The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined

•

""lUj I?

■>■■ w'.

ftw&fwut

THE PENTATEUCH

AND BOOK OF JOSHUA

CRITICALLY EXAMINED.

PART IV.

IBY THE SAJVCE AUTHOK.

VILLAGE SERMONS.

Second Edition. Fcp. 8vo. cloth, 2*. 6rf.

THE COLONY OF NATAL.

A Journal of Ten Weeks' Tour of Visitation among the Colonists and Zulu Kafirs

of Natal. With a -Map and Illustrations. Second Edition.

Fcp. Svo. cloth, 5*.

FOUR SERMONS ON ORDINATION AND ON MISSIONS.

18mo. sewed, 1*.

A LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Upon the Proper Treatment of the case of Polygamist Converts from
Heathenism. Second Edition. 1*. 6rf.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS

Newly Translated, and Explained from a Missionary Point of View.
Fcp. 8vo. cloth, 7*. 6d.

MACaIILLAN and CO. Cambridge and London.

THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA
CRITICALLY EXAMINED.

Part I. The Pentateuch Examined as an Historical Narrative. Fifth Edition,
revised. Svo. 6«.

Part II. The A?e and Authorship of the Pentateuch Considered. Third
Edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. Is. dd.

Part III. The Book of Deuteronomy. Second Edition. Svo. 8*.

NOTES ON DR. MCAUL'S ' EXAMINATION ' OF PART I.

8vo. price 1*.

A FRENCH PASTOR'S ESTIMATE

Of Parts I and II of Bishop Colenso's Work on the Pentateuch.

By the Rev. Theoph. Bost, Pastor at Verviers.

Translated from Le Disciple de Jesus-Christ, Revue du Protestantisme au XIX.

Slide. April and May, 1S63. Post 8vo. 6</.

THE CONFESSIONS OF A MISSIONARY,

Beinsra Defence of Bishop Colknso, from the French of Edmond Scherer.

l-.xtmcted from the Revue dee Deva Monde*, March 2. 1863. With a Preface,

in Reply to the Letters of the Rev. F. D. Maurice on 'The Claims of

the Bible and of Science,' by Presbyter Anglicanus. Svo. 1*.

_

LONGMAN and CO. London.

<*

t"

THE PENTATEUCH

AND BOOK OF JOSHUA

CRITICALLY EXAMINED

BT THE EIGHT EEV.

JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D.

BISHOP OF NATAL.

* We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth.' - St. Paul, 2 Cor. xiii. S.

' Not to exceed, and not to fall short of, facts,— not to add, and not to take away,— to state the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,— are the grand, the vital, maxims of Inductive Science, of
English Law, and, let us add, of Christian Faith.'— Quarterly Review on 'Essays an I Reviews,' Oct.
1SC1, p. 3G9.

PART IV.

LONDON:
LONGMAN, GEEEN, LONGMAN, EOBEETS, & GEE EX.

1S63.

The right of lra>i>la!ion it reterre.l.

LONDON
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.

NEW-STBEET SQUARE

PREFACE.

I hate explained in the body of this Part of my work the
reasons which have determined me to confine myself at present
to the examination of the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis,
reserving to the next Part the consideration of the remaining
Chapters, and the discussion, which may then be raised, as
to the respective ages of the Elohistic and Jehovistic writers.

I have great hope that the clearness and certainty, with
which the two principal writers of Genesis can be distin-
guished in these first Chapters, will bring conviction to mauy,
who have hitherto only had misgivings upon the question, or,
perhaps, have turned aside from these criticisms altogether, as
being in their view too abstruse and uncertain, — and will satisfy
them that there is, indeed, truth in the statement, which I have
so often repeated, and which, in fact, is the very core and centre
of this controversy, viz. that the Pentateuch is not in its present
form the work of Moses, — or not exclusively his work, — but a
composite work by different writers of different ages. Here lies
the gist of the whole question, however the details, as to the
assignment of particular passages, or the exact age of the
different writers, may be ultimately settled.

I have shown in chap.ii-viii that these First Eleven Chapters

VI PREFACE.

of Genesis are made up of two documents, in very nearly equal
proportions, and that one of these, — that containing the first
account of the Creation in Gr.i, — forms, when its different parts
are put together, a complete, unbroken, narrative. With respect
to the other, it must be left doubtful at present, whether it
was originally also a complete narrative, which has been com-
bined with the former, with the suppression of some clauses, by
the hand of a later editor, or whether it was merely supple-
mentary from the first, exhibiting only the additions and in-
sertions, made by a later writer in the primitive story. ( In
any case, we have here the comjDositions of two writers, not
only distinct, but in some points actually at variance with each
other, even within the limits of these few Chapters.

The accuracy and cogency of the above analysis may be easily
tested by the English reader, though unacquainted with Hebrew,
if he •will only follow carefully the course of reasoning pursued
in one or two sections, with an English Bible in his hand, in
which he has marked the Jehovistic passages by a line drawn
down the margin, according to the suggestion made below in
(30*). Many, I believe, will be more satisfied, as to the main
facts of the case, by the consideration of this kind of internal
evidence, than by any arguments from without, such as those
based upon the contradictions which may be shown to exist
between many of the statements, in these ancient accounts of
the Creation and the Deluge, and the results of Science. Here,
however, the facts are, for any who are willing to look at them,
and they cannot, I believe, in the main be gainsayed.

But, having completed this portion of the work, and thereby
established, as I conceive, the right and duty, for myself and for

PREFACE. Yll

every minister of God's Truth, to examine seriously, and yet
freely, the actual contents of these chapters, with the desire to
know what they really contain, I have exercised this right, and
have endeavoured to discharge this duty, to the best of my power.
^The result of my examination I have laid before the reader in
the last chapters of this Part, and have proved abundantly, as I
believe, that the statements of both the Elohist and Jehovist, in
these first eleven Chapters of Genesis, — whatever value they
may have, whatever lessons may be drawn from them, — cannot
be regarded as historically true, being contradicted in their
literal sense, again and again, by the certain facts of modern
Science. I trust that by both divisions of my labour in this
Fourth Part, — which is complete in itself, and needs not any
help from the arguments and criticisms in the preceding portions
of my work, — I shall have done something to relieve the cause
of Science itself, and the speculations of devout and earnest
scientific men, from the charges so often made in former days —
made even recently by more than one Bishop of the Church of
England — of being injurious to religion, and dishonouring to
the Word of God. I shall have done this by showing that the
injury and dishonour are not to be charged upon them, but upon
those who will still insist on teaching, that the mere letter of
every part of Scripture is to be regarded as the authoritative,
infallible, Word of the Living God.

In discussing the questions raised by the examination of
these chapters, I have, as before, availed myself frequently of
the language of others, instead of expressing the very same
thing in my own words. I have done this, both because I have
felt it to be due to those eminent critics, who have led the way

Ylll PREFACE.

in these enquiries, to give them the credit of research and ori-
ginality, while making use of their stores of learning, and it
seemed more desirable, for the satisfaction of the reader, to
produce their actual words, than merely to refer to them by
name, — and because, in the case of (so-called) orthodox writers,
I preferred to make use of their statements and admissions, as
being free from the imputation of having been possibly influenced
by a desire to support my own side of the argument. Of
critics I have had before me continually, in this part of my work,
the writings of Hltpfeld, Tuch, von Bohlen, Knobel, Kalisch,
Schrader, and Delitzch, — the last, one of the latest, and
most strenuous and able, advocates of the traditionary views,
whose commentary on Genesis has reached a ' Third edition,
revised throughout,' in 1860. Having already, in my former
Parts, shown how little has been contributed towards the
maintenance of these views by the efforts of Scott, Kurtz,
Hengstexberg, and Hayerxick, I have here adopted Delitzch,
as the chief representative of the traditionary school of theo-
logians ; and the reader will be able to judge how far he fills up
the blank caused by the failure of the others.

I should, indeed, have desired, if it had been possible, to have
had recourse for this purpose to some eminent living authority of
the Church of England. But I am not aware that any of the
existing Bishops or Doctors of the English Church has published
any work of importance, connected with the criticism of the
Pentateuch; There was, however, one distinguished Prelate
of our Church, whom death has only lately removed from
us, Archbishop Whately of Dublin, to whom a Tract has
been publicly ascribed* — and he has not (I believe) disowned

* By Dr. Donaldson, Jashar, 2nd Ed.p.370, Et nuperrimi, auctor opv.scv.li

PREFACE. IX

it — bearing upon questions in the second, third, and eleventh
Chapters of Genesis. This Tract, the title of which is
Tractatus Tres de locis quibusdam difficilioribus Scriptural
Sacrcu, typis J. B. Metzleri, Stuttgartice, was published anony-
mously in 1849, and, being written in Latin, is little known to
English readers. I translate from it the following passage on
the ' Tower of Babel.'

Gr.xi.l-10. This short narrative in the book of Genesis labours under great
difficulties.

(i) If we look at the design of those, who attempted to build, in order that they
might not be scattered abroad, how was that to be effected by the help of a very high
tower ? And what dispersion was either to be feared by them or avoided, since, it
would seem, it was permitted to each to choose his own place of abode ?

(ii) Let us consider the mode of frustrating their purpose. It is believed that a
great multitude of men, through a wonderful change, forgot their ancestral tongue,
and spoke suddenly a new language. This would be a great miracle, and yet
would not conduce to the end proposed. For, unless they are supposed to have
been struck out of their senses by the prodigy, they would have been able to con-
tinue their work after a very short inconvenience. Any architect, set over work-
men of different tongues, would, in a short time, be able to impart his orders by
means of signs : and in the space of a few days they would have learned enough of
his words, to be able to go on together, their labours being joined, with con-
tinually diminishing difficulty. Besides, when the project of building was dis-
missed, why was it necessary that they should be all scattered very widely through
all regions ? How many countries also are inhabited by races speaking different
tongues, e.g. Wales, Scotland, Ireland, many parts of the East Indies ? . . . .

This granted, the whole matter may have taken place thus. Some chief men had
determined to found an empire, which shoidd embrace the whole human race.
That this empire might have the sanction of religion, they wished to found a temple,
dedicated to some idol, in that city which was to be the head of the world. Since it
was not in the power of these men, living in the plain, to place that building on a
mountain, (which custom afterwards prevailed, as the passages in Scripture testify,
which speak everywhere of ' high places,') therefore they determined to erect a very

cujusdam vilissimi pretii, qnem vidgo ferunt, ct ego credo, Archiepiscopum esse
Bnbliniensem, Bicardum Whatcly, &e. The Tracts are written in very inferior
Latin ; but it is some evidence of authorship, that on |j.28 we find a characteristic
reference to 'Archbishop Whatelt's Lectures on Political Economy.'

X PREFACE.

high tower, like an artificial mountain. Such a purpose of founding a false religion
could not but be displeasing to the true and living God. He, therefore, entirely
frustrated their impious design, by throwing discord into the minds of the ambi-
tious founders. He made them to quarrel about religious worship, by which dis-
sension He would much more certainly vitiate their attempt, than by a diversity
of tongues. History abounds in examples of such dissension: we may mention
the Jews and Samaritans, Pharisees and Karaites, and, lastly, the various sects of
Christians. Thus it came to pass at Babel, that the strongest of the factions kept
possession of the city and tower, only dropping the magnitude of the tower and
that height which they had originally intended, while the other factions went off in
different directions, and settled themselves, some in one locality, some in another.

This is the only instance, as far as I know, of recent Episcopal
criticism on this part of the Bible, within the bounds of our
National Church, — except an analysis of the History of Joseph,
for the use of elementary students in Hebrew, by Bishop Olli-
vant, and the letters of the same Prelate to his Clergy in reply to
my first two Parts, in which, however, he distinctly says, Second
Letter, 23.26, 'The task of examining seriatim the Bishop's
minute criticisms, 1 must leave to others.'' Indeed, it must be
confessed that, in matters of Hebrew criticism, we are in England
lamentably behind the learned men of the continent, on which-
ever side they may have written.

For fifty years, since the time of Marsh and Lowth, (with
the exception of some able articles in Dr. Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible, just published,) very little indeed, worthy of the
name of the Church and Universities of England, has been done
in this department of Biblical literature. And no commentary
on the Old Testament has yet taken the place of that of the
excellent Thomas Scott, — a work admirable for the age in which
it was written, but including, of course, none of the remark-
able results of modern criticism.

But, as so much stress had been laid udou the writings of

PREFACE. XI

Archbishop Usher and Bishop Watson of former days, I
thought it my duty to refer to them again, while engaged in the
consideration of these questions. I was, of course, well aware
that their works would throw not a single ray of light upon
the critical difficulties, which have arisen in this controversy.
But, as it had been publicly asserted, on very high authority,
that my objections to the infallible accuracy of the Pentateuch,
in historical and scientific matters, —

have been again and again refuted, two hundred years ago by Archbishop UsHEr;,
more recently by Bishop Watson and others, —

I took for granted that upon the points, most likely to be
discussed in the last chapters of this Part, — leaving out of con-
sideration the critical analysis, — I should certainly find some
important observations in these works, some remarks which
I should be bound to consider well, and either to allow or to
refute.

To my great surprise, after the distinct and pointed reference
made to them, I find in these writers nothing, or next to nothing,
of this kind. Archbishop Usher deals almost entirely with
matters of chronology, with which my books are very little
concerned. Bishop Watson scarcely discusses at length a single
important point of those, which I have raised in my different
volumes. And the most decisive of all his attempts to clear
up a difficulty is with reference to the introduction of the name
of the town Dan, which I have dwelt upon in (243-4) of my
Second Part.

The reader may be reminded that the point in question is,
to account for the use of this name familiarly in the narrative,
written (it is supposed) by Moses, Gr.xiv.14, D.xxxiv.l, when
the story itself in Jo.xix.47, Ju.xviii, tells us that the name was

Xll PREFACE.

not given till long after the death of Moses. Bishop Watson
first suggests that these passages, as well as Gr.xxxvi.31, —

' And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned
any king over the children of Israel,' —

may be 'interpolations.' I have shown in (11.243) that,
whatever may be the case with this latter passage, those, in
which the name ' Dan ' occurs, form part of the body and sub-
stance of the narrative, and cannot be supposed to be interpola-
tions. Then Bishop Watson writes, p.205 : —

But if this solution does not please you, I desire it may be proved that the Dan
mentioned in Genesis was the same town as that mentioned in Judges. [This is
admitted by such strong defenders of the traditionary view as Kuetz and Delitzch,
— by the former, after having maintained at one time the contrary.] I desire
further to have it proved, that the Dan mentioned in Genesis was the name of a
town, and not of a river. It is merely said, Abraham pursued them, the enemies
of Lot, to Dan. Now a river was full as likely as a town to stop a pursuit. Lot,
we know, was settled in the plain of Jordan ; and Jordan, we know (!), was com-
posed of the united streams of two rivers, called Jor and Ban.

I need hardly say that such reasoning, which might be
allowed to pass in the days of Bishop Watson, would not be
accepted, as of any value whatever, in our own days. The rivers
f Jor ' and ' Dan ' are not mentioned in the Bible, and their ex-
istence is not, I believe, recognised in the geography of Palestine.
Mr. Ffoulkes writes, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, p.1129 : —

According to the older commentators, ' Dan ' was a stream, that rose in a
fountain called Phiala, in the district called Panium, and among the roots of
Lebanon, — then, after a subterraneous course, reappeared near the town called
Paneas, Dan, Csesarea Philippi, when it was joined by a small stream called ' Jor,'
and henceforth united both names in one — ' Jor-dan.'

But it has been well observed that the Hebrew word 1TV, Yardcn, ' Jordan,'
has no relation whatever to the name ' Dan,' and also that the river had borne that
name from the days of Abraham, and from the days of Job, at least five centuries
before the name of ' Dan ' was given to the city at its source.

It should be added that the number of streams meeting at or about Paneas very
far exceeds two.

PREFACE. Xlll

Yet this is the only instance, in which Bishop Watson has
noticed at length any one of the more important difficulties,
which I have brought forward in my different books.

But, having been referred in this manner to the works of
Bishop Watson, as writings of great authority, — and, indeed,
since, for more than a quarter of a century, he was Professor of
Divinity in the University of Cambridge, he may be considered
to have spoken, in ecclesiastical matters, with the weight of Pro-
fessorial learning, as well as with that of Episcopal authority, —
I have consulted those works, and have found some passages,
which deserve, I think, consideration under present circum-
stances. For instance, the following extracts, from his ' Life,'
will show what views he held on one particular point, to
which attention is strongly drawn at the present time,- — namely,
the liberty of private judgment, as asserted by our Protestant
Church, and secured to every Minister in the very terms of the
Ordination Service. It will be seen that, in reference to the
Creeds, Bishop Watson held that they were 'all of human
fabrication,' and might be used or disused at pleasure in
public worship, being merely venerable documents, which ex-
pressed the ancient belief of the Church, but were not binding
on the conscience of any clergyman, 'notwithstanding sub-
scription to the 39 Articles,' except so far as he is ' persuaded,'
in his own private judgment, that their statements 'may be
concluded and proved by the Scriptures.'

I never troubled myself with answering any arguments, which the opponents in
the Divinity-Schools brought against the Articles of the Church, nor ever
admitted their authority as decisive of a difficulty. But I used on such occasions
to say to them, holding the New Testament in my hand, ' En sacrum codiccm !
Behold the sacred text! Here is the fountain of truth. Why do you follow tin-

XIV PREFACE.

streams derived from it by the sophistry, or polluted by the passions, of man? . . .
Articles of Churches are not of divine authority. Have, done with them, — for they
may be true, they may be false, — and appeal to the Book itself.' i.^>.63.

I certainly dislike the imposition of all Creeds formed by human authority ;
though I do not dislike them as useful summaries of what their compilers believe to
be true, either in natural or revealed religion. ... As to revealed religion,
though all its doctrines are expressed in one book, yet such a diversity of
interpretations has been given to the same passages of Scripture, that not only
individuals, but whole Churches, have formed to themselves different Creeds, and
introduced them into their forms of worship. The Greek Church admits not
into its ritual either the Apostles' Creed or the Athanasian, but only the Nicene.
The Episcopal Church in America admits the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed,
but rejects the Athanasian. The Church of England admits the whole three
into its Liturgy ; and some of the foreign Protestant Churches admit none but
the Apostles'. These and other Creeds, which might be mentioned, are all of
human fabrication. They oblige conscience as far as they are conformable
to Scripture, and of that conformity every man must judge for himself. This
liberty of private judgment is recognised by our Chtirch, {notwithstanding Sub-
scription to the 39 Articles), when in the service of the Ordering of Priests, it pro-
poses this question , ' Are you determined, out of the said Scriptures, to instruct
the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as required of necessity
to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded
and proved by the Scriptures ? ' i. p.395-97.

What are the catechisms of the Romish Church, of the English Church, of the
Scotch Church, and of all other Churches, but a set of propositions, which men of
different natural capacities, educations, prejudices, have fabricated, (sometimes on
thf anvil of sincerity, oftener on that of ignorance, interest, or hypocrisy,) from the
Divine materials furnished by the Bible ? And can any man of an enlarged charity
believe that his salvation will ultimately depend on a concurrence in opinion with
any of these niceties, which the several sects of Christians have assumed, as essen-
tially necessary for a Christian man's belief? Oh ! no : Christianity is not a
speculative business. One good act, performed from a principle of obedience to
the declared Will of God, will be of more service to every individual Christian than
all the speculative theology of Augustine, ii.p.llj.

Nay, he goes even so far as to say, ii.j9.217, —

I am disposed to accede to your remark that whatever doctrine is not contained
in the form prescribed by Christ, for receiving disciples by baptism into His Church,
cannot be necessary to be believed by Christians. And you have excited a reason-
able doubt, whether the doctrine of the Trinity be positively contained in the
baptismal form.

PREFACE. XV

The following passage also, from one of Bishop Watson's
Charges, Apologies, &c. pA4,9, is worthy to be commended, at
least for the sake of the facts which it mentions, to the notice of
some modern defenders of the traditionary theology : —

The time, I think, is approaching, — or is already come, — when Christianity will
undergo a more severe investigation than it has ever yet done. My expectation as
to the issue is this,— that Catholic countries will become Protestant, and that
Protestant countries will ad/nit a further Reformation. In expressing this expec-
tation, which I am far from having the vanity to propose with oracular confidence,
I may possibly incur the censure of some, who think that Protestantism, as esta-
blished in Germany, in Scotland, in England, is in all these, and in other countries,
so perfect a system of Christianity, that it is incapable of any amendment in any
of them. If this should be the case, I must console myself by reflecting that the
greatest men could not, in their day, escape unmerited calumny. Every age has
had its Sacheverels, its Hickes's, and its Chenells's, who, with the bitterness of
theological odium, sharpened with party rancour, have not scrupled to break the
bonds of Christian charity. Hoadley was called a Dissenter, Chillingworth
a Socinian, and Tillotson both Socinian and Atheist. And all of them experienced
this obloquy from contemporary zealots, on account of the liberality of their sen-
timents,— on account of their endeavouring to render Christianity more rational,
than it was in certain points generally esteemed to be.

I have quoted some remarkable passages from the Archceolo-
giw Philosophical of Dr. Thomas Burnet, — a pupil of Tillotson
and Cudworth, — who, as Master of the Charterhouse, offered
the first formal opposition in England to the assumption by
James II of the famous ' dispensing power,' by virtue of which
the king endeavoured to impose a Papist, as a pensioner upon
the foundation of that house. He surrendered the office of
Clerk to the Closet to William III, rather than retract some
opinions expressed in this treatise, at which the clergy of
those days took offence. But, though they procured his removal
from this dignity, he retained his Mastership, and died at the
Charterhouse, aged 80, in 1715 ; nor does it appear that the
Convocation, though at that time in the active exercise of its

XVI PREFACE.

functions, passed any censure upon his writings. We are told,
however, Biogr. Did. Lond. 1761, —

If Oldmixon is to be believed, Dr. Burnet missed the see of Canterbury, upon
the death of Dr. Ttllotson, by a representation of some Bishops, that his writings
were too sceptical.

Dr. Bubnet had not before him the same evidence, which is
presented to the critical enquirer of these days. Hence he
believed in the historical truth of Noah's Flood, which he
attempts to account for in his own way, while showing the im-
possibility of holding the traditionary view, in the case of the
Deluge, as well as in that of the Creation and the Fall. Unfor-
tunately, his Treatise, like Dr. Whatelt's Tracts, was written in
Latin, though printed in England, in 1692, and not anony-
mously. Otherwise, if the views of this able Divine had been
published in the English tongue, so as to be ' understood of
the people,' it is probable that we should not now, a century
and a half afterwards, be still discussing the historical reality
of these ancient narratives.

But though there are some,* who can still use strong language
in speaking of such criticisms as these, it is evident that a very

* The following facts have occurred since the publication of Part III of my
work.

Bishop Waldegrave (of Carlisle), addressing a number of school-children,
thought it necessary to speak of me as doing actively the Devil's work, — 'such a
miserable man as Bishop Colenso.' Examiner, Aug. 29, 1863.

Bishop Lee (of Manchester), addressing a meeting of the Bible Society, spoke
of me as 'assailing the five books of Moses by misrepresentation the most un-
pardonable, by distortions of the truth the most monstrous, and with a savage glee
and exultation, which would rather become a successful fiend in an attempt on
what was good, than a minister of a Christian congregation.' Manchester
Guardian, Oct, 28, 1863.

Bishop Olliyant (of Llandaff) in his recent Charge speaks of my criticisms as

PREFACE. XV11

considerable change has already passed over the English mind,
in reference to this subject. Even in Scotland, where such
extreme views have been hitherto maintained on this point, — of
the infallibility of Scripture, — the ground seems to have given
way beneath the feet of some of its most strenuous defenders.
For instance, one of the most prominent Ministers of the Free
Church of Scotland, Dr. Candlish, has made some remark-
able admissions in his recent address at the opening of New
College, Edinburgh, from which I quote a few expressions, which
will show how far even this divine has already felt constrained
by the force of Truth to depart from the traditionary view.

All, that is in Scripture, is not Revelation strictly so called, — [which means, I sup-
pose, ' All, that is in the Bible, is not, in the strict and proper sense, the Word of
God.'~] To a large extent, Scripture is a record of human affairs — of the sayings and
doings of men. Is it to be held and considered infallible, when it narrates the wars
of kings, and inserts the genealogies of tribes and families, as well as when it

' rash and rain speculations — they are in reality nothing more ; ' and he adds, ' To
the best of my knowledge, there is not a single member of our body that has the
slightest sympathy with them, or regards them in any other light, than as an
offspring of that ' evil heart of unbelief against which we are cautioned to ' take
heed, lest we depart from the Living God.' ' Record, Nov. 25, 1863.

Bishop "WrLBERFOECE (of Oxford) also in his recent Charge, reported authorita-
tively in the Guardian, Nov. 25, 1S63, said that the present movement 'was an at-
tempt to get rid of all belief in the midst of us of any supernatural power gathered up
into a Person, whether in the realms of matter or of spirit. A movement in either
kingdom was to be resolved into the perpetual acting of a fixed and unalterable
law pervading all being. How this law had come to be imposed on the creation
was not made so clear by these writers. . . Sometimes, these writers tended to the
pantheistic explanation : sometimes, however unconsciously to themselves, it teas a
simplt r atheism. [The Right Rev. Prelate then proceeded to cite several passagi s
from Bishop Colexso's and other publications in illustration of these remarks.]'
The quotations from my works are not given ; and I am at a loss to conceive how any
of my expressions can have yielded even a semblance of support to such a state-
ment as the above. I protest, however, emphatically against the statement Lts< If,
as an utter misrepresentation of the whole spirit of my writings.

VOL. it. a

XYU1 PREFACE.

announces an express oracle of heaven, or authoritatively promulgates Divine
doctrines and commands ?

Dr. Candlish, indeed, still maintains the doctrine of ' plenary

inspiration,' though, apparently, in a somewhat peculiar sense : —
What God had to communicate to man, was to be communicated not all at once,
but, as it were, piecemeal. This, I cannot but think, affords a strong presumption in
favour of what is called plenary inspiration. It suggests a reason why God should
from the very beginning, and all throughout, exercise such a superintendence over the
committing of His communications to writing, as to secure even the verbal accuracy
of the record. . . Properly speaking, it (Holy Scripture) has but one author, the
Holy Ghost, throughout. All the books of it are His ; He is responsible for tie m
all: and, being so, He is entitled to the same measure of justice at our hands,
■which an ordinary writer mat) claimQ) ... It is not simply God speaking to man,
and man listening to God. It is rather God coming down to earth, mixing Himself
up with its ongoings, and turning to His own account (!) the sayings and doings of
its inhabitants. Hence the need of discrimination. . . I can see no reason why the
Holy Spirit (!) should not use the same latitude that a truthful man would use,
when minute exactness is not necessary, and is not pretended, — as, for instance, in
the use of round numbers, or in the customary ways of reckoning genealogies, or in
the reporting of speeches, where the precise words are not material. Nay, more : I
imagine that a man, writing under the assurance of Divine guidance, might be even
less careful than he would otherwise have felt himself bound to be (!). . . I can well
imagine that Evangelists and Apostles may have been led to use more freedom than
they would otherwise have ventured upon in dealing with the Old Testament
Scriptures, and connecting them with the New Dispensation, by the very fact of
their being under infallible guidance. . . I confess that, on any other supposition,
than that of infallible guidance, considering the usual scrupulosity of Jewish Doctors,
with reference to the very letter of their sacred writings, the free mode of citation,
practised by New Testament writers, seems to me all but inexplicable.

The difficulty just stated might be solved perhaps, on the
very simple supposition, that St. Paul did not ascribe to the
Scriptures, from which he quoted, that character of infallible,
verbal, accuracy, which was attributed to them by the Jewish
Doctors of his time, as it is by many Christian Doctors at this
day. But it is plain that Dr. Candlish has been compelled, as
an honest and truth-speaking man, to abandon thus openly the
traditional notion, which is still entertained by many, of the
infallible accuracy of all Scripture statements in matters of

PREFACE. XIX

historical and scientific fact. He still asserts his belief in an
' infallible guidance,' — an ' infallible superintendence,' — such as
to maintain even a ' verbal accuracy.' But this does not extend
to such matters as the ' wars of kings ' and the ' genealogies 0f
tribes and families,' — that is, I presume, to matters non-
essential to human salvation, — in other words, to God's Design
in giving the Revelation. The question then arises, as to what
parts are essential, and what not And of this, as Dr. Caxdlish
does and must allow, tve, shortsighted creatures, cannot possibly
be the judges. We may imagine things to be essential, which
in the plan and ordering of the Divine Wisdom are not essen-
tial ; and therefore, though assuming an ' infallible superin-
tendence,' we are utterly unable to judge a priori what parts
of Scripture must be recorded with strict verbal accuracy. We
can only do — what in these criticisms we are endeavouring to
do, — that is, work out, — with all the care and ability wThich
God has given us, and with all the help of our best critical
apparatus — a posteriori, from the documents actually in our
hands, — the real substantial facts, which the Bible contains, and
take them as God's facts for our guidance.

But the endeavour to maintain his own modified form of the
traditionary view has led Dr. Caxdlish into the utterance of
some other strange expressions, which I quote from his work,
Reason and Revelation, p.72. They will serve to illustrate
more fully the views expressed in the preceding extracts, and
will be useful, also, as showing the extravagancies — to use no
stronger term — into which a devout man may be unconscious! v
betrayed, while trying to support, in the face of plain facts
which he cannot and will not ignore, a time-honoured super-
stition, which is no longer tenable.

XX PREFACE.

There is need of continual discrimination, that we may ascertain the true value
and bearing of Scriptural statements, as expressive of the Divine Mind and Will.
With ordinary candour, the task of exercising the necessary discrimination is not
really difficult. But it is easy, if one is inclined, to create embarrassment, — to
confound the earthly occasion with the heavenly lesson, — and to take exception to
some things in the Divine procedure, which may appear to be inconsistent with the
highest ideal of pure truth and perfect holiness, when in all fairness allowance ought
to be made for the constraining force of circumstances, — [we, human creatures, are
' in all fairness ' to ' make allowance ' for the Divine Being falling short of our
standard of right, because He is subject to ' the constraining force of circum-
stances ' !] We must regard God, in those dealings of His with men, which Scripture
records, as in some sense laid under a restraint (!). It is no part of His purpose to
coerce the human will, or to disturb and disarrange the ordinary laws, which
regulate the incidents of human life, and the progress of human society. There
must (!) be, on His part, a certain process of accommodation. He cannot (!) in His
Word, any more than in His Providence, have things precisely such, and so put, as
the standard of absolute perfection would require. In legislating, for instance, for
ancient Israel, it was not possible to have the ordinance of marriage, the usages of
war, the rights of captives, the relation of master and servant, and other similar
matters, affecting domestic order and the public weal, regulated exactly as absolutely
strict principle demands (!).

After such a striking instance of the way, in which a pious man,
and a theologian of distinction, will attempt to get over the moral
difficulties, which beset the traditionary view, by assuming that
the Plan of the Divine Wisdom, for the Eevelation of His Will
to man, made it impossible for Grod to give such laws to the
people of Israel, as 'absolutely strict principle demands,' — still
more, after the attempt of the Bishop of Oxford, in his recent
Charge, to silence all intellectual objections to the infallible
accuracy of Scripture in matters of science and history, by
assuming beforehand the very point at issue, viz. that in every
line and letter of the Bible we have the unerring Word of God,*

* The Bishop said : ' The confiding child had no feeling of misgiving, when told
by his father that the fire with its intense heat, and the ice with its intense cold,
would alike burn his flesh. He did not understand the philosophical reason ; but
he felt satisfied, because he believed his father's word to be true. The believer, in
like manner, from his faith, knew that what God said in nature and revelation

PREFACE. XXI

— it is, indeed, time to take seriously in hand a work such as that
in which I am now engaged, and to examine carefully, whether
we have any reason to believe that such laws were really given
through Moses, by the direct utterance of the Almighty, to the
people of Israel at all. For this purpose such an analysis, as
the reader has here before him of the First Eleven Chapters of
Genesis, — especially, when it is continued, as we hope to
continue it, through the rest of the Pentateuch, — will be, as we
trust, effective in breaking the chain of old habit, and freeing the
mind from those fetters of superstitious reverence, which have
so long held us all, more or less, enslaved to the mere name and
letter of the Bible.

But, if there are already, even in Scotland, faint fights —

Just breaking over land and main, — ■

was true, even although he might not be able to reconcile what seemed to be at
variance. Thus, then, these difficulties were to be met. We need not fear to avow
that, so far as we could learn the plans of the Almighty from the knowledge we had
gained, we should ever accept these apparent discrepancies, both as a discipline of the.
soul and a trial of our faith ; and, whilst we received with a like docility both voices,
not daring to doubt the evidence of the senses our Maker has given us, nor to distrust
a word which He has spoken to us, knowing that, like bodies moving in various
planes, they may cross each other's path without collision, yet that, on the whole,
every wide increase of our knowledge tended to show that many things, which seemed
to be, were not really contradictory, and that those, which had not yet reached, were
approaching to a full reconciliation.' The fallacy of such reasoning, — if applied
(as appears to be here intended) to the support of the traditionary view of the
scientific and historical truth of every part of the Bible, — is obvious. What is the
authority for saying that every statement in the canonical Scriptures is an infal-
lible 'Word of God,' — that, for instance, every statement in the book of Ezra, or
Esther, is guaranteed by Divine authority as unquestionably true, and may not be
doubted by anyone, on pain of being accounted an 'unbeliever,' while those in
Esdras or Judith are open to examination and criticism ? Is it not more reverent,
more hdkving, not to shut our eyes to the plain facts of the case, but to say withal
that we hear God's voice in the Bible, in the midst of all its human imperfections ?

XX11 PREFACE.

a still greater change has taken place in England. I believe
that here, indeed, a great step has been made towards a
more just and reasonable appreciation of the true value of the
Scriptures ; and I would venture to hope that my own work,
with all its defects, may have contributed, in some degree, with
other publications of the present day, to this result. Even
while I write, the announcement is made that, on the excellent
suggestion of a practical Layman, the Speaker of the House
of Commons, a work has been undertaken, under Archiepiscopal
and Episcopal authority, to supply English readers with a
system of critical commentaries on the Old and New Testament,
somewhat similar (it is understood) to the admirable Kurzge-
fasstes Exegetisches Haadbuch of German Theology. I rejoice
unfeignedly to hear of this. It. is the very consummation
which I have all along desired, — for which I have all along
been hoping. The questions, raised by these criticisms, will
now, it is hoped, be fairly faced, and the truth be made 'plain,
before the English Church and People, on whichever side
it lies.

The special object, however, of this undertaking, in the terms
of the announcement, is —

to put the reader in full possession of whatever information may be requisite to
enable him to understand the "Word of God, and supply him with satisfactory
answers to objections resting upon misrepresentations of its contents.

This amounts to an acknowledgment, on the part of some of
our highest ecclesiastical functionaries, that the information
requisite, to enable the English reader to understand the Word
of God, has not hitherto been accessible to him. It would be an
affectation to ignore the fact, that the words above italicised are
meant to characterise particularly my own work, among others :
and the distinguished promoters of this design would thus seem

PREFACE. XX111

to be committed beforehand to an assumption, that such objec-
tions as I have made, to the historical veracity of certain portions
of the Pentateuch, do rest upon — not mistaken notions, merely,
but — ' misrepresentations of its contents.' But I am confident
that the enquiry and discussion, thus entered upon, will ter-
minate ultimately in the eliciting of the truth, and in bringing
about a great convergence of opinion in England, upon the
subject of the historical verity of many of the Biblical narratives.
And I rejoice to see in the name of Prof. Harold Browne * a

* I take this opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy on ^.xliv of Part III of
my work, where I have said that Prof. Browne ' attended all the meetings of the
Committee,' which sat in judgment on my book. Prof. Brownte has written to me
as follows : ' I never was one of those, who attributed to you either want of ability
or want of honesty. I protested in Com-ocation against your writings being called
' puerile.' I am also desirous of correcting a false impression on your mind. Touch-
ing the Committee of Convocation, I objected to its appointment, and moved an
amendment, when it was proposed. I did not think it the best way of dealing with
the case. It was because the Prolocutor pressed me to serve on it, that I was
induced to do so. But I was only able to attend two out of the nine sittings, — ■
not all, as you seem to have heard. I did not like the form which the Report took,
and I frequently expressed my dislike.'

I have also on the same page said, speaking of the Committee of Convocation,
' They then proceed to cite from the book a further proposition, which they
evidently mean to characterise as ' heretical ' and ' blasphemous.' ' I am glad to find
that here also I am mistaken, and that it was never intended to characterise any of
my statements as ' heretical.' For this I have the authority of a member of the
Committee, who writes, ' I wish to assure you that your inference on jj.xliv, — ' they
evidently mean to characterise as heretical and blasphemous,' — is quite without
foundation. Our intention was, to disclaim the duty of determining what was or
was not heretical, and tins disclaimer applies to all the propositions cited. It never
occurred to me that our language could have been taken in the way in which it has
struck you.'

I supposed that the Committee of Convocation must have meant to characterise my
statements as 'heretical and blasphemous,' since they reported that ' three proposi-
tions, being the main propositions of the book, involve errors of the gravest and
most dangerous character, subversive of Faith in the Bible as the Word of God,'
and that another proposition ' questions our blessed Lord's Divine knowledge, as
witnessed in Scripture by the Holy Ghost.'

XXIV PREFACE.

guarantee of the sincerity and candour, with which one portion
of this important work, that connected with the Pentateuch,
will be undertaken.

Meanwhile, as far as my own justification is concerned, it
will, I believe, in the opinion of many, be considered to be
complete, when they peruse the following recently-expressed
judgments of others, in reference to the main facts of these
.criticisms.

I shall first quote extracts from communications which I
have received from Prof. Kcenen of Leyden, one of the most
eminent critics of the present day in Holland, and especially
distinguished in this department of Biblical Criticism. Prof.
Kuenen writes, with reference to Part I and Part II:

' I see, in your critical labours, more than a mere important episode of the Church-
conflict of our days. It appears to me that through you already, in Part I, the
attention has been fixed upon a series of facts, •which, in the latest time, have been
too much neglected, with great damage to the truth. You have entered upon the
enquiry, as to the value and origin of the narratives about the Mosaic time, from a
side to which by many scarcely any attention has been paid. This I say in the
first instance with reference to myself. While writing my Introduction to the
Pentateuch and to the Book of Joshua, I was, it is true, aware of the iinhistorical
character of many narratives: but I had not hitherto given to myself proper
account of the extent of the difficulties. They could only be fully and plainly brought
into the light through the method followed by you ; and they now lie bare before
everyone who is willing to see, When I take into consideration in how un-
satisfactory a way even some of the very best writers indicate and clear out of the
way these difficulties, I consider your endeavour to treat them entirely apart, and
exhibit them visibly, as equally opportune and useful. As far as I am concerned,
should the opportunity arise for me to treat again expressly of the Pentateuch, either
in my lectures, or in writing, I shall not neglect thereby to make use of the light
kindled^by you.

' When engaged upon the Third Part of my ' Hist. Crit. Enquiry,' in which I
shall have to speak about the Psalms, I shall have an opportunity of studying
expressly the Elohistic and Jehovistic Psalms, with an eye to your enquiry about
them in chap, xii-xviii of Part II. I wish to do so with all the calmness and

PKEFACE. XXV

impartiality, with which so thorough a demonstration as jours deserves to be
treated.

' But I may not detain you longer with my remarks. Eegard them only as a
proof that I have read your important work with care, and that I hope still further
to do so, when the course of my studies shall give me occasion for it. The question
as to the composition of the Pentateuch and the age of its portions is so intricate,
that it may well be that at first no unanimous agreement will be arrived at
respecting it. But the difference of feeling that remains is small in comparison with
the great main-point, and with the important consequences which follow from it.
It is to me a cause of great joy that the main-point also, through your work, is put
anew clearly into the light, and will certainly be recognised in a continually
widening circle.' June 23, 1863.

' I gladly give you the desired permission to insert in your Preface the portion
of my former letter translated by you. It not only expressed then, but it express s
also now, so entirely my feeling, that I allow it to be published without any hesita-
tion.' Nov. 23, 1863.

For many the name of Kuenen will have its due weight :
while others, who know him only as a foreign theologian,
will, perhaps, regard him as, most probably, ' tainted with
neology.' This, however, cannot be said of another witness,
who comes recommended as an English clergyman, filling-
more than one office of distinction, — one of the few Hebrew
scholars in England, — I mean the Eev. J. J. S. Perowxe, B.D.
Vice-Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter, examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich, and late Hebrew Lecturer
of King's College, London, and Assistant Preacher of Lincoln's
Inn.

The story of the article upon the Flood in Dr. Smith's
' Dictionary of the Bible ' is well-known, — how when you turn
to ' Deluge,' you find ' [Flood],' and, when you turn to ' Flood,'
you are referred on to ' [Noah].' The delay is generally under-
stood to have arisen from the conservative tendencies of the
editor or publisher, and the difficulty of encountering the
subject, in such a way as not to shock too strongly the popular

XXVI PREFACE.

religious notions of the clay. However, the second and third
volumes of this valuable work have now appeared ; and Air.
Perowne, it seems, has contributed the articles on ' Xoah ' and
'Pentateuch.' To what extent the writer's own opinions are in
accordance with the traditionary view, may be judged from the
following extracts, which I make from the first of these articles.

If the words, ' unto a cubit shalt thou finish it above,' refer to the window, and
nut to the ark itself, they seem to imply that this aperture, or skylight, extended to
the breadth of a cubit the whole length of the roof [525 feet]. But, if so, it could
not have been merely an open slit, for that would have admitted the rain. Are we
then to suppose that some transparent, or at least translucent, substance was
employed? It would almost seem so. Note. The only serious objection to this
explanation is the supposed improbability of any substance like glass having been
discovered at that early period of the world's history. . . Arts and sciences may have
reached a ripeness, of which the record, from its scantiness, conveys no adequate
conception. [In that case, would the ark have had only one ' skylight ' and one door ?]
But besides the windows there was to be a door. This was to be placed in the side
.of the ark. ' The door must have been of some size to admit the larger animals,
for whose ingress it was mainly intended. It was, no doubt, above the highest
draught-mark of the ark, and the animals ascended to it probably by a sloping
embankment.' Smith's Diet, of the Bible,ii.p.565.

It should be remembered that this huge structure was only intended to float on
the water, and was not, in the proper sense of the word, a ship. It had neither
mast, sail, nor rudder; it was, in fact, nothing but an enormous floating house
or oblong box. . . Two subjects only were aimed at in its construction : the one was
that it should have ample stowage, and the other, that it should be able to keep steady
upon the water. Ibid.n.j>.566.

Air. Perowxe, indeed, has been obliged, in common with
many others, to abandon the notion of a Universal Deluge,
which alone the Bible plainly speaks of.

It is not only the inadequate size of the ark to contain all, or anything like all
the progenitors of our existing species of animals, which is conclusive against an
universal Deluge. . . It is true that Noah is told to take two ' of even' living thing
of all flesh ' : but that could only mean two of every animal thin known to him,
unless we suppose him to have had supernatural information in zoology imparted,
— a thing quite incredible. . . Again, how were the carnivorous animals supplied
with food during their twelve months' abode in the ark ? This would have been

PREFACE. XXV11

difficult even for the very limited number of wild animals in Noah's immediate
neighbourhood. For the very large numbers, which the theory of a universal Deluge
supposes, it woidd have been quite impossible, unless again we have recourse to
miracle, and either maintain that they were miraculously supplied with food, or that,
for the time being, the nature of their teeth and stomach was changed, so that they
were able to live on vegetables. But these hypotheses are so extravagant, and so
utterly unsupported by the narrative itself, that they may be safely dismissed
without further comment. . . Indeed, it is out of the question to imagine that the
ark rested on the top of a mountain (Ararat), which is covered for 4,000 feet from
the summit with perpetual snow, and the descent from which woidd have been a
very serious matter both to men and other animals, ii.^.567-569.

Yet the statement in Gren.vii.5, that the tops of the moun-
tains were not seen until seventy-three days after the Ark
4 rested,' proves that, if it rested on Ararat at all, it must have
been upon the summit. I have shown, however, in chap.xx of
this Part that a partial Deluge, of the kind here described, is
quite as impossible as a general one. There is no use, there-
fore, in twisting the plain meaning of the Scripture, to make
it say what to the l wayfaring man ' it certainly does not say.
But I doubt if any article could be written upon the Deluge
in this day,- — by any one wTho desired to maintain some charac-
ter as a man of science or, indeed, of common sense, — more
conservative than that which Mr. Perowne has written. He
is, therefore, I presume, a most unexceptionable witness.

Let us now, then, see what Mr. Perowne has to say about
the Pentateuch. I must commend him for the candour and
courage which he has shown, in speaking out plainly the truth
as he sees it. But let my readers — my lay-readers, especially
— consider the force of the following admissions, coming from
a writer, who is still trammeled, it is plain, — as we see by his
remarks on the Deluge, — by the influence of his educational
training and prepossessions.

XXVH1 PREFACE.

If, without any theory casting its shadow upon us, and without any fear of
consequences before our eyes, we read thoughtfully only the Book of Genesis, we
can hardly escape the conviction, that it partakes of the nature of a compilation.
It has, indeed, a unity of plan, a coherence of parts, a shapeliness and an order,
which satisfy us that, as it stands, it is the creation of a single mind. But it
bears also manifest traces of having been based upon an earlier work ; and that
earlier work itself seems to have had embedded in it fragments of still more ancient
documents. . . .

