102 The Fundamentals. perhaps 425, wrote P . ; and then another anonymous Hebrew, whom we may call Redactor III, undertook to incorporate this with the triplicated composite J. E. D., with what they call redactional additions and insertions. (Green, page 88, cf. Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, pages 100-105.) It may be well to state at this point that this is not an exaggerated statement of the Higher Critical position. On the contrary, we have given here what has been described as a position “established by proofs, valid and cumulative” and “representing the most sober scholarship.” The more ad vanced continental Higher Critics, Green says, distinguish the writers of the primary sources according to the supposed ele ments as J1 and J2, E l and E2, PI, P2 and P3, and D1 and D2, nine different originals in all. The different Redactors, technically described by the symbol R., are Rj., who com bined J. and E . ; Rd., who added D. to J. E., and Rh., who completed the Hexateuch by combining P. with J. E. D. (H. C. of the Pentateuch, page 88.) A DISCREDITED PENTATEUCH. 5. These four suppositive documents are, moreover, al leged to be internally inconsistent and undoubtedly incom plete. How far they are incomplete they do not agree. How much is missing and when, where, how and by whom it was removed; whether it was some thief who stole, or copyist who tampered, or editor who falsified, they do not declare. 6. In this redactory process no limit apparently is as signed by the critic to the work of the redactors. With ah utter irresponsibility of freedom it is declared that they inserted misleading statements with the purpose of reconciling incom patible traditions; that they amalgamated what should have been distinguished, and sundered that which should have amalgamated. In one word, it is an axiomatic principle of the divisive hypothesizers that the redactors “have not only misapprehended, but misrepresented the originals” (Green,
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog