. Driver should write thus in 

 presence of the direct attack which Professor Sayce had made 

 on the Hexateuchal criticism in connection with this very 

 point, and especially as Dr. Driver's essay on " Hebrew 

 Authority " was in part highly controversial, and, indeed, 

 resolved itself towards the close into an elaborate defence of 

 the criticism against the attacks of certain archseolosrists, 

 amongst whom Professor Sayce came in for particular attention. 

 Yet this direct and simple point, which Sayce pressed against 

 the criticism in connection with the distinction of sources, was 

 evaded in the words which I have just quoted. It was utterly 

 ignored and left unanswered. Perhaps there was no answer 

 conveniently to be found. 



There is no part of the Pentateuch perhaps where the 

 theory of the distinction of sources has been held by the 

 critics to be more certainly assured than in this account of the 

 Flood in Genesis ; and the distinction of sources here is closely 

 and indissolubly bound up with the critical analysis of the 



M 2 