At the very opening of the book, peculiarities of stjde and manner are discernible,
which can scarcely escape the notice of a careful reader even of a translation, —
winch certainly are no sooner pointed out, than we are compelled to admit their
existence. The language of chap, i.l-ii.3, (where the first chapter ought to have
been made to end), is totally unlike that of the section which follows, ii.4-iii.23.
This last is not only distinguished by a peculiar use of the Divine Names, — for
here, and nowhere else in the whole Pentateuch, except E.ix.30, have we the
combination of the two, Jehovah-Elohim — [in other places we have such expres-
sions as, 'Jehovah, the Elohini of Heaven,' Gen.xxiv.3,7, 'Jehovah, the Elohim of
my master,' ?>.12,27,42,48, &c. but not 'Jehovah-Elohim' simply (78)], — but also
by a mode of expression peculiar to itself. It is also remarkable for preserving
an account of the Creation, distinct from that contained in the first chapter. It
maybe said, indeed, that this account does not contradict the former(?), and might,
therefore, have proceeded from the same pen. But, fully admitting that there is
no contradiction, the representation is so different, that it is far more natural
to conclude that it was derived from some other, though not antagonistic, source.
. . Still, in any case, it cannot be denied that this second account has the cha-
racter of a supplement, — that it is designed, if not to correct, at least to explain,
the other. And this fact taken in connection with the peculiarities of the phrase-
ology, and the use of the Divine Names in the same section, is quite sufficient to
justify the supposition, that we have here an instance, not of independent narra-
tive, but of compilation from different sources. . .

"We come now to a more ample examination of the question, as to the distinctive
use of the Divine Name. Is it the fact, as Astruc was the first to surmise, that this
early portion of the Pentateuch, extending from G.i to E.vi, does contain two
original documents, characterised by their separate use of the Divine Names, and by
other peculiarities of style? Of this there can be no reasonable doubt. We do find,
— not only scattered verses, but — whole sections thus characterised. . . And we
find, moreover, that in connection with this use of the Divine Names, there is also
a distinctive and characteristic phraseology. The style and idiom of the Jehovah
sections is not the same as the style and idiom of the Elohim sections. . . .
The alleged design in the use of the Divine Names will not bear a close examination.
How, on the hypothesis of Hengstexbehg, can we satisfactorily account for its
being said in vi.22, 'Thus did Noah, according to all that God {Elohim) commanded

TKEFACE. XXIX

him, so did he,' and in vii.5, 'and Noah did according to all that Jehovah com-
manded him,' while again, in vii.9, Elohim occurs in the same phrase? The
elaborate ingenuity, by means of which Hengstenbeeg, Drechsler, and others,
attempt to account for the specific use of the several names in these instances, is, in
fact, its own refutation. The stern constraint of a theory could alone have
suggested it. . .

Still this phenomenon of the distinct use of the Divine Names woidd scarcely of
itself prove the point, that there are two documents which form the groundwork of
the existing Pentateuch. But there is other evidence pointing the same way : —

(i) We find, for instance, the same story told by the two writers, and their two
accounts manifestly interwoven ; and we find also certain favourite words and
phrases, which distinguish the one writer from the other. . .

(ii) But, again, we find that these duplicate narratives are characterised by
peculiar modes of expression, and that, generally, the Elohistic and Jehovistic
sections have their own distinct and individual colouring.

There is, therefore, it seems, good ground for conchxding that, besides some
smaller independent documents, traces may be discovered of two original historical
works, which form the basis of the present book of Genesis, and of the earlier
chapters of Exodus. Of these there can be no doubt that the Elohistic is the
earlier. The passage in E.vi establishes this, as well as the matter and style of the
document itself. Whether Moses himself was the author of either of these works
is a different question. . .

So far, then, judging this work simply by what we find in it, there is abundant
evidence to show that, though the main bulk (?) of it is Mosaic, certain detached
portions of it are of later growth. Ibid. ii.^>.774-8.

The above extracts are enough for my purpose, and they are
written by the ' Examining Chaplain of the Bishop of Norwich.'
Mr. Perowne differs from me decidedly in some important
points of criticism. In particular, he maintains that Moses
wrote the whole book of Deuteronomy, whereas I believe that
a later Prophet wrote it about the time of Josiah ; and I have
given, as I conceive, what amounts to a positive demonstration
of that fact in my Third Part. Among other things, I have
there shown (553) that in Deuteronomy there are thirty-three
expressions, evidently familiar to the writer, since some of them
are repeated more than ten times in that book, and each on the
average eight times, — not one of which is used even once in any

XXX PREFACE.

of the other four books of the Pentateuch. Hence we have at any
rate this dilemma. If Moses did write Deuteronomy, then he did
not write the last part of Numbers, which recounts the transactions
of the last year of the wanderings, down to the very day on which
the discourses in Deuteronomy are supposed to be uttered.
And, if he did not write these chapters of Numbers, then he did
not write a very large portion of the rest of the four books ;
since no critic will deny that the same hand (hands), which
composed the last seventeen chapters of Numbers, was (were)
concerned also in writing a great part of the previous history.
Hence, if Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, he certainly
did not write the greater part of the other four books. Or, if
he did write the last part of Numbers, and the kindred matter
in the other four books, then he did not write the Book of
Deuteronomy.

I have given, as I believe, sound reasons for the conclusion,
— maintained by Bleek, Davidson, Ewald, Hupfeld, Knobel,
Kuenen, and a host of other eminent critics, — that Deuteronomy
was not written till towards the close of the kingdom of Judah.
As Mr. Perowne does not refer to my criticisms, it is possible that
none of my books were published till after his own labours were
completed ; and, indeed, my Part III, on Deuteronomy, could
not have been seen by him, till after his article on the Pen-
tateuch was printed. But this is only a difference in detail.
The passages, above quoted from Mr. Perowne's paper, are
abundantly sufficient to confirm me in the opinion that the 'great
main point, for which I am contending, is undeniably true,
and that the traditionary oipnion concerning the authorship of
the Pentateuch must henceforth be abandoned. It is plain that
the Pentateuch is not by any means the work of one single hand,

. PREFACE. XXXI

the hand of Moses, but a composite work, the work of different
hands in different ages; and, therefore, though critics may-
ascribe to Moses himself, some more, some less, and some none
at all, of the ivritten story, as it now lies before us, yet this is
merely a question of detail, which can only be settled with more
or less certainty by such processes of careful, laborious, and
conscientious criticism, as those which I have endeavoured, to
the best of my power, to carry out in my different volumes.
And who so fitting, as the Clergy of the Church of England, to
conduct and complete such criticism ?

For our ordination vows, as Ministers of a Protestant Church,
not only do not forbid, but positively bind us in the most
solemn way, in the face of the Congregation, to make such en-
quiries, and to declare the results of them, if we think it need-
ful or desirable to do so. Every presbyter of the National
Church is solemnly pledged at his ordination to ' be diligent
in reading of the holy Scriptures, and of such studies as help
to the knowledge of the same,' — of such critical study, there-
fore, as contributes to the more thorough understanding of the
Pentateuch, as well as the New Testament, Further, he is
then solemnly pledged to teach nothing as necessary to salva-
tion, but what he ' shall be persuaded may be concluded and
proved by the same'; — he is not, therefore, to teach that 'all
our hopes for eternity depend' upon belief in the historical
truth of Noah's Flood or the story of the Exodus, or on the
trustworthiness of every line in the Bible, if in his own mind
and conscience he is not persuaded that the Scriptures, when care-
fully examined, suffice to ' conclude and prove ' the truth of such
statements. And every Bishop is then pledged to banish and

XXX11 PREFACE.

drive away, ' privately and openly,'' all erroneous doctrine,
contrary to God's Word, — such as that which lays down the
traditionary view of Scripture, stated above. Such vows are
taken by a Bishop at his Consecration, in the presence of the
people, ' to the end,' it is said —

that the Congregation present may hare a trial, and bear 'witness, how you be
minded to behave yourself in the Church of God.

The Church, moreover, in the Ordination Service, does
solemnly require a Bishop also to declare, that he will ' exer-
cise himself faithfully in the holy Scriptures, and to call
upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same,''
and that he will 'teach or maintain nothing, as required of
necessity to eternal salvation, but that which he shall be per-
suaded may be concluded and proved by the same.' In this
vow is expressed the spirit of our Protestant Church,*the very
principle of the Reformation, which, in the words of Dean
Hook, Manchester Church Congress, 1863, — words that cannot
be repeated too often, — is —

the necessity of asserting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, —
in opposition to the principle of Medicevalism, which, he says,
is —

when the assertion of the truth is likely to promote discord, to postpone the true to
the expedient.

As Bishop Watson has justly argued, these promises, so solemn!}7
made, must overrule all others.

But ' we are perplexed by our Subscriptions, which the Law
of the Land, at present, requires to be made by everyone ad-
mitted to Holy Orders.' Undoubtedly we are; and, if sub-
scription* is to be regarded as expressing an unqualified assent

* At present, the Law requires that every layman admitted to a vote in the
Senate of either of our great Universities, shall sign the Thirty-nine Articles.

PREFACE. XXXI 11

to everything subscribed, then, as Dean Staxley has very truly

said, —

There is not one clergyman in the Church of England, •who can venture to cast
a stone at another : they must all go out, from the greatest to the least, from the
Archbishop in his palace at Lambeth to the humblest curate in the vrilds of
Cumberland.

It is a state of things much to be regretted ; for it cannot be
said that such compromises, as are now almost universally
practised on some point or other, are at all conducive to a
healthy, vigorous, religious life, either among the teachers or
the taught. Even His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury
declared in the House of Lords that he could not, and would
not, himself in certain cases fulfil the 'engagement,' to which
he bound himself, when admitted to the Sacred Office. And
now the Bishop of Oxford has said that he will protect his
clergy in so doing, if consulted beforehand, and if the case is
one which he approves.

Happily, our Church, as a National Institution, is not the
creation of the Bishops and Clergy, but of the will of the
Nation, expressed in Parliament. And, as Parliament has re-
formed it already more than once, it may do so again, and
remove some, at least, of those hindrances, which now prevent
it from discharging properly its office, as the Great Eeligious
Educator of the people. The very law, which, as Bishop "Wilber-

Here is an 'engagement,' on the strength of which the Master of Arts has received
his power to vote upon important questions, affecting vitally, it may be, tie- future
welfare of the Universities, and their relations to the National Church. Yet who
■will assert that every such layman is bound by this 'engagement' to believe in all
the points of the Thirty-nine Articles unto his life's end, or to give up his vote, and
take no further part in the management of the Universities, if he comes at any time
to entertain a doubt upon any one of them?
VOL. II. b

XXXIV PREFACE.

force thinks, relieves him from the necessity of enforcing the.
Canons, is a law of the State, with reference to which no consent
of the * Church ' was previously asked, — no approval even of
' Convocation ' needed. A similar law may before long be
passed to relieve the difficulties, which press more heavily
on other minds. And the time seems fast ripening for this —
when the voice of religious and earnest laymen shall be heard
throughout the land, calling loudly on Parliament to interfere
for such a Reform.

Bishop Wilberforce has said that —

The press teemed with the writings of men, who professed to believe in the Bible,
but to deny its supernatural character, — to receive what has been revealed, but to
reject revelation.

I believe this statement to be so far true, that there, probably,
never was a time, when the press, as a whole, was more distinctly
characterised by the general religious tone, which marks all
classes of writings, — from the poems of the Laureate and the
most eminent works on Science, to the popular periodical, the
daily and weekly journal, the common school-book. This is
certainly one of the most striking features of the literature of
the age, that the spirit of religion pervades it everywhere,
while there is certainly exhibited, as generally, a decided dislike
to that formal dogmatic theological teaching, on which the
Bishop of Oxford lays so much stress, without which he
considers the religious life cannot even exist.

But the truth is, and we must rejoice to know it, that there
has been a remarkable awakening of the religious life in this
our day, altogether without the pale of Church dogmas.
Men of learning and science, generally, do recognise the
existence of ' Providence, Revelation, and Grace,' — though they

PREFACE. XXXV

do not adopt certain narrow definitions of these words. They
' believe in the Bible,' though they do not believe in the
historical or scientific truth of all its statements ; they believe
that God reveals Himself to the spirit of man, though they do
not suppose that His Revelation of Himself is confined to one
nation, or to one set of books. There is, in our days, a general
acceptance of the Highest and Deepest Truths, as revelations in
themselves, the communications of the Divine Beino- to His
children, without a slavish adherence to the forms in which they
have appeared, or to the authoritative ecclesiastical system of
doctrine, to which some would limit their existence for us.
And this very fact is the most impressive protest against the
threat, which is held out, that, if men will not shut their eyes,
and receive without questioning every 'jot and tittle,' which the
Church administers or each book of the Bible contains, they will
be left before long without religion — without life, without hope,
and without (rod in the world.

Having quoted from one eminent divine in the Free Church

of Scotland, I will here add some words from a Lecture lately

delivered by the Rev. Dr. Lee, Professor of Biblical Criticism

in the University of Edinburgh, which are well worthy of very

serious consideration, Edinburgh Courant, Nov. 25, 1863 : —

"We remark, all of us, and some of us complain, that the pulpit no longer occupies
its own place, — that it no longer leads men's minds, — that, while myriads of both
sexes still listen to preaching, its former influence, at least with one sex, is wellnigh
gone. What may be the reason of this change? Is it due to some change in tin-
people, or to some change in the preaching? Are men become more worldly, more
stupid, more ignorant, more licentious, more conceited than they were, when the
pulpit was the great power, and the minister the most revered oracle? Or have
the preaching and the popular mind changed their relative positions, — so that,
instead of the sermon being in advance of tin* popular id -as it lags behind them,
and, instead of performing the part of a propelling power, it serves, and, perhaps, is

b 2

XXXVI PEEFACE.

intended to serve, as a brake or drag on its too rapid advance, as the preacher
esteems it? . . . "When the minister guided the people, he was mentally in advance
of them. His doctrine formed their opinions, because he was master of more
information, more thought, than they possessed . . . Our sermons no longer
determine their religious notions even, much less their opinions on moral and
social qiiestions. This may displease, but it should not surprise us. The remedy
is in our own hands. They will follow again the moment we lead. . . This
brings me to enquire why we have so generally thus lost our hold on the minds
of the more intellectual portion of the community, — a fact, which a man must be
wofully blind if he do not see. . . We, ministers, are mainly chargeable with
turning the living spirit of Christianity into a dead letter, — a letter which killeth,
instead of a spirit which giveth life. The history of this process is soon told. The
Eeformers found Christianity a mass of traditions, — and, as a consequence, the
thinking classes generally sceptical. They (the Eeformers) clothed the Christian
doctrine in the garb of their own convictions. It so became for their age a living
thing, and consequently it engaged the attention, excited the interest, and won
the convictions of their enquiring contemporaries. But their convictions have become
our traditions, and, as such, have for every succeeding generation lost their
vitality more and more. . . A new culture, — the progress of literature, and
particularly of science, — the creation of new sciences and the discovery of new
arts, — the improvement of political institutions, — the new position taken by the
labouring population, — the universal demand for knowledge, — the refusal on all
hands to be satisfied unless the why and the wherefore be given, — this new
society has new wants, religious as well as social and political. . . . No one
generation can interpret Christianity for a succeeding generation. They cannot,
because they do not think the thoughts which move the hearts of the succeeding
generation. . . Even those topics, which our Reformers and elder divines elaborated
so carefully, and which interested their world so profoundly, are felt not to be to
us what they were to them. Other questions arc pressing upon us, for which the
cry is for an answer out of the Scriptures. Other burdens are loading our spirits,
for which we seek relief from the same source, if it can furnish this.

Sir John Pakington also is reported to have spoken recently
at Strond, as follows, Guardian, Nov. 25, 1863 : —

But while we teach, as a Christian people, the primary importance of a religious
education, let us not shrink from acknowledging the humiliating fact, that, as
:-<ls intellectual cultivation, many of the nations of the Continent, some of our
own colonies, and even the half-civilised country of Japan, are in advance of us.
These are grave considerations, not only for the philanthropist and the Christian,
but for the statesman and the politician. They are considerations which closely

PKEFACE. XXXY11

touch national welfare, because, while you daily cultivate the intellect of the people
of this country, unless you enable the working man to assert his position as a
human being, and make the most of the intellect which God has given him, we must
be the sufferers in that great race of competition, to which all the nations of the
world are exposed.

The fact here noticed deserves, indeed, serious consideration
from all who love their country. It is true that, while religious
instruction is abundantly supplied in our schools, yet the secular
education of the people is, for the most part, lamentably defective,
nor are any earnest attempts yet made generally to remedy the
evil. But how can it be otherwise ? Surely, unless the way is
first cleared, through such labours as those in which I am now
engaged, by removing the contradictions which at present exist
between the popular notions of Eeligion and the results of
Science, it is impossible that the education of the people should
be carried on to any great extent in England. For Englishmen,
certainly, as Sir John Pakington said, will not be content with
'merely secular and scientific teaching for their children. God
forbid that they should be ! It is the great hope of our land,
— the great strength and securit}r of our social state, — that the
English people, as a whole, demand that education shall be
religious. But, while religious teaching is connected inseparably
with the traditionary belief in the historical truth of all parts
of the Bible, — a belief, which the advance of knowledge in our
days shows to be utterly untenable, — it is obvious that no con-
siderable scientific progress can be made in our schools. The
schoolmaster will not dare to introduce questions of Science,
going at all beyond the usual routine, by which the accounts of
the Creation and the Deluge are supposed to be ( reconciled ' with
well-known facts. Nay, he himself has very probably been
reared in some Training Institution, from which all free

XXXV111 PKEFACE.

scientific teaching must be banished, lest * one single line ' of
Scripture should be shown to be ' untrustworthy,' in a scientific
or historical point of view, and so ' all our hopes for eternity,' —
' all our nearest and dearest consolations,'- — should be suddenly,
at one stroke, undermined.

I believe, then, that in endeavouring to do faithfully, to the
best of my power, such a work as this, — in which I maintain
that Eeligious and Scientific Truth are one, and that, what
God hath joined, no man, and no body of men, has a right to
put asunder, — I am but discharging, however imperfectly, my
duty as a Minister of the National Church, and promoting the
cause of national education and improvement at home, as well as
of those Missionary labours abroad, to which, in God's Pro-
vidence, my own life must be more especially devoted. If it
would be wrong for a Christian Missionary of our day, to mislead
a class of native catechists, by teaching them that the Earth is
flat, and the sky a solid firmament, above which the stores of rain
are treasured, — when God has taught us otherwise, — it must be
equally wrong and sinful, to teach them that the Scripture
stories of the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge, are infallible
records of historical fact, if God, by the discoveries of Science
in our da}T, has taught us to know that these narratives — what-
ever they may be — are certainly not to be regarded as history.

But, using now the word e Church ' in its true, ancient, and
venerable sense, as a general expression for the great Catholic
Body, which embraces all faithful souls throughout the world, —
all those who have been ' called-out' to receive more of Divine
illumination than others, — all those who have been quickened
with the word of Truth, and have heard and obeyed it, as far

PEEFACE. XXXIX

as they heard it, — all those on whose eyes the Light of God
has shone, ' the Light which lighteneth every man that comes
into the world,' and who have striven by God's grace to walk
in it, — in one word, as embracing all trae men and women,
servants of God, sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, — ■
by whatever name they are known to men, by whatever forms
they may worship, whatever measure of the knowledge of
Himself, and of His highest Revelations of Himself, He may
have been pleased to impart to them, — I am fully satisfied that
the cause of Truth must now advance in the Church in
England, — perhaps, as fast as is desirable, seeing that many
strong prejudices and prepossessions have still to be removed,
the rooting up of which, however necessary to ensure the free
growth of true Religion, and the full development of the Christian
Life, must be a somewhat slow and painful work.

The difficulty is, indeed, increased by the conduct of those,
who, without stating what is to be believed, about the stories
of the Creation and the Deluge, or the numbers of the Exodus,
— without stating distinctlv what our own Church says is to be
believed on these points, and where she has said it, — with-
out stating what they themselves believe, — are frightening their
flocks from looking calmly, in the fear and faith of God, at
the plain, naked, Truth, — delivering solemn warnings against
some dark tremendous evil, which, they say, is approaching
daily nearer, and cannot be kept off, and even now over-
shadows us, — telling us that, in all the literature of the day,
in the works of poets, historians, reviewers, journalists, there
is a lurking infidelity, and that in all the noble utterances of
science, and clear conclusions of Biblical criticism, we may
only be 'hearing the echoes of the coming footfall of the great

xl PREFACE.

Antichrist.' Thus it is that the hearts of men and women,
unlearned, may be troubled for a time, and their minds held
in painful suspense, possessed with a feeling of dread and
uncertainty.

How different would it be, if all the more enlightened of the
clergy were to take at once the stand, which in the end must
assuredly be taken, — were to take boldly God's facts, as they
are, and bring them forth, in their habitual teaching, so making
them by degrees familiar to the people ! When such teaching
as this is confirmed by the speaking earnestness of a pure
and holy life, and enforced by a course of loving and devoted
labour for the good of men, there need be no fear o*f men
making shipwreck of their trust in (rod, or finding suddenly all
their hopes for eternity failing, all * their nearest and dearest
consolations ' taken from them. Without any dangerous shock
to their faith, a superstitious reverence for the letter of the
Bible would then give way to a right and intelligent appre-
ciation of the true value of the Scriptures, as containing God's
Word, a blessed and glorious Eevelation of His Eternal Truth
to Man.

J. W. NATAL.

23 Sussex Peace, Kensington, W.
Dec. 9, 1863.

*#* Since the above was in type, the recent Charge of the Bishop of St. David's
has been, published. I need hardly say that Bishop Thirlwai.l does not come
forward in any sense as my patron or advocate. But, while blaming what he con-
siders to be indiscretion, rashness, hastiness of publication, and too great confi-
dence of expression, on my part, he yet fully justifies the principle of such a work
as I have undertaken, in the following passages. I commend them to the reader's

PEEFACE. xli

sful consideration, not on account of the bearing which they have on that part
of the controversy which is personal to myself, but for the sake of the judicial clear-
ness, with which Bishop Tuiri/waix has described the proper limits of the action
of Convocation in respect of books, and for the sake also of his distinct recogni-
tion of the 'ample latitude allowed to the clergy by the law of our Church, in
their enquiries into the genuineness and authenticity of the Biblical writings.

' The Church has not attempted to fence the study of the Scripture, cither for
Clergy or Laity, with any restrictions as to tin- subject of enquiry, but has rather
taught them to consider every kind of information, which throws light on any part
of the Sacred Volume, as precious, either for present or possible use. . . If the
enquiry is to be free, it is impossible consistently to prescribe its residts.' p.91.

' The Resolution [of Convocation], by which the Bishop of Natal's book was con-
demned, assumes a paternal authority, which rather suits an earlier period in the edu-
cation of the world ; and it presupposes a childlike docility and obedience, in those
over whom it is exercised, which are now very rarely to be found. It also suggests
the question, what practical purpose it was designed to answer. Two were indicated
in the Committee's Report, — ' the effectual vindication of the truth of God's word
before men,' and the ' warning and comfort of Christ's people.' But it is not clear
how either of these objects could be attained by a declaration, that ' the book involves
errors of the gravest and most dangerous character.' Both seem to require that
the censure should have pointed out the errors involved, or have stated the doctrine
which the book had at least indirectly impugned, so as to make it clear that the
alleged errors affected, not merely prevail ut opinions, but truths universally
recognised as part of the Church's creed.' p.\0\.

'According to the view which I have ventured to take of the proper limits of
synodical action in the cognisance of books, the Committee overstept those limits.
They were appointed to examine the Parts which had then appeared of the Bishop's
work, and to report 'whether any — and if any what — opinions, heretical or
erroneous in doctrine, were contained in it.' They extracted three propositions,
which they have characterised as we have seen. . .

' It may seem, indeed, as if the Committee, in their mode of dealing with the first
of the propositions, which they cite or extract for censure, had shown that they
were aware of the precise nature of the function they had to perform, and meant
to confine themselves to it. That proposition is, — ' The Bible is not itself God's
Word.' The author himself immediately adds, ' But assuredly 'God's Word' will be
heard in the Bible, by all who will humbly and devoutly listen for it.' Of this
qualification, the Committee, in their remarks on the proposition, take no notice
whatever. But they first observe that the proposition, as they cite it, 'is contrary
to the faith of the Universal Church, which has always taught that Holy Scripture
is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.' They seem to have overlooked thai this
statement, however true, was irrelevant; but they then proceed to refer to the

Xlii PREFACE.

Articles and Formularies of our oto Church, which are, indeed, the only authority
binding on her ministers. But, unfortunately, not one of the passages, to which
they refer, applies to the proposition condemned. 3Iany, indeed, among them do
clearly describe the Bible as the ' Word of God.' But not one affirms that ' the
Bible is itself God's Word.' . . No doubt, the expression indicated that the
author made a distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, and considered
the two terms as not precisely equivalent or absolutely interchangeable. . . And
there is certainly high authority for the distinction. Among the numerous
passages of the Xew Testament, in which the phrase, the Word of God, occurs,
there is not one in which it signifies the Bible, or in which that word could be
substituted for it without manifest absurdity. But, even in our Articles and
Formularies, there are several, in which the two terms do not appear to be treated
as synonymous. . . If the Word of God is to be found nowhere but in Holy
71 rit, not only would no other Christian Literature be property called sacred, but the
Bible itself would be degraded to a chad and barren letter, and would not be a living
spring of Divine Truth. On the whole the Report first attaches an arbitrary
meaning to an ambiguous expression, and then charges it with contradicting
authorities, which are either wholly silent upon it, or seem to countenance and
warrant it. . .

'But. in their treatment of the next proposition, the Committee seem almost
entirely to have lost sight of the principle, which, although misapplied, appeared
to guide them in their examination of the first. For, with a single insignificant
exception, they confront it, not with our Articles and Formularies, but with
passages of Scripture. Quotations from Scripture may add great weight to a
theological argument ; they are essential for the establishment of any doctrine of
a Church, which professes to ground its teaching on Scripture; but they are
entirely out of place, where the question is, not whether a doctrine is true or false,
but whether it is the doctrine of the Church of England. . . This is no legal
refinement, but a plain dictate of common sense ; and it does not at all depend
on the composition of the tribunal, before which such questions are tried, so as to
be less applicable if the Court consisted entirely of ecclesiastics. . . . I shoidd
think it a great misfortune to the Church, if Convocation, sitting in judgment on
the orthodoxy of a theological work, though without any view to proceedings
against the author, should ignore and practically reject that principle. And, if in
this respect, the Report betrays the influence of a personal prepossession, which,
however natural, ought not to be allowed to sway the decisions of a grave assembly,
— above all. so as to bring them into conflict with the highest legal authorities of
the Realm, — we have the more reason to rejoice that it did not obtain the sanction
of the Upper House.

'When I look at the Scriptural arguments adduced in the Report, against tin
6ccond proposition extracted for condemnation, they do not seem to me of such a

PREFACE. xliii

quality, as to deserve to form an exception, if any could be admitted, to the rule
•which would exclude them from such an investigation. . . The Committee
observe that ' Moses is spoken of, by our Blessed Lord in the Gospel, as the writer
of the Pentateuch.' I suspect that even a layman, little acquainted with the
manifold aspects of the question, and the almost infinite number of surmises, which
have been or may be formed concerning it, would be somewhat disappointed, when
he found that the proof of this statement consists of three passages, in which our
Lord speaks of Moses and the Prophets, of the law of Moses, and of writings of
-. It is true that it would not be a fatal objection to the argument, that the
word ' Pentateuch ' does not occur in the Bible. It might have been so described,
as to connect every part of its contents with the hand of Moses, as distinctly as if
the observation of the Committee had been Hterally true. But in fact this is not
the case ; and still less is any such distinct appropriation to be found in any of the
passages, cited by the Committee in support of their assertion, that '] - -
recognised as the writer of the Pentateuch in other passages of Holy Scripture.'
They are neither more nor less conclusive than the language of the Seventh Article,
to which the Committee confine all the reference they have made to the judgment
of the Church on this question. — though this was the only matter into which
it was their proper business to inquire. The Article alludes to ' the law given from
God by Moses,' — a slender foundation for any inference as to the record of that
law, much more as to the authorship of other parts of the Pentateuch, especially as
the name of Moses does not occur in the enumeration of the canonical books in the
Sixth Article. If the question had been as to the authorship of the book of Pa
few persons probably would think that it had been dogmatically decided by the
Church, because in the Prayer-Book the Psalter is described as the 'Psalms of
David.'

' The third proposition, ' variously stated in the book,' relates to the historical truth
of the Pentateuch, which the author denies, not in the sense that everything in it is
pure fiction, but that all is not historically true. . . . But it is to be regretted that
the Committee should again have lost sight of the object for which they were ap-
pointed, and have omitted to refer to any doctrine of the Church, which the author
has contradicted. This was the more incumbent on them, since a recent judgment
has formally sanctioned a very wide latitude in this respect. It is clear that, in such
things, there cannot be two weights and two measures for different persons, and
also that it does not belong to any but legal authority to draw the line, by which
the freedom, absolutely granted in theory, is to be limited in practice. . . .

' These are the propjsitions, which they extract as the ' main propositions of the
book,' which, though not pretending to ' pronounce definitively whether they are or
are not heretical.' they denounce as ' involving errors of the gravest and most dan-
gerous character.' But they proceed to cite a further proposition, which the author
states in the form of a question, to meet an objection which had been raised ag-.

xliv PREFACE.

his main conclusion, as virtually rejecting our Lord's authority, hy which, as the
Committee state, ' the genuineness and the authenticity of the Pentateuch hare been
guaranteed to all men.' "Whether the passages, in which our Lord quotes or alludes
to the Pentateuch, amount to such a guarantee, is a point which they do not discuss.
They only observe that the proposition ' questions our Blessed Lord's Divine
knowledge,' — and with that remark they drop the subject.

' Considering that this proposition is incomparably the most important of all that
they cite, . . . one is surprised that it shoidd have been dismissed with so very
cursory and imperfect a notice. For it is not even clear that it correctly expresses
the author's meaning. The question, which he raises, does not properly concern our
Lord's Divine knowledge, that is, the knowledge belonging to His Divine Nature.
It is whether His human knowledge was coextensive with the Divine Omniscience.
It is obvious, at the first glance, what a vast field of speculation, theological and
metaphysical, is opened by this suggestion. . . . Bishop Jeremy Taylor observes :
' They, that love to serve God in hard questions, use to dispute whether Christ did
truly, or in appearance only, increase in wisdom. . . . Others . . . apprehend no
inconvenience in affirming it to belong to the verity of human nature, to have
degrees of understanding as well as of other perfections; and, although the
humanity of Christ made up the same person with His Divinity, yet they think the
Divinity still to be free, even in those communications which were imparted to His
inferior nature. . . . ' It is clear to which side Taylor inclines. But I must
own I should be sorry to see these hard questions revived. . . . Still more should I
deprecate any attempt of the Church of England to promxdge a new dogma for the
settlement of this controversy. And I lament that the Committee of the Lower
House should have expressed themselves, as if either there was no ' dispute ' on the
subject, or it belonged to them to end it by a word. But, at least, as then- remark
indicated that the Bishop had, in their judgment, fallen into some grave error, it
was due, not only to him, but the readers of their Beport, and to the Church at
large, that they should have pointed out what the error was by a comparison with
the doctrine of the Church which it was supposed to contradict.' j). 103-1 15.

Bishop Thirl wall then makes some remarks on expressions of mine, in respect
of which, however, he has somewhat misapprehended my meaning. In ' con-
soling myself ' with the reflection that ' our belief in the Living God remains as
sure as ever, though not the Pentateuch only, but the whole Bible, were removed,'
I meant to say that, the fact of the existence of the Living God having been once
revealed to us, we should retain the belief in Him, as our Heavenly Father,
whatever might become of the Pentateuch or the whole Bible. In using the word
' remain,' I meant to imply that our ideas of the Divine Being have been in a great
measure derived from the Bible. But I meant also to say that they do not depend
solely on the Bible,— that God is, in His own Eternal Nature, True, Just, and
Loving, and will be so, whatever criticism may do for the Pentateuch, — that

PEEFACE. Xlv

■whatever of substantial and eternal truth we may hare learned from the Penta-
teuch or from the whole Bible, that will remain eternally for us, though the Bible
itself, having done its great work in conveying such truth to man, were even taken
from us, and its words forgotten in the next generation. It has been the channel
of the Divine Gift to us, but is not the Gift itself.

Bishop Thibiwatl adds, p. 123 : — 'A great part of the event* related in the
Old Testament has no more apparent connection with our religion than those of
G n <k and Soman history. . . . The history, so far as it is a narrative of civil
and political transactions, has no essential connection with any religious truth ;
and if it had been lost, though we should have been left in ignorance of much
that we desired to know, our treasure of Christian doctrine would have remained
whole and unimpaired. The numbers, migrations, wars, battles, conquests, and re-
verses, of Israel, have nothing in common with the teaching of Christ, with the way
of salvation, with the fruits of the Spirit. They belong to a totally different
order of subjects. They are not to be confounded with the spiritual revelation
contained in the Old Testament, much less with that fulness of grace and truth,
which came by Jesus Christ. Whatever knowledge we may obtain of them, is, in
a religious point of view, a matter of absolute indifference to us ; and, if they were
placed on a level with the saving truths of the Gospel, they would gain nothing in
intrinsic dignity, but wovdd only degrade that with which they are thus associated.
Such an association may indeed exist in the minds of pious and even learned men :
but it is only by means of an artificial chain of reasoning, which does not carry con-
viction to all beside. Such questions must be left to every one's private judgment
and feeling, which have the fullest right to decide for each, but not to impose their
decisions, as the dicteite of an infallible authority, on the consciences of others. Any
attempt to erect such facts into articles of faith, would be fraught with danger of
irreparable evil to the Church, as well as with immediate hurt to numberless souls.'

CONTENTS.

CHAP. PAGE

Preface ....... v — xlv

I. The Samaritan Pentateuch .... 3 — 13

II. The composite Character of the Pentateuch . . 14 — 18

III. Analysis of Gex.I.1-IV.26 . .... 19—27

IV. Analysis of Gen.V.1-YIL24 .... 28—37
V. Analysis of Gen.YIII.1-XI.26 .... 38—47

VI. Characteristics of the Elohist and Jehoyist . . 48 — 62

VII. The Elohistic Xarrative ..... 63 — 70

VIII. The Jehovistic Passages in Gen.I.1-XL26 . . 71 — 79
IX. General Kemarks on the Kelation of Scripture and

Science ....... 80 — 90

X. Gen.I.1-11.3. 91—110

XI. Legends of the Creation among other Xattons . Ill — 123

XII. Gen.II.4-II.25 ...... 124—136

XIII. Gen.III.1-III.24 137—151

XIV. Stories of Paradise and the Fall in other Xations . 152 — 157

XV. Gf.n.IV.I-V.32 158—169

XVI. Gen.YI.I-VI.4 ...... 170—175

XVII. Gen.VI.5-VI.22 176—184

XV ill. The Deluge explained by traditionary Writers . 185 — 194

XIX. Gen.VII.1-VIII.22 ..... 195—201

XX. Was Noah's Flood a partial Deluge? . . . 202 — 210

XXI. Stories of the Flood among other Xations . . 211 — 220

XXII. Gen.IX.1-IX.29 221-229

XXIII. Gen.X.I-X.32 ...... 230—244

XXIV. Identity of Language of the Hebrews and Canaanites 245 — 255

XXV. The Hebrew Language, whence derived . . 256 — 263
XXVI. Gen.XI.I-XI.9 264—272

XXVII. Gen.XI.10-XI.26 ...... 273—284

X\ III. Scripture Eeferences to the Creation, the Fall, and

the Deluge ...... 285 — 291

XXIX. Concluding Remarks ..... 292 — 307

Appendix: The Book of Enoch .... 309 — 327

TRTTT1I, THROUGHOUT HER WHOLE DOMAIN, ILLIMITABLE AS IS ITS EXTEXT, IS OXE IX
PRINCIPLE AXD HARMONIOUS IX DETAILS. IT IS NO OTHER THAX TIIE HAYING OUR
COXCEPTIOXS IX ACCORDAXCE WITH THE REALITY OP THINGS. AXD TRUTH IX EXPRES-
SION (= Veracity) is the adapting op our laxguage, written or spokex, to the
honest ctteraxce op ocr conceptions. . . . ax assertion caxxot be true ix
Theology, and false in Geology, or axy department op scientific knowledge ;
nor inversely. it really is an insult to men*s uxderstaxdlxgs, to admit
indirectly, that there are affirmations or doctrines ix the records of
revealed religion, which are disproved by the clearest evidence of science,
axd tiiex to proscribe investigation, 'with a solemn pretence of mysteries xot
to be lxqutred into, an hypocritical tone of reverence for sacred tb
The veil is transparent : xo man cax be deceived by it : but it is lamentable

THAT AXY SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE BY LT TRUE THEOLOGY, ON THE

CONTRARY, ATTRACTS TO LTSELF, ILLUSTRATES, AND HARMONISES, ALL OTHER KNOW-
LEDGE. It is the science which relates to the Author axd Preserver of the

WHOLE DEPENDENT UNIVERSE, — WHATEVER MAY BE KNOWN CONCERNING HLM, FOR THE
XOBLEST PURPOSES OF INTELLECTUAL IMPROVEMENT, OF PERSOXAL VIRTUE, AXD OF
DEFFUSTVE HAPPINESS. . . . IT IS THE FRIEND OF ALL SCIENCE : LT APPROPRIATES

all Truth : it holds fellowship with xo error. — Dr. Pye Sjhth, Geology and
Science, jj.452.

PART IV.

THE FIEST ELEYEN CHAPTEES OF GENESIS.

VOL. II.

CHAPTEE I.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

1. We have considered at length in Part III the phenomena,
which are disclosed upon a closer examination of the Book of
Deuteronomy; and we have seen that they appear to fix the
date of the composition of that book, — with the exception of a
few older passages imbedded in it, — about the age of the reign
of Josiah. Whether or not the Prophet Jeremiah, who lived
in that age, was himself the writer of it, — as some indications
woidd seem to imply,- — is a very secondary question. In due
time we shall produce the remainder of the evidence, which, in
our judgment, is of weight for or against this supposition. For
the present it is sufficient to know that the main portion of this
book has been composed by some great writer of that age,
towards the end of the Jewish monarchy, and more than eight
centuries after the time usually assigned to the Exodus.

2. It has been objected, however, by some of my Reviewers,
that the supposition of the later origin of Deuteronomy is at once
contradicted by the fact, that the Samaritans, while rejecting
all the other Canonical books of the Jews, yet received the
Pentateuch complete, though, it is true, with very many and
important variations from the Hebrew copies. This fact, it is
said, supplies a proof that the Pentateuch in its entirety, — in-
cluding, therefore, the Book of Deuteronomy, — must have existed
before the separation of the two kingdoms, and must have been

B 2

4 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

already recognised as an ancient system of Laws, having para-
mount Divine authority, in the undivided kingdom, in the times
of David and Solomon. Otherwise, (it is argued,) it cannot he
supposed that the Ten Trihes, when they separated under
Jeroboam from Judah, would have felt hound to adopt it as
their Law-Book, — much less that in still later days, after the
Captivity, when such violent hostility is known to have pre-
vailed between the Jews and the Samaritans, these latter would
have actually been willing to increase their existing Law-Book,
(supposed to be the Tetrateuch,) by the addition of the Book of
Deuteronomy, which had only recently been discovered, and
received as authoritative, in the last days of the kingdom of
Judah.

3. The argument, thus stated, may seem at first sight very
plausible. But it will not bear a close examination ; and, though
in former davs it was urged as of great force, — among others
by Dean GrRAVES,i.l4 — it has now been abandoned by the most
strenuous defenders of the traditionary view, distinguished also
by their learning, such as Havermck and Hexgstenberg. It
may be well, however, to satisfy the English reader fully on
this point, before we go further ; and a careful consideration of
the actual circumstances, under which the Samaritan Penta-
teuch was composed, will show that the above view is wholly
untenable.

4. It is well known that the Samaritans were the inhabitants
of the central district of Palestine, after the destruction of the
kingdom of the Ten Tribes by the Assyrians, when the great body
of the Israelites was carried into Captivit}7, and the Assyrian
king supplied their place by introducing a body of colonists from
distant parts of his empire, as we read in 2K.xvii.24 : —

' And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and
from Ava, and from Hamath. and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities
of Samaria instead of the children of Israel ; and they possessed Samaria, and
dwelt in the cities thereof.'

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 5

These foreign settlers formed with the remaining Israelites
a mixed population, from whom descended the later Samaritans.
The story in the Book of Kings goes on to say of them, v.25, —

' And so it was that, at the beginning of their dwelling there, they feared not
Jehovah ; therefore Jehovah sent lions among them, which slew some of them.'

Upon this, we are told, they laid the matter before the king

of Assyria, who sent ' one of the Priests, whom they had carried

away from Samaria,' to set up among them the worship of

Jehovah, u.28, —

' and he came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear Jehovah.'

5. Not a word is said about his teaching them to keep the
' Law of Jehovah.' And the context plainly shows that he did
not teach them to observe the commands of the Pentateuch, and
that the worship of Jehovah, which he introduced among them,
and which is expressed by saying that he taught them to 'fear
Jehovah,' was after the corrupt fashion of the kingdom of Israel,
and near akin to idolatry itself, with which it was, in fact,
combined, v.32-41 : —

' So they feared Jehovah, and made unto themselves indiscriminately (E. V. ' of
the lowest of them ') priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the
houses of the high places. They feared Jehovah, and served their own gods,
after the manner of the nations, whom they carried away from thence, [or, E. V.
marg., ' who carried them away from thence ']. Unto this day they do after the
former manners : they fear not Jehovah, neither do they after their statutes, or
after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment, which Jehovah com-
manded the children of Jacob whom He named Israel, — with whom Jehovah had made
a covenant, and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow your-
selves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them. . . Howbeit they did
not hearken, but they did after their former manner. So these nations feared
Jehovah, and served their graven images, both their children and their children's
children : as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.'

6. We must remember that the above was written by some
historian of the kingdom of Judah, probably, long after the
Jewish Captivity, — at all events, not earlier than the time when
the ' children's children ' of those, who were thus taught to ' fear
Jehovah,' practised the same idolatrous Jehovah-worship as their
fathers had done before them. And the language of the above

*B3

6 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

passage, — especially the clause italicised, whichever version we
take, — seems to imply that the writer is speaking of idolatrous
Israelites, quite as much as of the heathen colonists : in other
words, it implies that the number left behind of the Ten Tribes,
and not carried off into Captivity, was, probably, far larger than
is generally imagined, — a fact of some importance to the right
understanding of some points in the later history, as we have
had already occasion to observe (821).

7. It would seem, then, that, when mention is made of a
general Captivity of Israel, we must suppose a reference, princi-
pally, to the chief people of the towns and villages, including, no
doubt — and as, indeed, the story expressly implies — the Priests.
The lower part of the population, — especially those living in the
country, — appear to have been left behind in considerable
numbers; and, in fact, as noticed in (821), the Chronicler tells
us, 2Ch.xxx.l,5,10,ll,xxxi.l, that —

' Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and
Manasseh, that they should come to the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem, to k
the Passover unto Jehovah, the God of Israel. . . So they established a decree,
to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba even to Dan. . .
So the posts passed from city to city, through the country of Ephraim and
Manasseh, even unto Zebidon ; but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them.
Nevertheless, divers of Asher, and Manasseh, and of Zebulon, humbled themselves
and came to Jerusalem. . . And, when all this was finished, all Israel that
were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and
cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all
Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh until they had utterly
destroyed them all.

8. This record, however, is by the hand of the Chronicler,
and, as we have seen already in the case of so many of his data,
it cannot be relied on, — more especially, as the book of Kings
says nothing whatever about this Passover in the days of
Hezekiah, and, in fact, in more than one point, is strongly at
variance with the Chronicler's statements. Thus the above pas-
sage asserts that in Hezekiah's days the ' high places and altars '
were ' thrown down ' in Ephraim and Manasseh ; and among

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 7

these, we must presume, Jeroboam's great altar and high place
at Bethel, in particular, — the very fountain head of the idolatries
of Israel, — must certainly have been destroyed. But we read of
Hezekiah's great-grandson, Josiah, in 2K.xxiii, 15, 19,20 —

' Moreover, the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place, which Jeroboam the
son of Kebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place
he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and
burned the (grove) Asherah . . . And all the houses also of the high places, that
were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made, to provoke
(Jehovah) to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts
that he had done in Bethel. And he slew all the priests of the high places, that
were there, upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to
Jerusalem.'

9. In short, it is plain, from the whole description in the
Book of Kings, that the effort made in the reign of Hezekiah,
towards the centralisation and purification of the worship of
Jehovah, was carried through, for a time, with greater energy
and success by Josiah, who purged Judah and Israel of idolatry,
after the discovery of the ' Book of the Law ' in the Temple.
And then was kept the great Passover, about which we read, —

' Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the Judges that
judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah,
but in the pighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this Passover was holden to
Jehovah in Jerusalem.' 2K.xxiii.22,23.

From the more authentic statements of this history we

gather also that the authority of Josiah extended over the

mixed population of Samaria, composed of Israelites and

heathens, as well as over Judah.

10. Up to this time, we hear nothing of the ' Law of Jehovah '
being practised, or even known, in Samaria ; nor is there any
indication, as yet, of any virulent feeling of mutual animosity,
existing between the Jews and Samaritans. At length the Jews
themselves were carried into Captivity, and, after a further
lapse of time, they received the permission to return to Jeru-
salem, and rebuild the Temple, b.c. 536, — about two centuries
after the Captivity of Israel, B.C. 721. The Samaritans, we are

8 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

told, Ezr.iv, wished to take part in this work, (which they would
hardly have done, if pure heathens), but were stoutly refused
by the Jews ; and therefore they did their best to hinder the
building of the Temple, and for a long time succeeded.

