OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 329 



declared by some competent archaeologists to have been before the 

 time of Abraharji.* For " may be " or " might be " see pp. 309, 310. 



Into the question of the priority of one or other of the documents 

 I cannot enter at length. But competent authorities on Theism 

 have lately assured us that the general trend of opinion on that 

 question at present leads to the conclusion that Monotheism 

 preceded Polytheism. And there is also the unquestioned fact that 

 religions, as a rule, tend rather to decay than to develop. It is not, 

 therefore, open to Biblical critics to take any theory for granted on 

 such a subject. Their contention must be proved by the most 

 rigorous methods of logic. 



Canon S. R. Driver writes : — 



I read your paper with interest. I hope it was well received. 

 Your concluding remarks on the general subject seem to me 

 particularly just, and I hope that their force was generally 

 recognized. 



The Rev. R. M. Curwen writes : — 



As regards inspiration, I gather you preclude from its sphere 

 historical truth, facts of science, etc. But this seems limiting the 

 field of inspiration. Is there not an artistic inspiration 1 Is not 

 the inventor inspired in the application of physical laws 1 Was not 

 the discovery of evolution an inspiration 1 



I am quite in agreement with and full of appreciation of your 

 paper. 



The Rev. A. Irving, D.Sc, B.A., writes : — 



On p. 300 the author says : — " The Old Testament teachings 

 correspond with Babylonian conceptions." They do nothing of the 

 kind. The Old Testament is monotheistic in its teaching from first to 

 last, as the author recognizes in the second half of the Paper. Here, 

 surely, he confounds the " teachings " of the Old Testament with the 

 liieranj materials, which have served as the medium for conveying 

 those teachings ; quite a different thing. 



In contrasting the monotheism of the Genesis Story with the 

 grotesque polytheism of the Babylonian myths, the author might 



* Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 33. In pp. ICT- 

 US he shows how P., as separated hi/ the critics, is as distinctly em- 

 bedded in the Babylonian Epic as J.E. For the date see also p. 301 of 

 the present paper. 



