324 THE YEN. ARCHDEACON POTTEE, M.A., ON THE INELUENCE 



imperfection of the information of the writer. Dr. Driver admits that 

 there is monumental evidence that Elam was associated very early 

 with the descendants of Shem, but considers that this is a point 

 which the writer of Genesis was not likely to know ! But as the 

 text clearly implies, this is exactly what the writer really did know, 

 and when Genesis and the monuments agree it seems impossible to 

 maintain the critical position simply for the purpose of justifying 

 the general documentary theory. Again, in Genesis x, 19, we have 

 a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah used to describe a geographical 

 location, and the prima facie view of the verse is that it dates from a 

 time when Sodom and Gomorrah were in existence. Now it is well 

 known that these cities were blotted out beyond all knowledge in the 

 time of Abraham, and yet on the critical theory, this verse, which 

 is attributed to J., dates from at least a thousand years after the 

 time when the location of Sodom and Gomorrah was lost beyond 

 recall. Is such a position credible ? Does not this, and much more, 

 as adduced by Eawlinson, imply that in Genesis x, we possess 

 materials far earlier than the time of Moses 1 



15. The fundamental question at issue between the two schools is 

 the historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the Old Testament as 

 it stands. Can we rely upon its presentation of the history of 

 Israel and of Israel's religion 1 If it is not trustworthy from the 

 standpoint of history it seems unnecessary and futile to discuss its 

 divine authority and inspiration. But if we may assume that in 

 some way or other the Old Testament is divinely authoritative, it is 

 difficult to understand how we can accept this if we maintain that 

 its historical pictures are untrustworthy on matters of fact. Herein 

 lies the fundamental difference between Archdeacon Potter's view 

 and my own. He appears to favour the well-known theory of 

 Wellhausen, but he seems to me to be unconscious of the fact that 

 the world of scholarship has been moving very far and very fast 

 since that theory was propounded. This is abundantly evident from 

 such works as Wiener's Studies in Biblical Law ; The Origin of the 

 Pentateuch ; and Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism ; Griffiths' Problem 

 of Deuteronomy ; Beecher's Reasonable Biblical Criticism ; to say nothing 

 of other works issued in Germany and Holland. Until these and 



I similar conservative works are carefully met and answered we have 

 ample warrant for rejecting the Wellhausen position. 



(The Editor has kindly given me the opportunity of carefully 



