OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 323 



knew He knew^ and His testimony to the Old Testament involves 

 not only His own power, but the authority of the Father behind 

 Him, Who gave Him every word to speak (John xii, 49). 



11. On p. 316 the Archdeacon says that " Revelation and inspira- 

 tion do not convey certain knowledge of any kind to man except 

 that which directly acts on human will, desires, and life." But he 

 does not tell us how we are to distinguish knowledge of this kind 

 from the other elements of knowledge contained in Holy Scripture. 

 If a Biblical writer is proved to be inaccurate on points where I can 

 verify him, how can I trust him on points where I am unable to verify 

 him 1 There is much more in the same paragraphs on pp. 316 and 

 317 on this point which seems to me seriously open to question. 



12. Some few years ago Dr. Burney of Oxford argued very 

 forcibly, and, as many thought, conclusively, in the Journal of 

 Theological Studies, for the Mosaic authorship and date of the 

 Decalogue. Whereupon Dr. Hastings of the Expository Times 

 admitted that if Dr. Burney's contentions were right the critical 

 view of Israel's religion would necessarily fall to the ground. 



13. Dr. Sellin of Vienna in one of his recent works said that it is 

 time for the masters of the Wellhausen school to write at the top of 

 their copy-books that there is no valid argument against the Mosaic 

 date of the Decalogue and its religion. 



14. Archdeacon Potter refers to Canon Driver's words to the 

 effect that the age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament 

 can only be determined by internal evidence since there is no 

 external evidence worthy of credit in existence (p. 311). I venture 

 to think, that' this, to put it mildly, minimises, if it does not over- 

 look, the external evidence of archaeology, as well as quite a number 

 of internal features which are not explicable on the critical theory. 

 Does it not count for something that in view of the mass of 

 archaeological discoveries during the last sixty years not a single 

 " find " has gone to support any of the fundamental theories of the 

 critical position, while discovery after discovery has gone to support 

 the conservative view % And is it not at least noteworthy that 

 many leading archaeologists, like Sayce, Hommel, Halevy, and others 

 have become convinced of the untenableness of the documentary 

 theory, some of them after having endorsed and advocated it ? 

 In Genesis x, 22, Elam is associated with Shem, and this is used 

 by Dr. Driver as an instance of the inaccuracy, or at least the 



Y 2 