11. On this account, great hostility must have been roused
among the Jews, generally, against the Samaritans, — yet not,
it seems, among all the Jews, since we find that, in Nehemiah's
time, many of them, even Priests, had married strange women,
Xeh.xiii.23, and a grandson of Eliashib, the High Priest, r.28,
'was son-in-law to Sanballat the HoroniteJ one of the great
adversaries of the Jews, of whom we read, Xeh.iv.1,2 —

' When Sanballat heard that we had builded the ■wall, he was wroth, and took
great indignation, and mocked the Jews. And he spake before his brethren and
the army of Samaria, and said, What do these feeble Jews ? will they fortify them-
selves ? will they sacrifice ? will they make an end in a day ? will they revive the
stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned? And Tobiah the
Ammonite was with him, and he said, Even that which they build, if a fox go up,
he shall even break down their stone wall.'

And, with respect to this Tobiah, Xehemiah writes, vi.17-19 :
• Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and
the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto
him, because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah, and his son
Jchanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Also they
reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my matters to him. And Tobiah
sent letters to put me in fear.'

12. At a later period still, the Samaritans built a Temple for
themselves on Mount Grerizim.

The occasion of their doing this is thus related by Josephts,
Ant.xi.7,8. Under Darius Codomannus, the last king of Persia,
Sanballat, the Samaritan Satrap, gave his daughter in marriage
to the Jewish Priest, Manasseh, brother of the High Priest Jaddua,
hoping in this way to connect himself with the Jewish people.
Jaddua, however, and the Jewish people, disliked this marriage,
and insisted that Manasseh should either vacate the Priestly
office, or put away his Samaritan wife. Upon this, his father-
in-law promised him, that, if he would keep his wife, he would
make him High Priest at the Temple, which he would build

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 9

forthwith on Mount Grerizim, like that at Jerusalem. Manasseh
agreed to this ; and with him also many other Jews, and many-
Priests and Levites, who lived in the same kind of marriage
with strange wives, fell off in a body, and joined Manasseh, and
went with him to Samaria. Subsequently, after the defeat of
Darius by Alexander, Sanballat went over to the conqueror, and,
having obtained his permission, ' he used the utmost diligence,
and built the Temple, and made Manasseh the Priest ' ; and
the town of Sichem, at the foot of the mountain, became then,
and afterwards, a place of refuge for all Jews, who, expelled
by their own people for transgression of the Law, went over to
the Samaritans.

13. Such is the account which Josephts gives of this matter.
It seems as if, notwithstanding the chronological discrepancy,*
the event described must be the same as that to which re-
ference is^made in the passage quoted above from Neh.xiii.28,
where Xehemiah tells us that he expelled one of the sons of
Joiada, the son of Eliashib, the High Priest, son-in-law to
Sanballat the Horonite. But then, this man, according to
Neh.xii.l 1, must have been the uncle, not the brother, of Jaddua.
It is possible that Josephus may have made a mistake, and set
the age of Sanballat too low. On this supposition, it may be
presumed, (as, indeed, the language of Xeh.xiii.28, ' I chased
him from me,' seems to imply,) that Manasseh did go to his
father-in-law, as Josephus states, accompanied by some of the
Jews mentioned in Neh.xiii.23, as having married foreign wives,
and was at once made High Priest in Samaria.

14. But, taking the earliest date, it is evident that it must
have been long after the return of the Jews themselves from
Captivity, when, by the arrival of Priests of some authority
from Jerusalem, the worship of Jehovah was once more set

* Nehemiah's administration is apparently placed in the reign of Artazei
Longimanus, b.c.465 — 425, while the reign of Darius Codomannus began b.c.336.

10 THE SAMAKITAN' PENTATEUCH.

forward, more vigorously than ever, among the semi-heathen
community of Samaria, who were then living, we must sup-
pose, in almost entire ignorance and neglect of the Law, the
observance of which was now enforced with so much rigour
at Jerusalem. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, if, under
the circumstances of the case, and with the special sanction of
Sanballat himself, these Priests were able to introduce among
them without any difficult}7 the Pentateuch, which had now
been, since Josiah's time, — for, at least, two centuries, — known
and recognised among the Jews as the ' Law of Moses.' And
among the Samaritans this part of the Bible, and this alone,
is held in authority down to the present day.

15. Dean Stanley writes, Sinai and Palestine, p.240: —

Probably, in no other locality has the same -worship been sustained, with so
little change or interruption, for so great a series of years, as on this mountain
(Gerizim), from the time of Abraham to the present day. In their humble
synagogue at the foot of the mountain, the Samaritans still -worship, — the oldest,
and the smallest, sect in the -world, distinguished by their noble physiognomy and
stately appearance from all other branches of the race of Israel. In their pros-
trations at the elevation of their revered copy of the Pentateuch, they throw
themselves on their faces, not in the direction of Priest or Law, or any object
within the building, but obliquely towards the Eastern summit of Mount Gerizim.
And up the side of the mountain, and on its long ridge, is to be traced the path-
way, by which they ascend to the sacred spots, where they alone, of all the Jewish
race, yearly celebrate the Paschal sacrifice.

16. In this age, then — at the earliest, 120 years after the
return of the Jews from Babylon, perhaps, 220 years after that
event — it is possible that the Samaritans were first made ac-
quainted more intimately with the Pentateuch. There is no
proof even of this ; but the fact in itself seems not improbable.
Before this time, there is nothing to lead us to suppose that
they had any copy of the Law among them. Doubtless, there
prevailed among the Ten Tribes at first, when the}r separated
from Judah, something like the same amount of acquaintance
with those portions of the Pentateuch, which were then actually
in existence, as prevailed among the people of the kingdom of

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 11

Judah. But this, from all the indications which the historical
and prophetical writings afford, must have been, at the best,
very slight and superficial.

17. According to our view, indeed, the greater portion of the
Tetrateuch had been written before the end of Solomon's reign,
immediately after which the division of the two kingdoms took
place. But this document, as we believe — and as all the history
seems to imply — was not generally known to the people. It
was, probably, kept by the Priests, and laid up in the private
archives of the Temple, and there may have been consulted
occasionally by distinguished persons, Royal, Priestly, or Pro-
phetical. But there is no sign whatever that it was recognised
in those days as authoritative and Divine, — none that it was
'published, or that copies of it were multiplied, for the general
edification of the people. Thus only can we account for the
utter neglect, by the very best kings of Judah, of so many of
the plainest commands of the Mosaic Law ; thus only can we
understand how, both in Judah and Israel, all along, from the
days of Samuel downwards, till the reign of Hezekiah, the high
places were allowed to stand, and the Passover was neglected.

18. A century, however, after the Captivity of Israel, B.C.721,
the Samaritan mixed people heard, no doubt, of that grand
event, the discovery of the ' Book of the Law ' in the days of
Josiah, B.c.624; and they appear to have felt the power of his
hand in the ' Great Reformation ' which ensued, when he threw
down their altars and high places, and slew their Priests. But
even in Judah itself, as we have seen (574.xi), the effects of the
Reformation seem to have been but short-lived : it is doubtful
if they endured to the end of Josiah's own reign ; and it is
certain that, in the days of his successors, the old idolatries
were practised again as of old. It can scarcely be believed
that in this age the Samaritans received the Pentateuch ; but,
if they did, they would receive with it, of course, the Book of
Deuteronomy also. Two centuries more, at least, passed awaj

12 THE SAMARITAN TENTATEUCII.

before Manasseh and his fellow-Priests came down to set up a
more regular worship of Jehovah in Samaria.

19. Now, that the Samaritan Text* was not made before
this event, and was probably composed at a still later time than
this, is indicated by these two facts :

(i) The Samaritan Text contains only the Pentateuch, and
not the Book of Joshua, which undoubtedly, (from the internal
evidence of its contents), formed part originally of the same
document as the Pentateuch itself, — a great portion of it, as
we shall see hereafter, being the work of the Deuteronomist.
Hence, when the Samaritan Text was made, the Book of
Joshua must have been already separated from the Five Books
of the Law. In this way, perhaps, may be explained the fact
of their not receiving the book of Joshua ; as they would not
surely have abandoned this book, if they had once been ac-
customed to regard it as authoritative and Divine. They,
probably, wished only to obtain the ' Law of Moses,' and this
they found comprised fully in the Pentateuch.f Now it is sup-
posed that this separation of the book of Joshua from the other
five books was first made in the time of Ezra (228), — so that the
Text must have been made after this time, at all events.

(ii) The Samaritan Text, in its variations from the Hebrew,
frequently resembles the Sejptuagint Version, from which it may
be inferred that the Samaritans obtained the copies of the
Hebrew Pentateuch, from which their Text was made, from
the Alexandrian Jews of Egypt, from whom, indeed, they would
be likely to obtain it more readily than from those of Jerusalem.

20. Havernick writes, Pent, jo.435 : —

Already, under Alexander, Samaritans had been transplanted into Egypt,

* The Sam. Version was made from the Sam. Text at a later date.

t There may have been other reasons, whythe Samaritans stopped short with the
death of Moses, rejecting the book of Joshua, — such as dislike of the unity of Israel,
which that book presents, and especially of the strong censure passed in Jo.xxii
upon any, who shuidd 'build an altar, beside the altar of Jehovah,' before which
all Israel was to worship. They had n book of Joshua, but not the Canonical Book.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 13

Joseph. Ant.xi.8.6. Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, [after Alexander's death,] trans-
planted a multitude of them to lower Egypt and Alexandria, AntjdLl.l. [This
Ptolemy reigned forty years, and was succeeded by Ptolemy Philadelphus, in whose
reign the Sept. Vers, was made, Ant.inL2.1.~] Hence Samaritans came in close •
contact with Alexandrian Jews, and a dispute arose between them about building a
Temple at Leontopolis, in which both parties appealed to the Law.

There must have been persons then among the Samaritans, who occupied
themselves by profession with the Pentateuch and the study of it. The peculiar
character, however, of Alexandrian Judaism must have impressed itself upon them
all the more, as they themselves came to it devoid of a firm point of support and
a fixed religious character. Thus they took up many dogmas and principles, such
as the avoidance of anthropomorphisms, the pure spirituality of the angels, the
doctrine of the Resurrection, the special prominence given to Hoses and th^
Pentateuch above all the other persons and writings of the O.T. These things
were communicated to their Pentateuch, and they certainly introduced into it
alterations of that sort with so much the more freedom, as in this too they had only
to follow the example of the Alexandrian Jews. In this way arose that recension
of the Pentateuch, which even still possesses force and validity among the
Samaritans, as the document of their religion,- — the striking agreement of which
with the Alexandrian recension can be satisfactorily explained only by this ex-
ternal and internal contact of the two parties. This revision, however, as the
nature of the case, and also the condition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, indicate,
is to be conceived as only a gradual one, undertaken with reierence to different
circumstances and objects ; and this circumstance also (?) leads to the adoption of
our previous conclusion, that the Samaritans must have brought the Pentateuch
with them into Egypt.

21. Whatever may be the force of Hayerxick's argument,
to show that ' the Samaritans must have brought the Penta-
teuch with them into Egypt,' — a point which we neither assert
nor deny, — yet this, at all events, is plain, or, at least, is highly
probable, that the present Samaritan Pentateuch, which agrees
so closely with the Septuagint Version, was not composed before
the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, b.c.285-237, nearly three
centuries after the days of Ezra. So that not only is the fact,
that the Samaritans recognise the Pentateuch, no proof what-
ever that it was completed at an earlier time than that which
we have assigned to it in the days of Josiah, but the character
of their Pentateuch rather seems to imply that they did not even
possess a copy of the Pentateuch before they received it from
the Jews of Alexandria.

14

CHAPTER II.

THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE PENTATEUCH.

22. We shall now proceed to redeem to some extent the
promise made in (487), so far, we trust, as to satisfy the
reader, by actual presentation before his own eyes of the fact
itself, that the Book of Genesis is, as we have said, a composite
narrative, the product of different authors, to each of whom may
be assigned his own particular part of the work. As Hupfeld
justly observes, Die Qu ell-en der Genesis, p.2: —

When in this manner we are enabled to put together the parts which belong to
each source into a well-proportioned organic whole, a living body, so that each
manifestly appears in its own peculiar and distinct form, then have we the best
possible proof of the right of making such a distinction, — then, without any
polemics, we have here the most simple and most effective practical refutation of a
host of ' Replies,' and of all the ingenuity expended upon them.

23. We have seen already (217) what effect the being brought
face to face with the actual facts of the case, by a close and
careful study of the Pentateuch in the original tongue, has
wrought upon the mind of a candid, straightforward, critic such
as Kurtz, devoted, heart and soul, to the maintenance, as far as
possible, of the traditionary view. He had pledged himself to
' maintain and defend ' that view — of ' the whole Pentateuch,
as at present existing, being from the hand of Moses,' — while
admitting that ' the argument was not wholly free from diffi-
culties ' ; and he makes the asseveration —

iu spite of these difficulties, which at the time we knew we had not perfectly
removed, we thought with a good conscience to maintain and defend the unity of
Genesis.

THE COMPOSITE CHAKACTEE OF THE PENTATEUCH. 15

Yet, when he had reached the end of his work, he felt com-
pelled, by a conscientious regard for truth, to state that he
could no longer do this : —

We cannot conceal the fact, that our examination of the middle books of the
Pentateuch has brought us more and more to the conclusion, that several authors
have taken part in the composition of the Pentateuch.

Again, it is well known that Ewald, in one of his earliest
critical works, Die Komjo. cler Genesis, 1823, defended strenu-
ously the absolute unity of Genesis. A closer study of the
subject has compelled him, however, as has been the case
with so many other earnest, sincere, and devout enquirers, to
change entirely his views in this respect.

24. In like manner Delitzch, one of the latest ( 3rd Ed., 1860),
and (as we shall see) most resolute, defenders of the traditionary
view, has yet been forced to depart thus far from the ordinary
notion of the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch,
Gen.p.37 : —

From the results of my investigations, I have formed to myself the following
idea of the mode of formation of the Pentateuch. The kernel, or basis, of it was
written by Moses himself, in the Covenant -roll, which is now worked into the
history of the Law-giving in E.xix-xxiv. The other laws of the Sinaitic desert,
till they reached the plains of Moab, were delivered by Moses orally, but they
were committed to writing by the Priests, within whose province this lay. Since
Deuteronomy does not at all imply the existence of the whole older legislation in
writing, but rather recapitulates it with great freedom, we need not assume that
the actual codification took place already during the march through the wilderness.
It was completed, however, soon after taking possession of Canaan. Upon the
soil of the Holy Land the history of Israel began first to be written, having
now reached a resting-point : the historical description of the Mosaic time neces-
sitated of itself the writing down of the Mosaic legislation in its whole extent. A
man, such as Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest, wrote the great work beginning
with ' In the beginning He created,' in which he included the ' covenant -roll,' and
perhaps, inserted only short notices about the last discourses of Moses, since Moses
had written them down with his own hand. A second, such as Joshua, one who
was a Prophet and spake as a Prophet, or one of those ' elders ' upon whom the
spirit of Moses rested, and many of whom out-lived Joshua, completed this work,
— not, of course, from the impulse of his own will, nor merely out of an inward
call, but under some kind of authorisation, and incorporated in it the whole of
Deuteronomy, upon which he had formed his own mind. Somewhat in this way

16 THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE PEXTATEUCH.

arose the Law, not without the employment of other written documents by both
writers.

25. And even Dr. Pte Smith, — though he seems only to be
aware of peculiar phenomena existing in the first chapters of Ge-
nesis, and has evidently not studied the subject critically, — goes
so far as to admit as follows, Geology and Scripture, p. 184 : —

It is not irrelevant here to remark that the earlier part of the Book of Genesis
consists of several distinct compositions, marked by their differences of style, and
by express formularies of commencement. From the evidence of language and of
matter, we have no slight reasons for supposing that Moses compiled the chief
parts of the Book of Genesis, by arranging and connecting ancient memorials,
under the Divine direction, and probably during the middle part of his life, which
he spent in the retirements of Arabia. Thus, though it is impossible to affirm
with confidence such a position, yet it appears far from improbable that we have,
in this most ancient writing in the world, the family archives of Amram and his
ancestors, comprising the history of Joseph, probably written in great part by him-
self,— documents from the hands of Jacob, Abraham, Shem, Noah (!), — and, pos-
sibly, ascending higher still, authentic memorials from Enoch, Seth, and Adam.

26. Certainly, our own view of the origin and composition of
the Pentateuch differs materially in detail from the above, as well
as from that of the Rev. W. H. Hoaee, who admits the existence
of two distinct writers in the Pentateuch, but supposes Aaron
to have been the Elohist, and Moses the Jehovist. We have
given at full length, as we have proceeded, the evidence which
appears to commend our own theory, so far as the progress of
this work has at present allowed : and much more remains yet
to be adduced in support of it.* But the example of such men

* TrcH, Ge ?i.^j.xciii, after recapitulating the ' signs of time,' which he finds in
the Elohistie document, states his conclusion to be, that 'it is, consequently, the
first fruit of the progress, out of the condition of religious and political indifference,
to a settled state of order and regulated social life, which the people made chiefly
through the activity of Samuel. . . . "Who the writer may have been cannot
[? with certainty'] be conjectured. We might imagine Samuel, and consider the
'primary document to be the last service which lie, withdrawn from public occupa-
tions, in the evening of his life, rendered to his people rescued by its activity.' It
will be seen that Tuch's suggestion corresponds exactly with our own view,
expressed in (285) : ' It is very conceivable that, when he (Samuel) gave up to
Saux the reins of government, more especially during the last twenty years, when
he lived retired from public life, he may have devoted himself to such labours as

THE COMPOSITE CHAKACTER OF THE PENTATEUCH. 17

as Kurtz and Delitzch, struggling manifestly with their own
previous convictions, yet honestly confessing the conclusions to
which a devout and faithful study of the Pentateuch has led
them, contrasts strongly with the conduct of some in England,
who, without having even studied the question, — without
having even read through the original text, or given attention
to the criticisms founded upon it, — not only condemn such
labours as these in toto, but denounce all critical results what-
ever, which differ from the traditionary views on this subject.

27. We shall at present confine the reader's attention to the
first eleven chapters of Grenesis. In these chapters, the parts
belonging to the different authors can be very easily distin-
guished, and can, in most instances, be assigned with con-
fidence to their respective writers. After the eleventh chapter,
the question becomes somewhat more complicated, by the ap-
pearance of interpolations by other hands. Still, throughout
the whole book of Grenesis, the primitive narrative can be traced
without much difficulty, and, as we hope to show in the sequel,
can be almost reproduced in its original form.

28. A few words must here be said as to the method which
will be pursued in the following analysis. We have already stated
(210-6) that, throughout the book of Gfenesis, two different
hands at least are distinctly visible, one of which is charac-
terised by the constant use of the name Elohim, the other
by the intermixture with it of the name Jehovah, — on which
account the writers are usually called the 'Elohist' and ' Jehovist,'
respectively. And we have mentioned also in (213) certain
peculiarities of expression, which mark the style oftheElohistic
writer. We must not, however, assume, for the purposes of the
present analysis, that all this will be granted beforehand. Rather,

these, for the instruction and advancement of his people.' As these words were
written without any knowledge of Tuch's criticisms, it is possible that* the agree-
ment may be something more than accidental.
VOL. II. C

18 THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE PEXTATEUCH.

we must lay aside all previous notions, as to the characteristics
which distinguish the different writers, and endeavour to track
the footsteps of each, from one passage to another, by means
only of the internal evidence, which a close consideration of the
text itself may furnish. In this department of Biblical litera-
ture, as in many other branches of Science, it is only this minute,
laborious, microscopic examination, — however neglected and,
perhaps, despised by many, who are impatient of such slow pro-
cesses, and delight to expatiate in ' larger and grander views ' of
the whole subject, — which can really be of service, in enabling
us to lay a sound basis of fact, upon which to construct a
reasonable and trustworthy theory, as to the age and authorship
of the different parts of the Mosaic story.

29. While, therefore, we shall retain in the following analysis
the words 'Elohist' and 'Jehovist,' as convenient designations
for the two principal writers, whose hands can be plainly dis-
cerned in these chapters, yet the reader will find that nothing
has been taken for granted beforehand ; but each passage, as it
passes under review, is traced to its writer by means of distinct,
internal, evidence, which shows that it belongs to that particu-
lar writer, and not to the other. It will be found that the sec-
tions, marked as * Elohistic,' are all linked together, each being
connected, by its modes of thought or forms of expression, with
other Elohistic passages, and having no such relation to the
Jehovistic sections, — while these latter not only exhibit among
themselves a corresponding family resemblance, very distinct
from that which marks the style of the Elohist, but also
contain expressions, which appear to indicate that they were
composed at a time, when the Elohistic narrative was already
existing, and known to the Jehovistic writer.

19

CHAPTEE III.

ANALYSIS OF GEX.I.1-IY.26.

30. i.l-ii.3 (E.35*) is manifestly Elohistic, and the work of
one hand throughout.

It is thought by some, — among others, by Delitzch, — that
ii.4a—

' These are the generations of the Heaven and the Earth in their creation ' —
is also Elohistic, for the following reasons : —

(i) It contains ','"lSni D^^'ili hashamaim vehaarets, 'the Heaven and the Earth,'

I V t t : - - T -

as in Lljii.1, the words being used with the articles ; whereas in ii.4b we find the
words without the articles (as in xiv.19,22), and in different order, CJX'l V1X
ere is veshamaim, ' Earth and Heaven.'

(ii) The expression EN~Qi"l2> bchibbaream, 'in their creation,' corresponds to the
Elohistic language in v.2, QX")2n DV3> beyoin hibbaream, 'in the day of their
creation.'

(iii) It suits best the first account of the Creation in chap.i, in which alone the

* E., J., J.E., are used, as before, to denote the words ' Elohim,' ' Jehovah,'
' Jehovah-Elohim ' ; and (E.35) implies that 'Elohim' occurs 35 times in the
section, i.l-ii.3, and 'Jehovah' not at all. The expressions vA*, i\4b, &c, aiv
used to denote, respectively, the first, second, &c, clauses of '.'.4.

In these notes, the phrase as in will be used when it is desired to draw attention
to the fact, that a passage or expression, under consideration, is identically the same
as the expression used in another place by the same writer; comp. (compare)
implies that there is a close resemblance between two passages ; while contr. (con-
trast) will be emploj'ed to mark a variation or disagreement, between the language
or mode of thought of one writer and that of another.

The reader is recommended to mark each one of the Jehovistic passages,
when he is satisfied about it, in an English Bible, by a line drawn down the margin.
This will be found very convenient for reference.

It will be remembered that in the Eng. Vers. 'Elohim' is represented by God,
' Jehovah ' by Lord, and ' Adonai ' by Lord.

C 2

20 ANALYSIS OF GEX.I.1-IV.26.

actual creation of 'the Heaven,' i.8, and 'the Earth,' i.10, is described; 'whereas
chap.ii mentions only the formation of man, ii.7, plants, ii.9, animals, ii. 19, and
woman, ii.22.

31. In that case, also, since in all other passages of the Bible,
where the phrase, 'these are the generations,' occurs, viz. G.v.l,
vi.9, x.l,xi.lO,27, xxv.l2,19,xxxvi.l,9, xxxvii.2, N.iii.l, E.iv.18,
lCh.i.29, it is found at the beginning of the genealogy or his-
tory to which it refers, it has been suggested, e.g. by Schradeb,
Studien, pAO, that the Jehovist may have removed it from the
place where it originally stood, at the beginning of chap.i, and
employed it to form the introduction to his own narrative.

But in x.20,31,32, we have instances of somewhat similar
formula?, — ' these are the sons of Ham,' ' these are the sons of
Sheni,' ' these are the families of the sons of Noah after their
generations,' — inserted at the end of the corresponding parts of
the narrative. And Delitzch says justly, p. 133 : —

Here, if anywhere, -was there occasion given for the Elohist to change into a
sz^scription what would otherwise have been a superscription, (as in many similar
instances in Leviticus and Numbers, e.g. at the close of each of these books,) in
order that the work might commence with ' In the- beginning.'

32. Ou the other hand, the Jehovist, if he had before him i.l,
as it now stands, may, perhaps, have adopted some of its ex-
pressions, ' the Heaven and the Earth,' and the verb H~)2, bora,
' create,' in forming the commencement of his own narrative.
He afterwards, as we shall see, himself uses 503 in vi.7, and,
perhaps, the phrase, 'these are the generations,' in x.l. And,
as in vA\ 'in the day of Jehovah-Elohim's making &c.,' he ap-
pears to have imitated the E. language in v.l, 'in the day of
Elohim's creating &c.,' so he may also have derived the ex-
pression 'in their creation' from that in v.2, 'in the day of
their creation'; and v. 1,2, as we shall see (42), followed next
after ii.3 in the E. story.

33. If vA* belongs to the Elohist, it would strongly confirm
the view of Tuck and others, as to the way in which the
Jehovistic insertions have originated; since then the long

ANALYSIS OP GEN.L1-IV.26. 21

Jehovistic section following would begin with a broken sen-
tence,— ' in the day of Jehovah-Elohim's making Earth and
Heaven,' — and the supplementary character of the Jehovist's
work would be plainly indicated : unless, with Ewald, we con-
nect vAh with v.7, taking v.5,6, as a parenthesis,—* In the day
of &c. . . . then Jehovah-Elohini formed man, &c.' — which
seems, however, rather forced.

But, the evidence being so nearly balanced, we shall retain it
as the first clause of the Jehovistic narrative, without deciding
to whom it really belongs, — whether to the Elohist, or to the
Jehovist, or, perhaps, to a later compiler. In any case, the in-
volved construction in vA, when compared with the verses which
precede and follow it, is a sign that it does not proceed in an
independent, original, form from the pen of either of the
principal writers, but contains expressions of both fused together,
to form the connecting link between two distinct narratives

34. ii.4-25 (J.E.11) is Jehovistic, the writer using through-
out, not Elohim, as the writer of i.l-ii.3, but Jehovah-
Elohim, and showing himself to be a different writer by the
following variations, which exist between his account of the
Creation and that of the former writer : —

(i) ?'.6, 'a mist rose from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground ' :
contr.i.9,10, where the earth is described as emerging from the waters, and as
being, therefore, already saturated with moisture ;

(ii) v.7, man is created first of all living creatures, before the birds and beasts,
t'.19 : contr.i.26, where he is created last of all, after the birds and beasts, i.21,25 ;

(iii) v.7, man is 'formed of the dust of the ground' : contr.i.27, where man
is ' created in the image of God,' and, apparently, by a direct act of creative
power ;

(iv) v.7, the man is made by himself, without the woman, who is made last,
z\22, by a kind of afterthought, v.18: contr.i.27, where man and woman are
created together, last of all created things ;

(v) t'.lo, the man, after being made, is placed alone in the garden, ' to till it and
to keep it,' receiving also alone by himself the Divine command; and he continues in
the garden some time by himself, long enough to 'call names to all the cattle, ana
to the fowl of the heaven, and to every animal of the field,' v.20 : contr.i:2S, where

22 ANALYSIS OF GEN.I.I-IY.26.

man and 'woman, on the sixth day, immediately after their creation, are blessed
together, and are together endowed with dominion over the 'whole earth ;

(vi) i'.21,22, the -woman is made out of one of the man's ribs : amtr.i.27, where
the -woman is described, apparently, as created in the same kind of way as the
man, by a direct act of creative power.

35. It is obvious that two accounts of the Creation, so
different from each other in general character, and in some
points varying so remarkably from each other, cannot have pro-
ceeded from one and the same hand. Accordingly, observing
the peculiar use of the Divine Xame in them, we are already
justified in using the names ' Elohist ' and ' Jehovist' to desig-
nate the two writers, whoever they may have been, in whatever
age they may have lived, to whom these two sections, i.l-ii.3,
ii.4-25, may be now with good reason assumed to be due. We
shall find, as we proceed, that the remaining sections of these
first eleven chapters separate themselves at once, when attention
is paid to the internal evidence which they present, into two sets
of passages, differing from each other in tone of thought and
forms of expression, and, with one or two exceptions, distinctly
referable to the same two writers, to whom must be assigned
the composition of the above two primary sections.

36. We now add the following remarks upon the Jehovistic
passage, ii.4-25.

(i) In v.20 we have for the first time the name D1X. 'Adam,' nsed without the
article, as a Proper Xame, by which is abruptly anticipated the statement,
-which follows in its proper place in the Elohistic narrative, v.2, — 'and He
called their name Adam in the day of their creation.' Otherwise, we find used
DHXn ha- Adam, ' the man,' as in i.27, except in iii.l7,2I,iv.25. It is only, however,
in iv.2.5 that the name first occurs 'without the article, as the subject of the verb.
In the other three instances, ii.20, iii.17,21, it occurs in the form Q*1X7> lc-Adam,
'to Adam,' which, perhaps, should be pointed Q1J{^ la-Adam, ' to the man.'

(ii) The Jehovist may have adopted the name from the Elohist in i.26,
(where it is found without the article, as object of the verb), or from v.2 ; and he
wishes, apparently, to connect it with nttlX. udamah, 'ground,' in ii.7, — 'and
Jehovah-Elohim formed the man (ha-Adam) of dust out of the ground (ha-Adamah).'

(iii) e\23, the Jehovist notes the derivation of the name HtJ'tf, ishah, 'woman.'

T •

from c;'*X. &^i ' man.'

37. iii.1-24, Jehovistic.

ANALYSIS OF GEN.I.1-IV.26. 23

This section is manifestly due to the writer of the preceding
section, whoever he may be, since it not only contains the same
peculiar form of the Divine Name, but is full of references to it,
as is shown below, while it betrays no such relation to the pre-
vious Elohistic section, — a fact, which confirms very strongly our
previous conclusion as to the difference between the two authors.

(i) Jehovah-Elohim is employed throughout {nine times) as the name of the
Divine Being, as in ii.4-25, except in v. 1,3,5, where the 'writer abstains from
placing the Sacred Name in the mouth of the serpent : contr. the use of Elohim,
exclusively, in i.l-ii.3 ;

(ii) 0.1,2,3,8,10, 'the garden,' as in ii. 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 ;

(iii) v.\-Z, ' is it so that Elohim has said, &c.' : comp. the command in ii. 16,17 ;

(iv) y.1,14, 'animal of the field' as in ii.19,20: contr. 'animal of the earth,1
i.25,30 ;

(y) r.1,14,18, rnb>, sadeh, 'field,' as in ii.5,5,19,20 ;

(vi) v. 3, ' the tree -which is in the midst of the garden' : comp.ii.'d ;

(vii) «?.5, ' in the day of your eating of it ' : comp.ii.ll, ' in the day of thy eating
of it ' ;

(viii) v. 5, 'knowing good and evil,' v.2'2, 'for the knowledge of good and evil' :
co?np.ii.9,17, 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' ;

(ix) t>.6,12,15,16,20, X-1i"I> 'he, she, it,' used for the substantive verb, as in ii.ll,
13,14,19;

(x) v.7, 'they knew that they were naked,' I'.IO, 'I was afraid, because I was
naked,' ».21, ' and clothed them ' : comp.\\.2o, ' they were both naked' ;

(xi) t\17,19.23 nDTXn ha-adamah, 'the ground,' as in ii.5, 6,7, 9,19 : contr. the,

j T T -; TJ

use of this word once only in the previous Elohistic section, i.25, with reference
only to things ; creeping upon the ground ' ;

(xii) 0.18, ' herb of the field,' as in ii.5 ;

(xiii) i'.20, the name n-in> Jchavvah, 'Eve,' derived from nifT khavah, 'live':

V T - T T

comp. the derivation of the names ' Adam,' ii.7, ' Ishab,' ii.23 ;

(xiv) i\22, ' and Jehovah-Elohim said' : comp. the secret speech which is ascribed
to Jehovah-Elohim in ii. 18 ; but the somewhat similar E. passage, i.26, is essentially
different in character, being merely an expansion of the creative words, ' And
Elohim said,' in i'.3,6, &c. ; and, obviously, the statement in i.26, ' and Elohim said,
Let us make man ... so Elohim created man,' does not at all resemble the almost
perplexed deliberation of the Divine Being with Himself, introduced in iii.22 ;

(xv) e.22,24, 'tree of life,' as in ii.9 ;

(xvi) r.23, ' till the ground,' as in ii.5 ;

(xvii) r.23, ' the ground from which he was taken' : comp. the account of Adam's
formation in ii.7 ;

(xviii) ^.23.24, ' garden of Eden,' as in ii.15 ; comp. also ' Eden,' ii.8,10.

N.B. In f.15,15, the verb SV)J?, shuph, 'bruise,' is very probably used, after

24 ANALYSIS OF GEX.I.1-IT.26.

the manner of the Jehovist, with a play on the word |i2*2w' she^hiphon, ' adder'
or ' horned snake,' xlix.17.

38. We may now assume that the writer of ii.4-iii.24 is one
and tiie same person, and different from the Elohistic author of
i.l-ii.3. We may further observe that this Jehovistic writer is
in the habit of using strong anthropomorphisrrts, ascribing to
the Deity ordinary human actions.

Thus we have Jehovah-Elohim spoken of as —

(i) forming the man of dustout of the ground, ii.7 ;

(ii) breathing into his nostrils, ii.7 ;

(iii) planting a garden, ii.S ;

(iv) taking the man, and leaving him in the garden, ii.lo;

(v) bringing the birds and beasts to Adam, ii.19 ;

(vi) desiring to see -what he woidd call them, ii.19 ;

(vii) taking out one of the man's ribs, ii. 21 ;

(via) closing up the flesh in its place, ii.21 ;

(ix) making the rib into a ■woman, ii.22 ;

(x) bringing the woman unto the man, ii.22 ;

(xi) walking in the breeze of the day, iii. 8 ;

(xii) making coats of skins, iii. 21 ;

(xiii) clothing the man and woman, iii. 21 ;

(^xiv) driving them out of the garden, iii.24 ;

(xv) taking precautions to prevent their return, iii.24 ;

(xvi) reasoning within himself in human fashion, ii.18, iii. 22.

39. As above observed (30.iii), the Jehovist does not dwell
at length upon the creation of the Heaven and the Earth, nor
does he even mention at all the ' light,' ' firmament,' ' seas,'
' luminaries,' ' reptiles,' and ' fishes,' of the Elohistic document.
He is evidently concerned mainly with man and his doings, and
is intent on describing (i) his happy life in Paradise, blessed with
the institution of marriage, in connection with which the beasts
and birds are introduced, r.19, formed out of the ground, and
brought to Adam to be named, inasmuch as among these are
found the domestic animals, which supply a certain kind of com-
panionship, and prevent his feeling himself altogether ' alone,'
which was 'not good' for him, r.18, — and (ii) the terrible
change, by which this happy state was lost. This special object,

ANALYSIS OF GEX.I.1-IY.26. 25

which the writer had in view, accounts for the somewhat abrupt
manner in which he begins, ii.4. Tuch observes, pAO : —

Let us imagine the Jehovistic writer, with his purpose in his eye, set down
before the preceding cosmogony. Why should he repeat circumstantially, what in
that was freely described? Why should he relate again the separation of the
Heaven from the Earth, the division of the waters, the creation of the heavenly
bodies, [the production of the reptiles and fishes,] which did not specially concern
his particular purpose ? With a few words, then, he puts all this together, ' in the
day of Jehovah-Elohim's making Earth and Heaven,' so at once passing over to
that which he purposes to describe.

40. iv.1-26, Jehovistic.

This section, it will be seen, belongs to the same writer as
the two preceding sections, — though he uses now ' Jehovah'
only, instead of the compound name ' Jehovah-Elohim.' This
appears from the numerous references made in it throughout
to ii.-i-iii.24, whereas there is no indication of any relation-
ship to the Elohistic section, i.l-ii.3.

(i) v.l, 'Eve,' as in iii.20 : the Elohist does not mention at all the name of the
first woman, nor does it occur anywhere else in the O.T. ;

(ii) v.2, the name JJ15, Kayin, ' Cain,' derived from ffop, Jcanah, 'acquire,' and
probably, also, 'Abel,' from ^jn, hevel, 'vanity, nothingness': comp. the deriva-
tions of 'Adam,' iL7, 'Ishah,' ii.23, 'Eve,' iii.20;

(iii) e'.2,12, ' till the ground,' as in ii.5,iii.23 ;

(iv) w.2,3,10,11,12,14, nCTJXn, ha-adamah, 'the ground,' as in ii.5,6,7,9,19,
iii. 17, 19,23 ; whereas the word is used only once in the Elohistic section i.l-ii.3,
in the expression 'creeping upon the ground,' which phrase the Jehovist, as we
shall see, never employs ;

(v) 0.4,22,26, Qj| gam, 'also,' as in iii.6,22 ;

(vi) p.4,20,21,22,26, KW, H 'he, she, it,' as in ii. 11,13,14,19, iii.6,12,15,16,20 ;

(vii) v.~, np-IK'J'), tSshukah, 'desire,' as in iii. 16 ; nowhere else in the Bible, ex-
cept Cant.vii.10 (11); and note that it is used here, G.iv.7, with ^ el, 'unto,' as
in iii. 16, but in Cant.vii.lO(ll) with ?y, hat, 'upon';

(viii) 1/.7, 'and towards thee its desire, and thou — thou shalt rule over it' : comp.
iii. 1G, 'and towards thy husband thy desire, and he — he shall rule over thee' ;

(ix) v.8, nib, sadch, 'field.' as in iL5,o,19,20, iii.l, 14,18 ;

(x) v.9, 'where is Abel thy brother?' comp.iii.9, ' where art thou ? '

(xi) i\9, ^JNi anochi, 'I,' as in iii. 10;

(xii) t'.lO, 'and He said, What hast thou done?' compt.iu.lZ, 'and He said,
What is this thou hast done?'

(xiii) f.ll, ' cursed art thou,' &e. : comp. the curses in iii. 14,17 ;

2G ANALYSIS OF GEX.I.1-IV.26.

(xiv) ».ll, ' cursed art thou out of the earth': comp.ui.ll, 'cursed art thou out
of all the cattle and out 0/ every animal ': comp. also iii.l, 'the serpent was subtle
out of all animals ' ;

(xv) 0.11, 'take out of,' as in iii.19,22,23 ;

(xvi) f.12, 'when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee
its strength': comp. the sentence on Adam, iii.l 7—19 ;

(xvii) v.\i, 'C'~\l, garash, 'drive away,' as in iii.24 ;

(xviii) v.\i, 'face of the ground (E.V. earth),' as in ii.6 ;

(xix) r.lo, Jehovah ' set a mark upon Cain': comp. the anthropomorphisms in
ii.7,8,15,19,21,22, iii.8,21,24;

(xx) W.15, *ri^2^, levilti, 'not to,' as in iii.ll ;

(xxi) ».16, the name "f|j, 'Nod,' is derived, apparently, from *ij. nad, 'vagabond,'
y. 12,14 ; comp. the derivations of Adam, Ishah, Eve, Cain, as in (ii) above ;

(xxii) 0.I6, ni5"7pi kidmath, 'eastward of,' as in ii.14; nowhere else in the
Pentateuch, though it occurs in lS.xiii.o. Ez.xxxix.ll ;

(xxiii) r.16, 'Eden,' as in ii.8,10,15, iii.23,24 ;

(xxiv) r.25,26, the writer may have adopted the names, ' Seth' and ' Enos,' from
the Elohistic account in v.3,6, as, perhaps, he has adopted the name 'Adam,' v.25,
from i. 26 or v.2 ;

(xxv) v.25, the name ]"|t?> Sheth, 'Seth,' derived from ]-p£;, shith, 'appoint':
comp. the derivations of Adam, &c, as above in (ii),(xxi).

X.B. In i.l-ii.3 the Elohist uses V"ixn> ha-arets, 'the earth,' twenty-two times,

I V T T

and H?D"lKn, ha-adamah, 'the ground,' only once ; whereas in ii.4-iv.26 the

T TIT

■Jchovist uses the former, with the meaning ' earth,' only six times, and the latter
fourteen times. [X.B. The E.V. translates erroneously ' earth' instead of 'ground,'
in i.2o,iv.ll,14,vi.l, 7,20, vii. 4.8. ix.2.] In some of these latter fourteen instances
it is true, nOTXil must have been used, as in the phrase 'till the ground,' iii.23,

T t~: T

iv.2,12 ; but in other places the Jehovist uses it where he might have employed
VTXH- e.g. ii.6,iv.l4, 'face of the ground,' contr. i.29, 'face of all the earth,' — ii.7,
' dust of the ground,' but we find ' dust of the earth ' in all other passages,
G.xiiLl6,xxviii.l4,E.viii.l6,17,17(12,13,13),2S.xxii.43,2Ch.i.9,Job.xiv.l9, Is.xl.12,
Am.ii.7,— ii.9.19, ' out of the ground' &c, contr.i.\\,2i, 'let the earth bring
forth,' &c. — iii.19, 'till thou return unto the ground,' but Ecc.xii.7, 'then shall
the dust return to oy, hat, ' upon ' ) the earth,' &c.

The word ' Adamah ' may be repeated purposely with greater frequency throughout
this section with special reference to the name ' Adam ' ; but the writer seems to
have had also a partiality for the use of this word, as appears more plainly from
(45,i.) below. Of course the use of ha-adamah can only be regarded as a pecu-
liarity of style, when the writer employs it where he might as well have used
ha-arets.

41. We have suggested in (346) a possible explanation of the
reason, which may have led this author to use constantly the
name ' Jehovah-Elohim' in his first section, ii.4-iii.24, from

ANALYSIS OF GEN.I.1-IV.26. 27

which he passes off to ' Jehovah' in chap.iv, which latter name

he uses generally afterwards : —

This circumstance rather suggests the idea, that the writer composed it at a
time when the Name (Jehovah), though already familiar to himself, was not yet
universally employed, and that he wished in this way to commend it to popular
acceptance, instead of really adopting it as a word already common in the mouths
of the people.

It remains to be seen whether this suggestion will be confirmed
or contradicted by the further progress of our investigations.

•28

CHAPTER IV.

ANALYSIS OF GEX.Y.1-YII.24.

42. y.1-32 (except r.29), Elohistic.

This section is the continuation of the Elohistic narrative,
i.l-ii.3, to which it refers distinctly, but not at all to the Jeho-

vistic passage, ii.4-iv.26.

(i) i'.L, ' in the likeness of Elohini made He him ' : comp. i.27, 'in the image of
Elohim created He him ';

(ii) f.1,2, fcf}3j bara, ' create,' as in i.1,21,27,27, ii.3 ; the Jehovist also uses this
word, ii.4a(?), vi.7, hut less freely;

(iii) ».1,3, ri-lSl. demuth, 'likeness,' as in 1.26 ;

(iv) 0.2, 'male and female created He them,' as in i.27 ;

(v) v:2, ' He Messed them,' as in i.28 ;

(vi) J-.3, 'in his likeness, after his image' : comp. i.26, ' in our image, after our
likeness ';

(vii) i'.3,4,&c. (twenty-eight times), T»?in» holid, ' make-to-bear = beget' : contr.
the Jehovistic expression ypi, yalad, used in the sense of 'beget,' iv. IS, 18, 18.

43. w.29 is a Jehovistic interpolation, as appears — not only
from its containing, the name 'Jehovah,' but also — from its
referring distinctly to the Jehovistic section, ii.4-iv.26.

(i) ' over our work and over the pain of our hands ' : comp. the ' work and
pain' imposed on Adam in iii. 17-1 9 ;

(ii) |i2Vy, hitsavon, 'pain,' as in iii. 16, 16, 17, — nowhere else in the Bible;

(iii) 'the ground which Jehovah cursed ' : comp. iii. 17, ' cursed is the ground for
thy sake ' ;

(iv)J?he name nj, Nocikh, 'Noah,' connected with Qpti, nikham, ' comfort ' : comp.
the derivations of ' Adam,' ii.7, ' Ishah,' ii.23, ' Eve,' iii.20, ' Cain,' iv.l, ' Nod,' iv.16,
' Seth.' iv.2o.

X.B. The true derivation of the name nj, noukh, is from n-12, niuikh, 'rest.'
The Jehovist, as we shall see, in other cases refers names to words, from which
they are not really derived.

ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-VII.24. 29

Probably, the original conclusion of y.28 was ' and begat
Noah,' as in v.6,9,\2,l5,\8,2l,25. In v.S the Elohist writes 'and
begat [not ' begat a son '] in his likeness, after his image, and
called his name SetUS This also suggests that the Elohist would
not have written in ^.28,29, as now it stands ' and begat a son,
and called his name Noah,' — in other words, that he did not write
' begat a son ' at the end of v. 28, but ' begat Noah,' and that the
Jehovist, or a later compiler, has substituted ' a son ' for ' Noah,'
in order to introduce the explanation of the name.

44. vi.1-8, Jehovistic.

In v.5 the E.V. and Vulg. have Elohim: but the Heb., Sam.,
and all the other ancient versions and Targums, have ' Jehovah,'
except that the LXX has Kvpios 6 Qsos.

Also in r.2,4, occurs the phrase 'sons of Elohim '= angels.
But this was the current designation of angels, which any writer,
however thoroughly Jehovistic, must have used, as the phrase,
' sons of Jehovah,' is never employed. So in the Jehovistic
framework of the book of Job (336, note) the expression is twice
used, i.6, ii.l, and in each case Elohim is used with the article,
as here, B*D?$p, ha-Elohim. In Job xxxviii.7, the phrase is
used without the article; and in Ps.xxix.l,lxxxix.7, we have
D"?S \:2, bene elim, lit. ' sons of mighty-ones.'

45. Thus it appears that this section is quite Jehovistic, and
it connects itself with the previous Jehovistic matter, and with
that exclusively, by the following links.

