Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/74

 we must here refer to works specially devoted to the subject.

Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made by Professor Orr, whose book, The Problem of the Old Testament, deservedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent. that has recently appeared in English. Dr. Orr admits (a) that Astruc was right in dividing a considerable part of Genesis into Elohistic and Yahwistic sections; (b) that Eichhorn's characterisation of the style of the two documents has, in the main, 'stood the test of time'; (c) that Hupfeld's observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis 'in substance corresponds with facts'; and (d) that even Graf and We. 'mark an advance,' in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis than JE (pp. 196-201). When we see so many defences evacuated one after another, we begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how a theory which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is going to be prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading havoc over the 'believing view' of the OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent by adopting two relatively conservative positions from Klostermann. (1) The first is the denial of the distinction between J and E (216 ff.). As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disentangled are really parts of J (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter is not quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The distinction in the divine names remains; and so he is driven to admit that J and E were, not indeed independent works, but different literary recensions of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had currency as separate documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his readers some explanation; if there were two recensions they certainly existed separately; and he cannot possibly know how far their agreement extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is, nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that J and E are independent recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they;