Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 56:221 (Jan 1899)
Article: Rejoinder To Dr. Behrends’ Criticisms.
Author: Arthur E. Whatham

BSac 56:221 (Jan 1899) p. 168

Rejoinder To Dr. Behrends’ Criticisms.

Arthur E. Whatham

The Parsonage, Way’s Mills, Quebec

Dr. Behrends’ strictures in the last issue upon my article “The Early Religion of the Hebrews,” published in the same number, appears to me to evidence a far too careless reading of my thesis to warrant him passing judgment thereon.3

Dr. Behrends commenced by complaining that I had neglected to indicate the exact date when, according to my contention, the religion of the Hebrews was little, if any, removed from that of those people by whom they were surrounded. But Dr. Behrends himself neglected to note that in this connection I had purposely employed the term so-called Hebrews, which, with a little careful study of my opening contention, should have shown him that I had reference to a period commencing with the advent of Abraham in Canaan, and covering the entrance of the Israelites into the promised land.

My reference to Dr. Davidson’s suggestion as to the true cause of Abraham’s departure from Ur, casts no reflection upon the record of this event as we have it in Genesis. Dr. Davidson suggested that he left Ur after being defeated as the leader of a horde in some local encounter.

BSac 56:221 (Jan 1899) p. 169

Professor Margoliouth, in the October Contemporary Review, suggests that he left Ur to enjoy greater freedom to worship Sin, the moon-god, for which purpose he settled for some time in Haran. My suggestion was that he left his home for Canaan as one representative of the people who had recently become possessed of Babylonia, and who were gradually taking possession of the surrounding districts.

Now Genesis represents Abraham as leaving Ur for Haran, and Haran for Canaan, on account of special calls of God to that end. None of the three causes given above for Abraham’s removal conflict with this representation. Modern criticism does not deny the direct hand of God in the various episodes narrated in Genesis. It seeks only to arrive at truer and more likely details in these episodes which have been unintentionally lost in the well-recognized Oriental method of fancy picture painting.

Dr. Behrends seems to think that “it is purely arbitrary criticism which preserves an Abraham, and then resolves Jacob and his twelve sons into personifications.” But why so, if criticism accepts Lycurgus as a real person, but denies that he had two sons named Eunomos and Eukosmos (i.e., “Law” and “Order” respectively)?

And here I may mention that the great champion of traditionalism, Professor Hommel, plays fast and loose with the sons of Jacob. The tri...