(i) ul,7, 'face of the ground] as in ii.6, iv.14 : the partiality of the Jehovist
for the use of the word nO"7X (40, N.B) is here very strongly marked, — v.l, ' when
man began to multiply on the face of the ground,' — v.l, ' I will wipe out man from
off the face of the ground,' — in both which cases the E.V. has ' earth' ;

(ii) v.l, ?nn, hekhd, 'began': comp. ">n-in> hukkal, 'it was begun,' iv.26;

(iii) v.3, nS!p- meah, 'hundred': contr. the expression ]"IN)p- meath, in the
construct form, which is used repeatedly by the Elohist in v.3,6,18,25,28 ;

(iv) f.3,4, Q$ gam, 'also,' as in iii.6,22, iv.4,22,26;

(v) r.3, Kin *w» 'lie> suc> **>' as in ii-11, 13,14,19, iii.6,12,15,16,20, iv.4,20,
21,22,26;

30 ANALYSIS OF GEN.Y.1-YII.24.

(vi) i>.3, X-IH D3 ga'"i hu, <ne> she, it, also,' as in iv.4,22,26;

(vii) v.i, *]^>\ t/alad, 'beget,' (E.Y. 'bear'), as in iv.18,18,18: contr. the E.
expression "p|?in, ^olid, 'beget,' v.3,4,&c. {twenty-eight times) ;

(viii) v.o, "|£\ yetser, 'formation': comp. "|W, yaisar, 'form,' ii.7,8,19 ;

(is) v.G, 2>*ynV ■ithhatsev, 'he •was pained': comp. |12Vy> htfsaiwz, 'pain,
iii.16,17, v.29;

(x) i\7, 'from off (pyp, wwhoJ) the face of the ground,' as in iv.14: see also (i)
above ;

(xi) t'.3,6,7tf the writer attributes to the Deity human affections, disappointment,
change of plan, &c: see (38);

(xii) 0.3,7, 'and Jehovah said ' : comp. the secret speeches ascribed to Jehovah
in ii.l8,iii.22.

KB. In v.i we have b'EH* remcs, ' creeping-thing ' : hence this expression is
not confined to the Elohist, i.24,25,26, as some have supposed.

46. vi. 9-2 2, Elohistic, except v. 15,1 6.

(i) v.9, ' these are the generations ' : comp. ' this is the book of the generations,'

v.l;

(ii) r.9, Noah ' walked with Elohim,' as in v.22,24 ;

(iii) &.10, T?V"I> holid, 'beget,' as in v.3,4,&e. {twenty-eight times) ; contr. the
J. expression yyi, yalad, 'beget,' iv.l8,18,18,vi.4 ;

(iv) v. 10, ' Sbem, Ham, and Japheth,' as in v.32 ;

(v) f'.ll,12, would hardly have been written by one, who had already written
z\5-8 ;

(vi) i'.12, 'and Elohim saw the earth, and behold.' it was corrupted': comp. i. 31,
' and Elohim saw all that He had made, and behold! it was very good ' ;

(vii) 0.17, • all flesh in which is a spirit of life': comp.LSO, 'all in which is a
living soul ' ;

(viii) r.19. H3PM "1ST- zachar unekevah, 'male and female,' as in i.27,v.2 ;

(ix) 0.20,20,20, 'after his kind,' as in i.ll,12,21,&c. {ten times);

(x) i\20, ' every creeping thing of the ground,' as in i.25 ;

(xi) v.21, n^3X. ochlah, ' food,' as in i.29,30 ;

(xii) v.l", iJS, ani, 'I'; contr. the J. expression, >2i)X, anochi, 'I,' iii.10, iv.9.

47. vi.15,16, Jehovistic.

These verses appear to be Jehovistic; since the Elohist seems
to have completed his directions for the making of the Ark in
v. 14,— 'make it of cypress-wood, make it in cells, pitch it
-within and without,' — after which begins a fresh set of direc-
tions,— ' and this is how thou shalt make it, &c.' It is, how-
ever, impossible to speak with confidence here, as the indications

ANALYSIS OF GEN.V.1-YII.24. 31

are slight, and these last words might be understood to mean,
' This is how thou shalt determine the dimensions of the Ark.'
But after this follow the directions for a ' light ' and a 'door,'
r.16, which are here separated from the other Elohistic detail in
v. 14, ' make it in cells.' Also the jjreciseness of these directions,
in v.l 5,16, corresponds much more with the style of the Jehovist
than with the simple generalisations of the Elohist.

48. vii.1-5, Jehovistic.

(i) v.l, the -writer refers to ' the Ark,' as already known, whether referring to
the Elohistic narrative, or to his own words (?) in vi.15,16, or to the well-known
Ark of the legend ;

(ii) ».l, 'thou and all thy house': contr. the E. expression, vi.18, 'thou, and thy
sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives, with thee ' ;

(iii) v.l, 'thou shalt take to thee': contr. the E. expression, vi.20, 'they shall
come unto thee,' i.e. come of themselves ; the E. says that Noah is to ' take ' of the
food, and 'gather' it 'to him,' vi.21 ;

(iv) 0.2,2, inL"Nl Wii, ish veishto, ('the husband and his wife' = ) 'the male and
his mate': contr. the E. expression, i"l2|?>1 "IDT. zachar unekevah, 'male and
female,' i.27,v.2,vi.l9, which, however, the Jehovist also uses in vii.3 ;

(v) 0.2, KID, /<«, 'he, she, it,' as in ii.ll, 13,14,19, iii.6,12,15,16,20, iv.4,20,21,
22,26, vi.3 ;

(vi) 0.3, Qjj gam, 'also,' as in iii.6,22, iv.4,22,26, vi.3,4 ;

(vii) vA, "ObX, anochi, 'I,' as in iii.10, iv.9 ; contr. the E. *jg, «?», 'I,' vi.17;

(viii) 0.4 nnD makhah, 'wipe out,' = destroy, as in vi.7: contr. the E. expression
rvny'n. hishkith, or nnt^, shikketk, ' corrupt'= destroy, vi.ll, 12,12,13,17 ;

(ix) vA, 'I will wipe out all the substance, which I have made, from off the face of
the ground' : comp.vi.l, 1 1 will wipe out man, whom I have created, from off the
face of the ground ' ;

(x) vA, 'from off the face of the ground,' as in iv.l4,vi.7: comp. also 'face of
the ground,' ii.6,vi.l, and ' the ground,' so often repeated (40, KB.) ;

(xi) v.o, ' and Noah did according to all which Jehovah commanded him,
•TH-IV' tsivvahu '; contr. the E. form of expression, vi.22, ' and Noah did according
to all which Elohim commanded him, iflX PI-IV' ts'vva^ otho.'

N.B. In v.3 we have ' upon the face of all the earth,' as in the E. passage, i.29 ;
hence this expression is not confined to the Elohist.

49. As already remarked (208-9), it is obvious that a strong
discrepancy exists between the Jehovistic command in vii.2,3,
' to take by sevens of every clean beast and of every fowl,' and the

32 ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-YII.24.

Elohistic direction in vi.19,20, that 'hco of every living- thing,

of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing,' should be

brought into the Ark. Delitzch supposes, p.256, that three

■pairs were taken of each clean animal, and an odd male for

the purpose of sacrifice. After the above plain exhibition of

the difference of the sources, from which the two accounts

are derived, it is needless to discuss this and other attempts

which have been made to f reconcile ' the difficulty. But we

will quote the words of Kalisch on this point, Gen.pt.lS3 : —

The text not only repeats several of the statements already distinctly made, but,
■what is more important, it is in one point irreconcilable with the preceding nar-
rative Noah was commanded to take into the Ark seven pairs of all clean, and one
pair of all unclean, animals, vii.2,3; whereas he had before been ordered to take
one pair of evert/ species, vi.19,20, no distinction whatever between clean and
un clean animals ha ring there been made. All the attempts at arguing away this
discrepancy have been utterly unsuccessful. The difficulty is so obvious, that the
most desperate effoits have been made. Some regard the second and third verses
as the later addition cf a pious Israelite ; while Rabbinical writers maintain that six
pairs were taken by Noah, but one pair came to him spontaneously '. Is it necessary
to refute such opinions ? . . . We appeal to every unbiassed understanding. The
Bible cannot be abused to defy common sense, to foster sophistry or perverse
reasoning, to cloud the intellect, or to poison the heart with the rank weeds of
insincerity.

50. vii.6-9, Elohistic.

(i) r.6. ' and Noah was a son of six hundred years ' : comp.x.o2, ' and Noah was
a son of five hundred years ' ;

(ii) v.G, 'flood of waters,' as in vi.17 ;

(iii) ?'.7, ' and he went, Noah, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives,
with him, into the Ark' : comp. vi.18, 'and thoxi shalt go into the Ark, thou, and
thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives, with thee ' ; and contr. the J. expres-
sion, 'go thou, and all thy house, into the Ark,' vii.l ;

(iv) v.", IFlX, itto, 'with him': comp. Tjfljjt iitach, 'with thee,' vi. 18,19; and
con tr. the J. expressions, fifty, h.immah, 'with her,' iii.6, **Tfty himmadi, 'with
me,' iii.12;

(v) vS, ' out of the cattle, &c. two, two, they came unto Noah ' : comp. the
same form of sentence, vi.20, ' out of the fowl, &c. two out of all shall come unto
thee ' ;

(vi) ».8, ' cattle, fowl, all that creepeth upon the ground ' : comp. the same three
classes of creatures, vi.20, 'fowl, cattle, (all = ) every creeping-thing of the ground' ;

ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-VII.24. 33

(vii) v.8, ' creepeth upon the ground': comp. 'creeping-thing of the ground,'
i.2o, vi.20 ;

(viii) t'.9, ' two, two,' comp. vi. 19,20 ;

(ix) V.9, ' they came unto Noah ' : comp. vi.20, ' shall come unto thee,' and contr.
the J. expression, ' thou shalt take to thee,' vii. 2 ;

(x) v.9, 'male and female,' as in i.27,v.2,vi.l9 ;

(xi) v.9, ' as Elohim commanded Noah, nJTlX !Tl¥ tsivvah eth-Nodkh' : comp.
vi.22, 'as Elohim commanded him, iflX H-ltf tsivvah otho'; contr. vii.o, ."in-iy,
tsivvahu.

N.B. Hupfeld, die Q. der G., p.7, considers that v.8a is Jehovistie, as referring to
the mention of ' clean ' and ' unclean ' animals in v.2, whereas the Elohist makes no
such distinction in vi.20. But such distinctions may have existed at all times
in Israel, independently of the Levitical law, and, therefore, these words may
belong to the Elohistic writer, whenever he lived; and, in fact, the phrase here

used for ' unclean,' mhD HS^S eynennah tehorah, differs in form from that used

i T : T

in v.2, ni'nD fcO 1° tehorah, which fact seems rather to point to a different

t ;

writer. When we take notice of (v)-(x) above, it would seem that v.8,9, mer§Ly
describe complete obedience to the command in vi.19,20.

51. vii. 10, Jehovistie.

'it came to pass after the seven days that the waters of the flood were upon tin-
earth ' : comp. vii.4, ' for after yet seven days I will cause-it -to-rain upon the earl h."

52. vii.ll, Elohistic.

(i) 'in the six-hundredth year of Noah's life': comp. vii.6. 'Noah was a son
of six hundred years ' ;

(ii) ' the fountains of the great deep were broken up. and the windows of
heaven were opened' : comp. the idea of the waters beneath, and the waters above,
the firmament, i.6,7;

(hi) Dinfli tehom, 'deep,' as in i.2.

53. vii. 12, Jehovistie.

* and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights ' : comp. vii.4, ' I
will cause-it-to-raira upon the earth forty days and forty nights:

Obviously, this Jehovistie statement of the forty days' rain
is here inserted awkwardly, out of its proper place in the story.
It is introduced more suitably to the context before and after
in r.17, after the description of Noah and his family going
into the Ark on the first day: whereas both r.10 and v.\2 in-
terrupt the continuity of the narrative.

VOL. II. D

34 ANALYSIS OF GEN.Y.1-YII.24.

54. vii.13-16* Elohistic.

(i) r.lo. -Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, Noah's wife, and his sons'
three drives, with theni ' : comp. vi.10, vii.7, and contr. the J. expression, 'thou
and all thy house,' vii.l ;

(ii) u.l3,Dns, ittam, ' with them': comp. "sjfiX- ittach, '-with thee,' vi.18,19, ifljjt,
itto, ' with him,' vii.7; and contr. the J. expressions, njsy himrnah, 'with her,' iii.6,
HJ3JJ, himmadi, 'with me,' iii.12;

(iii) w.14,14,14,14, ' after his kind,' as in i.ll,12,&c. (ten times), vi.20,20,20 ;

I iv) y.14, • every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,' as in i.26 : comp.
also i.2S, ' every animal that creepeth upon the earth,' i.30, ' everything creeping
upon the earth ' ;

(v) r.lo, ' they came unto Noah into the Ark,' as in vii.9 : comp. also ' shall come
unto thee,' vi.20, and contr. the J. expression, 'thou shalt take unto thee,' vii.2 ;

( vi) y.15,16, ' all flesh,' as in vi.12,13,17,19 ;

(vii) v.\o, 'two, two,' as in vii.9 ; comp. vi.19,20 ;

i viii) v.lb, 'all flesh, in which is a spirit of life,' as in vi.17: comp. also i.30,
• all. in which is a living soul ' ;

(ix) r.l6a, 'male aud female,' as in i.27,v.2.vi.l9,vii.9 ;

(x) i/.16a, 'as Elohim commanded him. iriX H-1V' tsivvahotko,' as in vi.22: comp.
also vii.9. 'as Elohim commanded Noah, nJTlX iTIX tsivvak eth-Noakk' : contr.
the J. expression, vii.5, where 'commanded him' is expressed by -in-IV' tsiwahu ;

i xi) The above phrase, ' as Elohim commanded him,' evidently closed originally
this E. passage, as the like phrase closes the E. passages, vi.22, vii.9.

55. In r.13 we read, 'On that very same day went Xoah,
&c. into the Ark,' i.e. apparently, on the same day that ' the
fountains of the great deep were broken up, &c.,' 0.11, and the
Flood began: whereas, according to the Jehovist, y.1,4, — 'aud
Jehovah said to Xoah, Go thou, and all thy house, into the
Ark. . . for yet seven days, and. I will cause-it-to-rain upon
the earth,' — it would seem that Xoah and his family were to-
go into the Ark seven days before the beginning of the Flood.
If it be said that Xoah was to go in a week before the Flood,
and was to employ the interval in 'taking to him' the ani-
mals, r.2.3, so as to go in finally on the very same day when
the Flood began, yet r.14 appears to say that the animals also
went in, together with Xoah, on that same day, — ' they, and
every beast after its kind, &c' Delitzch writes, p.259 : —

On this same day, says r.13, — viz. on the first day of the forty, after the ex-
piration of the seven appointed days, — went Noah with his family into the Ark.

ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-YII.24. 35

The animals also, as is plain from v.li, vent in on this same day of the beginning
of the rain. [But f.7-9 say that Noah and the animals ' went into the Ark.' and
I'.IO implies that they had been in the Ark seven days when the rain began.]

56. vii.l6b,17, Jehovistic.

(i) r.16", 'and Jehovah shut up after him': comp. the J. anthropomorphisms
in (3S),vi.3,6,7 ;

(ii) t\16b, reference is here made to the door provided by the Jehovist (?) iu vi.16 ;

(iii) r.17, ' and the Deluge was forty days upon the earth ' : cornp. the very similar
form of sentence, v. 12, ' and the rain was upon the earth forty days ' :

(iv) v.\"i, 'forty days' [LXX 'and forty nights '] : comp. the 'forty days and
forty nights' of rain, vii.4,12.

X.B. The Elohist says, 0.24, that ' the waters were mighty upon the earth 150
days,* and he evidently means that they went on increasing during all this time,
since after this he says, viii.2, ' the fountains of the deep and the windows of the
heaven were stopped.' This seems to show conclusively that r.173, ' and the flood
was forty days upon the earth,' must belong to the Jehovist.

Delitzch says, p.259 :

The forty days' rain was only the introduction of the catastrophe, which went
on increasing through continually new accumulation of streams from above and
beneath. [But there is no foundation for this statement in the text.]

57. vii.18-20, Elohistic, except v.l8b,19,20a.

It is difficult to assign v.18,19,20, to their respective authors :
we believe, however, r.l 8a,20b, to be Elohistic, and the rest to
be Jehovistic, for the following reasons.

(i) t'.19a is Jehovistic, since it contains IXJp IXfp meod meod, 'very, very';
comp. the same expression in the J. passage, G.xxx.43, and contr. the corresponding
E. expression, YSQ "IN02, oimod meod, G.xvii.2,6,20, E.i.7;

(ii) r.l9b, — 'and all the high mountains, that were under all the heaven, were
covered,' — is also, most probably, Jehovistic, since it only intensifies the statement of
w.20b, — 'and the mountains were covered' ;

(iii) t'.20b must, consequently, have been written by another hand and is, there-
fore, most probably, Elohistic;

(iv) v.2Qa is Jehovistic since it contains rkvu?12. milmahhth, ' upward,' as in
vi.16. which we have assigued to the J<-hovi-t(?), towhom belong, apparently, all
the minute details as to the mimber of cubits, vi.lo, 15, 15,16, and here, 'fifteen
cubits upward the waters were mighty';

(v) r.lSb, — 'and the Ark went upon the face of the waters.' — appears to be
also Jehovistic, describing a further stage of the action of the waters beyond that
mentioned by the Jehovist in t\17b, — 'and the waters multiplied, and they raised

D 2

36 ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-VII.24.

the Ark, and it was lifted from off the earth, and the Ark went upon the face of
the waters ' ;

(vi) r.lSa, — ; and the waters were mighty and multiplied greatly upon the
earth,' — appears to be Elokistic, since the same phrase, as here, *fx£ -lQTl v&y-
yirvu meod, ' multiplied greatly,' occurs in the E. passage, xlvii.27, and the com-
pound expression, H311 "125, gal'ar veravah, 'be mighty and multiply,' corre-
sponds exactly, mutatis mutandis, (since '■fructify' could not be used of the
waters,) to the favourite E. formula, n3"ll !"I"I2, parah veravah, 'fructify and
multiply,' i.22.'2S, viii.17, ix.1,7, xvii.20, xxviii.3, xxxv.ll, xlvii.27, xlviii.4.

X.B. In r.20a we read, ' Fifteen cubits upward the waters were mighty.' The
writer, perhaps, meant it to be understood that the waters stood, at their highest,
15 cubits over 'all the high mountains, that were beneath all the heaven,' ?-.19.
and that the Ark, which was 30 cubits high, vi.15, floated half below the water,
so that, when driven by the wind over the mountain -tops, it would just touch the
top of Ararat, and ground at once, as soon as the waters fell.

It will be seen that, if the above conclusions be adopted,
the Elohistic narrative will be left complete. But we cannot,
of course, rely with confidence upon the accuracy of our reason-
ing, at this point of the analysis, where the indications are so
few and indecisive, just as they are (47) in the case of
vi.15,16.

58. vii.21, Elohistic.

(i) 0.21, ' all flesh,' as in vi.12,13,17,19, vii.15.16 ;
(ii) 0.21, nil qavah, 'die,' as in vi.17 ;

T T'

(iii) z>.21, ' that creepeth upon the earth." as in i.28.30, vii.14 ;

(iv) 0.21, n*n, Tehayyah, ' animal ' =wild-beast, as in vii.14 ;

(v) 0.21, J»X», sherets, ' s warming-things,' ]'X' sharats, 'swarm,' as in i.20.21.

59. vii.22,23a, Jeliovistic.

These words, as far as 'and they were wiped -out of (E.V.

'destroyed from') the earth,' are a mere repetition of v.'2\,

and of such a kind, that they could hardly have been penned

immediately after r.21 by the same writer. Accordingly we

shall find that they exhibit unmistakable signs of the Jehovistic

author.

(i) f.22, ' all in whose nostrils was the breath of a spirit of life ' : camp. ii. 7,
'He breathed into his nostrils the hreath of life' ; contr. theE. expression, vi.17.
vii.15, ' in which was a spirit of life.'

ANALYSIS OF GEX.V.1-YII.24. 37

(ii) ?\22, rQ~in, kharavak, 'dryland': contr. the E. expression, i.9,10, HBO'

\/TTT " TTT

yavashah, 'dry land ' ;

(iii) t'.23a, ' and He wiped out [E.V. ' was destroyed,'] all the substance, which
was upon the face of the ground, from man unto cattle, unto creeping thing, and
unto fowl of the heaven ' : comp.xi.l, ' I will wipe out man, whom I have created
from off the face of the ground, from man unto cattle, unto creeping thing, and
unto fowl of the heaven,' and vii.4, ' I will wipe out all the substance, which I have
made, from off the face of the ground ' ;

(iv) i'.23a,23a, nnO, makhah, ' wipe-out' = destroy, as in vi.7, vii.4 : contr. theE,

V ' T T *

expression, JV£]£>fl, hishkhith, or J"inp>> shikheth, ' corrupt '= destroy, vi.11,12,12,
13,17;

(v) i'.23a, Dip', yekum, 'substance,' as in vii.4 ;

(vi) y.23a, 'face of the ground,' as in ii.6, iv.14, vi.1,7, vii.4.

60. vii.23b,24, Elohistic.

(i) v. 23b, ifiX, Mo, 'with him' : comp. 'with thee,' vi.18,19, 'with him,' vii.7,
' with them,' vii.l 3; and con tr. the J. expressions fifty, himmah, 'with her,' iii. 6,
"Hfty, himmadi, 'with me,' iii. 12;

(ii) i'.24, 'the waters were mighty,' as in vii.l8a;

(iii) r.24, n^p, meath, 'hundred,' as in v.3, 6,18,2-5,28 ; contr. the J. expression
nXD, meah, vi.3 ;

(iv) ?-.24, 'a hundred and fifty days' : comp. the data of time in vii.ll, and see
N.B.).

38

CHAPTER V.

ANALYSIS OF QEN.Ym.l-XI.26.

61. riii.1-5, Elohistic, except ^,.2b and vAh.

(i) v.l, ' every animal,' && in vii.14 ;

(ii) v.l, 'every animal, and all the cattle' : comp. vii.14 ;

(iii) v.l, ' that was with him in the ark,' as in vii.23b ;

(iv) v.l, iflX, itto, 'with him ' : comp. vi.18,19, vii.7,13, 23b, as quoted in (60.i) ;

(v) ;'.2a, ' the fountains of the deep,' ' the windows of heaven,' as in rii.l 1 ;

(vi) v.2a, Qinri- tehom, 'deep,' as m i.2, villi;

(vii) ?\3, ' a hundred and fifty days,' as in vii.24 ;

(viii) r.3. TWXO, meath, 'hundred.' as in t.3, 6,18,25,28, vii.24: contr. the J. ex-
pression. nNE, "teak, vi.3;

(ix) i\4. 'in the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the month,' and v.5,
'in the tenth, in the first of the month' : comp.rii.ll, 'in the second month, in
the seventeenth day of the month.'

N.B. Eeckoning one month = 30 days, so that 150 days = 5 months, we have
the date of the beginning of the flood, 2mo. 17d. (vii. 11) + the time of its con-
tinuance, 5mo. (vii.24, viii.3') = 7mo. 17d., the time when the ark grounded, viii.4.
— from which it follows that all these notices of time are by the same writer.

62. viii.2b, Jehovistic.

Hupfeld, Q. der G. p.132, regards r.2b,3a, 'and the rain
was restrained out of heaven, and the waters returned from off
the earth, returning continually,' as Jehovistic, for the following
reasons : —

(i) r.2b refers to the 'rain' in vii.4.12, which the Elohist does not mention in
vii.ll;

(ii) i. S^is superfluous before ?'.3b, 'and the waters decreased at the end of 150
day*.' and v.S, ' and the waters were decreasing continually until the tenth month' :

(iii) *\33 is even contradictory to what follows ; since in r.3b we have given the
moment of the commencement of the decrease of the waters, 'at the end of the 150
days ' : and yet in i'.3a they have been ' returning continually ' already ;

ANALYSIS OF GEN.YIII.l-XI.ii6. 39

(iv) In both r.3b and v.o, "iDn, Jchasar, ' decrease,' is used, and not 2-VJ'- shuv,
' return,' as in v .3".

Ans. It seems probable that v.2b does belong to the Jehovist; since the two
parts of the combined statement, ' the windows of heaven were stopped (E.), and the
rain was restrained out of heaven (J.),' would then correspond exactly to those of
the statement in vii. 11,12, 'the windows of heaven were opened (E.), and the rain
was upon the earth (J.).'

But we refer 3a to the Elohist for the following reasons : —

(i) The Elohist himself has mentioned already in v.l that 'the waters subsided,'
even before stating that ' the fountains of the deep, &c. were shut ' : so that he did
not, apparently, regard this as contradictory to r.3b,5 ;

(ii) The expression, 'at the endoffflVPP miktseh) 150 days,' implies rather
' about the end of, within, 150 days,' and not ' after the end <fcc..' — the Hebrew
expression being used to imply intra terminum, not extra termini' ni, as may be
seen in G.xlvii.2;

(iii) i'.3a, 'the waters returned &c.,' may refer to their returning to their receptacles
above and below the firmament, from which they had been poured out.

(iv) The form of expression in t'.3a, 2YC'} Tji/H, halock vashov, 'going and re-
turning'= returning continually, corresponds exactly with that in v.o, which Hvp-
feld himself assigns to the Elohist, "lioni ^'"PH haloch vekhasor, 'going and
decreasing' = decreasing continually.

63. viii.4b, Jehovistic.

We assign this clause ' uponthe mountains of Ararat," to the
Jehovist for the following; reasons : —

o

(i) If it had formed part of the original verse, the Hebrew idiom would have ri -
quired that it should follow immediately after n^Ri! njDI, vattanakh hattevah,
' and the Ark rested,' and not be brought in, as here, at the end of the verse :

(ii) The Jehovist shows special acquaintance with the geography of the East,
and he shows a fondness for giving the names of places, comp^ii.10-14, iv.16.17,
x.xi.1-9, which does not appear in the Elohist ;

(iii) The Jehovist fixes the residence of men after the Flood at first in the neigh-
bourhood of Armenia, xi. 1-9 ;

(iv) Both writers refer to the 'mountains,' the Elohist in vii.20b, viii.5. the
Jehovist in vii.19; but the "particularity of detail is more in accordance with the
style of the Jehovist (47,o7.iv).

64. viii.6-12, Jehovistic.

(i) v.G, ' forty days,' as in vii. 4,12, 17 ;

(ii) v.G, |i?n, khallon, 'window': com p. the direction for making the 'ligkt'
inV> tsohar, vi.16, to which the writer evidently refers in this passage, sinci
speaks of Xoah opening ' the window which he luid made ' ; comp. also the r I
to the 'door,' vi.16, in vii.l6b;

40 ANALYSIS OF GEN.VIII.1-XI.26.

(hi) (\7,8.12, rb&> shillakh, ' put-forth,' as in iii.23 ;

(iv) r.7,11, 'from off the earth,' as in vii.17 : but the Elohist also uses the
phrase in v.13 ;

(v) t'.8, 'to see if the waters were lessened &c. ' : comp. ii.19, • to see what he
would call them ' ;

( vi) v.S, ' from off the face of the ground,' as in iv.l4,vi.7,vii.4 : comp. also ' face
of the ground,' ii.6,vi.l,vii.23 ;

(vii) '-'.9, ' upon the face of all the earth,' as in vii.3 ; but the Elohist also uses
this phrase in 1.29 ;

(viii) c.10,12, ' seven days,' as in vii.4,10 : comp. the use of the number 'seven '
in iv.lo,24,vii.2,3 ;

lix) r.10,12, 'he added to put forth,' v.V2, 'it added not to return again';
comp. the similar phrases in iv.2,12,viii.21, in the last of which the same form is
used twice with "pJJ, hoc?, ' again,' as it is here in v.12, but with the prep. *j, IS,
' to,' as in iv.2, which is omitted here in v.10,12, as it is also in iv.12 ;

(x) 0.10,12,12, "|iy. hod, ' again,' as in vii.4 ;

(xi) 0.11, 'at the time of evening,' as in the J. passage, xxiv.ll : comp. also
xix.l, xxix.23, xxx.16, and, especially, iii.8, xxiv.63, xlix.27, where *>, le, 'at,' is
used as h ere ;

ixii) The Elohist mentions only the day, month, and year, of the most notable
events of the flood, vii.6,ll,viii.4,o\13, 14 : the Jehovist marks the stages of its
progress by ' seven days ' and 'forty days,' vii.4,10,12,17, viii.fi,10,12 ;

(xiii) In w.7,8, we have ' the raven,' ' the dove,' the Heb. words being used with
the article, and it has been argued that this proves that this passage must be due
to the Elohist, as he alone speaks of a single pair of doves, and here, apparently,
he names the one male bird: but the article may express 'the well-known raven,'
&c, or (as Delitzch says, p.263,) 'the raven, that was with him in the Ark,' &c. :
comp. 'the serpent,' iii.l, 'the Ark,' vii.l, 'the garment,' ix.23, 'the place,' xxviii.ll,
' the bush,' E.iii.2, in each of which passages the article is similarly used with a
noun, which has not been mentioned before.

(xiv) That we are right in assigning to the Jehovist this section about the raven
and dove, is further confirmed by the inconsistency which exists in the data of time,
as the story now stands. Between the time when ' the tops of the mountains were
seen,' 0.5, on the first day of the tenth month, and the time when ' the waters were
dried up from off the earth,' v.\2>, on the first day of the first month (of the next
year), woidd be an interval of three months = 90 days. If we deduct the 40 days of
waiting, v.6, we have 50 days remaining for the sending out of the raven and dove;
whereas the story plainly implies an interval of 7 days only between each sending,
to which might be added 7 days more after the dove was sent out the second time,
— making-only 21 days altogether.

N.B. It must have been supposed that Noah, either by reason of the sure, or
situation, or construction, of the window, or because of the elevation of the Ark on
the top of Ararat, could not see for himself what was passing upon the plains
below.

ANALYSIS OF GEN.VIII.1-XI.26. 41

65. viii.13-19, (except i\13b), Elohistic.

(i) «'.13, 'in the six hundred and first year' : corny, vii.ll, ' in the six hundredth
year of Noah's life'; comp. also v.32,vii.6 ;

(ii) t'.13, ' in the first, in the first of the month,' and v.U, ' in the second month,
in the seven-and-twentieth day of the month ' : co?np. vii.ll,viii.4,5 ;

(iii) 0.16, ' thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy son's wives, with thee,' as
in vi.l8,vii.7,13 ; contr. the J. expression, 'thou and all thy house,' vii.l ;

(iv) tf.16,17, IJflK, ittach, 0.17,?]]^, ittecha, 'with thee,' v.\%, \p$, itto, 'with
him ': comp. vi.l8,19,vii.7,13,23b,viii.l ; contr. the J. expressions fifty, himmah,
' with her,' iii.6, HEM, himmadi, 'with me,' iii. 1 2 ;

(v) tf.17,19, ' every animal/ as in vii.l4,viii.l ;

(vi) V.17, 'every animal that is with thee': comp. viii.l, ' every animal . . .
that was with him ' ;

(vii) 0.17, ' every animal ... out of all flesh ' : comp. vi.19, 'every thing living
out of all flesh' ;

(viii) r.17, 'all flesh,' as in vi.12,13,17,19, vii.15,16,21 ;

(ix) v.17, 3, be, ' among,' used distributive^, as in vii.21 ;

(x) v. 17, 'among fowl and among cattle,' as in vii.21 ;

(xi) y.17, 'every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,' as in i.26,vii.l4 :
comp. also i.28,30;

(xii) v.17, Y~\W, sharats, 'swarm,' as in i.20,21,vii.21 ;

(xiii) v.17, H311 n")3. parah veravah, 'fructify and multiply,' as in i.22,28 ;

(xiv) i-.lS, ' Noah, and his wife, &c.,' as in (iii) above;

(xv) y.19, ' everything creeping upon the earth,' as in i.30.

66. viii.l3b, Jehovistic.

(i) 'face of the ground,' as in ii.6,iv.l4,vi.l,7,vii.4,23,viii.8;

(ii) this statement, — 'and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and saw, and
behold ! the face of the ground was dry,' — introduces into the account, as it now
stands, the anomaly, that the ark was uncovered nearly two months before Noah
and his family and the multitude of animals came out of it, as appears from
w.13,14,

67. The later ecclesiastical year began in the Spring. But
in the older time the ' Feast of Ingathering ' was ' in the end
of the year,' E.xxiii.16, so that the new year, apparently, began
in Autumn. It is probable that this more ancient reckoning is
observed in this account of the Flood, which in that case began,
according to the story, about the middle of the second month,
vii.ll, i.e. about the beginning of November, and lasted over
the five wet and stormy winter months, vii.24, viii. 3, till the
bright days of Spring came round, and the waters were < dried

42 ANALYSIS OF GEX.VIII.1-XI.26.

up from off the earth ' during the heat of summer. But then
the herbivorous animals coming out of the Ark in the second
month (November), viii. 14, would be in want of food till the
spring.

KB. The latter name, >"|3 Bid, lK.ri.38, of this second — afterwards, eighth —
month is derived from the root, 731 //aval, ' flow, as rain,' from which also comes
^•130. mabbul, ' Deluge.'

68. viii.20-22, Jehovistic.

(i) v.2Q, these sacrifices require the 'seven' pairs of clean animals provided by
the Jehovist, vii.2,3, to which also the expression 'clean cattle' in this verse refers;

(ii) w.21, 'Jehovah smelled the sweet savour' : comp. the J. anthropomorphisms
in(38).vi.3;6,7,vii.l6b;

(iii) t'.21, ' Jehovah said unto His heart ' : comp. the secret speeches ascribed
to Jehovah, ii.l8,iii.22,vi.3,7 ;

(iv) 0.21, 'His heart,' as in vi.6;

(v) v.21, I will not add to curse again the ground for man's sake ' : comp. iii. 17.
'cursed is the ground for thy sake,' v.29, 'over the ground, which Jehovah cursed' ;

(vi) 0.21, ' curse the ground ' : comp. the J. curses in iii.l4,iv.ll,v.29 ;

(vii) 0.21, ' the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth,' as in vi.5 ;

(viii) 0.21, ^V'1., yetser, ' formation,' as in vi.5 : comp. yp, yatsar, ' form,'
ii.7,8,19;

(is) 0.21, ' I will not add to curse again,' ' I will not add again to smite,' as in
viii. 21 : comp. also iv.2,12,viii.l0 ;

(x) 17.21,21, 5|DK' asaph, 'add,' used with *>, le, 'to,' as in iv.2 ;

(xi) 0.21,21,22, "fiy, hoc?,,' again,' as in vii.4, viii.10.12,12 ;

(xii) 0.21, -1-13^3, bahavur, 'for the sake of,' as in iii.l 7 ;

(xiii) 0.21, riisn hakkoth. ' smite,' as in iv. 15;

(xiv) 0.21, *ITv3i hohl-khay, 'all living,' as in iii.20.

69. ix.1-17, Elohistic.

(i) 0.1, 'and Elohim blessed Noah, and his sons': comp. the E. blessing on
Adam, i.28,v.2 ;

(ii) 0.1,7, i"QTl mS» parah veravah, 'fiructiryandm.ultiply,'asewi.22,28,viii.l7;

1 T : T T

(iii) ?'.l, 'fructify, and multiply, and fill the earth,' as in i.2S ;

(iv) ?'.2,10,10, ' every animal of the earth,' as in i.30 : contr. the J. expression,
' every animal of the field,' ii.!9,20,iii.l,14 ;

(v) 0.2, ' the fear of you, and the terror of you, shall be upon every animal of the
earth. &c.' : comp. the E. passage i.26,28, 'let them have dominion over' the fish,
fowl, cattle, &c. ;

(vi) v.2, 2, Iv, 'among,' used distributively, as in vii.21, viii. 17;

ANALYSIS OF GEN. VIII. 1-XI.26. 43

(yii) 0.2, ' all that creepeth the ground' (E.V. 'earth'): comp. i.25,vi.20, 'every
creeping-thing of the ground,' vii.8, ' all that creepeth upon the ground';

(viii) 0.2, ' fishes of the sea' : comp. ' fish of the sea,' i.26,28 ;

(is) 0.3, ' every creeping-thing that liveth ' ; comp.i.2l, ' every living soul that
creepeth';

(x) 0.3, n^DX. ochlah, 'food,' as in i.29,30,vi.21;

v J t ; T

(si) 0.3, ' to you it shall be for food,' as in i.29;

(xii) 0.3, 'green herb,' as in i.30 ;

(xiii) 0.5, 'every animal,' as in vii.14, viii.1,17,19 ;

(xiv) 0.6, ' in the image of Elohim made He man,' as in i.27 ;

(xv) v.7 yyy sharats, 'swarm,' as in i.20,21,vii.21,viii.l7 ;

(xti) v.8, ' unto Noah and unto his sons with him (ip|S> itto)' and 0.10,10, ' with
you': comp. vi.18,19, vii.7,13,23b, viii.l, 16,1747,18, all E. passages: contr. the J.
expressions, HOT. himmah, 'with her,' iii.6, HEW, himmadi, 'with me,' iii.12 ;

(xvii) 0.9,11,15, 'my covenant,' as in vi.18 ;

(xviii) 0.9,11,17, 'establish (W>pT\ hckim), a covenant,' as in vi.18 ;

(xis) 0.10, 'among fowl and among cattle,' as in vii.21, viii.17 ;

(xx) 0.10,12,15,16, 'every living soul,' as in i.21 ;

(xxi) 0.10,12, ' that is with you,' comp. ' that was with him,' vii.23b, viii.l, ' thai
is with thee,' viii.17 ;

(xxii) 0.11,15, nfj^i shikhcth, ' corrupt, destroy,' as in till, 12, 13,17: contr. the
J. expression, nnft. makhah, 'wipe out,' vi.7, vii.4,233 ;

(xxiii) 0.11,15,T15,16,17, 'all flesh,' as in vi. 12, 13, 17, 19, vii.15,16,21, viii.17 ;

(xxiv) 0.13, Jfl], nathan, ' give,' in the sense of ' set, place,' as in 1.17 ;

(xxv) 0.15,16, 'remember,' as in viii.l ;

(xxvi) 0.15,16, 'every living soul among all flesh': comp. vi.19, ' every living
thing out of all flesh,' viii.17, ' every animal . . out of all flesh.'

70. In ix.3 the Elohist records the permission to eat animal

food, as given only after the flood, in agreement with his account

of the Creation, where we read, i.29 —

' And Elohim said, Behold, I give you every herb seeding seed, which is on the
face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed :
to you it shall be for food.'

The Jehovist, however, makes Abel a 'tender of sheep,' iv.2 :

and, though sheep might, no doubt, have been kept only for

the sake of iheir-ivool or milk, yet in iv.4 the firstlings of the

flock are sacrificed, and only, or chiefly, their fat seems to have

been offered. It may be fairly inferred that, according to the

Jehovist, the rest was supposed to be eaten afterwards, as in the

case of ordinary peace-offerings.

44 ANALYSIS OF GEN.VIII.1-XI.26.

71. ix.18-27, Jehovistic.

It might be doubted whether v. 18, 19 belong to the Elohist
or Jehovist : but we assign them to the latter, because of the
expression, ' Ham — he is the father of Canaan,' v. 18, which is
repeated in v.2'2. And the Elohist has already mentioned
thrice by name the three sons of Noah, v.32, vi.10, vii.13, and
can hardly have needed to mention them again. This is con-
firmed by (i) below, and see also (73.iv,xviii), (75.i).

(i) i>.18, ton, hu> <he> she> *V as in ii-11,13,14,19, iii.6,12,15,16,20, iv.4,20,21,
22,26, vi.3, vii.2 ;

(ii) t'.20, 'began,' as in vi.l : comp. iv.26;

(iii) v.20, this notice of the 'beginning' of wine-making corresponds to the
similar Jeho-dstic notices of the beginning of cattle-keeping, iv.20, music, iv.21,
working in iron, iv.22, and probably also of sheep-tending and agriculture, iv.2;

(iv) v.25, ' cursed be Canaan': comp. the J. curses, iii.14,17, iv.ll, v.29, viii.21 ;

(v) v.25, 'a servant of servants shall he (Canaan) be,' 0.26,27, 'and Canaan
shall be his servant;' here the name jyjs, Kenahan, 'Canaan,' is. apparently,
played on, being derived from yj3 'be low, be humble': comp. D.ix.3, 'he shall
humble them before thy face,' Ju.iii.30, ' so Moab was humbled that day,' &c. : but
Canaan really means the low, coast, country = the ' lowlands,' or its inhabitants, in
opposition to Aram, the high country or ' highlands ' ;

(vi) t>.27, the name, figs yepheth, ' Japheth,' is played upon, in connection with
the verb T&Syapht, 'he shall enlarge': comp. the J. derivations of names, ii.7,23.
iii.20, iv.l,i6,25, v.29.

N.B. ' Jehovah' is named the ' Elohim of Shem,' 0.26, who [? Elohim or Japheth]
' shall dwell in the tents of Shem,' -y.27 : but this name is not used in the blessing
of Japheth, for which only the general name of the Deity is employed.

72. ix.28,29, EloMstk.

These verses evidently refer to the E. datum in vii.6, and
they correspond exactly in language with that of the E. gene-
alogy in v.7,8,10,11, &c, except that no mention is made
of Noah's ' begetting sons and daughters ' after the Flood. It
would seem that he was supposed to have had only three sons,
' Sherrr, Ham, and Japheth,' all born before the Flood ; and,
indeed, we are told expressly by the Jehovist in t'.19, 'these
were the three sons of Noah, and out of them was all the earth
overspread.'

ANALYSIS OF GEN. VIII. 1-XI.26. 45

73. x.1-32, Jehovistic.

(i) ».l, 'and there -were born (•1l7V> yivvaledu) to them sons': comp. iv.18,
' and there was born ("1>1*, yivvalcd) to Enoch, Irad ' ;

(ii) v.5, ' out of these were separated the isles ' ; t'.32, 'out of these were sepa-
rated the nations': comp. ix.19, 'out of these was spread-abroad all the earth';

(iii) v.5,32, *n23, niphrad, 'was separated,' as in ii.10;

(iv) t'.5,20,31,32 : comp. these summarising clauses, at the end of the corresponding
passages, with is. 19 ;

(v) v.8,1 3,15,24,24,26, *^\ yalad, * beget,' as in iv.l8,18,I8,Ti.4 : contr. the E.
expression *T>pin> ^o^'^, v.3,4, &c. vi.10 ;

(vi) v.8, 'began,' as in vi.l, ix.20 : comp. iv.26 ;

(vii) t).8,9,9, 'mighty-one,' as in vi.4 ;

(viii) 0.8,9,12,21, fcfln, Aw, 'he, she, it,' as in ii.11,13,14,19, iii.6,12,15,16.2u,
iv.4,20,21,22,26, ti.3, vii.2, ix.18;

(ix) v.9, n*n X-1PI. *M hayah, 'he was,' as ra ir.20,21 ;

(x) v.9, J3~?y, hal-Jcen. 'therefore,' «s«»ii.24;

(xi) t\18, ' were spread-abroad ' : comp. 'was spread-abroad,' ix.19 ;

(xii) c.21, [y, #«/«, 'also,' as i« iii.6,22, iv.4,22,26, vi.3,4, vii.3 ;

(xiii) ».21, X-in US, gam hu, ' he, she, it, also,' as in iv.4,22,26, vi.3 ;

(xiv) f.21, 'and to Shem — to him also there was born': comp.iT.26, 'and to
Seth — to him also there was born ;'

(xv) o.21, ' Shem, the elder brother of Japheth : ' comp. ix.24. 'his younger son ' ;

(xvi) ('.21,25, "7?*, yxdlad, ' was born,' as in iv.26, vi.l ;

(xvii) f.25, the name J}2, 'Peleg,' derived from }?B,pa?ag, ' divide ' : comp. the
J. derivations, ii.7,23, iii.20, iv.1,16,25, v.29,ix.27;

(xviii) f.25, 'the earth,' used of the population of the earth, as in ix.19 ;

(xix) The Jehovist in this chapter shows a remarkable amount of geographical
and historical knowledge; comp. ii.10-14, iv.16,17, viii. 4.

74. It may be questioned, however, whether x.l is not Elo-
histic, for the following reasons : —

(i) ' these are the generations of the sons of Noah': comp. v.l, vi.9, xi.10,27 ;
(ii) 'and these are, &c.' as in xi.27, xxv.12,19;

(iii) ' Shem, Ham, and Japheth' : comp. xi.27, ' Ahram, Nahor, and Haran ';
(iv) 'after the Deluge,' as in ix.28.

It is not necessary that in every case a long genealogy should
follow such a superscription, as may be seen from ii.4, xi.27,
xxv. 19, xxxvii.2. The Elohist may not have purposed to give any
details of the descendants of Ham and Japheth, as in chap.v.
he has confined himself to the principal line, taking no account
of the collateral branches. He may, therefore, have contented

46 ANALYSIS OF GEN. VIII. 1-XI.26.

himself with saying that 'sons were born to them, tiTti -1*1?^,
yivvaledu lakem,' (comp. the E. passages, xxi.3, V T>iun,
hannolad lo, ' that was born to him,' xxi.5, i? *v}na, behivvaled
lo, ' in there being born to him,') and then gone on at once to say,
xi.10, 'These are the generations of Shem,' giving at length his
progeny in the line of the eldest son, down to Terah and his
three sons, xi.26, — as he had given in chap.v that of Adam down
to Noah, regarding evidently Seth as the eldest son of Adam,
and knowing nothing of the Jehovistic Cain and Abel.

In short, we have here a phenomenon very similar to that
observed in ii.4. For, since the genealogical lists in v.2-o'2
have no other superscription than v.l, the Jehovistic matter
must have either been attached to that Elohistic verse, either
by the Jehovist himself or by a later compiler, or, if v.l be
the Jehovist's, he must have imitated here in some of his ex-
pressions the style of the Elohist.

75. xi.1-9, Jehovistic.

