328 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 



must be, was." I have studied modern methods of Biblical criticism 

 from Wellhausen downwards for nearly thirty years, and I have 

 found this description, as a rule, to be perfectly true. The utmost 

 theoretical ingenuity, the utmost industry, is displayed. But 

 seldom have I found anything approaching to a demonstration. 

 And the fact, to which I have already referred, that criticism of 

 results, which is the very breath of the life of scientific research, 

 is regarded rather as an insult to the intelligence than as what 

 it really is, the most necessary road to the establishment of 

 truth. 



The present paper is no exception to the rule. In the time 

 allotted to me I can give but a few instances. In p. 301 we are told 

 that " from " the " body of Tiamat were made the sky and 

 heavenly bodies, like the firmament in Genesis and the lights in it." 

 But the firmament and the lights in it are never said to have been 

 made "from the body " of Tehom. Then we repeatedly have such 

 remarks as " this has been attributed " to something or somebody, 

 somebody "thinks" this or that. But with respect, I would point 

 out that we don't want to know what this or that authority 

 "thinks," but how he can prove what he "thinks" to be true."*^ 

 We are told what " Eerdmanns thinks " in p. 303. But we are not 

 told that Eerdmanns (a more " advanced " critic than Wellhausen) 

 also thinks that the J., E.D. and P. theory of Wellhausen must 

 be given up. Then (p. 306) we are told, in italics, that Professor 

 Hilprecht's flood fragment " contains " no parallels with the P. portion 

 of Genesis as distinct from the J. portion. But if we are told this, we 

 ought to be told, also in italics, that the " Babylonian story of the 

 flood as contained in Mr. George Smithes version of it described in pp. 300, 

 301, shows us portions of "P.," supposed to be indisputably a post- 

 exilic version of that story, embedded in the J.E. version at a period 



Thus we are told that the Eev. H. T. Knight " considers that it 

 was not until the tirae of Isaiah that the higher conception (of God) was 

 reached." Jephthah never says that he thinks Chemosh " had a real 

 existence." He only argues with the Moabites on that assumption. 

 Ruth, the Moabitess, at that stage of her existence, was hardly an 

 authority on Israelite beliefs. And it is never said that David conceived 

 himself " when in exile, " as in a land belonging to other gods." What is 

 stated (i Sam. xxvi, 19) is that "the children of men" allowed him no 

 sliare in the inheritance of Israel, but practically bade him go and serve 

 other gods, since he could never w^orship his own as he was commanded 

 to do. 