(i) v.l, 'all the earth '= the whole human race, as in ix.19 ;

(ii) vA, 'let us make to ourselves a name': comp. the J. expression, ' men of a
name,' vi.4 ;

(iii) ?'.4,8,9, ' spread-abroad, as in ix.19, x.18 ;

(iv) t\4.8,9, ' upon the face of all the earth,' as in vii.3, viii.9 : the Elohist, how-
ever, uses this phrase in i.29 ;

(v). v.5, ' Jehovah came down to see the city,' and v.l, 'let us go down, and con-
found their language ' : comp. the J. anthropomorphisms, ii. 7,8,15, 19, 21, 22, iii.8,21,
24, iv.lo, vii.L6b, viii.21;

(vi) v.5, ' the sons of man ' : comp. ' the daughters of man,' vi.2 ;

(vii) v. 6, ' and Jehovah said' : comp. the secret speeches ascribed to Jehovah in
ii.18, iii.22, vi.3,7, viii.21 ;

(viii) v.6, 'began,' as in vi.l, ix.20, x.8 : comp. iv.26 ;

(ix) r.9, the name 723) 'Babel,' derived from 773, balal, 'confound': comp.
the J. derivations, ii.7,23, iii.20, iv.l, 16,25, v.29, ix.27, x.25;

(x) v.9., \2i'?V, hal-ken, 'therefore,' as in ii.24, x.9.

NB. Apparently, this account of the 'confusion of tongues' and dispersion of
mankind is in connection also with the J. statement, x.25, that, inPeleg's days, 'the
earth was divided.'

The derivation of 'Babel,' in v.9, like that of Noah, in v.29

ANALYSIS OF GEN.VIII.1-XI.26. 47

(43.N.B.), is incorrect. There is no doubt now, among scholars,
that the word has some connection with the name ' Bel," and
means ' house of Bel,' ' gate of Bel,' or something of this kind.

76. xi. 10-26, Elohistic.

This table evidently corresponds to the E. genealogy in
chap.v, of which it is the continuation. The Jehovistic ac-
count has anticipated it, as to the births of Arphaxad, Salah,
Eber, Peleg, in x.22-25, as in iv.25 it has anticipated the E.
mention of the name of Adam, v.2, and in iv.25,26, the E.
mention of Seth and Enos, v. 3,6.

(i) w.10, ' These are the generations of Shem ' : comp. vi.9, ' These are the genera-
tions of Noah ' ; comp. also v.l, ' This is the book of the generations of Adam' ;

(ii) #.10, 'son of a hundred years' : comp. v.32, vii.6 ;

(iii) #.10,25, riSp. meath, 'hundred,' as in v.3, 6, 18,25,28, vii.24,viii.31] : contr.
the J. expression nXD> ^neah, vi.3 ;

(iv) -u.10,11,12, &c. {twenty-seven times) "lipin. holid, 'beget' : comp. v.3,4. &c.
twenty-eight times, vi.10; and contr. the J. expression yp>, yalad, iv.l8,18,lS.vi. 1,
x.8,13,15,24,24,26;

(v) 0.11, 13,15, &c. 'and Shem lived after begetting .... and begat sons,
and daughters ' : comp. the same form of expression v.7, 10,13, etc. ;

(vi) I-. 11,13,15, 16, &c. *fi*1> vayyekhi, 'and he lived,' as in v.3,6,7,9, &c. ix. 28;

(vii) #.12,14, in> khay, 'lived,' as in v. 5.

N.B. In the case of each of the genealogies in iv.16-22 and x, the information
given relates principally to races, which are described as collaterally connected
with the direct Jewish line, — a circumstance quite in accordance with the supple-
mentary character, which is by some ascribed to the Jehovistic narrative.

48

CHAPTER VI.

CHARACTERISTICS OF TIIE ELOHIST AND JEHOTIST.

77. We have thus examined the first eleven chapters of
Genesis, down to the point where commences the history of
Abraham. And we have seen that these chapters may be
separated with reasonable certainty, — so that the general in-
ference, that two hands are traceable, will not be invalidated
because a difference of opinion may still fairly exist among
scholars as to some minor details, — into two distinct sets of
passages, which may now be summed up as follows : —

Elohistic. Jehovistic.

(E.56, J.O) (E.S, J.30, J.E.20)

i.l-ii.3 ii.-i-iv.26

v.1-28,30-32 t.29

vi.9-14.17-22 vi.1-8,15,16

Tii.6-9ai,13-16a,18\20b!21,23b:24 vii.l-5,10,12,16b 17,18b,19,20\22,23»

Tiii.l,2a,3,4«!5,13%14-19 viii.2b,-lb,6-12,13b,20-22

ix.1-17,28,29 ix. 18-2 7,x. 1-32

3d. 10-2 6 xi.1-9

NJB. Of the 293 verses in G.i.l-xi.26, rather less than half (viz. 136) are
Elohistic and the rest (viz. 157), Jehovistic.

78. We have seen also that these two sets of passages betray
incontestable signs of different authorship. In one of them, the
name 'Jehovah' never once occurs throughout, whereas Elohim
is used 56 times. In the other, 'Jehovah' is the predominant
name, being used 50 times, while 'Elohim' occurs 28 times, viz.
20 times in the compound name, 'Jehovah-Elohim,' ii.4-iii.24,
(which occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch, except in E.ix.30,)
— four times in the mouth of the serpent, iii.1,3,5,5, — twice in

CHAKACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AXD JEHOVIST. 49

the popular expression for angels, 'sons of Elohim,' vi.2,4, for
which the writer could not have used ' sons of Jehovah,' — once
instating that Jehovah is the 'Elohini of Shem,' ix.26, — once in
speaking of Elohini blessing Japheth, ix.27, apparently because
Japbeth was not supposed to stand in any special relation to
Jehovah, the Elohini of Shem and of the Hebrew people, Shem's
descendants, — and once in the words of Eve, iv.25, explaining
the meaning of Seth's name, before (according to this writer)
the name Jehovah ivas in use, or, at least, was used in worship,
since only in the days of Seth's son, Enos, men first ' began to
call upon the name of Jehovah,' r.26. In other words, while
the one writer uses constantly the name 'Elohim' and no
other, the other writer does not once use it freely, as the
Proper Name of the Divine Being. He employs it only under
special circumstances, which explain in each case his reason
for using it. When writing freely, he uses the name 'Jehovah.'

79. It appears, then, that the names ' Elohist ' and 'Jeho-
vist' have been applied very justly to distinguish these two
writers. But the reader is especially desired to notice that we
have not arrived at the conclusions, which have been summed
up above (77), by first assuming, as a fact, the existence of this
characteristic difference of style, and then assigning to one writer
those passages in which the name ' Elohini ' occurs predomi-
nantly, and those marked by the name ' Jehovah ' to the other.
On the contrary, we have deduced this characteristic peculiarity
itself from inspection of the two sets of passages already sepa-
rated ; and these have been discriminated, and assigned to their
respective authors, by a rigorous process of deduction, from a
great variety of conspiring peculiarities, which have been
detected upon a minute examination and careful comparison of
each passage,— a process, which, to our own mind, has the
force of an absolute demonstration, as we believe it will to most
readers, who will be willing to follow it carefully, step by step.

80. In the following chapters we shall give separately, at full

VOL. II. E

50 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST.

length, the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of these first eleven
chapters of Genesis, by the consideration of which some of the
peculiarities of style and thought, which mark the two writers,
besides that which is connected with the use -of the Divine Xame,
will be obvious at a glance. We may here, however, mention a
few of these, which have either been already detected in the course
of our criticisms, or must be apparent, even to a reader un-
acquainted with Hebrew, upon a mere perusal and comparison of
the two sets of passages. Thus we have seen (73.v) that the
Elohist constantly, 56 times, expresses the word ' beget ' by *v?in,
hoi id, whereas the Jehovist expresses it always, 10 times, by TJJ,
yalad ; and we may reasonably expect that we shall find this
difference of expression maintained throughout, in the remaining
portions of the two documents.

81. Again, the Elohist is very diffuse and simple in his style,
and abounds in repetitions, as in the use of the clause * after
his kind,' 17 times, i.ll,12,21,24,25,vi.20,vii.l4, or of the
formula ' Xoah, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives
with him,' vi.l8,vii.7,13,viii.l6,18, and in his repeated enumer-
ation of the creatures taken into the Ark, vi.20,vii.8, 14,21,
viii.17,19: whereas the Jehovist is more pointed and terse in
his expressions, e.g. i thou and all thy house,' vii.l, more spirited,
ornate, and rhetorical, iv.6,7,9-15,vi.l-7,viii.21,22; he quotes
poetry, iv.23,24,ix.25-27, and a proverb, x.9 ; he is fond of
deriving names, ii.7,23,iii.20,iv.l,l6,25,v.29,ix.27,x.25,xi.9 ; and
his words serve at times to intensify the language of the
Elohist, as when he expresses the wickedness of man before
the Flood, comp. vi.5-7 with vi.11-13, or the destruction of life
occasioned by that catastrophe, comp. vii.22,23a, with vii.21.

82. The Jehovist also uses frequently strong anthropomor-
phisms (7 o.v) ascribing human actions, passions, and affections to
Jehovah. The Elohist has very much less of this, and altogether
appears to have had more grand views of the Divine Being, and of
His paternal relations to mankind : contrast the whole tone of

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AST) JEHOVIST. 51

the Elohistic account of the Creation in i.l-ii.3 with that of the
Jehovist in ii.4-25. Though the Elohist manifestly had a deep
sense of sin and its evil consequences, vi.11-13, yet it is only
the Jehovist who introduces e curses,' iii.l4,l7,iv.ll,v.29,viii.21,
ix.25, and writes the story of the ' Fall.' It is obvious that the
Elohist lays stress upon the observance of the sabbath-rest,
ii.2,3, and the abstinence from the eating of blood, ix.4, and the
shedding of man's blood, ix.5,6, — these two last, indeed, having a
close connection ; since, if blood was too sacred to be eaten, as
representing the ' life,' the law of abstinence from it as an article
of food would impress upon the people continually the sin of
shedding it. On the other hand, the Jehovist is the only writer
who, as yet, has mentioned sacrifices, iv.3,4,viii.20,21. Also he
makes use repeatedly of the number seven, vii.2,3,4,10,viii.l0,12,
and lays particular stress on the number forty, vii.4,12,17,viii.6,
which so often occurs in the subsequent Scripture history.

83. It is not necessary to draw out further at present the
differences between the two writers. Some of the expressions
noticed in the analysis are not, indeed, confined exclusively to
one writer only, so as never to be found used by the other, but
appear rather as favourite expressions, occurring much more
frequently in one set of passages than in the other ; thus both
writers employ both ha-arets, ' the earth,' and ha-adamah, ' the
ground,' (40,X.B.); but the Elohist uses ha-arets more freely
than ha-adamah, and the case is just the reverse with the Jeho-
vist. So the word D3, gam, 'also,' occurs nine times (73.xii) in
these eleven chapters, and only in Jehovistic passages : yet it
cannot be supposed that so common a word will be found used
throughout only by the Jehovist, though he is evidently fond
of introducing it. But the difference of style, generally, between
the two writers cannot be mistaken. When the whole book of
Genesis has been thus analysed, and we are able to complete the
separation of the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions throughout,
we shall be still better able to judge of the distinction between

e2

52 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST.

them. Then, also, it will be the proper time to mark in the
separate portions any signs of time, which may enable us to
form some definite conjecture as to the ages in which they were
respectively written.

84. In the latter part of Genesis, however, we find distinct
traces of, at least, two other writers, so that the work of
discrimination is not so easy as wTe have found it to be in these
eleven chapters ; and the ground will require to be yet further
cleared, before we can proceed in a satisfactory manner with this
part of the work. For the present, we content ourselves with
the above exhibition of the existence of two different authors in
the book of Genesis, — and these not only distinct in style and
habits of thought, but involving remarkable discrepancies, as in
the two accounts of the Creation (34), in the single pair and
seven pairs of clean animals at the Flood (49), and in the
statement of the Jehovist that the ' Flood lasted forty days,'
vii.4,12,17, whereas the Elohist says that it lasted 150 days, since
only after the 150 days, vii.24, ' the fountains of the deep and
the windows of the heaven were stopped,' viii.2.

85. But we may here take a glance at the two sets of passages,
with a view to consider whether we can arrive at any definite
conclusion, as yet, upon one important point. It is agreed
generally by critics of note that the Elohistic document was ori-
ginally a complete narrative ; and it will be seen presently that, as
it now lies before us, separated from the Jehovistic matter, the
story of the Elohist is a perfectly consistent whole, — a strong-
confirmation this of the correctness of our process of division.
The question now arises, ' Did the Jehovist merely interpolate
his own additions into the primitive story, or was the Jehovistic
document also originally a whole by itself?'

86. Hitfeld and some other eminent critics are of opinion
that it was. They suppose that the two documents, each com-
plete in itself, lay before a later editor, who put them together

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST. 53

into one narrative, in the form in which we now possess them,
taking passages out of each as they suited his purpose, or seemed
to be worth preserving, in order to give more point and fulness
to the story. It is only in this way, it is thought, that we can
account for the admission of such remarkable discrepancies, as
we find in the two accounts of the Creation and of the Deluge.
A mere interpolator would surely have avoided such discrepan-
cies ; whereas a later editor might consider the data of both such
venerable documents too precious to be dispensed with altogether,
notwithstanding these discrepancies, or may not even have per-
ceived them, as so many devout readers, of ancient and modern
times, have studied the story, as it stands, without perceiving
them, until their attention has been expressly directed to them.

87. On this point Hupfeld writes as follows, with reference
to the second account of the Creation, Q. der G., p.\25 : —

Thus, then, I hope to have shewn the continuous inner connection and the
design of this narrative of the beginning of things, not only in the relation itself,
but also in the exordium of it, and at the same time to have proved my assertion,
that it is, from its own point of view, a complete, self-contained, and consequently
independent, account of the Creation, not a mere supplement of the foregoing. I
have dwelt, perhaps, somewhat longer on this passage, and have allowed myself to
go deeper into the details of its interpretation, than would have been absolutely
required for my object. It is, however, of importance to place in its proper light,
what, through its position, as well as its contents, and its remarkable relation to
the corresponding passage of the prime-document, is, perhaps, the most characteristic
and therefore the most decisive of all, and thus to demonstrate its completeness, as
well as its essential difference throughout from the view of the prime-document, and
consequently, its independence of it, which gives us a firm basis for further investiga-
tion, and an inclination of judgment beforehand (prajudiz), of great consequence
for the decision of the whole question. For, when here, at the starting point of the
history, stands a tradition of the beginning and first stage of the course of moral
development of man, so fundamentally different from that of the prime-document,
two conclusions follow of necessity from this : first, that this view of things, and
this difference, must have an influence also upon the further course, at least, of the
general history, and must continually express itself there ; secondly, that the author
could not possibly have so written, if he had had before him the narrative of the
prime-document, — still less could he have entertained the idea of supplementing this
by his own, and weaving them together into a large historical work. If this, how-
ever, is shown here, it is shown for the whole book ; for, what is true of the first

54 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AXD JEHOVIST.

passage, must also be true of the rest. We have only, therefore, further to see
what in this book is to be reckoned to the Jehovistic prime-document, and how far
its original connection has maintained itself also in the following stages of the
history.

88. I have quoted at length the remarks of this able writer,
to whose researches the science of Biblical criticism is so much
indebted in this part of the subject, which he has treated fully
in his important work, die Quelle der Genesis. But, certainly,
the Jehovistic sections of Gr.i— xi, as they now lie before us, seem
hardly sufficient to justify the conclusion, that they once formed
parts of an independent, connected whole. Hupfeld, it is true,
has succeeded in recovering to the Jehovist, by means of the
internal evidence, many passages which former critics, who were
guided in their selection chiefly by noting the use of the Sacred
Name, had assigned to the Elohist. Yet, when all these are
put together, his contributions, as they now stand, will be seen
to form but a series of separate fragments ; they appear, in short,
rather as interpolations, and not as parts of a compact whole.

89. If, for instance, ii.4-iv.26 forms a long complete narra-
tive, yet even this leaves off abruptly, with the mention of the
birth of Seth and Enos, — derived, it may be, from the Elohistic
genealogy in chap.v, and introduced, it might bethought, only to
give the derivation of the name, ' Seth,' and to fix the time of
his son Enos, as the age when, in the writers view, men ' began
to call upon the name of Jehovah.' The next Jehovistic passage
is a single verse, i\29, giving the derivation of the name ' Noah."
Hupfeld, however, supposes this verse to be part of a Jeho-
vistic genealogy, the continuation of iv.25,26, and the counter-
part of the Elohistic record in chap.v, the remainder of which
— now suppressed — may have originally carried on the
Jehovistic story, in complete connection with vi.l— 8, where the
Flood^is announced. Or, perhaps, it may have stood originally
after iv.24, in direct connection with the story of Lamech.

90. But, if even this be granted, yet the Jehovistic passages
about the Flood itself, including vi.l 5,1 6, vii.l8b, 19,20% which

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST. 55

we assign to the Jehovist, are still fragmentary and defective, —
since we find no account in them of the original order given
to make the Ark, no collection of food, — no statement of their
entering into the Ark or of their coming out of it. In vi.15, if
that belongs to the Jehovist, or else in vii. 1 ' the Ark ' is abruptly
mentioned, — the Ark being probably known, Hupfeld says,
23.15, 'from tradition': and vii. 22 follows very abruptly after
vii.20a. On the supposition of a ' later editor,' he must have left
out all the passages, which filled up the blanks in the above
instances in the Jehovistic document, because he found the
facts sufficiently stated in the Elohistic document, from which
he preferred to take them. It would follow, therefore, that he
did not scruple to abridge the Jehovistic narrative, and to leave
out parts of it, — though, perhaps, none of much importance, —
simply out of respect for its venerable character, and that, con-
sequently, this alone cannot be assigned as the reason why he
has retained the discrepancies in the accounts of the Creation
and the Deluge.

91. Nor do the Jehovistic passages by any means in all cases
record additional facts, filling up blanks which may be supposed
to have existed in the Elohistic story, — of which kind, for in-
stance, might be reckoned the command to enter the Ark, vii.l,
the statement of the lapse of ' seven days ' before the Flood be-
gan, vii. 10, of its duration, ' forty days and forty nights,' vii. 12,
of Jehovah's ' shutting after them,' vii. 1 6b. But they are often,
as we have observed already, mere repetitions in stronger
language of the Elohistic statement, e.g. comp. vi.5-7 with
vi.11-13, vii.4 with vi.17, vii.22,23a with vii.21. Is it probable,
it is asked, that a considerate editor, who was deliberately
selecting passages from the Jehovistic document, — and who (as
we have seen ) must have had no scruple in leaving out several
Jehovistic passages, — would extract first, vii. 12, 'and the rain
was upon the earth forty days and forty nights,' and then
extract also, shortly afterwards, the mere tautological statement

56 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST.

i>.17a, 'and the Flood was forty days upon the earth'? At all
events, it seems quite as easy to understand how such a second
superfluous notice may have been inserted in this place by
an original, supplementary, writer.

92. In short, as we have said, almost all the Jehovistic pass-
ages, so far as we have yet had them under review, seem at
first sight to have rather this character of interpolations, — en-
largements and embellishments of the primitive simple story, —
by the hand of one, who wrote — not in slavish subjection to the
contents of the primary document, but — with considerable free-
dom and independence. And this seems true even of the
second account of the Creation, on which Hupfeld lays so great
a stress in support of his own position. It is quite as easy to
conceive that the Jehovist himself may not have perceived the
discrepancies, which in this passage, as well as in those about
the Flood, he has imported into the story, as it is to imagine this
in the case of a later editor, — more especially when we take into
account the difficulty in any case of mastering completely all
the minute details of a story, written by another hand. It is
almost impossible, indeed, for one writer to place himself so
accurately in relation to the age and circumstances of another,
as to be able to regard the same subject from exactly the
same point of view ; and it might be expected that any author,
who would undertake to illustrate and amplify a narrative like
that of the Elohist, would fall inevitably, now and then, into
contradictions, which a close examination might detect. This
might be looked for under the most favourable circumstances, if
the interpolator had had the prime narrative before him, in clear
roman type, in a printed volume. How much more, it may
be said, when we take into account the difficulty of studying
that narrative out of a long roll, consisting of many sheets,
stitched together, of papyrus or parchment manuscript !

93. Indeed, the discrepancies in the account of the Flood might
be easily accounted for in this way. And, with respect to the more

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST. 57

striking differences in the two accounts of the Creation, we may-
observe, (i) that the writer of the second account seems plainly
to have had the first before him, from the manner in which he
introduces his narrative, whether we suppose ii.4a to belong to
him or not; — (if it does, then he has evidently (32) adopted
words from the foregoing E. passage ; if it does not, then he
has, apparently (33), attached his own narrative, beginning with
a broken sentence, to the existing E. story, unless, indeed, we
adopt Ewald's translation (33), or suppose Hupfeld's ' later
editor ' to have omitted the first words of the Jehovist :) — and
(ii) that his object is not here so much to enlarge and fill up
the Elohistic account of the Creation in chap, i, but, rather, to
give the story of the Fall in chap, iii, for which ii.4-25 is pre-
paratory. He seems, in fact, to have become acquainted with
a traditional Eden ; and his object was to account for the ex-
pulsion of mankind from it, and for the lot of labour and sor-
row, which is the portion even of the worshippers of Jehovah.
And this he has done, apparently, without concerning himself
whether or not his narrative harmonised exactly with the state-
ments of the Elohistic writer.

94. Schradee, indeed, one of the latest writers (1863) on this
subject, Studien zur Kritik und Erklarung der Biblischen
Urgeschichte, maintains, p. 163, that the Jehovistic portions of

these chapters —

in respect of their contents, as well as their form, stand in the closest relation with
each other, — in fact, when restored to their original connection, they form a
coherent, uninterrupted, whole, which, running parallel throughout to the narrative
of the prime document, reports the Biblical primeval history as far as the end of
the Deluge.

But then he obtains this continuity by striking out of the
Jehovistic narrative the following passages, iv.25,26,vi.l-4,ix.
18b,19,20-27,x.8-12,18b,21,xi.l-9, because of the following
phenomena, which he observes in them :

(i) ^nr\, hekhel, 'begin,' iv.26,vi.l,ix.20,x.8,xi.6 ;
(ii) V.1Q, puts, 'spread-abroad,' ix.l9>x.l8b,xi.4)8,9;
(iii) "ii33» gibbor, ' mighty-one,' vi.4,x,9 ;

58 CHAEACTEEISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST.

(iv) Qt'» shem, ' name '= renown, vi.4,xi.4 ;

(v) V1X' crets, 'earth,' occurs in the above passages quite as often as HftTX.
adamah, ' ground,' and in x.S-12,xi.l-9, only the former is found ;
(vi) the phrase ^."in D3> ffam hu, ' he, she, it, too,' iv.26,vi.3,x.21 ;
(vii) the designation of Noah's sons as the elder and younger, ix.24,x.21.

95. The above phenomena, which occur only in these pass-
ages, serve, as he thinks, to clamp them together, as the work
of one hand, different from that of either the Elohist or the
Jehovist. And he says that the inspection of these passages
shows that the writer i lived in a different spiritual sphere from
the others.'

He speaks of ' angels,' their ' mixing with the daughters of men,' vi.1-4, of
'giants' and 'heroes,' vi.4,x.8,9, — of Noah, as the founder of agriculture, ix.20, —
and betrays a close acquaintance with eastern places, Mesopotamia and Assyria,
x.8-12,xi.l-9, and knows the name 'Shinar' for Babylonia, x,10,xi.2, — of wliich
the other writers know nothing.

This different writer Schrader conceives to be the editor of
the present book of Genesis, who put the two (Elohistic and
Jehovistic) documents together, not omitting any important
passage of either of them, even where their statements clashed
with each other, but inserting also, here and there, his own con-
necting links,

96. It is certainly remarkable that so many coincidences oc-
cur just in these passages, which may all be removed, without
disturbing the connection of the Jehovistic matter, or, rather,
the removal of which will give to that matter much more of
the appearance of a continuous, complete, whole, than it now
possesses. Still, on looking at the above passages, we may note
as follows : —

(i) Why is x.l8b to be made over to the editor, except that it contains the word
V-1S.which would bring with it ix.l9,xi.4,8,9, — and xi. 4,8.9, would bring the whole
passage xi. 1-9. which contains pnHi v-&< — and this would bring iv.26.vi.l.ix.20,x. 8?
In short, if x.l8b belongs to the Jehovist, as it appears to do, all the above pas-
sages also would have to be regarded as, most probably, belonging to him.

(ii) So, if ix.l8b, 'and Ham is the father of Canaan,' belongs to the Jehovist, —
as it appears to do, from its connection with ix.18*, which Schkader himself assigns
to him, — it involves ix.22, and the whole section ix.20-27, and 7f]n, in i>.20, and so
the rest.

CHAEACTEEISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AXD JEHOVIST. 59

(iii) So, again, ix.19 has every appearance of being connected with x.18", and, if
so, it also belongs to the Jehovist ; but it contains WQ, and consequently, as in
(ii) above, involves all the rest

(iv) Besides which, the above passages contain strong resemblances to the other
acknowledged Jehovistic matter : —

(a) Derivation of names, viz. 'Seth,' iv.25, ' Japheth,' ix.27, 'Babel,' xi.9, as in
ii.7,23,iii.20,iv.l,16,v.29;

(/8) ' face of the ground,' vi.l, as in ii.6,iv.l4,vi. 7,vii.4,23,viii.8 ;

(7) 'upon the face of all the earth,' xi.4,8,9, as in vii.3,viii.9 ;

(8) ' Cursed be Canaan,' ix.25 ; cornp. iii. 1-i, 17,iv.ll ;

(«) ~\% yalad> 'beget,' vi.4,x.S, as in iv.lS,18,18,x.l3,15,24,24,26 ;

(?) 1^> yvllad, 'was born,' iv.26,vi.l,x.21, as in x.25 ;

(jj) the anthropomorphisms, xi.5,7, as in ii.7,8,15,19,21,22,iii.8,21,24,iv.l5,
vii.l6b,viii.21 ;

(0) the secret speeches, vi.3,xi.6, as in ii.l8,iii.22,vi.7,viii.21 ;

(v) As to the strongest of Scheadeb's arguments, viz. that ' earth ' is used as
often as 'ground' in these passages, and exclusively in x.8-12,xi.l-9, the fact is
that in x.8-12, the word -ground' could not have been used; it could not have
been said, ' he began to be a mighty-one in the ground? x.8, (though it might have
been said 'on the face of the ground." comp. vi.4 with vi.l,) nor in t\10,ll, could it
have been written 'the ground of Shinar,' ' out of that ground.'

(vi) the phrase X-IH D|> gam hit, 'he, she, it, too,' also occurs in iv.4,22.

(vii) shows only that ix.24,x.21, are by the same hand.

Schrader's arguments from the contents of these passages
cannot be taken into account a priori ; but the Jehovist seems
to have given some attention to geographical matters, especially
in 'Mesopotamia and Assyria/ ii.10-14.

97. But, besides excluding certain passages from the Jehovistic
matter, Schrader is obliged also, in order to obtain the continuity
in question, to include other passages as Jehovistic, which have
either been shown above to be Elohistic, or which do not exist at
all in the present book of Genesis, but require to be introduced, to
make his assumed Jehovistic narrative complete and intelligible.

(i) It is supposed that the Jehovist knew of only two sons of Adam, Cain and
Abel,— the mention of Seth in iv.26 being assigned, as above, to the later 'editor,'
— and that he regarded Noah as descended from the Lamech of iv.18,24, the de-
scendant of Cain, knowing nothing of the Elohistic genealogy in v, and, therefore,
not having before him the Elohistic narrative, — (which raises the difficulty (33) as to
the connection of ii.4b with the preceding narrative, since we could not then assign
ii.4* to the Jehovist). Then, in order to form the connection between iv. 24 and
v.29, it is necessary to include v.28b, but instead of writing ' and he begat a son,'

60 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AXD JEHOVIST.

the Jehovist, it is said, must have written originally, ' And Lamech begat again a
son, &e.,' having already begotten Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain, iv.20,21,22.

(ii) Then, with the exclusion of vi. 1-4, as an editorial interpolation, the story goes
on continuously to vii.5, after -which v. 7, which is decidedly Elohistic (50.iii.iv), —
'And Noah -went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into
the Ark, because of the waters of the Deluge,' — must be retained as Jehovist ic.

(iii) Then w.8,9, which are equally Elohistic (50.v-ix), are assigned to the editor,
' who sought in this way to bring into agreement the two accounts, just as in
iv.25,26, he has tried to connect suitably with one another the two genealogies
varying in many points from each other,' Scheadek, p. 138. The reason given for
this last appropriation is, that these verses, besides containing the distinction of
'clean' and 'unclean' animals, on which see (50,N".B.), — contains also the word
i"ICnX, adamah, ' ground,' ' which is not a favourite with the Elohist.' But, as
we have seen, the expression employed in v.8, ' all that creepetk upon the ground,'
is the identical formula, in which alone the Elohist does use the word nCTX
in i.25,vi.20: see (37.x), (40.iv).

(iv) Then f.l6b, ' and Jehovah shut tip after him,' has to be removed from its
present place, and put after v.7.

(v) Lastly, t>.22, which, compared with ii.7, bears so strong a mark of the Jeho-
vist's hand (see 59. i), ' must have been modified by the editor ; for the whole form
of the sentence, with the fact, that the principal verb -intp methu, ' they died,' occurs
not at, the beginning, but at the end, makes the impression as if the writer was
not here relating (as the Jehovist must have done) what is here recorded as some-
thing new, [i.e. told here for the first time] — since in that ease we should rather
expect, (as the Heb. idiom would require,) nb*l. vayyamoth, 'and there died,'
before ~\&H 73, Tool ashery 'all which,' — but as if this clause were only still fur-
ther intensifying something already said (whereas v.1\ is E.), so that JJlJ'l, vay-
yigvah, 'and there expired,' Lnperf, at the beginning of 0.21, and -1]")!?, methu,
'they died,' Per/, at the end of i\22, would stand to each other in exactly the
same relation as •1X2*1 vayyavou, 'and they came,' Lnperf, at the beginning of
i\15 and -1X2 bau, ' they came,' Perfi, at the end of the principal clause in v.16,
both by the same (Elohistic) writer.'

N.B. The fact here noticed by Schbader, viz. that the forms of the Heb. verbs
at the beginning of v.'2\ and the end of ?>.22 correspond exactly to those which
would have been used if one and the same writer had written both verses (as in
the case of v. 15, 16,), and which, according to him, must be accounted for by sup-
posing that v.22 has been 'modified' by the later editor, is a very important one,
as any Hebrew scholar will see, in reference to the question now before us. For there
can be no doubt that v. 22 has not been modified, — that it is a genuine Jehovistie
verse. It would seem, therefore, that the Jehovist had before him ?\21, and was
writing to supplement it, — unless his own verse, which originally preceded v.2'2. has
been left out by the editor.

98. By help of the above exclusions and inclusions, the Jeho-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST. 61

vistic narrative in Gr.i-xi may be made continuous and complete
to the end of the Flood. As, however, it is impossible, for reasons
which we have given, to assent to many of the details involved
in the above assumptions, we shall prefer supposing that the
Jehovistic document, — should it appear finally most probable
that originally it was not supplementary and fragmentary, as
we now see it, but an independent complete history, — must
have been abridged by the later ' editor,' so that it is now im-
])ossible to restore with certainty its original form.

99. It is possible, however, without doing so much violence
to the present text as Schrader's proposal involves, to construct
a continuous Jehovistic narrative up to the end of the Flood,
by supposing that v.29 originally formed part of the story of
Lamech in chap.iv, following iv.24, and that it was removed, by
the later editor or compiler of the present book of Genesis,
to the place where we now find it, in order to avoid the necessity
of giving two inconsistent genealogies of Noah, — and by
inserting also in the narrative of the Flood, in their proper
places, statements to this effect, that * Jehovah commanded him
to make an Ark,' that ' Noah and all his house went into the
Ark,' that ' all flesh died,' in deference to Schrader's remark
(97.v) that ' Jehovah remembered Noah,' that ' the Ark rested '
after the forty days, and that ' Noah and all his house came out
of the Ark,' — statements, which might, undoubtedly, be omitted
by a compiler without impropriety, since they contain nothing
but what the Elohistic narrative states almost in the same words.
100. But, although the Jehovistic narrative may thus be
brought into continuity, by a few simple modifications and a few
additions, we do not wish to be considered as adopting this view,
by making the above exhibition of it, and the fact remains that
in its present condition it is fragmentary. These additions
and modifications can only be conjectural. The hypothesis
must, therefore, still remain admissible, that it was originally
written as a series of separate supplementary interpolations, in-

62 CHAKACTEEISTICS OF THE ELOHIST AND JEHOVIST.

serted into the Elohistic narrative, in which last a complete
continuity has been shown to exist.

In either case, the important main point, — the proof that
these chapters of Genesis contain two distinct accounts,
proceeding from different writers, — remains unaffected.

101. Upon the whole, however, it must be admitted that the
contents of these first eleven chapters of Grenesis are not sufficient
to determine this question for us. We must, therefore, reserve
our judgment on this point, until the analysis has been carried
further, and more of the Jehovistic matter lies before us. But
we are justified, at all events, in concluding from the evidence
at present before us, that the Jehovistic writer — whether we
regard him as the writer of a complete independent narrative,
or merely as the interpolator of the primary Elohistic docu-
ment,— was one who wrote with considerable independence and
boldness of thought, and who felt himself in no way bound to
adhere scrupulously to the details of the original story, or to
maintain with it a perfect unity of style, any more than of
sentiment. We have thus, to some extent, a confirmation of
the view which has been already expressed in (II.505-8), as to
the composition of the Pentateuch.

102. But we have more than this. The analysis, as far as
we have gone, confirms the statement in (11.337) that the
Elohist never mentions the name ' Jehovah,' until he records
the revelation of it in E.iii or E.vi. From this it would seem

that the words in E.vi.3, —

' by my Name Jehovah was I not known to them ' —

are really meant to imply that, in his view, the Name itself —
and not merely the full meaning of it — was unknown before the
time of Moses. This result, if confirmed as we proceed, would
conflict, of course, with the views of the Jehovist, who puts it
in the mouth of Eve, iv.l, and says, iv.26, that from the time of
Enos * it was begun to call upon the name of Jehovah.'

63

CHAPTEE VII.

THE ELOHISTIC NARRATIVE.

103. We shall now exhibit in full the portions of Gr.i.l-xi.26,
which appear to us to belong to the Elohist and Jehovist, respec-
tively. In order to set more distinctly before the eyes of the
English reader the agreements and variations in style, which have
been noted in our preceding critical enquiry, it has been necessary
to translate these chapters again from the original, taking care to
render, as far as possible, the same Hebrew word or phrase
always by the same English equivalent, — a rule which is very
often not observed in the authorised version. Thus (40.KB.) in
nine places, i.25, iv.l 1,14, vi. 1,7,20, vii.4,8, ix.2, the original has
nEH^n, ha-adamah, 'the ground,' where the E.V. has 'the earth,'
by which it always expresses elsewhere fTl^n, ha-arets, whereas
the former word is properly rendered ' the ground ' in seventeen
other places, ii.5,6,7,9, &c. So the verb B>sn, ramas, is expressed
by 'move' in i.21,28, vii.21, and by 'creep' ini.26,30, vii.8,14,
viii.17,19, and the noun, WQ1, remes, by 'creeping thing' in
nine places, i.24,25,26, &c, and by ' moving thing ' in ix.3.

104. It is obvious that, without uniformity of translation, no
accurate comparison can be instituted between the two docu-
ments in English. There is no single word in English which
expresses completely the force of E>D"J, which is used of the move-
ment of all animals not bipeds, quadrupeds as well as reptiles,
between which no strong distinction was drawn by the Hebrew
natural historians; thus in L.xi. 29,30, we have joined together

64 THE ELOHISTIC NARRATIVE.

in one category, as ' creeping things,' the mouse, tortoise, lizard,
snail, and mole. "We shall employ the same word ' creep '
throughout.

105. So also the noun, n>n, Jchayyah, is rendered ' beast,' i.24,30,
ii.19,20, iii.1,14, vii.l4,21,ix.2,5,10,10, but 'living thing,' i.28,
vi.l9,viii.l,17 ; E'?2, nephesh, is represented by 'creature' in
i.21,24,ii.l9,ix.l0,12,15,16, by 'soul' in ii.7, by 'life' inix.4,5,5,
and in i.20,30, it disappears altogether, njn t^SJ, nephesh hhay-
yah, being expressed by ' life'; f!&, sharats, is given by ' bring
forth abundantly,' i.20,21, and ' breed abundantly,' viii.17, but
'creep,' vii.21, — )")?, sherets, by ' moving creature,' i.20, but
' creeping thing,' vii.21. We shall render in all cases n*n by
'animal,' B>&3 by 'soul,' p^ by 'swarm,' YW D7 ' swarming-
thino-s.'

But on this account, as well as because, for a similar reason,
it has been necessary to translate as literally as possible, the
following version does not pretend to be an elegant, but only a
strictly faithful, representation of the original.

THE ELOHISTIC NARRATIVE.
Is .B. — The sign %t denotes that a Jehovistic passage has been removed.

1 °5 In the beginning Elobtm created the Heaven and the Earth.
(2) And the Earth was desolation and emptiness, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep, and the spirit of Elobxu hovering upon the face of
the waters.

(3) And Elohtm said, ' Let there he light,' and there was light, (4) And
Elobtm saw the light that it was good ; and Elohtm divided between the
light and (between) the darkness. (5) And Elohtm called (to) the light 'Day,'
and (to) the darkness He called 'Xight.' And it was evening, and it was
morning, — one day.

(6) And Elohim said, ' Let there be an expanse in the midst of the
waters, and let it be dividing between waters (to) and waters.' (7) And
Elobtji made the expanse, and divided between the waters which were
beneath the expanse, (between) and the waters which were above the expanse ;
and it was so. t8) And Elohtji called (to) the expanse 'Heaven.' And it was
evening, and it was morning, — a second day.

THE EL0HIST1C XAREATIVE. 65

<9> And Elohim said, ' Let the waters beneath the Heaven be gathered
into one place, and let the dry-land appear '; and it was so. (,0) And Eloiiiji
called (to) the dry-land 'Earth,' and (to) the gathering of waters called He
' Seas' ; and Elohim saw that it was good.

00 And Elohijt said, 'Let the Earth vegetate vegetation, the herb
seeding seed, the fruit-tree making fruit, after its kind, whose seed is in it,
upon the Earth'; and it was so. °2J And the Earth brought forth vegetation,
the herb seeding seed after its kind, and the tree making fruit, whose seed
is in it, after its kind ; and Elohiji saw that it was good. tl3) And it was
evening, and it was morning, — a third day.

(u)And Elohix said, 'Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the
Heaven, to divide between the day and (between) the night, and let them be
for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (15) and let them be for
luminaries in the expanse of the Heaven, to give light upon the Earth ' :
and it was so. (16) And ELoniii made the two great luminaries, — the
greater luminary for the rule of the day, and the lesser luminary for the rule
of the night, — and the stars. C'W And Etonm (gave) placed them in the
expanse of the Heaven, to give light upon the Earth, Ci8) and to rule over
the day and over the night, and to divide between the light and (between)
the darkness : and Elohlsi saw that it was good. (19) And it was evening
and it was morning, — a fourth day.

(20) And Elohiji said, ' Let the waters swarm with swarming- things of
living soul, and let fowl fly over the Earth upon the face of the expanse of
the Heaven.' (2I) And Elohiji created the great monsters, and every living
soul that ereepeth, which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every
fowl of wing after its kind : and Elohiit saw that it was good. C22) And
ELonni blessed them, saying, ' Fructify and multiply, and fill the waters
in the Seas, and let the fowl abound in the Earth.' <-23) And it was evening',
and it was morning, — a fifth day.

(24) And Elohim said ' Let the Earth bring forth living soul after its
kind, cattle, and creeping-thing, and animal of the Earth after its kind' : and
it was so. (25) And ELonni made the animal of the Earth after its kind,
and the cattle after its kind, and every creeping-thing of the ground after its
kind : and Elohim saw that it was good.

(28) And ELoniir said, ' Let us make man, in our image, after our like-
ness ; and let them (tread) have-dominion over the fish of the Sea, and over
the fowl of the Heaven, and over the cattle, and over every animal * of the

* This is the rendering of the Syriac Version, instead of ' all the Earth.'
Delitzch observes, p. 122, 'If nothing followed after 'all the earth', we should
TOL. II. F

C6 THE ELOHISTIC NAKEATIVE.

Earth, and over every creeping-thing that creepeth upon the Earth.' (27) And
Elohim created man in His image ; in the image of Elohim created He
him ; male and female created He them. (28) And Elohim blessed them, and
Elohim said to them, ' Fructify, and multiply, and fill the Earth, and
subdue it; and (tread) have-dominion over the fish of the Sea, and over the
fowl of the Heaven, and over every animal tbat creepeth upon the Earth.'
c29) And Elohim said, ' Behold ! I give to you every herb seeding seed, which
is on the face of all the Earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree
seeding seed ; to you it shall be for food : (30) and to every animal of the
Earth, and to every fowl of the Heaven, and to everything creeping upon the
Earth, in which is a living soul, I give every green herb for food ' ; and
it was so. t31)And Elohim saw all that He had made, and heboid ! it was
very good. And it was evening, and it was morning, — the sixth day.

2. (1) And the Heaven and the Earth were finished, and all their host.

And Elohim finished on the seventh day His work which He bad made,
and rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
(3) And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it ; for on it He
rested from all His work, which Elohim created (to make) and made.*

5. (1) This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day of Elohim's
creating Adam ; in the likeness of Elohim made He him. (2) Male and
female He created them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in
the day of their creation.

C3)And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat in his like-
ness, according to his image ; and he called his name Seth. w And the
days of Adam, after his begetting Seth, were eight hundred years, and he
begat sons and daughters. (5) And all the days of Adam which he lived
were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

W And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos. (7)And Seth
lived, after his begetting Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and he
begat sons and daughters. (8) And all the days of Seth were nine hundred
and twelve years, and he died.

(9) And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Kenan. (10) And Enos lived,
after his begetting Kenan, eight hundred and fifteen years, and he begat
sons and daughters. un And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and
five years, and he died.

C12) And Kenan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel. (13) And Kenan

have here a significant ascending climax : but the reckoning of the creatures goes
on, — 'and over every creeping-thing, &c.' — so that we can scarcely escape the
conclusion that here the Hebrew text is faulty.'

THE ELOHISTIC NAERATIVE. 67

lived, after his begetting Mahalaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and he
begat sons and daughters. (u) And all the days of Kenan were nine hundred
and ten years, and he died.

(15) And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared. (16) And
Mahalaleel lived, after his begetting Jared, eight hundred and thirty years,
and he begat sons and daughters. (17) And all the days of Mahalaleel were
eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.

(l8)And Jared lived an hundred and sixty-two years, and begat Enoch.
(19)And Jared lived, after his begetting Enoch, eight hundred years, and
he begat sons and daughters. (20) And all the days of Jared were nine
hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.

(21) And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah. (22) And
Enoch walked with ELOHIM*, after his begetting Methuselah, three
hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters. (23) And all the days of
Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. (24) And Enoch walked with
ELOHIM, and he was not, for Elohih took him.

(25) And Methuselah lived an hundred and eighty-seven years, and begat
Lamech. (26) And Methuselah lived, after his begetting Lamech, seven
hundred and eighty-two years, and he begat sons and daughters. (27) And
all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and
he died.

(28)And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty-two years, and begat
[Noah].* (30) And Lamech lived, after his begetting Noah, five hundred and
ninety-five years, and he begat sons and daughters. (31) And all the days of
Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.

(32) And Noah was a son of five hundred years, and Noah begat Shem,
Ham, and Japheth.*

6. {9) These are the generations of Noah.

Noah was a man just and perfect in his generations: Noah walked with
ELOHIM. u0) And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (11>And
the earth was corrupted before the face of ELOHIM, and the earth was
filled with violence. (12) And Elohim saw the earth, and behold! it was
corrupted ; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.

<13) And Elohim said to Noah, ' The end of all flesh has come before my
face ; for the earth is full of violence from before them ; and behold ! I will
(corrupt) destroy them with the earth. iU) Make to thee an Ark of cypress-
wood ; in cells shaft thou make the Ark, and shalt pitch it within and with-
out with pitch.* (l7) And I, behold ! I (am bringing) will bring the Deluge

* We shall print the name thus, in large capitals, whenever it occurs in the
original with the article.

F 2

68 THE EL0HIST1C NARRATIVE.

of waters upon the earth, to (corrupt) destroy all flesh in which is a spirit
of life from under the heaven; all which is hi the earth shall die. (,8)But
I establish my covenant with thee ; and thou shalt go into the Ark, thou,
and thv sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives, with thee. (19) And out
of every living thing out of all flesh, two out of all shalt thou bring into
the Ark, to keep-alive with thee ; male and female shall they be. (20) Out
of the fowl after its kind, and out of the cattle after its kind, out of
every creeping-thing of the ground after its kind, two out of all shall
come unto thee, to keep-alive. (-2"> And thou, take to thee out of all food
which is eaten, and thou shalt gather it unto thee, and it shall be to thee
aud to them for food.'

(22)And Xoah did according to all which Elohim commanded him —
so did he.*

7. (6) And Xoah was a son of six hundred years, when the Deluge was
of waters upon the earth. ("> And he went, Noah, and his sons, and his wife,
and his sons' wives, with him, into the Ark, from the face of the waters of
the Deluge. (8) Out of the clean cattle and out of the cattle which are not
clean, and out of the fowl and all that creepeth upon the ground, <-9,two
and two, they came unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as ELOHlil
commanded Noah.*

00 In the six -hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, in the
seventeenth day of the month, on this clay were broken up all the fountains
of the great deep, and the windows of the heaven were opened.* (13) On this
very same day, (lib. in the bone of this day,) went Noah, and Shein, and Ham,
and Japheth, Noah's sons, and Noah's wife, and his sons' three wives, with
them, into the Ark ; (U) they, and every animal after its kind, and all the
cattle after its kind, and every creeping-thing that creepeth upon the earth
after its kind, and all the fowl after its kind, every bird of every wing.
t15) And they came unto Noah into the Ark, two and two, out of all flesh,
in which is a spirit of life. (16a) And those coming, male and female out of all
flesh they came, as ELOimi commanded him.*

(18a) And the waters were mighty, and multiplied (very) greatly upon the
earth,* and the mountains were covered. (21)And all flesh died, that
creepeth upon the earth, among fowl, and among cattle, and among (ani-
mal) animals, and among all the swarming-things that swarm upon the
earth, and all man ; * (23h) and only Noah was left, and what was with him
in the Ark.

tM)And the waters were mighty upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

8. ''And Elohiji remembered Noah, and every animal, and all the

THE ELOHISTIC NARRATIVE. 69

cattle, that was -with him in the Ark ; and Elohim eaused-to-pass a wind
upon the earth, and the waters subsided. (2a) And the fountains of the deep
were stopped and the windows of the heaven ; * (3) and the waters returned
from off the earth, returning continually, and the waters decreased at the
end of a hundred and fifty days. ^ And the Ark rested in the seventh
month, in the seventeenth day of the month.* <5> And the waters were de-
creasing continually until the tenth month : in the tenth month, in the first
of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.*

"3i>And it came-to-pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first
month, in the first of the month, the waters were dried up from off the
earth : * <14) and in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month,
the earth was dry.

<15) And Elohtji spake unto Xoah, saying, <l6j ' Go out from the ark, thou,
and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives, with thee. <17> Every
animal that is with thee out of all flesh, among fowl, and among cattle,
and among every creeping-thing that creepeth upon the earth, bring forth
with thee ; and let them swarm in the earth, and fructify, and multiply,
upon the earth.' (18) And he went out, Xoah, and his sons, and his wife, and
his sons' wives, with him. (19) Every animal, every creeping-thing, and every
fowl, everything creeping upon the earth, — after their families, they went
out from the Ark.*

9. <n And Elohim: blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them,
' Fructify, and multiply, and fill the earth. W And the fear of you and the
terror of you shall be upon every animal of the earth, and upon every fowl of
the heaven, among all that creepeth the ground, and among all the fishes
of the sea : into your hand they are given. t3) Every creeping-thing that
liveth, to you it shall be for food : as the green herb, I give to you all.
<4) Only flesh (in) with its soul, its blood, ye shall not eat. W And surely
your blood of your souls will I require : from the hand of every animal will
I require it ; and from the hand of man, from the hand of a man's brother,
will I require the soul of man. (6) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed : for in the image of Eloiuii made He man. <•'•> And you,
fructify and multiply, swarm in the earth, and multiply in it.'

WAnd Elohiii said unto Xoah, and unto his sons with him, savino--
(9) ' And I, behold ! I (am establishing) will establish my covenant with you,
and with your seed after you, (-10)and with every living soul which is with
you, among fowl, and among cattle, and among (every animal) all animals
of the earth with you, from all going out of the ark to every animal of the
earth. (U) And I establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall not be
again cut off through the waters of the Deluge, and there shall not be again
a Deluge to (con-up t) destroy the earth.'

70 THE ELOHISTIC NABBATIVE.

(l2) Arid Elohiit said, ' This is the sign of the covenant, which I (am giving)
will make hetween me and (between) you, and (between) every living- soul that
is with you for perpetual generations. (13) My how do I (give) set in the cloud,
and it shall be for a sig-n of a covenant between me and (between) the earth.
(14) And it shall be, at my (clouding) bringing a cloud upon the earth, that
the bow shall be seen in the cloud. (I5) And I will remember my covenant
which is between me and (between) you and (between) every living soul
among all flesh ; and there shall not be again the waters for a Deluge to
(corrupt) destroy all flesh. (16) And the bow shall be in the cloud ; and I will
see it, for a remembrance of the perpetual covenant between Elohim and
(between) every living soul among all flesh that is upon the earth.'

W? And Elohim said unto Noah, ' This is the sign of the covenant, which
I establish between me and (between) all flesh that is upon the earth.' *

<M) And Noah lived after the Deluge three hundred and fifty years. (29) And
all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.*

11. (10) These are the generations of Shem.

Shem was a son of a hundred years, and begat Arphaxad two years after
the Deluge. (U) And Shem lived, after his begetting Arphaxad, five hundred
years, and begat sons and daughters.

(12) And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah. (I3) And
Arphaxad lived, after his begetting Salah, four hundred and three years,
and begat sons and daughters.

(14) And Salah lived thirty years, and begat (iZeber) Eber. <15) And Salah
lived, after his begetting Eber, four hundred and three years, and begat
sons and daughters.

(16) And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg. (17) And Eber
lived, after his begetting Peleg, four hundred and thirty years, and begat
sons and daughters.

C13) And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Rem (19) And Peleg lived,
after his begetting Eeu, two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and
daughters.

(20) And Eeu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug. (2n And Eeu
lived, after his begetting Serug, two hundred and seven years, and begat
sons and daughters.

l2'-'And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Xahor. (23) And Serug lived,
after his begetting Xahor, two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

(24) And Xahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah. ^2b) And
Xahor lived, after his begetting Terah, a hundred and nineteen years, and
begat sons and daughters.

(26) And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abrarn, Xahor, and Haran.

71

CHAPTEE YIIL

THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IN GEX.I.1-XI.26.

X.B. We have attempted to restore the probable connection of these
passages, on the assumption (99) that they formed originally a complete,
independent, narrative, — without, however, committing ourselves definitt-lv
to that view, not having as yet sufficient evidence before us to determine
the judgment for or against it, — but in order that the reader may have the
facts of the case set before him as clearly as possible. The insertions made
for this purpose are printed in italics within brackets [ ], and the mark «$►
signifies that an Elohistic passage has been removed. We have italicized
the first clause, since, if this be an original, independent, narrative, that
clause must be due either to the Elohist or to the later compiler, for the
reasons stated in (33).

2. (4) [ TJiese are the generations of the Heaven and the Earth in their
creation,'] in the day of Jehovah-Elohiji's making Earth and Heaven.
(5) And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no shrub of the field
yet sprouted ; for Jehovah-Elohim had not made-it-rain on the earth, and
man was not, to till the ground. (6) And a mist rose from the earth, and
watered the whole face of the ground.

(7) And Jehovah-Eiotusi formed the man of dust out of the ground,
and breathed in his nostrils breath of life, and the man became a living soul.
(8) And Jehovah-Elohem planted a garden in Eden eastward, and placed
there the man whom He had formed. t9) And Jehovah-Elohiji made-to-
sprout out of the ground every tree pleasant for sight and good for food,
and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil.

(10)And a river goeth out from Eden to water the garden, and from
thence it is separated, and becomes four heads. (11J The name of the first is
Pison ; that is it which boundeth the whole land of Havilah, where is the
gold ; "2) and the gold of that land is good ; there is the bdellium and the
onyx-stone. (13) And the name of the second river is Gihon : that is it which

72 THE JEHOYISTIC PASSAGES IX GEN.I.1-XI.26.

boiuideth the whole land of Cush. (l4) And the name of the third river is
Iliddekel ; that is it which goeth eastward of Assyria. And the fourth
river — that is Euphrates.

(15) And Jehovah -Elohim took the man, and left him in the garden of
Eden, to till it and to keep it. (16) And Jehovah-Elohim enjoined upon the
man, saying, ' Of every tree of the garden eating thou shalt eat : (l7) but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — thou shalt not eat of it; for,
in the day of thy eating of it, dying thou shalt die.'

(l8) And Jehovah-Elohim said, ' It is not good, the man's being alone-
by-himself : I will make for him a help over-against-him.' (lff) And Jehovah-
Elohim formed out of the ground every animal of the field and every fowl
of the heaven, and brought it to the man, to see what he would call it ; and
whatsoever the man would call it, the living soul — that should be its name.
(20) And the man called names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the
heaven, and to every animal of the field ; but for (Adam) the man he found
not (i.e. one found not=there was not found) a help over-against-him.

(21)And Jehovah-Elohim made-to-fall a deep slumber upon the man,
and he slept, and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in-its-
place. (22) And Jehovah-Elohim built the rib, which He took out of the
man, into a woman, and brought her to the man. (23) And the man said,
' This-time this is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : to this it shall
be called Woman (Iskah), for out of Man (Ish) was this taken. c24) Therefore
shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and
they shall become one flesh.'

(25) And they were both of them naked, the man and his wife, and were
not ashamed.

3. (1) And the serpent was subtle, out of (every animal) all animals of the
field, which Jehovah-Elohim had made : and he said unto the woman, ' Is it
so that Elohim has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? '
(2> And the woman said unto the serpent, ' Of the fruit of the trees of the
garden we shall eat : (3) but of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst
of the garden, Elohim has said, ' Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not
touch it, lest ye die.'(4)And the serpent said unto the woman, 'Ye shall
not (dying) surely die : W for Elohim knows that, in the day of your eating
of it, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good
and evil.' (6) And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that
it was a, longing to the eyes, and the tree was pleasant to behold ; and she
took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
(7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
were naked ; and they sewed together fig-leaves, and made to themselves
girdles.

THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IN GEN.1. 1-XI.26. 73

«) And they heard the (voice) sound of Jehovah-Elohim:, walking in the
garden in the hreeze of the day ; and he hid himself, the man, and his wife,
from the face of Jehovah-Elohim in the midst of the trees of the garden.
t9) And Jehovah-Elohim called unto the man, and said to him, ' Where
art thou ? ' uo) And he said, ' Thy (voice) sound I heard in the garden,
and I feared, for I am naked, and I hid myself.' (n) And He said, 'Who
told to thee that thou art naked ? Of the tree, which I commanded thee
not to eat of, hast thou eaten ? ' <-12) And the man said, ' The woman, whom
Thou didst (give) place with me, she gave to me of the tree, and I ate.'
(13) And Jehovah-Elohim said to the woman, ; What is this which thou
hast done ? ' And the woman said, ' The serpent heguiled me, and I ate.'

(l4) And Jehovah-Elohim said unto the serpent, ' Because thou hast
done this, cursed art thou out of all the cattle and out of (every animal ) all
animals of the field ; upon thy helly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou
eat, all the days of thy fife : UM and enmity will I put between thee and
(between) the woman, and between thy seed and (between) her seed ; it
shall bruise thee on the head, and thou shalt bruise it * on the heel.'

(16) Unto the woman He said, ' Multiplying I will multiply thy pain
and thy conception ; in pain shalt thou bear children, and unto thy husband
shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.'

tl7) And to Adam He said, ' Because thou hast listened to the voice of
thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, as to which I commanded thee, saying,
' Thou shalt not eat of it,' cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in pain shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life ; U8) and thorns and thistles shall it
make-to-sprout to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field ; (19) in
the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread imtil thy returning unto the
ground, for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust art thou, and unto dust
shalt thou return.'

(20) And the man called the name of his wife Eve (Klwvvali), for she
was the mother of all living (khay).

(2n And Jehovah-Elohim: made to Adam and to his wife coats of skin,
and clothed them.

(22) And Jehovah-Elohim said, ' Behold ! the man has become as one
of us, for the knowledge of good and evil : and now, lest he put forth his

* The E. V. has 'his heel'; hut 'his' is here only the antiquated form of 'its'
as is plain from the E. V. having just before 'It shall hruise &c.'

The Heb. y"]T, zcrah, ' seed,' is a collective noun, and is never found in the
plural, in the general sense of ' offspring.' Hence it may be used here for ' off-
spring,' generally, and must not be pressed as meaning an individual, unless the
context requires it, as in iv.2o.

74 THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IN GEN.I.1-XI.2G.

hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. . .' (23) And
Jehovah-Elohim put him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken. <-24) And he-drove-away the man, and
stationed eastward (? in front) of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the
flame of the turning sword, to keep the way of the tree of life.

4. (1) And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare (Kain)
Cain, and she said, ' I have acquired (Kantthi), a man with Jehovah.'
<-2) And she added to bear his brother Abel ; and Abel was a tender of sheep,
and Cain was a tiller of ground.

(3) And it came to pass at the end of days that Cain brought of the fruit
of the ground an offering to Jehovah. (4> And Abel brought, he also, of
the firstlings of his flock and of their fat. And Jehovah had respect unto
Abel and unto his offering ; C5)and unto Cain and unto his offering He had not
respect : and it {anger) was (very) greatly kindled to Cain, and his face fell.
tff) And Jehovah said unto Cain, ' Why has it been kindled to thee, and
why has thy face fallen ? (7) Is there not, if thou do well, (lifting up)
acceptance ? and if thou doest not well, sin is crouching at the entrance,
and unto thee is its * desire ; but thou shalt rule over it.* '

<8) And Cain said unto Abel his brother, [ ' Let us go to the field ; '] t
and it came to pass, in their being in the field, that Cain rose (unto) against
Abel his brother, and slew him.

(9) And Jehovah said unto Cain, ' Where is Abel thy brother? ' And
he said, ' I know not ; am I keeping my brother ? ' W And He said,
' What hast thou done ? The voice of thy brother's blood is crying unto
me out of the ground. cu) And now, cursed art thou out of the ground,
which opened her mouth to take thy brother's blood from thy hand.
(12> When thou tillest the ground, it shall not add to give her strength to
thee : a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.' (13) And Cain
said unto Jehovah, ' My iniquity is too great to forgive, (or ' My punish-
ment is too great to bear.') (14) Behold ! Thou hast driven me away this
day from being upon the face of the ground, and from Thy face shall I hide
myself, and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it will be
that anyone finding me will slay me.'(15) And Jehovah said to him, ' There-
fore as to anyone slaying Cain, he (Cain) shall be avenged sevenfold : ' and
Jehovah set on (or l to ') Cain a mark, that anyone finding him might not
smite him.

* So Delitzch, p.201, and many other commentators. ' The E. V. has 'his,'
' him,' the Hebrew pronouns being masculine, whereas the Hebrew word here used
for sin is feminine, riKtSlT khattath. But, as Delitzch observes, sin seems here
to be personified, as a wild beast or snake.

t The Sam., Sept., and Vulg., insert this clause, which completes the sense.

THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IX GEN.I.1-XI.26. 75

(16) And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the
land of Nod, eastward of Eden. (l7> And Cain knew his wife, and she
conceived, and hare Enoch ; and he was building a city, and he called the
name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. (l8> And there was born
to Enoch Irad, and Irad begat Mehujael, and Mehujael begat Methusael,
and Methusael begat Lamech.

(19) And Lamech took to him two wives, the name of the one Adah, and
the name of the second Zillah. w» And Adah bare Jabal : he was the father
of dwellers in tents and among cattle. (21) And the name of his brother was
Jubal : he was the father of all handling lyre and flute. t22) And Zillah —
she also bare Tubal-Cain, a forger of all instruments of brass and iron ; and
the sister of Tubal-Cain teas Naamah.
(23) And Lamech said to his wives :

' Adah and Zillah, hear my voice !
Ye wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech !
For I have slain a man for my woimd,
And a youth for my hurt.
(24) For Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
And Lamech seventy-and-seven.'

(ib) And Adam knew again his wife, and she bare a son, and she called
his name (Sheth) Seth ; ' for Elohim,' said she, ' hath appointed (shath) to
me other seed in place of Abel, for Cain slew him.'

(26) And to Seth, — to him also, there was born a son, and he called his
name Enos. Then was it begun to call upon the name of Jehovah.-^-

5. [And Lamech begat again a son,] (29) and he called his name (Noakh)
Noah, saying, ' This shall comfort (nikhani) us (from) over our work and (from)
over the pain of our hands, (from) over the ground which Jehovah cursed.'

6. (1) And it came-to-pass that man began to multiply upon the face of
the ground, and daughters were bora to them. (2) And the sons of ELOHIM
saw the daughters of man that they were goodly : and they took to them
wives of all whom they chose. (3) And Jehovah said, ' My spirit shall not
preside in man for ever, forasmuch as he also is flesh, and his days shall be
a hundred and twenty years.'

W The giants were in the earth in those days ; and also afterwards, as
the sons of ELOHIM went unto the daughters of man, and begat to them-
selves, these were the mighty-ones which were of old, the men of a name.

t5) And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was multiplied in the
earth, and every (formation) imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil all the days. «> And Jehovah repented that He had made man
in the earth, and He was pained (unto) in His heart. (7) And Jehovah said,

76 THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IX GEX.I.1-XL26.

' I will wipe-out man, whom I have created, from off the face of the
ground, from inan unto cattle, unto creeping-thing, and unto fowl of the
heaven; for I repent that I have made them.' <^'But Xoah found favour in
the eyes of Jehovah. •$■

[And Jehovah said to Xoah, Make thee an Ark.~] (15) And this is how thou
shalt make it, — three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its
breadth, and thirty cubits its height. (16) A light shalt thou make to the
Ark, and unto a cubit shalt thou finish it upward, and a door of the Ark
shalt thou place in its side ; lower, second, and third stories shalt thou
make it.-^-

7. (1) And Jehovah said to Xoah, ' Go thou and all thy house into
the Ark ; for thee do I see righteous before my face in this generation.
^2) Out of all the clean cattle thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the
male and his mate, (lit. man and his woman) ; and out of the cattle, which
are not clean, it shall be two, the male and his mate. <-3) Also out of the
fowl of the heaven seven and seven, male and female, to keep-alive seed
upon the face of all the earth. (4) For after yet seven days, I will cause-it-to-
rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights ; and I will wipe-out all
the substance which I have made from off the face of the ground.'

(5) And Xoah did according to all which Jehovah commanded him.-^

(10)And it came-to-pass after the seven days that the waters of the
Deluge were upon the earth.-<J>- <12) And the rain was upon the earth forty
days and forty nights.

[And Xoah and all his house went into the Ark.~] ^ And Jehovah shut
after him, U7) And the flood was forty days upon the earth ; and the
waters multiplied, and they raised the Ark, and it was lifted from off the
earth. <► <18'J 'And the Ark went upon the face of the waters. u»And the
waters were very, very, mighty upon the earth ; and all the high moun-
tains, that were beneath all the heaven, were covered. (20) Fifteen cubits
upward the waters were mighty.-^ [And all flesh died :] (22) All, in whose
nostrils was the breath of a spirit of life, out of all which was in the dry
land, died. (23a) And He wiped out all the substance which was upon the
face of the ground, from man unto cattle, unto creeping-thing, and unto
fowl of the heaven ; and they were wiped-out from the earth.

8. [And Jehovah remembered Noah,'] <21,)and the rain was restrained out of
the heaven ;<>• [and the Ark rested] ^on the Mountains of Ararat. <>

wAnd it came-to-pass, at the end of forty days, that Xoah opened
the window of the Ark, which he had made. (7) And he put forth the
raven, and it went-out, going-out and returning, until the drying-up of the

THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IX GEX.I.1-XI.26. 77

waters from off the earth. <8) And lie put-forth the dove from him, to see
whether the waters were lightened from off the face of the ground. (9) And
the dove found not rest for the sole of its foot, and it returned unto him
unto the Ark ; for waters were upon the face of all the earth ; and he put-
forth his hand, and took it, and brought it unto him into the Ark. (10)And
he stayed yet seven other days, and he added to put -forth the dove out of
the Ark. (u) And the dove came unto him at the time of evening, and
behold ! an olive-leaf torn-off in its mouth ; and Xoah knew that the waters
were lightened from off the earth. u2) And he staved vet seven other days,
and he put-forth the dove ; and it added not to return unto him again. ■$■
(l3b) And Xoah removed the covering of the Ark, and saw, and behold !
the face of the ground was dry.-^-

[And Xoah and all his house came out of the Ark ;] (20) and Xoah built an
altar to Jehovah, and took out of all the clean cattle and out of all the
clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings (by-means-of ) on the altar. (21) And
Jehovah smelt the sweet savour, and Jehovah said unto His heart, 'I
will not add to curse again the ground for the sake of man ; for the (for-
mation) imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth ; and I
will not add again to smite (all living = ) every living-thing, as I have
done. (22) Still all the days of the earth, seed and harvest, and cold and heat,
and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not ceass.-^-

9. (lfl) And the sons of Xoah, those going out of the Ark, were Shem,
Ham, and Japheth ; and Ham — he is the father of Canaan. (19> These were
the three sons of Xoah, and out of these was spread-abroad all the
earth.

<20) And Xoah began to be a man of the ground, and he planted a
vineyard. l2" And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he
ised-himself in the midst of his tent. (22) And Ham, the father of
Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and he told it to his two brethren
without. (i3) And Shem and Japheth took the garment, and laid it upon
the shoulder of both of them, and they went backwards, and covered their
father's nakedness ; and their faces were backwards, and their father's naked-
ness they saw not.

(21) And Xoah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his younger son
had done to him. '-:>' And he said :
' Cursed be Canaan !
A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.'
M) And he said :

' Blessed be Jehovah, the ELonui of Shem !
And Canaan shall be a servant to him.

78 THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IN GEN.I.1-XI.26.

^Elohim shall enlarge (yapM) Japheth (Yepheth);
And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ;
And Canaan shall he a servant to him.'-<J>-

10. (1) And these are the generations of the sons of Noah, — Shem, Ham,
and Japheth ; and there were horn to them sons after the Deluge.

W The sons of Japheth, Gorner, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and
Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

(3) And the sons of Gorner, Ashkenaz and Ripnath, and Togarmah.

w) And the sons of Javan, Elisha and Tarshish, Kittiin and Dodanim.

GO Out of these were separated the isles of the nations in their lands,
(man) each after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

<« And the sons of Ham, Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

w And the sons of Cush, Seha, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Eaaniah,
and Sahtechah ; and the sons of Raamah, Sheha and Dedan. w And
Cush begat Nimrod ; he began to be a mighty-one in the earth. ® He was
a miohty-one in hunting before the face of Jehovah : therefore it is said, ' As
Nimrod, the mighty-one in hunting before the face of Jehovah.' (10) And the
beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Acead, and Calneh, in
the land of Shinar. (U) Out of that land he went out to (Asshur) Assyria,
and built Nineveh, and Rehohoth-Jiir, and Calah, o« and Resen between
Nineveh and (between) Calah : that is the great city.

<131 And Mizraim begat Ludini, and Anamim, and Lehavim, and Naph-
tuehini, °4) and Pathrusim, and Casluchim, — out of whom went out Philis-
tine—and Caphtorim.

(15) And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn and Heth, (1G) and the Jebusite,
and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, (17) and the Hivite, and the Arlrite,
and the Sinite, ^18) and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite :
and afterwards the families of the Canaanite were spread-abroad. (,9> And
the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, in thy going to Gerar, unto
Gaza, — in thy going to Sodom, and Goinorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim,
unto Lasha.

<20> These are the sons of Ham after their families, after their tongues,
in their lands, in their nations.

<2') And to Shem, to him also there was bom, — the father of all the sons
of i/eber, the elder brother of Japheth.

w) The sons of Shem, Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and

Aram.

<»> And the sons of Aram, Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

<24) And Arphaxad begat Salah, and Salah begat (IZeber) Eher. (25) And to
Eber were bom two sons, — the name of the one Peleg, for in his days the

THE JEHOVISTIC PASSAGES IN GEX.I.1-XI.26. 79

earth was divided {palag), and the name of his brother, Joktan. (26) And
Joktan begat Almodad, and Sbeleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah/27,and
Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, (28) and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,

(29) and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab : all these were the sons of Joktan.

(30) And their dwelling was from Mesha, in thy going to Sephar, the mountain
of tbe East.

(31) These are the sons of Sheni, after their families, after their tongues,
in their lands, after their nations.

(32) These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations,
in their nations ; and out of these were separated the nations in the earth
after the Deluge.

11. (X) And all the earth was of one (lip) language, and of one speech.
(2)And it came to pass, in their journeying eastward, that they found a
plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there.t3) And they said, (man) each to his
comrade, •' Come, let us make bricks, and let us burn them (for a burning)
thoroughly.' And the bricks were to them for stone, and the slime was
to them for the mortar. (i) And they said, ' Come, let us build to us a city,
and a tower (and) with its head in the heaven ; and let us make to us a
name, lest we be spread-abroad upon the face of all the earth.'

(5) And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the
sons of man had built. (6) And Jehovah said, ' Behold ! the people is one,
and there is one (lip) language to all of them ; and this is their beginning
to do ; and now there will not be restrained from them all which they have
purposed to do. (7) Come, let us go down, and let us confound there their
( lip) language, that they may not know (man) each the (lip) language of his
comrade.' t8)And Jehovah spread-abroad them from thence upon the
face of all the earth, and they left-off to build the city. (9) Therefore (he
called, i.e. one called=) men called its name Babel ; for there Jehovah con-
founded (baled) the (lip) language of all the earth ; and from thence Jehovah
spread-abroad them upon the face of all the earth. <>■

80

CHAPTER IX.

GENERAL REMAKES ON THE RELATION OF SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE.

106. Hitherto, in the former Parts of this work, we have not
considered any objection which has been raised to the historical
truth of the story in the Pentateuch, on the ground of any
miraculous or supernatural events recorded in it. "We have
simply treated the history as containing, or professing to
contain, an authentic narrative of matters of fact. We have
' taken it and placed it,' as we have been so earnestly urged to
do {Quart. Review, Oct. 1861,p.369)—

in the crucible, and under the microscope of strict Inductive Logic : —

and we have found it full of unsuspected flaws, of ' difficulties,

contradictions, improbabilities, impossibilities.'

107. But we have seen also that these phenomena have arisen
in a great measure from the fact, that the Pentateuch is not, as
the traditionary view assumes, the work of one single writer,
Moses, — describing transactions which fell in part within his
own certain cognisance, and in many of which he himself was
personally concerned, — but a composite work, the product of
several different authors, who lived in different ages. We saw
in Part III that one large portion of this work, the book of
Deuteronomy, was mainly composed not earlier than the age of
Josiah. "We have now seen that the first eleven chapters of
Genesis are manifestly due to two separate authors, not only
distinct in tone and style, and writing from two very different
points of view, and, on a mere literal principle of interpretation,
in many particulars irreconcilable.

REMARKS ON THE RELATION OF SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE. 81

108. I believe that no one, who has followed the train of our
previous reasoning, or even that of the seven preceding chapters,
or who will give serious attention to the fact, which is laid
bare before the eyes of English readers in the last two chapters,
where the two documents are actually separated, will any
longer doubt as to whether we are at liberty to criticise freely
this portion of the Bible, — always, of course, reserving the
respect which is due to the venerable character of these most
ancient writings, and to the wonderful part which they have
filled, in God's Providence, in the religious education of man-
kind, and with due consideration also of the feelings of many
earnest and devout worshippers, by whom the Pentateuch, in
all its parts, is still regarded as the actual work of Moses, and,
in its every word and letter, is reverenced as the i very founda-
tion of our faith, the very basis of our hopes for eternity,' the
awful, infallible, Word of the Living God.

109. Eather, it will be felt to be a positive duty, to face these
great questions of our time, soberly and steadily, without fear,
and without misgiving, as to what may be the ultimate conse-
quences of pursuing such enquiries, under the guidance of His
Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. As servants of God, we
desire to see what is really true, that we may know Him better,
and serve Him better, than before. Christ Himself came to
reveal the Father to us : the whole object of His Life and
Death was to glorify God, and to teach us to know Him and to
glorify Him. "We cannot glorify Him, we cannot make pro-
gress in the knowledge of God, by refusing to look at the facts,
which He Himself is pleased to place before us in this our day,
or by refusing to acknowledge them as facts, however they may
contradict our previous notions. For facts, when God makes
them plain to us, are solemn things, which we dare not dis-
regard, to which we dare not shut our eyes, whether from
indolence and the mere love of ease and quietness, or through
fear of unreasoning clamour or of the censure and disappro-

VOL. II. g

82 GENERAL REMARKS OX THE RELATION OF

bation of those, to whose judgments, in matters less sacred,
we should naturally and properly defer.

' He, that is higher than the highest, regardeth it, and there
be higher than they.' Ecc.v.8.

110. We are now, then, free to consider the accounts of these
miracles and supernatural appearances, which are recorded in
the Pentateuch, and especially the stories of the Creation, the
Fall, and the Deluge, in the light of modern Science, — not
start in gf with the assumption, that such events as are here
related are a priori in themselves impossible, but examining
carefully the statements made, and comparing them — not only
with each other, but — with what we certainly knoiv to be true
from other sources. For the Light of Modern Science, like any
other ' good and perfect gift,' is a gift of God, — ' is from above,
and cometh down from the Father of Lights.' It is His special
gift to the present age. And l in Him there is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning.' Plis Eevelation of Himself has
been one and the same in all ages of the world, — differing,
it is true, in degree, but the same essentially. As the writer
just quoted (Quart Rev.) has said, the Light of Eevelation
* cannot be at variance ' with the Light of Science. And,
e whenever a difference arises,' we must see if it is not caused
by ' some hypothesis, or assumption, or inference, of man,' not
by anything existing ' in the real Word, or the real Work, of the
Creator.' Then ' we may preserve both peace and freedom.'

111. Surely, it must now be plain to most thoughtful readers,
from the facts which we have had before us, that the cause of
the differences in question does lie in a very false ' hypothesis,
assumption, or inference, of man,' as to what constitutes the
' real Word ' of the Creator. It arises from the fact that men
have been taught all along to regard the Bible in all its parts,
and the Pentateuch especially, as a divinely infallible record of
absolute historical truth. It arises from men insistinp; on the

o

SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE. 83

fallacy, that, if the Pentateuch be shown to he even partially
unhistorical, then the whole history of the Jewish people will
be left (Quart. Rev.) —

a dead and hollow shell of moral monstrosities, more incredible than the most
capricious interferences with the world of matter, —

and coupling with it the still more shocking statement, that such
monstrosities in the Jewish history —
would go far to disprove the very being of a God !

This is indeed, as we have said elsewhere, to bring the
Sacred Ark itself into the Camp, — promoting superstition by
fostering prejudice, instead of fighting the battle with the
weapons of sincerity and truth.

112. While such language as the above is still employed, and
the attempt is still made, by many from whom better things
might have been expected, to urge upon the people the reception
of all the Pentateuchal narratives as actual statements of real
historical fact, there is no alternative left to us, but to show that
such a view is utterly untenable, in the light of common sense,
and consistently with what we know of the Divine Attributes.
We must do this, in defence of the truth itself, and for the protec-
tion of those, especially in the rising generation, who may thus
be misled to believe that Religion itself demands at their hands
the sacrifice of their reasoning powers, — that Grod can only be
devoutly and faithfully served, by renouncing at once all right
of free enquiry into these questions of Biblical criticism, and all
thought of reconciling the teachings of Religion with the results
of modern Science, and the great discoveries of the age.

113. As Dr. Thomas Burnet says, Archceologice Philosophic <:,
#.348 :—

Those, who adhere tenaciously in all things to the letter, and to the words of Moses,
require to be admonished, that they allow nothing unworthy of God or of our
religion, or do violence to the Majesty of the Divine Being by their irreverence.
We, Christians, worship the Deity Supreme, — God, Best and Greatest, or, in
common phrase, a Being infinitely perfect. In our theology, therefore, nothing
should be attributed to God, which does not become a Being infinitely perfect. . . .
When we ascribe to God, not merely in words, but in act, things which are

G 2

84 GENERAL REMARKS OX THE RELATION OF

repugnant to the Divine Nature, we sin against the dignity of the Divine Being.
But, if this were done with evil intention, and in a serious matter, it would have
the character not merely of insult, but, in a certain sense, of blasphemy. . . .
Clemens Alexaxdelxus has said very truly, Strom. vii, deocptXys o deoTrptTrrjs (jlovos,
' he only loves God, who observes what in its nature is worthy of God.'

114. Who would otherwise wish to be employed in dissecting

these grand old stories, and pointing out their inconsistencies

or their defects in scientific accuracy ? As Tuch: observes,

Gen. p. 2 : —

Who would deny the worth of these documents, because the authors knew
nothing of the system of Copernicus, or of Kepler's Law-book of the Heavens ?
Or who will now any longer make the attempt to bring these old theories into
unison with the results of scientific investigations of Nature ?

And Von Bohlen (Heywood's Eng. Ed.), ii.pA : —
Verily, he who restricts himself to the letter of this cosmogony [in G.i), and
applies to it Heeschel's discoveries, ... to such a man not only is all sense for
poetry ami antiquity closed, but also, to speak plainly, all feeling for the pious and
elevating object of the writer. But still more is there an absence of poetical and
classical taste in him, who derives each step of the narrative through inspiration
from the Deity, in order that this cosmogony may far exceed everything that we
know from the wise men of the ancient [or the modern] world.

115. Yet the attempt is still made, which Tuch, writing
twenty-five years ago, deemed impossible even in that stage of
advancing Science. There are still to be found those, high in
ecclesiastical position and influence, who think it necessary to
maintain that ' Scripture and Science ' are not in any single
point ' at variance,' — that the veracity of the Divine Being
Himself is pledged for the infallible truth of each one of these
ancient narratives, — that every story in the Pentateuch is, at
all events, substantially true, as a piece of authentic, historical,
matter-of-fact, and that ' all our nearest and dearest consola-
tions, will be taken from us,' if we cease to believe this.

116. As Kalisch writes, Gen.p.12 : —

It was, and — incredible to say — is still (1853) asserted, that the fossils have
never been animated structures, but were formed in the rocks through the
planetary influences, — that the mammoth, which at the conclusion of the last
century was found in the ice of the polar regions, in such remarkable preservation
that dogs and bears fed upon its flesh, had never been a living creature, but was

SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE. 85

created under the ice, and then preserved, instead of being transmuted into
stone, — that all organisms found in the depth of the earth are models, created in
the first day, to typify the living plants and animals to be produced in the subse-
quent part of the creative week ; but, inasmuch as many forms, which lie buried in
the earth, do not exist on the earth, these latter were rejected, as inappropriate or
imperfect, — they represent the ' gates of death,' but foreshadow also the immortality
of the soul, the resurrection, and the ultimate reunion of the dust of the human
bodies at the sound of the last trump ! See ' A Brief and Complete Refutation of
the Anti- Scriptural Theory of Geologists' by 'A Clergyman of the Church of
England.'

Most justly does Kalisch observe, with reference to such

assertions as the above, jp.18 : —

The Bible has no more dangerous enemies than those, who, either from indolence
or apathy, are deaf to the teaching and warning of the other sciences ; and those
men, however well-meaning and warm-hearted, must be made mainly answerable,
if the authority of the Scriptures should be disregarded by the most enlightened
and most comprehensive minds.

117. But while such assertions are made, either of the scientific
accuracy, .or of the infallible historical truth, of the Hebrew
Scriptures, — assertions, which the Church of England, at all
events, has never made in any of her formularies, — it is necessary
in defence of Eeligion itself to show, as plainly as possible,
their utter groundlessness, that so the progress of scientific en-
quiry may not again be checked, as it wTas in days not very long
gone by, by the blind irreverence of mere superstition. Let it
be once freely admitted that these stories of the first chapters
of Genesis, whatever they may teach of Divine, Eternal Truth,
and whatever precious lessons may be drawn from them by a
devout mind, are in their present form and structure mythical
descriptions, where the narrative is an imaginative clothing for
ideas, and so are not to be regarded as teaching unquestionable
matters of historical fact, which occurred in the primitive times ;
and then such a comparison, as we must now make, between the
statements of the Bible and well-known facts of Science, would
be superfluous and uncalled for.

118. In the following chapters we shall consider at length
the accounts of the Creation, Fall, Deluge, &c, as given in

86 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE RELATION OF

Gki.l-xi.26, in the light of modern Science. We may here,
however, introduce a few general preliminary remarks on this
subject, with reference to this part of our work, for which
purpose we first avail ourselves again of the language of
Dr. Kalisch, p. 1,2 : —

The modern researches in the natural sciences are as gigantic in their exfent, as
they are incontrovertible in their main results. The investigation of the laws of
the material world, and their application to practical purposes, form the cha-
racteristic pursuits of our age. But the Bible also alludes, in many important
passages, to physical laws and to natural phenomena. It became, therefore, an
indispensable task for the Biblical Student, and especially the theologian, to
compare those recent results with the respective Scriptural statements. The con-
clusions at which these men arrived, though vastly differing in detail, may be
reduced to two chief classes.

(i) One part of these scholars — whose zeal, unfortunately, overruled their reason
— flatly denied the correctness, and even possibility, of such facts. Everyone knows
that Galileo was compelled to abjure and to curse, the Copernican system of the
Earth's motion, as fallacious and heretical ; Voetius described it as a neologian
fabrication ; and the learned Francis Tueretin, not much more than 150 years
ago, endeavoured to overthrow it by Scriptural and physical arguments. But the
opposition to that great Astronomical truth has vanished away before the colossal
labours of Kepler, Newton, and their illustrious followers ; nor will anybody at
present, as once the learned doctors of Salamanca did, decry the ( Geographical)
views of Columbus, as an impious heresy; and, if objections are still raised by
some tenacious straggler, they are received as a curiosity, causing hilarity, rather
than provoking controversy. But more vehement were the denunciations hurled,
up to a very recent date, against the results of Geology, itself a comparatively recent
Science ; it was declared to be an unholy and atheistic pursuit, a dark art, a
' horrid blasphemy,' a study which has the Evil One for its author; and its votaries
were designated as arch-enemies of religion and virtue, infidels standing in the
service of the infernal powers.

(ii) The other class of scholars, more sober and less sceptical, acknowledges, either
wholly or partially, the exactness of the natural sciences, but denies emphatically
that there exists the remotest discrepancy between these results and the Biblical
records. This is, at present, by far the most prevalent opinion among theologians ;
they positively assert that, if there is an apparent contradiction, the fault is not in
the Scriptural text, but in its erroneous exposition. They have, therefore, proposed
avast number of explanations intended to prove that harmony; and they have
endeavoured to show that the present notions of Astronomy and Geology, though
not clearlyr expressed in the Bible, are certainly implied in the words, or may easily
be deduced from their tenor.

(iii) There is, indeed, a third, and a very large, class of scholars, who attempt to
evade these questions altogether, by simply asserting that the Bible does not at all

SCRIPTURE AXD SCIENCE. 87

intend to give information on physical subjects, — that it is exclusively a religious
book, and regards the physical world only in so far as it stands in relation to the
moral conduct of men. But this is a bold fallacy. With the same justice it might
be affirmed that the Bible, in describing the rivers of Paradise, does not speak of
Geography at all ; or, in inserting the grand list and genealogy of nations, G.x, is
far from touching the science of Ethnography. Taken in this manner, nothing
would be easier, but nothing more arbitrary, than Biblical interpretation. It is
simply untrue that the Bible entirely avoids these questions ; it has, in fact, treated
the history of Creation in a most comprehensive and magnificent manner; it has,
in these portions, as well as in the moral precepts and the theological doctrines,
evidently not withheld any information which it was in its power to impart.

The book of nature is no longer a sealed secret ; it is no longer the exclusive
privilege of the initiated ; it has become the common property of nations. Every
man, who has passed beyond the first elements of education, hastens to study the
Creator in His works, there to adore His Wisdom, to prostrate Himself before
His grandeur; in fact, the time is approaching, [rather, is now come,] when the
Study of Nature will belong to the very elements of education. Are the expositors
of Scripture, [or the authorities in the Church,] prepared to stem this torrent?
Will they oppose this universal movement towards the knowledge of the physical
sciences ? Will they once more proclaim open war against academies and obser-
vatories? Will they brand with the odious names of heretic, infidel, atheist,
those whom God has graciously gifted with the subtle intellect, to penetrate into
the abstrusest laws of nature, to search the depths of the ocean and the earth, and
to watch the marvellous orbits of unnumbered stars ? ' Shall Man curse where
God has blessed?' p.39.

119. Among the theologians of the second class above described,
we find Dr. M'Caul writing as follows, Aids to Faith, p.\98 : —
The new theology also asserts that the Mosaic cosmogony is contradicted by
the discoveries and progress of Science, and that, therefore, Moses could not have
been inspired. This is a straightforward objection, deserves a fair and full
consideration, and ought not to be met by what objectors can only regard as
evasions. Such are the assertions that the first chapter of Genesis is poetry, or a
series of seven prophetic visions, (Kurtz, Hugh Miller,) or the mere clothing
of a theological truth. If the first chapter of Genesis be poetry, or vision, or
parable, it is not historic truth, which is just what objectors assert. . . The book
of Genesis is history. It is the historical introduction to the following four books
of the Pentateuch, or, rather, to all following Revelation ; and the first chapter, as
the inseparable beginning of the whole, must be historical also. . . Some, indeed,
hold that, in reading the Bible, a distinction is to be made between statements
relating to religion, and those relating to physics, — that the former are to be
received, and the latter disregarded, as the purpose of Revelation is to teach man
what he cannot find out by his unassisted reason, but not physical truths, for tin-
discovery of which he has faculties. But what are we to do, when a truth is both

88 GENERAL REMARKS OX THE RELATION OE

religious and physical, such as 'God created the heavens and the earth'? And
hove are we to distinguish between what can be, and what cannot be, discovered
by man's natural faculties ? . . . Besides, if the first chapter of Genesis be not
given to teach us the facts and order of Creation, why is it there at all in its
circumstantiality? Are we to believe that Divine Revelation begins with an
unscientific misstatement of physical truth ? If the first chapter be the offspring
of human error, where does Divine Truth begin? This principle raises many new
difficulties, and removes none. We, therefore, adhere to the plain grammatical
statement, as a Divine Revelation of the origin of the universe, not yet superseded
by the theories of the speculative Philosophy, nor antiquated by the discoveries of
modern Science.

120. Such is the law laid down, for the interpretation of the
first chapter of Genesis, by Dr. M'Caul in 'Aids to Faith?
edited by the present Archbishop of York. It contrasts strangely
with that delivered by a very candid writer, the Eev. Dr.
Eoeison, in the sister volume, Replies to Essays and Revieivs,
p.329-338, for the orthodoxy of which, we presume, the Bishop
of Oxford, the avowed editor, must be held responsible : —

By what epithet shall we designate the Mosaic heptameron? Sceptics call it a
myth, or else, more mildly, the speculation of an ancient sage. Most Christians
speak of it as a history or narrative. The author of an able and learned ' Reply '
to ' Essays and Reviews,' written in a most reverential spirit, has come to the
conclusion that it is a parable. Others suggest that it is a vision. One gentleman
considers it as an account of plan, as distinguished from fulfilment. We venture to
think -none of these descriptions satisfactory. The book of Genesis opens with the
inspired Psalm of Creation.

On the hypothesis, that we have to do with an ordinary prose narrative,
chronicle, or diary, there immediately emerges the great difficulty of the ' days.'
With this it is not too much to say that no ingenuity has as yet grappled
successfully. The choice lies between the Chalmerian interpolation of the
geological ages before the first day begins, and the Cuvierian expansion of the six
days into geological ages. For these solutions, resj)eetively, Dr. Buckland and
Hugh Miller have done their best. But the arguments, which compelled Hugh
Miller to abandon the older method, have not been answered. Nor is his own
scheme free from the gravest difficulties. Who can bring himself to believe, for
example, that, when the sacred writer speaks of trees laden for human use with
seed-enclosing fruit, he could have had in his mind, or could have so described, the
gymnogenous flora of the coal-measures ?

Certain winters evade embarrassment by declining to elect among the competing
' reconciliations.' It is enough, they suggest, that some one of them maybe sound,
although it is inconvenient to become responsible for any one of them ; or they
allege that the record was not intended to do what it expressly undertakes and

SCKIPTUEE AXD SCIENCE. 89

professes to do : or otherwise, that the time is not come for a comparison between
Scripture and Geology, since there are points on which geologists are not agreed
among themselves. This multiform fallacy of evasion is exemplified by Buckxaxd,
p. 12,33, Archd. Pratt, p.33, &c. Dr. Chalmers himself, in his private cor-
respondence, betrays a similar hesitancy, by speaking of 'yet another way of
saving the credit of the record? It, no doubt, escaped this great and good man
that his own ' way ' brought him into direct collision with the ' Shorter Catechism,'
which asserts that God's work of Creation consists in ' His making all things out
of nothing ' in the space of six days, — not millions of years before the first day
dawned.

All this is but a manifestation of anxiety to snatch a cherished dogma from a
dreaded foe. "Were the panic well-founded, the belief indebted to such expedients
woidd be only screened, not saved. . . The worst rfwservice to the cause of Truth
is that contributed by contorted Science and sophistic exegesis,— e.g. 'Before sin
entered, there could be no violent death, if any death at all. But, by the
particular structure of the teeth of animals, God prepared them for that kind of
aliment, which they were to subsist on after the Fall ! ' Adam Clarkr on G.i.

Enough whether of quibbles or of makeshifts ! "When we consider the pervading
parallelism, — the rhythmic refrain, ' the evening and the morning,' — the periodic
fiat, 'Let there be light, a water-parting Firmament. Land, Plants, — Lights in the
Firmament, Life in the Waters, Life on the Land, Man,' — the punctual fulfilment,
'It was so,' — the retrospect, 'God saw that it was good,' — the chief wonder is how
it ever was possible to exact from the oldest and sublimest poem in the world the
attributes of narrative prose. . .

121. Then, after stating the 'structure of the Mosaic hep-
tameron,' which may, perhaps, be given more distinctly thus : —

First Bay, Light corresponds to Fourth Day, Luminaries.

Second Day, Water and Heaven . . Fifth Day, Fish and Fowl.

Tnird Day, Land and Vegetation . . Sixth Day, Animals and Man, who are

Seventh Day — Best — to inhabit the land, and feed on the vegetation,

Dr. Eorison adds with reference to his own fanciful solution : —
He, who perceives this, has the true key to the concord, which he will search for
elsewhere and otherwise in vain. Respect the parallelism, cease to ignore the
structure, allow for the mystic significance of the number seven, and all perplexities
vanish . . . Thus the ' daA's' themselves are transfigured from registers of time
into definitions of strophes or stanzas, — lamps and landmarks of a creative
sequence, — a mystic drapery, a parabolic setting, — shadowing, by the sacred cycle
of seven, the truths of an ordered progress, a forchnoivn finality, an achit Vi d
perfection, and a divine repose.

122. Bishop Wilberfoece has also lent the sanction of his
name to the publication of the following passage in the same
work, Replies to Essays and Reviews, p.514, from the pen of

90 REMARKS OX THE RELATIOX OF SCRIPTURE AXD SCIEXCE.

the Eev. R. Main, M.A., Radcliffe Observer in the University of
Oxford, which directly denies the ' literal historical truth ' of
this portion of the Pentateuch : —

Some school-books still teach to the ignorant that the earth is 6,000 years old,
and that all things were created in six days. No -well-educated person of the
present day shares in the delusion. "We know that we cannot expand our ideas
of God's universe too much, both as to space and time. With Him a thousand
years are but as one day; and, if we take a thousand years as the unit of our
counting, we shall require still an incalculable number of such units, to enumerate
the sum of Creation-periods. Whatever be the meaning of the six days, ending
with the seventh day's mystical and symbolical rest, indisputably we cannot accept
them in their literal meaning. They serve, apparently, as the divisions of the
record of Creation, lest the mind may be too much burdened and perplexed by all
these wonderful acts; but they as plainly do not denote the order of succession of
all the individual creations. Something is symbolised, and the author of the Ep.
to the Hebrews uses the symbol ; and this, the only mystical fact in the whole
narrative (?), we may surely, in all reverence, leave unexplained, without detract-
ing at all from the credit or the veracity of this wonderful record.

123. Upon the whole story contained in these chapters Dr.
Thomas Burnet writes as follows, Archccol. Philosoph. jj.2S4 : —

Great is the power of custom and preconceived opinion upon human minds.
These short notes or histories concerning the origin of men and things, we receive
and embrace from the mouth of Moses without examination, without hesitation.
Yet, if we had read the same teaching in any other writer, — for instance, in a Greek
Philosopher, or a Rabbinical or Mahomedan Doctor, — the mind would have hesitated
at every sentence, full of doubts and difficulties. This difference arises, not from
the nature of the thing or of the subject-matter, but from our opinion about the
faithfulness and authority of the writer, as divinely inspired. This we readily allow,
nor is it questioned in this place about the authority of the writer, but with what
mind, with. what purpose, he has written this, what kind of style he has used, the
vulgar or the philosophical, — the vulgar, I say, and not fabulous, though we should
use th:s word if we were treating about a foreign author. Of fables, however,
some are fictions, — we may say pure fictions : others rest on a foundation, but are
adorned with additions and extraneous decorations. Besides, there are some
narratives, which the truth underlies, yet does not underlie every point of them,
but only so far as concerns the main question, and the purpose of the author. — as
in the parable of Christ about Lazarus and Dives, and in many things, which are
said about the Day of Judgment, as far as regards the shell and mere external
form. Narratives of this kind, I consider, should be called, not fables, but some-
times parables, sometimes vulgar theories (uirodeo-eis Stjm^Ssis). And if you place
in this class the narrative now before us, retaining respect for the author's name and
reputation, I shall make no objection.

91

CHAPTER X.

GEN. I.1-II.3.

124. The discrepancies, which exist between the statements of
the first chapter of Genesis, understood in their plain, natural
meaning, and the admitted facts of modern Science, are so obvious,
that they scarcely should need to be exhibited at length. ■ Mr.
Main, indeed, as we have just seen, has said, that 'no well-educated
person in the present day shares in the delusion,' that, with a due
regard to scientific truth, we can 'accept' the Scripture state-
ments, either as to the ' six days,' or as to the ' order ' of Creation,
'in their literal meaning.' No doubt, this statement ought to
be true. But it is painful to contrast with it the actual state of
things, even in England, in the present day, as manifested by
recent events, and by the quotations which we shall be obliged to
make. It is necessary, therefore, to note very plainly these con-
tradictions. We shall, however, not confine ourselves to this
work, but rather make remarks, by way of notes, on some of
the more salient points of the Scripture narrative.

125. G.i.l.

' In the beginning Elohim created the Heaven and the Earth.'
The plain meaning of this verse,— as it would be under-
stood by any simple-minded reader, who had not yet perceived
the difficulties of the case, and been taught to ' reconcile ' them,
— is undoubtedly this, that, 'in the beginning,' at the com-
mencement of the present state of things, as the first act of that
continuous six days' work, of which man was to be the last,

92 GEX.L1-II.3.

* God created the Heaven and the Earth,' i.e. the universe, the
Hebrews having no single word by which to express this idea.
The same Hebrew word, W13, bara, is used for 'create' in v.l
as is used in v.21, ' God created great whales,' and in r.27, ' So
God created man in His own image.' And, in E.xx.l 1 , it is ex-
pressly said that 'in six days Jehovah made the Heaven and
the Earth, the sea and all that in them is.'

126. Here, however, in E.xx.l 1, the word used is nb'y, hasah,
'made'; and Archd. Pratt, Scripture and Science not at
variance, £>.38, attempts to argue that G.i.l, where 'create'
(bara) is used, relates to an original calling out of nothing the
material, out of which the things now existing were afterwards
'made' (hasah): so that immense ages and numerous revolu-
tions of the universe may have taken place, in strict agreement
with the statements of this chapter, before the formation of the
world as it now is, and the constitution of the present order of
things, — i.e. between v.l and r.3. Accordingly, he says that
the word hasah, employed in E.xx.l 1, is not used in the sense
of ' create,' but —

in the sense of did, appointed, constituted, set for a particxdar purpose or use ; and
never once, in the hundred and fifty places, where it occurs in the book of Genesis,
is it used in the sense of ' created.'

So again he writes, ]p.2>2 : —

In Genesis we read, 'In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.'
In the following verses the work of the six days is described, in which God
prepared the Earth, and the sea, and the clouds, and the atmosphere (or heaven),
for man's appearance upon earth.

It is this six days' work which is alluded to in the Fourth Commandment, and
not the original Creation of matter. . . . The word nb'V, hasah, made, which

T T

occurs 154 times in Genesis, is not once rendered (!) 'created.' . . . This
word occurs about 2,700 times in the O.T., and, I believe, is not once translated (I)

' created.'

127% But what matters it whether, or not, our 'translators '
have 'rendered ' this word by ' created,' when it plainly means
'created ' in numberless passages, as e.g. i.2o, ' and Elohim made
(nl"i?) the animal of the earth after its kind,' or i.26, ' Let

GEN.I.l-n.3. 93

us make man in our image,' or iii.l, 'The serpent was more
subtle than any animal of the field, which Jehovah-Elohim had
made,' or vi.6, ' It repented Jehovah that He had made man
upon the earth,' &c? So, in i.27, we have, 'In the image of
Elohim created (&H3) He him,' and in ix.6, 'In the image of
Elohim made (nt"y) He him,' — where the two words are
manifestly used as synonymous.

128. Dr. Pye Smith takes refuge from the difficulties, in
which he finds himself involved, if the words are taken in their
plain natural sense, by supposing not only, with Archd. Pkatt,
that the creation-work in v. I is separated by immense ages from
that described in the rest of the chapter, but, further, that the
word ' earth ' in v.l means the Earth in its full extent, while in
all the rest of the chapter it means only that small portion of
the Earth, .which immediately surrounded the abode of the first
human beings : Geology and Scripture, jp.249 :

Considering all the evidences of the case, I can find no reason against our regard-
ing the word, subsequently to the first verse, and throughout the whole description
of the six days, as designed to express the fart of our world, which God was adapting
for the dwelling of man and the animals connected with him. . . . This portion of
the Earth I conceive to have been a part of Asia, lying between the Caucasian ridge,
the Caspian Sea, and Tartary, on the North, the Persian and Indian Seas on the
South, and the high mountain ridges which run at considerable distances, on the
eastern and western flanks . . . This region was first, by atmospheric and geological
causes of previous operation under the will of the Almighty, brought into a con-
dition of superficial ruin, or some kind of general disorder. With reverence I
propose the supposition, that this state was produced by the subsidence of the
region. . . . Extreme ' darkness ' has been often known to accompany such phe-
nomena. This is the unforced meaning of the two words rendered ' without form and
void.'

What then are the ' Seas' in r.10, or the ' Heaven ' in v.8 ?
And what means the statement in t'.17 that the 'great Lumi-
naries ' were set in the firmament, ' to give light upon the
Earth?'

129. From E.sx.ll, then, it appears that there is absolutely
no room for the supposition, to which Chalmers gave popularity,
that Gr.i.l refers to a great primeval act, which may have been

94 GEX.1. 1-11.3.

separated by vast geological ages from the creative acts described
in the rest of the chapter, and v.2, as Archd. Pkatt writes,
29.31, to —

a state of emptiness and waste, into ■which the earth long after fell, ere God pre-
pared it as the residence of the most perfect of his creatures, — ■

a view this which, however adapted to the state of geological
science at the time when it was proposed, has, with the advance
of that science, turned into a ' broken reed,' piercing, like so
many previous attempts to reconcile Scripture Poetry with
Natural Science, the 'hands that leant upon it.'

130. For v.2 is evidently in continuation with v.l, and de-
scribes the state of the ' Earth ' named in v.l, when first created.
And reference is made to this creation of the Earth and the
Heaven, at the same time when all other things were created,

in ii.4 —

These are the generations of the Heaven and of the Earth in their creation, in the

day of Jehovah-Elohiin's making Earth and Heaven.

Thus we are plainly taught in the book of Genesis, according
to the simple, straightforward, meaning of the words, that Elohim
created the Heaven and the Earth ' in the beginning ' of these
six days, — that is, taking into account the chronological data of
the Bible, about six thousand years ago.

But Geology teaches that the earth has been in existence for
hundreds of thousands — perhaps, millions — of years. (See
the geological evidence on this point admirably summed up by
Dr. Kalisch, Gen.p.2-6.)

131. Again, we are told in this chapter of Genesis that the
different races of living creatures, plants, &c, were created in
six days. And these cannot be explained to denote six
geological ages, as some have suggested; they are, in the
meaning of the writer, six common days of twenty-four hours.

This appears plainly both from the statements in the chapter
itself, noticed below, and from E.xx.ll, where we are told
that God worked for six days, and rested ' on the seventh day,'

GEX.I.1-II.3. 95

which, therefore, He sanctified as the Sabbath. Consequently,
in the mind of the writer of this passage, as the seveuth day was
a common day, so also must the other six have been common
days. And so says Archd. Pratt, Scripture and Science, pA5 : —

There is one class of interpreters with whom I cannot agree, — I mean those who
take the six days t,o be six periods of indefinite length. . . Is it not a harsh
and forced interpretation, to suppose that, in E.xx, the 'six days' in V.9 do not
mean the same as the ' six days' in v.\l, but that in this last place they mean 'six
periods'? In reading through v.ll, it is extremely difficult to believe that the
' seventh day ' is a long period, and the ' Sabbath Day ' an ordinary day, that is,
that the same word ' day ' should be used in two totally different senses in the
same short sentence, and without any explanation.

132. Dr. M'Caul, however, who professes to 'adhere to the
plain grammatical statement ' of the Scripture, finds no such
difficulty, Aids to Faith, p,2\5 : —

To know the length of the first day, it would be necessary to know how long
the light continued, after its first appearance, until the evening came, and then
how long it was from evening until the first dawn. But this is not told us. The
ordinance concerning the reckoning of time, ' Let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and for years,' was not given until the fourth day, and could
have no application until after the creation of Adam. Not by the sun, then,
were the days measured, but by the light and darkness, which God called Day and
Night, of the length of which we are not informed. And, consequently, there is
nothing in the text to compel us to restrict the days to the time of the Earth's
diurnal motion. If the length of the days is to be measured by that of the
seventh, the day of God's Eest, those days must be indefinite periods, for that Day
of Eest still continues. . . According, then, to the declaration, that God's
Eest or Sabbath still continues, the seventh day of Creation is an indefinite period,
and the other days may be also.

133. We may ask, can the fourth, fifth, and sixth days have
been supposed by the writer to be ' indefinite periods,' when
the two great lights had been set in the firmament, to give li^ht
upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night,
and to divide the light from the darkness ? As Schrader says
very justly, Studien, p.10 : —

If we choose to take for the first three days the word ' day ' in the sense of a
greater interval, a world-day, a creation-period, yet then, manifestly, the author
would have used the same word in two passages directly following each other, [even
in two consecutive verses, y.13,14,] in two totally different senses, without having
givon the least intimation that from the fourth day onwards it is to be understood

96 GEX.I.1-II.3.

in a different sense from before, tbat is, in the sense of an ordinary earth-day, —
which is hardly to be imagined.

Well may Mr. Buegon say, Inspiration and Interpretation,

29.38 :—

Such an interpretation seems to stultify the whole narrative. A week is de-
scribed. Bays are spoken of, each made up of an evening and a morning. God's
cessation from the work of creation on the seventh day is emphatically adduced as
the reason of the Fourth Commandment, — the mysterious precedent for our
observance of one day of rest at the end of every six days of toil, — ' for in sis
days (it is declared) the Lord made Heaven and Earth.' You may not play
tricks with language plain as this, and elongate a week until it shall more than
embrace the span of all recorded time.

134. We conclude, then, that the first chapter of Genesis,
understood in its plain grammatical sense, does mean to say
that, in six ordinary days, Almighty God ' made the Heaven and
the Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is.'

But Geology shows that the Earth was not brought into its
present form in six days, but by continual changes through a
long succession of ages, during which enormous periods
innumerable varieties of animal and vegetable life have abounded
upon it, from a time beyond all power of calculation.

135. Further, the account in Genesis represents the order of
Creation to have been — first, Plants, v. 12, next, Fish and Fold,
v.2\, then Cattle and Reptiles, v.25, and, lastly, Man, v.2~i .

But Geological observation shows that, in different ages, plants
and animals of all kinds appeared together at the same time upon
the earth, so that they were not successively created, as the
Bible says, first, all the Plants, then all the Fish, &c.

136. G.i.2.

' And the Earth was desolation and emptiness, and darkness upon the face of
the deep.'

Here the Scripture represents the earth as ' without form and

void,' desolation and emptiness, in a state of utter chaos and

confusion, — rudis indigestaque moles, — and wrapt in dark-

GEX.I.1-II.3. 97

ness, — immediately before the races of plants and animals, now
existing on its surface, were created.

But Geology proves irresistibly that no such a state of things
immediately preceded the epoch fixed in the Bible for the
Creation of Man, — that, in point of fact, the face of the Earth
has existed generally just as now, with the same kinds of animal
and vegetable life as now, long before the six thousand years
implied in the Bible story, and that no sudden convulsion took
place at that time, by which they might have been all destroyed,
so as to give occasion for a new Creation. As Hugh Miller
observes, Test, of the Rocks, p. 121 : —

For many ages ere man -was ushered into being, not a few of his humble contem-
poraries of the fields and woods enjoyed life in their present haunts, and for
thousands of years, anterior even to their appearance, many of the existing niollusks
lived in our seas.

137. Delitzch, however, notes upon the ' chaos ' as follows,

p. 105 : —

We come back to the same point. That which we have here specially before us
is the assertion, that the ' desolation and emptiness ' here referred to is the glowing
mass of matter, to which the might of God's Anger melted the original world,
corrupted through the fall of the spirits. . . We are certainly very far from
deceiving ourselves with the idea that all this can be read in v.2. It is, however,
that explanation of the fact recorded in v.2, which grows upon us out of its con-
nection with the history of Salvation, — [rather, 'out of its connection with'
certain notions of our own, which we choose arbitrarily to import into the Scripture
narrative, to the destruction of its simple grandeur.]

138. Gr.i.5.

' And it was evening and it was morning — one day.'

The appearance of the 'light' was, perhaps, considered as
the first morning, and the antecedent ' darkness,' as the first
evening. This, at least, is the explanation commonly given.
But the natural order of the account of the first day would be
to mention the morning, i.e. the appearance of the light out of
darkness, before the evening. The phenomena here observed,
•however,' taken in connection with other ancient religious

VOL. II. h

98 QEKI.1-II.8.

traditions, may, perhaps, throw light on the origin of the
account itself.

The Hebrews, Greeks, Persians, Gauls, Germans, &c.
began the day in civil matters with the evening ; hence the
expression for a full day 'evening-morning,' Dan.viii.14,
wx@VH'Zp°v = ' night-day,' Pers. Sheban-roz: comp. se'nnight
(seven-night), fortnight (fourteen-night). The Hindoos and
later Babylonians reckoned from sunrise (fifispovvicTiov), the
Umbrians from noon, the Eoman priests from midnight.

139. G.i.7.

' And Elohim made the expanse, and divided the waters which were beneath the
expanse from the waters which were above the expanse.'

The Hebrews regarded the sky as a spread-out surface,
(yi?"3, rakidh, expanse, from V\?1, rahdh, ' extend, spread-out,')
from which the upper waters were supposed to be dropped in
rain upon the earth, and by which they were altogether separated
from the lower streams and seas upon the earth's surface.

According to the mythical representation, this heavenly vault is provided with a
door, G-.xxviii.17; it rests upon pillars and foundations, Job xxvi. 11, 2S.xxii.8; and
its glistening blue makes it appear as a crystal, sapphire-like, mass, E.xxiv.10,
Dan.xii.3, or like a ' molten looking-glass,' Job xxxvii.18. Above this vault rolls
the heavenly ocean, the ' waters above the heavens,' Ps.cxlviii.4, wherein Jehovah
has set His throne, Ps.xxix.3, 10. Through the ' doors,' Ps.lxxviii.23, and ' windows,'
G.vii.ll, 2K.vii.2,19, in the Firmament, this ocean pours down upon the earth
as rain.

Yet we ought not to confound these mythical representations, which later poets
gladly retained, with the science proper of the Hebrews ; for already we read in
Job xxvi.7, ' He stretcheth out the Heaven over emptiness, He hangeth the Earth
upon nothing'; and in G.ii.6, Jobxxxvi.27, we find a more correct view of the
origin of rain. . . The idea of a heavenly ocean above the Firmament is found
also in the Indian Mythology, Samaveda, Bopp. p.301, 'Water is above the Heaven,
which the Heaven sustains.' Tvcn,Gen.p.2l.

140. Delitzch, who goes so far in defence of the traditionary
view as to say, Gen.p.9Q, —

The fact, that God's Life, existing in Trinity, has employed itself in creative
act in a work of twice three days, and in the utterance of the ten (3 + 7) words of
creation, ' and he said,' i.3,6,9,11, 14,20,24,26,28,29, [and of the seven statements

GEN.I.1-II.3. 99

1 it was,' or ' it was so,' 1.3,7,9, 11,15,24,30, or of the seven words of approval, ' and
Elohim saw that it was good,' i.4,10,12,18,21, 25,31,] and on the se venth day has
gone back into the rest of completion, — this is for all creatures a fact of infinite
consequences, full of mystery, —

admits, however, a ( defect ' in the statement made in the text
before us, in a remarkable note, p. 108 : —

According to this view of the narrative, the masses of water, floating in the air,
and coming down as rain, belong not to the earthly, but to the heavenly, waters.
It must be allowed that the 0. T. view is herein chargeable with a defect, since no
physical connection exists between the waters which descend in rain, and the
heavenly waters, to which the N. T. also refers: comp. 'sea as of glass,' Eev.iv.6,
xv.2, 'river of water of life,' xxii.l. This view, however, is not without deep
truth. The rain is, as it were, a dole of the heavenly waters let down, and a
heavenward-pointing type of it. . . Besides which, it is worthy of consideration,
that the exactest astronomical enquiry teaches us that there are white spots upon
the poles of Mars, (!) which exhibit just the same appearances as our snow-and-ice-
covered polar regions, — that the matter, of which Jupiter is composed, is not more
dense, and on the surface is even less dense, than our water, — that the matter
of Saturn is not half as dense as water, a little less dense, therefore, than fir-wood,
&c. Such teachings of the latest astronomy are of use to familiarise us with the
thought, that the upper waters denote a really supra-firmamental fluid or something
like water, whatever it may be, — perhaps, the substance out of which, on the fourth
day, the Stars were actually formed, as the dry-land out of the ' lower waters.'

141. Such are the resources to which men of great ability are
driven, in defence of the traditionary view. They sacrifice the
majestic poetry of the ancient narrative, its sublime embodi-
ment of the impressions made on our senses by the objects of
created nature, in order to extort from it a pretended Eevelation
of what we hav already learnt by scientific research. Can we
doubt that the Scripture writer had neither the ' sea ' and ' river'
of the Eevelations, nor the stellar matter, in his view, but
simply expresses the very natural conception of his time, that
there were stores of rain in the upper regions of the sky,
from which water was let down, whenever the * windows of
heaven ' were opened ?

142. Dr. Thomas Burnet writes as follows, Arch.Phil.p.S09 : —

The matter stands thus. The vulgar do not understand the natural product ion
of rain through condensed vapours, but believe that rain is sent through Divine
influence from heaven, or immediately by God. That Moses might fall in with

H 2

100 GEX.I.1-II.3.

this opinion, be placed a common receptacle of the waters above the skies, that God,
at His pleasure, by opening or closing the barriers, might send or hold back the
rain. This appears to me to have been the mind and meaning of the sacred
writer, as regards the supercelestial waters. And in this way we consult best for
the dignity of IMoses, if, as often as there is a departure from scientific truth, we
suppose this to be done, by accommodating his account of the Creation of the world
to the powers and habits of thought of the people.

So, when mention is made of the primary Light, on the first day of the Creation,
that phenomenon is equally inexplicable on physical grounds. But, in order that God
might not seem to be working in the dark for three days, it seemed expedient to
Moses, to produce the light at the very beginning of the work. But what kind
of light ? Light without origin, without source. Light, however, if we philosophise,
proceeds from a centre of some kind. . . . Besides, according to the letter of
Scripture, God seems to have intermitted his work in the night-time, as men are
wont to do. Yet I see not how the other hemisphere, celestial or terrestrial,
could have been made, if there was any intermission of labour, if God did not act
except where there was light. But the vulgar cares not for these niceties, nor
dreams of antipodes or another hemisphere, but conceives of the universe as a tent,
( jf which heaven is the upper part, and the plane surface of the earth, the base.

143. G.i.9.

• And Elohtji said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered to one place,
and let the dry-land appear.'

The formation of the continents, as described in our text, agrees but very
remotely with that made probable by geological researches. For, whilst the latter
teach us that the same part of the globe was many times alternately water and dry-
land, and that volcanic eruptions were one of the chief agencies of these changes.
our text declares that, at the beginning of time, the Will of God made, once for
all, the permanent division between seas and continents ; there was no upheaving
of the land, but only a concentration of the floods to certain parts. This does
not explain the formation of the strata, nor of the fossil remains of vegetables and
animals — which, according to the Bible, did not yet exist — in the interior of the
earth, nor any of the wonders, which make Geology one of the most interesting
and absorbing sciences. But we have willingly renounced the attempt to dis-
cover that harmony. Kaxisch, Gen.p.69,

144. G.i.16.

' Aud-Ei-OHTM made two great lights, the greater light for the rule of the day.
and the lesser light for the rule of the night.'

It is a mere evasion of the plain meaning of these words, to
say that Elohim made the Sun and Moon to appear first only
i >n the fourth day, though they had been long before created, —

GEX.I.1-II.3. 101

appear, that is, to the Earth, when, however, according to the
story, there were as yet no living creatures on its face to see
them. The writer manifestly intends to teach that Elohim
actually made the Sun and Moon at this time. And, in fact,
he uses here the very same Hebrew word nb>y, hasah, ' make,'
as he had used before in v.7, i Elohim made the firmament,' and
as he uses again in v.25, ' Elohim made the animal of the earth
after its kind.'

145. Thus Willet writes in 1605, before attempts were
made to force the Scripture into agreement with the results of
modern Science, Hexapla in Gen.p. 1 0 : —

These Lights were neither made the first day, and but placed now in the firmament,
as the Hebrewes think. — neither was the Sunne made the first day, the Moone the
next, the Starres the third, as Eugubinus,— but they were all made upon the fourth
day. . . . That these two great lights are the Sunne and Moone, there is no question ;
and that the Sunne is the greatest of all the celestial bodies, it is also questionlesse.
Axaxagoras did \ hold the Sunne much greater than Peloponnesus, a country iu
Grecia, — Axaxxmaxdeh, to be as big as the earth ; but, since, the Mathematicians
have found that the Sunne exeeedeth the earth in bignes 166 times,* and none of
the other starres, which they call of the first magnitude, whereof there are |15,
to exceede the earth above 18 times. The Moone, — though some among the
heathen have judged it bigger than the earth, as the Stoikes, and equall to the
Sunne, as Parmextdes, and some among the Christians have thought it in bigne3
next to the Sunne, because it is here named to be a great light, and Basel upon this
place, and Augustine, — yet, since, by more diligent search, it is found to be
lesse than the earth 39 times, and to be the least of all the Starres, except Mercury.
Muses, therefore, here speaketh according to the opinion and capaeitie of the
vulgar sort, to whose sight the Moone seemeth greatest, next to the Sunne, because
it is nearest of all the starres to the Earth, and for that it is greatest in operation,
and hath the government of the night. The reason of the greatnes of these lights,
is their farre distance from the earth. Empedocxes saith, the Moone is twice so far
from the Sun as it is from the Earth : but the Mathematicians say it is 18 times so
far from the Sunne.

* Taking the Sun's diameter (d) as 880,000 miles, and the Earth's (d) as 8,000,
it will follow that bulk of Sun : bulk of Earth::D3 : d3::1103 : 1::1, 331,000 : 1.
We can form some conception of this enormous bulk, by supposing the Sun placed
so that its centre shall be coincident with the Earth's centre : then (since its radius
is 440,000 miles) its huge body would stretch out in all directions nearly twice as
far as the Moon (distant from the Earth 240.000 miles). "We can thus gain some
idea of the enormous magnitude of the ' greater Light,' the lord of the Solar System.

102 GEX.I.1-II.3.

146. But Geology teaches that, for countless ages before Man
lived upon the Earth, the Sun, beyond all doubt, was the centre
and source of light and heat to the Earth, and to its livino-
creatures of all kinds, whose eyes were formed, just exactly as
they are now, to receive its rays, — as well as to the successive
generations of plants, which grew in those primeval forests, to
which are due the carboniferous formations.

147. Dr. M'Caul, however, writes, Aids to Faith, p.218 : —

Moses represents the Earth as existing for a long period before the Sun became
its source of bight and heat. During that period there could have been no climatic
difference, as this depends upon the position of the Earth -with regard to the Sun.
Now, this exactly agrees with the conclusions of Geology, -which asserts that,
before the human period, there was no difference of climate, that the Earth was
not dependent on the Sun for its temperature (!) ; that there was apparently one
uniform high temperature over the whole Earth, and, consequently, that the Flora
and Fauna of warm climates are found, in the prehuman period, in latitudes where
they would not now exist. Here, then, is an instance of the extraordinary
scientific accuracy of the Mosaic account.

148. On the contrar}7, scientific geologists maintain that, though
there was, probably, a time when the temperature of the earth
was more uniform than it is now, yet that this was not the case
for long ages before the human period began ; and, further,
that, at all times, the earth, with its vegetable products and
living creatures of all kinds, has been to all appearance depen-
dent upon the Sun for light and heat, just exactly as now.
And Sir Charles Lyell has shown how, without any violent con-
vulsion or sudden catastrophe, by the steady, silent, operation of
natural forces now in action, modifying gradually the extent of
land and water, and slowly elevating, or depressing, the former
during a long lapse of years, a tolerably uniform temperature
might be diffused over the whole or large portions of the globe,
whether the warmth of the thermal or the cold of the glacial
periodr

149. Gr.i.16.

' And the stars.'

GEX.I.1-II.3. 103

»

It is plain that the writer of this chapter had very little
notion of the real magnitude of the Sun, so huge (145*) that if
its centre were placed at the centre of the Earth, its body would
extend out on every side nearly as far again as the Moon. He
looked upon it as being, — what it appears to our senses to
be, and what, before the time of Copernicus, it was almost
universally supposed to be, — a mere appendage to the Earth,
which he regarded as the scene of all God's wonderful operations,
the centre of the universe, for whose service only and convenience
the ' host of heaven' was created, — 'the Sun for the rule of the
day, and the Moon for the rule of the night.' And he here
names ' the Stars also,' regarding, no doubt, those twinkling
points of light as a small addition to the greater luminaries,
without having the least idea that each one of their glorious
host, — which Astronomy now shows to be infinitely more nu-
merous than he could have supposed, — was itself a mighty
Sun, though placed at an immense distance from us,* in com-
parison with whose bulk that of our earth would shrink into
nothing. Indeed, how little the Jews had really observed the
Stars, appears from the circumstance that there is no allusion
in the Old Testament to the distinction between fixed and luan-

* It is difficult to realise to one's-self the enormous size and distance from us
of the Fixed Stars, and the awful solitude in which each separate Star, and its
little troop of Planets, exists by itself, in the midst of the mighty universe.
Perhaps the following calculation may assist the reader's mind to grasp more
distinctly the reality of these facts, and appreciate more fully the grandeur of the
heavenly host.

One travelling at railway-speed, day and night, 33§ miles an hour, or 100 miles
in 3 hours, would reach the Moon in 300 days ; and at the same rate, he would
reach the Sun in 330 years. But, if he could reach the Sun in one single day, it
would take 550 years of such travelling, to reach the nearest Fixed Star. And
then, it must be remembered, for all that enormous interval, on every side of our
Sun and its little family, there is, as far as we know, an awful void, as far as
regards any possibility of the existence of animal life ! And the same tremendous
vacancy, as far as the possibility of animal existence is concerned, most probably
extends between one Star and another, and on all sides around each separate
Star, — nay, around each separate mote of nebulary star-dust.

104 GEN.I.1-II.8.

dering stars, which Milton supposes Adam to have remarked

before he had been upon the Earth forty-eight hours, —

And ye fire other wandering Stars, that more

In mystic dance, not without song. Paradise Lost, t'.77-8.

150. Dr. M'Caul considers that 'the Stars' in r.16 are the
' planets ' of the Solar System, and, ignoring the fact above
noticed (127), that nb'y, hasak, ' make,' is used of making ' the
animal of the Earth,' v.25, and ' man,' v.26, as well as of
making the ' two great lights,' v. 16, he writes as follows, Aids to
Faith, p.212 :—

The Hebrew word nb'SJ may signify ' make ready, prepare, dress,' Gesen. Lex.
The creation of the Sun or parent-globe may be included in v.l ; and the work of
the fourth day consisted in furnishing it with its luminous atmosphere. "When
this took place, and the Sun began to shed its light, then the Moon, and the
Earth's fellow-planets, the 'Stars,' of i\16, became luminaries also. The Stars of
v.16 are certainly (I) different from those 'Morning Stars,' (!) of which Job speaks,
which were in existence long before, and, as connected with the Sun and Moon,
seem naturally to mean those belonging to the Solar System, and which received
their lights on the fourth day, when the Sun became luminous.

151. Gki.21.

' And every fowl of wing after its kind.'

It is plain that under the terms ' fowl,' in this verse, and
4 creeping-thing,' v.25, the writer must be supposed to in-
clude, not only birds and reptiles, but all flying and creeping
things whatsoever, worms, insects, &c, and even animalcula.
Otherwise, no provision is made for the existence of these things.
And so in L.xi.20 we read, ' All fowls that creep, going upon
all four, shall be an abomination to you '; and then the 'locust,'
in four different stages of its growth, is excepted. So among
unclean ' creeping things ' are numbered, as already noticed
(104), the 'mouse, tortoise, lizard, snail, mole, &c. ' L.xi.29,30.

It is^robable that the author supposed only one pair of each
kind of animal created originally, as he supposes only one pair
of human beings, and makes Noah also take only one pair of

GEX.I.1-II.3. 105

each kind of creature into the Ark, for the continuation of the
species after the Deluge.

152. Delitzch:, however, has the following note, _p.H6 : —

That these animals, created on the sixth day, sprang from one common centre of
creation, the record says not, and just as little, that every kind has begun from a
single pair, and spread itself out from thence, as it increased, over its present
region. The older natural philosophers, as LnmiEUS, and also later ones, bring
forward, not uninfluenced to some extent by the Scripture record, this view, which is
not in any sense favoured by it. What the Biblical record says of Man, must not
be transferred to the animal world. That all kinds of animals, of all zones and
climates, have made their way across over all hindrances to their present habitats,
and that, for instance, only two ants and bees, buffaloes and antelopes, were
created, — these are fancies which any one may produce if he likes, but must not
consider as articles of faith, under which the Holy Scripture takes him captive.
There is all the difference in the -world between the unity of the human race, which
Scripture does not call a 'kind,' and the unity of a so-called 'kind' or 'species' of
animal. The unity of these latter exists, if it begins at once with many specimens.
If, then, Natural Science must assume that animals, now spread over a wide extent
of country and separated by vast regions, must have proceeded at once from several
centres of Creation, this agrees with the Scriptural view. And, if also it is
established, that the animals are not uniformly spread over the whole surface of
the region which they occupy, — that they are most numerous in the mid-region, but
at the borders are fewer in number, and at last disappear altogether, and make
room for others, — so also does the single glance 'which we have taken, into the
work-place and operations of that divine fiat, which passed upon the fifth and sixth
days, assure us of the same.

Ans. The difficulty, which Delitzch here avoids, comes upon us again in the
account of the Deluge, where the Elohist says that one pair only of each kind of
animal was saved, and, though the Jehovist excepts seven pairs of clean animals,
yet both agree that only one pair of each kind of unclean creatures was preserved
in the Ark ; and all these are supposed to have spread out after the Flood from one
centre to their present localities. Of course, refuge may be taken in the notion of
a partial Deluge, which question will be discussed in the proper place. But, we
may ask at once, what reason could there have been for taking a pair of ants or
bees into the Ark, — because these creatures Lived in the partial centre around
Ararat, supposed to be flooded,— if they existed freely in other countries, beyond
the boundaries of the inundation ?

153. (x.i.22.

' And Elohim blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters
in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.'

106 GEX.I.1-II.3.

Delitzch is here harassed by another difficulty, and endea-
vours to struggle out of it as follows, p.\17 : —

Had the animals, which are found buried in the mountains, any share in this
blessing ! Chateaubeiantj and other modern writers say, ' No : they cannot have
been intended to propagate.' But it is not possible to reconcile with the Scripture
record the notion of a creation of animals preceding the fifth day. . . . Also,
neither in the Scripture text, nor in the old-world discoveries, lies there any
necessity to suppose a whole series of older creations of animals antecedently to
the fifth day, with which the creation of animals begins. ... If the Creation-days,
as we are persuaded, not merely for scientific reasons, — [=we have managed to
force the Scripture into some appearance of agreement with the certain results of
Science,] — are Creation-periods of Divine proportions, then is there more room
allowed, for the process of formation of the Earth's surface, from before the third
day until the Creation of Man ; and nothing prevents our assuming that this
process of formation was attended with catastrophes, which burst through the
creation of animals in the fifth and sixth days, and swallowed up whole generations
of them, — [except the simple fact, that, as it advances, geological science
obstinately refuses to admit the possibility of any such catastrophes having
occurred.]

We shall find Delitzch stating his views on this point more
fully hereafter.

154. G.i.26.

' And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'
As Delitzch observes, £>. 120 : —

The Creation of Man, which the writer has now next to relate, has such an
attraction for him, that he hastens over the blessing of the land-animals, without
particularly mentioning it, [as he has mentioned the blessing on the fishes and
birds, y.22].

With respect to the plural forms here used, it is well-known
that in former days great stress was Laid on these, as proofs of
the doctrine of the Trinity, contained in the very first chapter
of Genesis. Thus Paschasius, de Spiv. Sanct., i.5, ssljs : —

Perspice quomodo trina vice nomen Dei in creatione hominis nuncvpatur. Sic
enim habemus in Gcnesi, ' Et dixit Deus, Faciamus hoininem,' et iterum, ' Oreavit
Deus hominem^ et tertio, ' Benedixit ei Deus.' Dixit Deus, fecit Deus, benedixit
Deus : propter tres Pcrsonas ter itcratur una Divinitas. Quo loco evidenter mys-
terium Trinitatis intclVgc. . . . Itaque in eo quia dicit, 'Faciamus hominem ad
imaginem nostram,' Tersonarum nv.merus explicatur.

Perceive how thrice the name of God is pronounced in the creation of man.

GEX.I.1-II.3. 107

For thus we have in Genesis, 'And God said, 'Let us make man,' and again,
' God created man,' and a third time, ' God blessed them.' God said, God made,
God blessed : on account of the three Persons is the one Divinity thrice repeated.
In which passage understand evidently the mystery of the Trinity. . . . Therefore,
in the fact that he says, 'Let us make man after our image,' the number of
Persons is unfolded.

And Hilary writes in his Genesis 110-2 : —

Tunc ' Hominem faciamus' ais. Die, Optime, quonam
Nunc loqueri&l Clarurn est: jam turn tibi Filius alto
Assidet in solio, terras et spectat arnicas.
' Let us make man,' Thou sayst. Tell me, Thou Best,
With whom Thou now art speaking. It is plain :
E'en then, on the high Throne, the Son sits by Thee,
And views the pleasant lands.

155. Delitzch, however, rejects justly this interpretation, and
explains the words as implying that the Divine Being com-
municated His purpose to the angel-hosts which surrounded
him, p. 121 : —

Philo, who explains the passage thus, ' The Father of all discourses to his own
Powers,' i.556, understands by 'Powers' the angels, and takes the words, therefore,
as ' communicating,' for which view we decide. . . . When alsc in the Babylonian
myth the ' other gods ' take part in the production of men, — when in the Persian
the Amschaspands (celestial beings) appear as demiurgic Powers, and Ormuzd is
associated with the divine spirits, — when Ovid. Met. i.83, says that Man is formed
in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum, 'after the image of the gods who govern all
things,' — these are all echoes of this ' Let us make,' which throw a certain light on
its true meaning.

The above explanation, confirmed, as it seems to be, by the
occurrence of similar expressions in the other oriental creation-
stories, may be the true one. But the view of Kalisch, Gen.
p.80, seems preferable, viz. that we have here only —

the plural usually, though not necessarily, employed in deliberations and self-
exhortations: comp. xi.7, 'Go to, let us go down, and there confound their
language,' with ii.18, '/will make him an help meet for him ' : [see, however, iii.22,
'the man has become as one of v.s, to know good and evil'; but here also the
expression may be merely one in popular use ; at any rate, there cannot here be
any reference to the Trinity.]

We have seen (11.328) that the plural form, ' Elohim,' has no
connection whatever with the doctrine of the Trinitv, being used

108 GEX.I.1-II.3.

of Dagon, 1 S.v.7, Astarte, 1 K.xi.5, Baalzebub, 2 K.i.2,3,6, as
well as of the True God.

156. Ghi.27.

' In the image of Elohim created He him.'

Knobel observes, Gen.p. 19 : —

This idea occurs also in other ancient writers generally. According to Lucian,
Pro Imag. 28, Man was named by the best philosophers elic&>v 6eov, ' the image of
God '; he was formed, according to Hermes, in Lactant. Inst. Biv. ii.10, ad imagi-
nem Bei, ' after the image of God,' and according to Ovid. Met.i.83, in effigiem
moderantum cuncta deorum, 'after the image of the gods who govern all things.'
Cicero, Be Nat. Beor.i.ZI, speaks of men as similes deorum, 'like the gods,' and
refers, Be Leg. i.9, as also does Juvenal, xv.141-7, to their erect form, but also to their
spiritual nature. Akatus, Phanom.5, names men Atbs yevos, 'the offspring of Zeus,'
which St. Paul, Acts xvii.28, enlarges to 0eoD yivos, ' the offspring of God ' ; and
the Pythagoreans taught ovyyeveiav avOpclnrcov irpbs Qeovs, ' a relationship of men
with the gods,' Diog. LAEBT.viii.27, and imagined therewith (as did others, e.g.
the Platonists) that the soul was an effluence of the Deity, while others main-
tained also to elSus avrb dew eoiicevcu, ' that in form it resembled the Deity,'
Philostr. vit. Apoll. viii.7. Also Phocyl. Carm. 101, names the spirit eiicwv 6eov,
' image of God.'

157. Gr.i.30.

' To every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything
that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb
for meat.'

The question would arise upon this, (if we were obliged to
regard this chapter as historically true,) how were the beasts and
birds of prey to be supported ? — since their teeth aud stomachs,
and their whole bodily conformation, were not adapted for eating
herbs. But, in fact, Geology teaches that ravenous creatures
preyed upou their fellow-creatures, and lived upon flesh, in all
ages of the world's past history, just exactly as they do now.
Besides which almost all fishes are carnivorous ; and the leaves
and stalks of vegetables, grasses, &c, swarm with living things,
which "are destroyed by the herbivorous animals.

158. Dr. Pte Smith writes, Geology and Scripture,p.87 : —

Some persons have dreamed of sustaining animal life by exclusively vegetable
food, — ignorant that in every leaf or root or fruit which they feed upon, and in

GEX.I.1-II.3. 109

every drop of water which they drink, they put to death myriads of living creatures,
whose bodies are as ' curiously and wonderfully made ' as our own, which were
full of animation and agility, and enjoyed their mode and period of existence as
really and effectively, under the bountiful care of Him, who ' is good to all, and
whose tender mercies are over all His works,' as the stately elephant,' the majestic
horse, or man, the earthly lord of all. By far the larger portion of the animal
creation is formed, in every part of its anatomy, internal and external, for living
upon animal food, and cannot live upon any other.

Knobel observes, Gen.p.20 : —

According to the Hebrew view, then, men in the first age lived only on vege-
tables, and first in a later time were allowed to eat flesh, ix.3. This is the general
opinion of antiquity. According to PLATo,2^<?JL^.vi(22).^.782, men abstained
originally from eating flesh, because they regarded the slaying of animals as im-
proper and sinful. So Ovw.Met.x.Y.96-8, Fast.ir.395-7, allows men in the golden
age only to feed on fcetus arboreos and hcrbas, but no flesh, and DiOD.Sic.i.43,ii.38,
adduces the same with reference to the ancient Egyptians and Indians in par-
ticular. So too was it among the Syrians according to VoRvsxn.Abstin.ix.lb.

159. On this point Delitzch writes, jp.124 : —
The Creation is designed for propagation and completion, not for destruction of
life ; the killing of one creature by another is contrary to the original will of God,
which is here explained. With this Scripture notice we come, indeed, into
difficulties, when we look at men of the present day, whose teeth, according to their
construction, are distinguished certainly from those of the properly carnivorous,
but not less from those of the properly herbivorous, animals, and (as also the
intestines by reason of their length) are adapted for a mixed kind of nutrition,
partly of animal, partly of vegetable, food. Further, when we consider that it is
the Law and Order of Nature, in the present world of plants and animals, that the
life of the one is prolonged through the death of the other, — when we consider that
strife, pain, oppression, murder, and robbery, lord it at present in all spots, all
elements, all seasons, all classes of organic existence, — that not only visibly, but
also invisibly, in the bodies of living creatures, innumerable large and micro-
scopically-small parasites and murderers are found, (thus in the intestines of a
small tortoise many thousand ascarides were found, eagles and vultures swarm with
tormenting skin-parasites, and slugs, worms, and other tormentors plague the soft
jaws of crocodiles and alligators,) — that every thing living is now in a continual
war, — that it lies in the nature of certain animals to torture their prey in the most
refined manner, and it seems as if it will and must be so, that, as limits are set to
the excessive increase of the vegetable world through the herbivorous animals, in
like manner that of these is limited through the predaceous animals, and that
of these latter through the death-dealing work of man, — when we consider all this,
we are carried on to ask further, can it ever have been otherwise ? Among the
old-world animals, the creatures of the water and the slime, the partly fabulous
Saurians were predaceous, aud lived mainly on fish : their excrements, the so-called

110 GEX.I.1-II.3.

coprolites, show their great voracity, and contain still recognisable remains of animal
food. Oersted, the renowned discoverer of Electro-magnetism, urges confidently
against Myxster, the defender of the Church-dogma, this point, viz. that, even
in the old-world, animals have devoured other living animals, and that actually
plain marks of disease have been found upon the bones of old-world animals. . .

There are here two problems ; one concerns killing and death in the primary
world, the other concerns killing and death in the mid-world. The right solution
of the former we have already often indicated — [by the assumption that the
geological remains are those of animals buried in the convulsions of the long-ex-
tended fifth-and-sixth days' periods. But some of these, at all events, must have
received the blessing in v.'2'2, though they were not allowed, it seems, to propagate
their species, viz. those of those fishes and birds which are found buried, mixed with
the remains of beasts, since these latter could only have been made on the
sixth day, and therefore the overwhelmed fishes and birds must have survived, and
therefore must have received, the blessing on the fifth.] The second resolves itself,
as we say with Wagner, through the assumption, — [unknown to the Scriptures,
which do not describe Adam as naturally immortal, but, on the contrary, ascribe his
banishment from Paradise to the apprehension of Jehovah, that, if he remained there,
he might take also of the ' tree of life,' and live for ever.] — that, as the body of
man after the Fall underwent an essential change in its material basis, so also
an analogous perversion and alteration took place in the animal world. [And
yet the present forms of animals correspond in all essential particulars to those of
the buried creatures of the old-world, which were formed, as Delitzch supposes, —
and were not only formed, but lived out their time and died, — before the creation of
man, in the course of the fifth and sixth days (153) !]

Ill

CHAPTEE XL

LEGENDS OF THE CREATION AMONG OTHER NATIONS.

160. We have thus seen that the statements in Gr.i, if regarded
as statements of historical matter-of-fact, are directly at variance
with some of the plainest facts of natural Science, as they are now
brought home, by the extension of education, to every village —
almost, we might say, to every cottage — in the land. It is idle
for any Minister of Keligion to attempt to disguise this palpable
discordance. To do so, is only to put a stumbling-block in the
way of the young, — at all events, of those of the next generation,
— who, well-instructed themselves in these things, and having
their eyes open to the real facts of the case, may be expected
either to despise such a teacher as ignorant, or to suspect him
as dishonest, and, in either case, would be very little likely to
attach much weight to his instructions in things of highest
moment.

161. Yet we can clearly see that there are certain great prin-
ciples,— the very core and centre of all true religious teaching,
— which the pious writer of this chapter lays down distinctly,
amidst all his speculations upon the construction of the
universe :

(i) God is the Creator and Preserver of all things; *

* The later Hebrew philosophers appear to hare lost sight, to some extent, of
this grand Truth, and to hare imbibed from the Alexandrian School the notion of
the eternal preexistence of matter, out of -which the Heaven and the Earth were
formed: thus we read, Wisd. xi.17, 'Thy Almighty Hand, that made the world
out of formless matter, «'| b.^6p<pou \)\r\s.'

112 LEGENDS OF THE CREATION

(ii) Man is made in the image of Grod ;

(iii) All that Grod has made is very good.
We may add that he also appears to lay down distinctly this
additional principle, that there is One Only True and Living
God, whose Unity underlies the multifarious manifestations of
His agency.

162. These truths this writer must have received himself by
the enlightening operation of the Spirit of Truth. And these
truths, here uttered by a fellow-man of other days, we receive
and embrace, — and I have known the untutored Zulu at once
embrace them, when set before him, as heartily as the most
learned European, — not because we find them written in a
Book, every word of which we believe to be infallibly true,
but because the eye of our Keason, once enlightened, and having
statements such as these set before it, approves them at once, as
divine, eternal, facts, — because we see and feel them to be true.
As surely as, with our bodily eyes, we see the Sun in the sky,
and are certain of the real existence of external sensible objects,
so surely, with the Mind's eye, can we see and rejoice in the
glorious reality of such spiritual verities as these.

163. Most true, therefore, and excellent are the words of
Prof. Harold Browne, Aids to Faith, p.320: —

The Bible has told us that the Being, who created all things, is such that the
Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Him, — that He is the High and Lofty One
inhabiting Eternity, but that, though He has His dwelling so high, yet He
humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth, — that a
sparrow does not fall without Him, — that the very hairs of man's head are
' numbered before Him.' Infinite greatness, infinite minuteness, infinity of dura-
tion, infinity of action, eternity of past existence and of past operation, as well as
an eternity of the future, are all distinctly predicated in the Scriptures of the Mind
of Him who made us all.

But then Prof. Browne goes on to say : —

Why, Then, must we be puzzled because some recently discovered geological
phenomena seem hard to reconcile with a few verses in one chapter of Genesis ?
Are we to forget the marvellous harmony between God's "Word and His Works,
which a general view of both convinces us of, because there are some small
fragments of both, which we have not yet learned to fit into each other? Nay,

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 113

even here, we may fairly say that the harmony already found is greater than the
as yet unexplained discord. For, putting aside all doubtful interpretations and
difficult questions, concerning the six days of Creation and the like, these two facts
are certain, — all sound criticism (?) and all geological enquiry prove them alike, —
viz. that the original creation of the universe -was at a period indefinitely, if not
infinitely, distant from the present time, and, secondly, that, of all animated
beings, the last that came into existence was man. Geology has taught us both
these facts : but the first verse of Genesis clearly teaches the first (?), and the
twenty-sixth verse teaches the second.

Prof. Browne appears to have overlooked the fact that
the first account of the Creation is not only at variance with
scientific fact, but is at variance with the second in more than
one material point, as is shown in (34).

16-i. With respect to the mythical creation-stories of an-
tiquity, Von Bohlex writes as follows, ii.^3.3 : —

The most intimate relationship may be observed between the myth of Genesis
and the Zend representation of Creation, which was composed near the same
locality, and has a similar outline and succession of development. The universe is
created in six periods of time by Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda) in the following order:
(i) the Heaven, and the terrestrial Light between Heaven and Earth, (ii)the Water,
which fills the deep as the sea, and ascends up on high as clouds, (hi) the Earth,
whose seed was first brought forth by Albordj, (iv) trees and plants, (v) animals,
and, (vi) lastly, Man, — whereupon the Creator rested, and connected the divine
origin of the festivals with these periods of Creation. We must remember,
however, that Zoroaster had taken the old Magian system as the foundation of his
reform, and had modified it to suit his purposes, — that, consequently, his cosmogony,
is the old Chaldaan, which very probably spread from the times of the Assyrians
into western Asia.

But the Bible narrative, apart from this common basis, far surpasses the
description of the Zendavesta in simple dignity, and possesses a high intrinsic
value in itself ... On the other hand, the thought, ' Let there be Light, and
there was Light,' which Loxgdtvs considered sublime, must not, remembering the
limited conceptions of the writer, be rated too highly ; and we may admit, without
lowering the value of this cosmogony, that the Creation of the Hindoos, through a
mere act of thinking and willing, was also very sublime, when it is said in the
Vedas, ' He thought, I will create worlds, and they were there ! '

And so, too, says Dr. M'Caul, Aids to Faith, p. 189 : —

The Etruscans relate that God created the world in six thousand years. In the
first thousand, He created the heaven and the earth,- — in the second, the firma-
ment,— in the third, the sea and the other waters of the earth, — in the fourth, the
VOL. II. I

114 LEGENDS OF THE CREATION

sun, moon, and stars, — in the fifth, the animals belonging to air, water, and land, —
in the sixth, man alone. [During the 6,000 years, which remain out of the 12,000,
assumed as the length of the whole duration of the earth, the human race will
exist. See Suidas, Tvpprjv(a. Knobel, Gen.pA.]

The Persian tradition also recognises the six periods of creation, assigning to
the first the heavens, to the second the waters, to the third the earth, to the
fourth trees and plants, to the fifth animals, to the sixth man.

Knobel writes more fully, Gen.pA : —

The Persian tradition also betrays connection with this. Ormuzd (Ahura-
Mazda) created through his Word (Honover) the visible world in six intervals or
thousands of years ; (i) the Light between Heaven and Earth, together with the
Heaven and the Stars, — (ii) the "Water, which covered the Earth, sank into its
depths, formed, by means of wind, up-driven clouds, and then became enclosed by
the Earth, — (iii) the Earth, and first, as the core and kernel of the Earth, the
highest mountain, Albordj, then the other mountains,— (iv) the trees, — (v) the
animals, which all proceeded from the primary animal, — (vi) men, of whom the
first was Kajomorts. After the completion of the Creation, Ormuzd kept a festival
with the celestials.

Arid Kalisch adds, Gen.p.83 : —

The Persians also believed that Ormuzd, after having finished [the different
stages of] the Creation, celebrated with his angels the festival [corresponding
to each], and that he appointed throughout the year six such holy seasons, the first
of which is the 'Feast of Creation,' still solemnised among the Persians on the
first day of every year. Keeuker's Zend-Avesta, i.24,ii.l50 [Burnout, Yagna,
^.294-334].

165. It is obvious that these traditions, (with others to be
quoted in the following chapters,) which have so many remark-
able points identically in common, must have proceeded from
one and the same original story. And, although the late date
of the works, whence our accounts of the Persian * and Etrus-
can traditions are derived, lays them open to the objection,
that possibly they may have been influenced by a knowledge of
the Hebrew story, we have no proof that this was actually the

* The Zendavcsta, whence the Persian tradition is taken, though containing
many passages, which are, apparently, of the most venerable, antiquity, yet, in its
present form, is, like the Pentateuch, a composite work, the product of different
ages, and cannot, therefore, be used with perfect confidence as an authority for the
primitive belief of the Persian people, any more than the Pentateuch can be used
with perfect confidence for that of the Hebrews. The account of the Etruscan
tradition is given by Suidas, who lived in the tenth or eleventh century of our era.

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 115

case, while many circumstances make it at least highly pro-
bable that they must have existed in the Mythology of the East
long before the time of the Exodus.

166. Delitzch, who maintains to the utmost the historical
truth of the Scripture story in Gr.i, yet says, Gen.p.80 : —

Whence comes the surprising agreement of the Etruscan and Persian legends
with this section ? . . . How comes it that the Babylonian cosmogony in Berosus,
and the Phoenician in Sanchoniathon, in spite of their fantastical oddity, come in
contact with it in remarkable details ? ' There was a time,' so begins the Baby-
lonian cosmogony, 'in which all was darkness and water.' According to the
Phoenician, the first human pair was produced by the Ko\n\a, Jeolpia, ' the Divine
Breath,' [which some explain to be n!l"''S bSp, kol-pi-yah, ' the voice of the mouth
of Jah ;' but, as this would imply that the Phoenicians knew the name ' Jah ' or
' Jehovah,' of which there is no other indication, probably Roth and Delitzch
are more right in deriving it from ("PS /\p Ttdl piaJch, where rVS piakh, is con-
nected with n-1S, ftiakh, ' breathe,' = P1D3, napkakh, from which comes nS1" yip-
pakh, 'He breathed,' in ii.7,] and his wife, Baav, [-ins, Bohu, 'emptiness,'] i.e.
the matter of Night. These are only instances of that which they have in com-
mon. From such an accordance outside of Israel, we must, however, conclude, that
the author of G.i has no Vision before him, but a tradition. It might be replied,
that the three cosmogonies just mentioned are only echoes of the first and second
sections of the Hebrew Law, which had become known to the Babylonians,
Phoenicians, and Persians. The points of contact are strange enough to lead to
such a conjecture ; and, while an influence of Jehovah-worship upon the religion
of Babylon is altogether improbable, and an influence of it upon that of the
Phoenicians rather improbable, on the other hand, an influence of it upon the
Zend religion is very probable. If, however, here and there, the assumption of
such an influence is allowable, yet it remains still certain that the author of G.i
lias expressed in words an old tradition already existing . . . And the interval of
a week, within which G.i completes the Creation, -— how can that be anything
visionary ? since the seven days' week is a common ancient heritage of the Asiatic
and African peoples, and, probably, first of all, of the Babylonians, — nay, it is found
actually existing among the American tribes as yet unchristianised(?), and in Africa
with the Ashantees and Gallas. Among the Egyptians, the. civil use of the seven
days' week has, certainly, not yet been demonstrated ; as far back as the oldest
times of the great Pyramids, we find the ten-days' week, which also is found among
the Indians, dacaha, ' decade.' Still the seven days' week was so well known to
the Egyptians, that Diox CAssrus, xxxvii.17,18,19, notes the naming of the days
of the week after the seven Planets as originally an Egyptian custom, which spread
from Egypt also into the Roman empire. [The Brahmins also distinguish the
days of the week by the planetary names. Laplace, Precis de Vhistoirc dc
V Astronomic, ^.16.] This consecration of the seven days' week and of the number

I 2

116 LEGENDS OF THE CREATION

' seven ' generally, as may be conjectured, and as G.i establishes, points back to a
deeper, positive, ground than that to which Ideeer, Lepsius, Ewaxd, trace it, vis.
the division of the Synodic month into four parts, of which each contains 7f , or,
without a fraction, 7 days. Its ground is the cosmogonic legend. This is a
primary legend, that has travelled from place to place. For, as Tuch justly
observes, the same fundamental tones are heard echoing under the most different
harmonies, from the Ganges to the Nile.

167. In short, Delitzch regards the story of the Creation,
generally, and of the origin of the seven-days' week in particular,
as a legend, i.e. an historical fact realised by the imagination,
and not as a myth, i.e. an idea clothed in the form of an
historical fact, — as when, for instance, a statement, expressing
originally some fact in the natural world, has come in later days
to be regarded as a piece of mere history, the original meaning
having been forgotten. And, if the main details of these tra-
ditions, in which they are generally agreed, were found to accord
with the certain facts of modern Science, we might conclude that
the original tradition was actually based upon facts which had
really occurred. As it is, we can only suppose that the story of
the Creation, which was current in the same form, substantially,
and with some of the same remarkable details, among so
many of the ancient nations, must have been originated as a
myth, in very ancient times, long before the Hebrew people had
any existence, and before the great separation of the Aryan
tribes.

168. But what is a universal myth of this kind, in its essential
features, but a truth uttered by the combined voice of humanity?
The mind of man, in all ages and in all countries, musing upon
the origin of all things, has been led by a Divine instinct to the
same grand conclusions, which are expressed with more or less
distinctness in all these mythical narratives, — and in many,
which show no special relation to the Hebrew Type, — though

^-nowhere so clearly and completely as in the Hebrew form, viz.
that God is the Maker and Preserver of all things, — that all that
God has made is good, — that man is made in the image of God.

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 117

As we have said (162), the Divine Spirit alone can have quickened
such thoughts as these in the mind of the Elohist, whoever
he may have been. But the same Divine Spirit, we must surely
believe, taught the Hindoo Philosopher to say, ' He thought, I
will make worlds, and they were there,' and taught also the Zulu
first to say, though, as it were, with childish lips, ' Unkulunkulu —
the Grreat-Great-One— made all things, made all men.'

169. When, also, we find the seven-days' week spread over the
world, — not in all nations, it is true, — were it so, there would
be stronger proof of the reality of the historical fact to which
the Bible traces it, — but over so many nations of the world, as
Delitzch says, it is scarcely possible to doubt that the seven-
days' week and the ten-days' week both owe their origin to the
same cause — to the effort, namely, to divide the 29i days of the
lunar month into equal periods of shorter duration, more conve-
nient for the common business of life. The Sun and Moon, as all
men everywhere see, are set in the heavens to be - for signs, and
for seasons, and for days and years.' "Whatever else they may do,
in the counsels of Divine Wisdom, they certainly do this, and are
meant to do this, for man. The ' year ' and the * month ' are
thus marked by the most savage tribes, as natural divisions of
time. The Zulu keeps his annual Feasts, and observes the New
Moons, as the old Hebrews did : though he has not learned, in
his natural state, to divide the month into weeks. But, if any
sought to break up this longer interval into equal parts, it
would be most natural to take the week of seven days, — the
interval during which the Moon is seen to pass from one of its
four chief phases to another : while others, as the more scientific
Egyptians, might prefer to divide the month more accurately
into three equal parts of ten days each.

The Peruvians divide the lunar month into halves and quarters by the moon's
phases, but have no names for the days ; and, besides, they have a period of nine
days, the approximate third part of a lunation, thus showing the common origin
of both. Gaecilasso, Hist, of the Incas, in Tayloe's Nat. Hist, of Sochty,

118 LEGENDS OP THE CREATION

i.291-2. So also the Romans had their nundince or ninth day, which was a
holiday even for slaves. The Greek lunar month, of alternately 29 and 30 days,
was divided into decades of days. Prof. Badex Poweix, Christianity without
Judaism, ^.90-2.

170. Gallatin writes, quoted in Types of Mankind, ^.294 : —

Almost all the nations of the world appear, in their first efforts to compute time,
to have resorted to lunar months, which they afterwards adjusted in various ways,
in order to make them correspond with the solar year. In America, the Peruvians,
the Chilians, and the Muyscas, proceeded in the same way ; but not so the Mexicans.
And it is a remarkable fact, that the short period of seven days (one week), so
universal in Europe and in Asia, was unknown to all the Indians either of North or
South America. [Had this learned and unbiassed philologist lived to read Lepsius,
he would have excepted the Egpytians, who divided their months into three
decades, and knew nothing of weeks or seven days. Neither did the Chinese, ancient
or modern, ever observe a 'seventh day of rest.' Gliddon.] All the nations of
Mexico, Yucatan, and, probably, of Central America, which were within the pale
of civilisation, had two distinct modes of computing time. The first and vulgar
mode was a period of twenty days, — which has certainly no connection with any
celestial phenomenon, and which was clearly derived from their system of
numeration or arithmetic, which was peculiar to them. The other computation
of time was a period of thirteen days, which was designated as being the count
of the Moon, and which is said to have been derived from the number of days when,
in each of its revolutions, the Moon appears above the horizon during the greater
part of the night. The Mexicans distinguished every one of their days of the
period of twenty days by a specific name, Cipactli, Eheeatl, &c, and every day of
the period of thirteen days by a numerical order, from one to thirteen.

171. Clemens Alex., Strom.-v.256, quotes the following pas-
sages from ancient Greek poets, which imply that in the earliest
ages a sanctity was attached to the number seven in other
nations beside the Hebrew.

'HaioSos f/.lv ovtoos irepl aurfjs Aeyei ■

Hpurov ivt\ rerpds re Kal e/38ojj.ov hpbu ~?HJ.ap '
Kal ird\iv •

'EPSofxarri 5' av8is Xafiwpbv cpdos rjeXi'oio.

"OjJ.n)pos 5e •

'EfiSofxaTT] 5' TJ-rreLTa KaTij\udeu tepbv $f*ap '
Kal'

'EfiSSfAT] ?if Uprj •

Nol pJi)v Kal KaWifxaxos 6 iroirjTris ypd(pet '

'E$S6/jLti eiV ayadoifft, Kal e/35<fyi7j tori yeviOKy) '
Km-

'E/SSrfjUT) eV TrpasToicri, Kal ePSSfxr] earl TeAei'77.

'AA\a Kal ai 3,6\o;vos eAtye?ai crcpSSpa t\\v e/35oyuaSa eKdetd^ovat.

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 119

For instance; Hesiod says thus about it : —

' First, the first day, the fourth day, and the seventh,
Is saered.'
And again : —

' On the seventh day the sun's resplendent light. &c.'
And Homer : —

' When on the seventh arrived the sacred day.'
And —

' The seventh day sacred was.'

Nay, the poet CAXLEMACHrs writes : —

' The seventh day is among good things,
The seventh day is a feast : '
And —

' The seventh day is among the first,

The seventh day perfect is : '
And the elegies of Soeon also greatly insist on the divine character of the
seventh day.

It is true, Clemens refers all these to some knowledge of the
Hebrew literature dispersed among the Greeks: but it is difficult
to believe this of the times of Homer and Hesiod ; and it is far
more probable that the number ' seven ' was considered sacred
from its connection with the ' seven planets ' of those times, and
the seven days of the approximate fourth part of a lunation.

The fact that Hesiod notes as sacred the fourth day also, i.e.
the middle day of the seven, or the approximate seventh part
of a lunation, agrees with this explanation.

172. Kalisch writes on this point as follows, Exod.pA4:9 : —

The simple and obvious explanation of the holiness of the number seven is, that
the ancient Israelites, as most of the Eastern nations, counted originally their
months after the course of the Moon, -which renews itself in four quarters of 7
days each, and after this time assumes a new phase. These periodical and ex-
traordinary changes of the Moon produced a powerful impression upon the sus-
ceptible minds of the ancient nations : they excited them to reflections on this
wonderful phenomenon, and everything connected with it assumed in their eyes
a peculiar significance. Hence the day of the New Moon was generally celebrated
with some distinguishing solemnity, which, like all festivals, is regulated and fixed
in the Mosaic Law ; and the New Moon is in the 0. T. frequently mentioned
together with the Sabbath. Hereto we add that the number of the seven Planets
known to them, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, the Moon, which
successively presided over the hours of the day, and each of which, therefore,
commenced a different day, contributed in later times not a little to secure to it

120 LEGENDS OF THE CREATION

that mysterious significance. But the division of the week into seven days was
known and adopted by the most different nations, as the Assyrians, Arabs, Indians,
(Chinese, Peruvians, but not the Persians), and many African and American tribes,
which never came into intercourse with the Israelites, and later by the Greeks and
Romans, who followed the Egyptians. "We must, therefore, recognise therein, not
an exclusively theocratical, but a general astronomical arrangement, which offered
itself to the simplest planetary observation of every people.

173. Comparing the account in Gr.i with the other Oriental
cosmogonies, Trcn observes as follows, Gen.-p.W : —

If we compare these Oriental speculations with the Hebrew cosmogony, it must
be plain that we cannot seek the first free evolution of the legend among the
Hebrew people, but must consider it as an inheritance, which the ancestors of the
nation brought with them into their new place of settlement. Yet withal the glory
remains to the Hebrews of having placed this inheritance in the most beautiful
and exalted form, in connection with their purer ideas of the Nature of the Deity.

In Hebrew teaching, God alone has true, eternal, Being, — He alone has self-
subsistence. Not so the world : — it is not self-existent, and appears essentially
only as something ordered, as the creature of infinite flight. So there stands here at
the head of the cosmogony the idea of the Divine Almightiness, — and in opposition
to it, distinctly subordinated, the world. God wills that the world should be, and
it comes into being at His Almighty Fiat. Discarded are all personifications
besides God, which are here lost in the idea of the One Almighty. Nature is
stripped of Deity ; it ceases to be the evolution, the external manifestation, of God;
but it is the creature, and Man finds himself therein as the last link of the long
chain of things, as the lord of the living creation, as the image of God. . . Thence
follows necessarily, as essential in the Hebrew cosmogony, the so often appealed-to
creation out of nothing. This has been considered far too abstract a thought, —
more especially as no ancient cosmogony has been able to elevate itself to the idea
of a creation out of nothing. . . . But when it is said, ' In the beginning God
created the Heaven and the Earth ; the Earth was waste and void ; darkness
covered the waters, &e.,' what can this mean but that God made, in the beginning
of the creation, as the first act of it, the matter of the Heaven and of the Earth,
yet undivided and unarranged, which to sever, to order, and to work up, was the
well-disposed work of the six creation-days ? ... So God remains the Creator of
this matter ; and if, certainly, the Hebrew Theory of creation, like other cosmo-
gonies, puts a chaos at the beginning, yet it is distinguished essentially inlhis, that
it does not rank the chaotic matter, as eternal, beside God, but strongly subor-
dinates it to the One, Only, Eternal, Self-Existent, God.

174. We shall conclude this chapter with another extract from
Delitzch, by which the reader will be enabled to see in what
difficulties a learned man may become involved, while labouring

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 121

to defend the traditionary view, with a conscientious regard to
what he already knows to be true, Gen.p.84:-8 : —

Let, however, the creation-legend, as it lies before us in G.i, have reached the
Israel of the Mosaic time by a direct or by a circuitous path, — the question still
arises, whence comes it ? what is its starting place ? Whether it may have been
inherited in a direct bine, within the chosen family, through patriarchal tradition, or
may have been retained, during the long Egyptian sojourn of Israel, in Babylon or
somewhere else, from whence it passed into Israel, and was here again new-born,—
still we ask, what is the birth-place of this strange pilgrim, which in the world of
nations, in nearer and farther Asia, even in America, e.g. among the Mexicans before
Columbus and Cortez, was known everywhere, but yet has its home nowhere ?

We answer : if it is true that it is historical, or, at all events, has an historical
basis, then its birthplace can be no other than the family of the first-made man.

This being assumed, a double mode of origin is possible.

(i) It is possible that the creation-story before us is the translation into history
of the impression which the world made upon the first-created man, thinking about
its origin, — the corresponding expression for the view which man took of his relations
to God and the world, handed down by tradition from the beginning of the
human race, and so the expression also for the original knowledge of this actual
relationship. . . If already modern Geology, from the forms of the mountains
and the discovered animals and plants of the ancient world, believes that it can
define the succession of the periods within which, first, the inorganic world, then the
organic, from the flowerless vegetation and the boneless animals up to man, came
into being, — how much more (!) will the first man, with his yet untroubled and
undisturbed glance, have been in the position to look at the mode of origin of the
world, including himself, and to give corresponding expression to the truth of the
impression thus received ?

(ii) There is, however, yet another possible origin of the story of creation
within the consciousness of the first created man — a derivation, not through
reflection, but through communication, or rather, as — without wishing to refer back
the later modes of Revelation to the primary state of things, we venture to say —
through Revelation. . . I prefer this derivation through Revelation to the other,
since such an act as that of the consecration of the seventh day was scarcely
knowable without Revelation ; and, if we once begin, while deriving it through
reflection, to reduce to subjective impressions such portions of the narrative as that
which concerns the seventh day, there will remain very little of its historical core.

But is it now possible to insist so strongly, as we have hitherto done, on the
objective reality of the narrative ? It tells us that God called the Light, Darkness,
Firmament, Dry-land, Gathering-of-waters, all by Hebrevj names, which are
specified. Did then God the Creator, did human beings in Paradise, did those
of the world before the Flood, speak Hebrew! Certainly not. [What becomes then of
the derivation of the names of Adam, Ishah, Eve, Cain, Nod, Noah, ii.7,23, iii.20,
iv.1,16, v.29 ?] This ' not ' involves important consequences. The creation-legend,

122 LEGENDS OP THE CREATION

which travelled with the first couple out of Paradise, had another form of speech
than the creation-story now lying before us. It had experienced, before it became
written as we now hare it, a verbal transformation at all events, and had probably
laid aside already many of its phases, when the one tongue of single humanity sepa-
rated into the multiplicity of tongues of many peoples. This verbal transformation,
just because it was not voluntary, is not to be thought of in the external and
mechanical form of translation: the original text of the tradition was by God
himself unexpectedly shattered, and the substance of the remaining recollection
entered into a new process of thought and expression.

This verbal transformation, however, is not the only one. We have a right to
assume that the tradition contained originally much more than the creation-story
now before us. The legendary cosmogonies of the nations give us the right to do
this. In these, certainly, much is found which is wanting in Genesis, and yet in
the light of the Divine word of summation, and of scientific investigation, marks
itself out as an element of Truth, and so will have had, within the primary
tradition, its right place and expression in the right connection. "Whether such as
this was no longer found existing by the writer of our creation-story, or was left
out by him, is left undecided. . . .

But have we not now lost all which we believed ourselves to have gained ? We
have contended for the objective reality of that which is related, and now it has
escaped from us actually under our hands. It is only so in appearance. We
recognise still in G.i no subjective element of speculation, of reflection, of poetry ;
it is all tradition, of the objective actual progress of Creation, which has flowed out
of the prime fountain of Divine Revelation. This tradition has, it is true, before it
reached the author of G.i, lived through many metamorphoses. But, that in this
long route it has remained substantially the same, is assured to us by the substan-
tial concord of the creation-legends from one end of the earth to the other. And,
if it is to be feared that on this long route it has lost something of the purity, the
fulness, and the freshness, of the primary fountain, yet the Divinity of the Law
assures us that out of the creation-legend so much of the Truth, as was useful, has
been extracted and reproduced 'through the same Spirit, which taught the first Men
the Mystery of Creation. It is all objective truth, — though only, perhaps, the
refraction of its original paradisiacal form. It is trustworthy history, which can
bear without fear the light of the most exact Natural Science. Has this not been
obliged to confirm the fact, that the present world has come into being, in a series
of creative periods, by means of progressive stages, — that the shining stars are only
concentrations of the light already existing (?), — that whole generations of plants and
animals arose and passed away, \i.e, according to Delitzch, as we have seen (153),
' passed away ' between the 'fourth day ' and the creation of man on the sixth,]
before manjjxisted? Already these three generally recognised results of Natural
Science secure to the Biblical creation-story the value of an historical prime-
record (!). This value has been recognised for it, since the time of Buckland, by
many other great geologists; and, to determine its true meaning, has been for them,
not less than for divines, a subject ever increasingly attractive.

AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 123

175. It will be observed that Delitzch, while clinging to the
utmost to the traditionary view, yet admits, as the necessary
result of his enquiries, the following points : —

(i) The Creation-story was not revealed to the writerof G.i.l-ii.3, whoever he may-
have been, but, if revealed at all — if it was not, in its original form, the expression
of the clear-sighted intuition of man before the Fall, — was revealed ' within the
family of the first-made man,' and from them handed down by tradition, from
Adam to Enos, &c., and from them to Noah and his family, by whom it was
preserved — perhaps entire — till after the Flood.

(ii) At the ' confusion of tongues,' it was ' shattered by God himself,' and existed
henceforward in broken fragments in different nations, — the most perfect, perhaps,
in Babylonia.

(iii) From Babylon, perhaps, — or, perhaps, ' in direct line within the chosen
family,' — the writer of G.i.l-ii.3 may have received the tradition, which, ' before it
had reached him, had lived through many metamorphoses.'

(iv) The historical truth of this tradition, however, as now reported, is assured
in all substantial points by the ' Divinity of the Law,' — which is assumed, — and ' the
results of Natural Science,' — by which, as we have seen, it is in many important
particulars expressly contradicted.

124

CHAPTER XII.

GEN.II.4-II.25.

176. G.ii.7.

' And Jehovah-Elohim formed the man (Adam) of dust out of the ground
(Adamah).'

That a play on the words Adam, Adamah, (pomp, the
Latin, homo, humus,) is here intended by the writer, though
not expressly stated in the text, has been observed by most
commentators. Symm. and Tiieod. translate /ecu s-rrXacrs
Kvpios 6 Ssbs rov 'ASa/i %o{)i> clito irjs 'ASa/io.

177. Kalisch notes, p.105: —

The origin of man from the earth is a notion extensively adopted. It was preva-
lent not only among the Greeks and Eomans, but among the Peruvians, who believed
that, whilst the soul is immortal, the body consists of clay, ' because it becomes
again earth,'— among the Caribbees and the North-American Indians. It was fami-
liar to the Egyptians, who considered man to have been formed from the slime of the
Nile, DioD.Sic.i.10, AEisTOPH.^4y.686 {TrKac^ara 7rrjAoD, ' formations of clay,'] — to
Hindoos, Chinese, &c. Iu the classical writings we find many analogous passages
regarding the nature of man. Euripides says, Supp.532-4, ' The body returns to
the earth from whence it was formed, and the spirit ascends to the ether ' ; and still
more distinctly, Lucretius says, ii.997-1000, 'The earth is justly called our mother :
that, which first arose from the earth, returns back into the earth ; and that, which
was sent down from the regions of the sky, the regions of the sky again receive,
when carried back to them.' See also Phocye.102, ViRG.J?«.iii.94,95, Lucan.
vii.818,&c. . . . The word adamah maybe referred to the root adam, 'be red,'
with reference to the red soil of Palestine. It is, further, not impossible that man
was originally called ' Adam ' on account of the red colour of his skin, co»ip.
Joseph. Ant.i.1.2, just as the Chinese represent man as kneaded of yellow earth,
and the red Indians, of red clay. But the Hebrew writer found this of too
external a nature ; it expresses nothing of the true character or life of man ; it

GEN.II.4-II.25. 125

conveys no lesson. He, therefore, added another explanation from adamah, ' earth,'
which suggests a great truth and enjoins an important doctrine.

According to the classical myth, Prometheus made the first men of earthy matter
and water, ApoLLOD.i.7.1,Ov.il/<?*!.i.82,Jrv.xiv.34-6 ; and so Vulcan made the first
woman, Pandora, out of the earth, Hesiod, Op. et Dies,61,70. Otherwise, the ancients
represent men as produced from the earth, PiAT.CW^.viii, Polit.xu,xv, Lucret.
v.819-23, ViRG.6;rar<j'.ii.341, as also the animals. KNOBEL,p.25.

178. G.ii.8.

' And Jehovah-Elohim planted a garden.'

Von BonLEN notes here, ii.p.30 ; —

The word |3, gan, ' garden,' means an inclosed park planted with trees, such as
surrounded the royal palaces and summer-residences, not only in Hindostan, but more
especially in Persia, where the younger Cyrus himself laid out such pleasure-
grounds . . . Such a park Xenophon calls irapaSe uros, which word the Sept. here
uses for ' garden.' . . . Its explanation is to be found in the Sanscrit paradeea, and
it passed over in this form into the, later Hebrew books: comp. D^TS, pardes,
Sol. Song, iv.13, Neh.ii.8, Eccl.ii.5.

Delitzch, however, -p. 146, derives the word, not from the
Sanscr. paradeea, i other (i.e. strange, singular, wonderful)
land,' but from the Zend, paii*i-daeza, ( enclosure.'

179. G.ii.9.

' And out of the ground Jehovah-Elohim caused-to-sprout every tree that is
pleasant for sight and good for food.'

Delitzch here observes, p. 140: —

The record does not say that the whole vegetable world first appeared after the
creation of man, [which would directly contradict i.12,27, and which certainly seems
to be implied in the story as related in ii.5-9] ; only the preparation of Paradise is
mentioned after the creation of Man. Still, the appearance of the Flora generally
is brought close to the appearance of man, in a manner not to be reconciled with,
G.i. There the vegetable world has already appeared, when first the Stars, then
the animals of the water and the air, and then the land-animals, appeared : so that,
after the appearance of vegetation, already two and a half creation-periods have
elapsed, before man is created. Here, on the contrary, in order that vegetation
might appear, there needed previous rain and the formation of man, v.5, which
formation is prepared beforehand in immediate connection therewith. The
appearance of vegetation is so inextricably bound up with the entrance of these two
preexisting conditions, that it is doing violence to the text, if we think of
imagining whole series of other creations between vegetation and man. This is a

126 GEX.II.4-II.25.

contradiction between the two records, but, as we stall see farther on, not in-
capable of solution, and, what is more, very instructive.

We quote the above for the sake of this candid admission, on
the part of so strong a defender of the traditionary view, that
the discrepancy in question does, in fact, exist. We shall see
hereafter, in what way Delitzch proposes to ' solve ' it.

180. G-.ii.ll-U.

Of the four rivers of Paradise, here named, the last.
Euphrates, is certain; and there can be little doubt that
Hiddekel and Gihon, as Josephus says, Ant, i.1.3, are the Tigris
and Nile, respectively, and Pison, probably, the Indus.

With respect to Hiddekel, or, more properly, KJiiddekel
(?j£|0), Kalisch writes, Gen.jp.92 : —

This river has nearly the same name in the Aramaean language and in Arabic,
with the omission only of the first letter, viz. T\?i*] diglath ; and the Sam. Vers, [in
the passage before us] has this abbreviated form with the article pp'in, had-dekel.
The root ?pT signifies in the Persian language, arrow, which name was given to
the river on account of its swiftness, and in the present language of the Persians
the Tigris is designated by the word tir, signifying arroiv, Sanscr. tigra, hence
tigris, or with a frequent change of t into d, and r into /, dekd ; so that the Hebrew
pp^n, khiddekel, is evidently a compound word, contracted from *in> khad, 'sharp,'
and 7>j3'i, dekd, a sharp or swift arroiv.

And again with reference to Gihon or Gikhon (|in|, from 0*3,
gicikh, ' break forth,') Kalisch notes, Ge7i.25.94 : —

The Sept. renders Shichor, which is the Nile, in Jer.ii.18, hyTrjcSv, that is Gihon.
Josephus observes distinctly, Ant.i.1.2, that the Gihon flows through Egypt, and
is that river which the Greeks call Nile . . . The Arabians also include the Nile
among the rivers of Eden, and the Ethiopians call it Gefotl or Gen:' a.

The Pison is not so easily identified, but the description
of it, which is given in ii.11,12, seems to indicate the Indus, see
Delitzch, 25.149, Kalisch, p.92-96, — of whom the latter quotes
from Aruian, Exp. Alex, vi.l, (comp. Strabo, xwp.696,) to the
following effect : —

When Alexander the Great saw crocodiles and the Egyptian bean in the Indus,
he thought that he had found the origin of the Nile, which he believed to rise in
this part of India, and, after flowing through vast deserted regions, to lose the name

GE2f.II.4-II.25 127

of Indus ; for, when it reaches again inhabited land, the Ethiopians and Egyptians
call it Nile, and thus it falls at last into the Mediterranean Sea.

The ' land of Khavilah, which Pison bounds,' was according to
Gesenius, India in the sense of the ancients, including Arabia.

Thus the four rivers appear to be Indus to the East, Nile
to the South, Tigris to the North, Euphrates to the West. And
Kalisch adds : —

In the Chinese tradition, four rivers flow from the mountain Kuen-lun to the
four quarters of the world. And, in the sacred book of the Persians, the fountain
Ardechsur, which rises in the holy mountain issuing from the throne of Ormuzd,
is said to diffuse its waters over the whole earth by many canals.

181. Hereupon Delitzch asks, 2^.150 : —

Is it, however, possible that the author has supposed the Indian Pison and the
Nile, with the Tigris and Euphrates, to proceed out of one common source, and that
source in fact, as is indicated by the mention of Tigris and Euphrates, in the highland
of Armenia, which appears thus the starting-point, probably, of the first men, as
well as of those after the Flood ? Is it possible that he puts forward so strange an
idea?

We, of course, can easily explain this phenomenon, by aban-
doning the notion of the infallible accuracy of the record,
and supposing that the author wrote merely after the defective
notions of geography, which prevailed amongst the most
learned of the ancients in even far later days, as we have just
seen in the passage from the life of Alexander. Pattsanias,
ii.o, maintained in like manner the identity of the Euphrates and
the Nile. And Josephus, Ant.i.1.3, considered the Euphrates,
Tigris, and Nile to be branches of the same river ; but, instead
of the Indus, he reckons the Ganges. And, in short, there can
be no reasonable doubt that, whatever may be the river meant
by Pison, or even Hiddekel, the text of Genesis itself distinctly
does unite the Nile and the Euphrates.

Von Bohlen observes, ii.^5.34 : —

The representation tof Kosmas [about a.d.550] strikingly shows how fabulous
was the view of the ancients. He imagines the earth to be an oblong, with a
mountain inhabited by gods in the north : the sea flows round it on all four sides,
and beyond the sea, towards the East, lies the Paradise in India. The intervening
sea was caused by the Flood, and was crossed by Noah. Under this sea the
Euphrates and Tigris continue their course [from Eden], and appear again in the

128 GEN.II.4-II.25.

western ■world. Here is Gihon, the Ganges, which afterwards becomes the Nile in
Egypt, in a manner somewhat similar to what Alexander imagined respecting the
Indus. Pison, on the contrary, is the Indus, emptying itself into the Persian Gulf.

See other striking instances of similar confusion in geo-
graphical matters in Kalisch, Gen.p.95, down as late as the
14th and loth centuries of the Christian era.

182. Delitzch, however, is unwilling to allow the existence
of such a mistake, and says, p. 151 : —

We must, therefore, close the inquiry either by acknowledging that the notice in
question is unintelligible, or we must submit to the necessity of admitting that, with
the disappearance of Paradise, the more certain knowledge also of the four streams
was lost, and the author only faithfully repeats the tradition, which regarded the
Indus, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, — the four great beneficent streams of the
ancient circle of history, — as finger-marks pointing back to the lost Paradise. It
must be allowed as possible that the writer, or the tradition, has regarded the Nile
as coming round about Ethiopia out of the North of Asia, and springing not far
from the Indus, or some one of the other Indian rivers. But we might with the same
right assume that the four streams, without any further reference to their former
unity, have been regarded only as disjecta membra of the no longer existing single
stream of Paradise.

183. But Dr. Burnet writes very justly, Arch. Philosoph.
p.288 :—

It is hardly conceivable that rivers of any kind, these or others, existed
from the very origin of the Earth, — [on the very first day, when ' Jehovah-Elohim
had not yet caused-it-to-rain upon the earth,' but only ' a mist went up from the
earth, and watered the whole face of the ground,' ii.5,6,] — whether you consider
these streams or their beds. For the beds of rivers are usually made by gradual and
long attrition. But, if you say, when the bed of the Ocean was made on the third
day, the beds also of the rivers were made, and when the greatest part of the waters
of the ' deep ' sank into the abyss of the Sea, so the rest descended into these river-
channels, and formed the first rivers, — yet, besides that water of this kind would be
salt, just like that of the Sea, there would be no perennial fountains for feeding
these rivers, and therefore when the first stream had flowed down, or the first river
— inasmuch as there were no waters to follow from behind, — these rivers, or these
collections of water, would soon have dried up.

184. -G-.ii.17.

' Of the tree of the knowledge' of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; for
in the day of thy eating of it, dying thou shalt die.'

Von Bohlen observes, ii.p.39 : —

On account of certain interpretations, we bring, prominently forward some

GEX.II.4-II.25. 129

inconsistencies, which, however, we do not wish to impute to the simplicity of the
narrator. Thus, at the beginning, the man has to vmtch ("H^E?, shamar, 'guard')
the garden ; whereas the animals are not created until v. ,19, and they remain
peaceably by him. Again, the first female transgressor, Eve, cannot hear the
prohibition of Jehovah when Adam receives it, because she is not yet created :
yet she repeats it in a more stringent form, iii.3, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither
shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' And the myth as little considers how the man him-
self could understand the prohibition \i. e. the consequence of disobeying it], as he
had not yet had death before his eyes.

Dr. Pye Smith, however, says, Geology and Scripture.
p.32'2 :—

The denunciation in G-.ii.17 would seem to imply that they [? he — the man,]
understood what the penalty was, in consequence of their having witnessed the pangs
of death in tlie inferior animals. [But did the man ' witness the pangs of death '
instantly after his Creation, before he was put into Paradise, — or when ?]

185. The Jehovist, however, here writes evidently from quite
a different point of view from that of the Elohist, who repre-
sents the Almighty as saying to the man and woman, i.29 —

'Behold! I give you every herb . . . and every tree ... to you it shall be for
food ' ; —

whereas a prohibition is here given in the case of one particular
tree, — not one of the whole earth, but a tree of the garden, —
Dot to the man and woman, but to the man only.

Willet observes, Eexap. in Gen. p.33 : —

Though AuGrsTrNi; do think that this precept of not eating was given only to
Adam, and by him to Eve, yet we hold it more probable that God gave this charge
unto them both together : —

(i) Eve confesseth that God spake unto them both, and said, iii.3, ' Ye shall not
eat of it ; '

(ii) The Lord said unto both of them together, i.29, ' Behold ! I have given unto
you every herb and every tree, &c.' — at which time also it is like that He gave
them the other prohibition, of not eating of that one tree ; for, if God had mad'
that exception before, He would not have given a general permission after, or, if
this general grant had gone before, the exception coming should seem to abrogate
tin- former grant ;

(iii) The Septuagint seem to be of this mind, that this precept was given both to
Adam and Eve, reading thus in the plural number, ' In what day ye eat thereof, ye
shall die ; '

(iv) But, though in the original the precept be given in the name of Adam only,
that is so, for that Adam was the more principal, and he had charge of the woman,
and for that the greatest danger was in his transgression, which was the cause of the
VOL. II. K

130 GEX.IL4-II.25.

ruin of his posterity, or as Mercercs well noteth, Adam was the common name
both of the man and woman, v.2, and so is taken -y.15, ['and Jehovah-Elohim took
tin' man, and put him into the garden of Eden,'] and likewise here— [but the woman
was not made till afterwards, v.'22.~\

186. G.ii.19,20.

• And Jehovah-Elohim formed out of the ground every animal of the field, and
every fowl of the heaven, and brought it to the man, to see what he would call
it, and, whatsoever the man would call it, the living soul, — that should be its
name. And the man called names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the heaven,
and to every animal of the field.'

We have noticed above (39) that in this passage not only are
the beasts and birds formed after the creation of man, whereas
in i.2 1,25,27, man is formed after the birds and beasts, but the
fishes and reptiles are not mentioned at all.

187. On this point Delitzch observes, p.\57 : —

When we look at G.i, where the animals after their kinds are all created before
man, and endeavour to reconcile the two accounts by translating "IV*!, vayyitscr,
' and He had formed,' instead of ' and He formed,' or as the fundamental fact
preparatory to X2M vayyave, 'and so, having previously formed them, He brought
them," — we do violence, as it appears to me, to the proper meaning of the narrator.
It is better to allow the manifest contradiction to stand ; at the end we shall gain
more by that, than by a hasty reconciliation.

"When God has indicated to man his actual employment [to till and keep the
garden], He wishes to give him a community to help him for it, and forms next
the animals, which, certainly, are all meant to become useful to him. Only the

* fishes ' [and reptiles] are not mentioned, because they, in the light in which the
other animals are regarded, do not come into consideration.

The reason, which Delitzch gives for the omission of the
fishes, is probably true to some extent, though it would be far
from explaining why all the beasts and birds should have been
brought to Adam, and none of the reptiles and fishes, since the
vast majority of the former cannot have been regarded as special

• helps ' for him, any more than the latter. Still the few
domestic animals are found among the ' beasts ' and ' birds,' and
supply, as we have said (39), some sort of companionship for
man, which is not the case with the ' reptiles ' and ' fishes ' : and
this may account for the former being mentioned, and not the
latter.

GEX.II.4-II.25. 131

188. But how could the White Bear of the Frozen Zone,
and the Humming-bird of the Tropics, have met in one spot,
— or, being- assembled, how could they have been dispersed to
their present abodes, — with the beasts and birds of all kinds,
of totally different habits and habitats, many of them ravenous
creatures, that would have preyed on one another, unless their
fury was miraculously restrained, or their hunger was mira-
culously relieved, or their whole nature and bodily constitution
changed, so that the lion should cease to be a lion, and eat
grass like the ox? Or how could Adam have given names to
all, it being remembered that, with the Hebrews, the word
'fowl' included (151) all 'creeping things that fly,' as the
locust, L.xi.20-23 ?

189, It is painful, though almost ludicrous, to be obliged to sit
down in this age of the world, in a day of widely-extended
scientific education, and deliberately reason out such a question
as this. But, in the interests of truth, there is no alternative,
since influential and eminent men, distinguished by their attain-
ments in science as well as by dignified ecclesiastical position,
are still found defending the traditionary view with such argu-
ments as the following, — I quote from Archd. Pratt, Scripture
and Science, &c. ]?A9 : —

This difficulty need not stagger usr unexpected as it is. For, in the first place,
it is not impossible that the regions, which are found on the opposite side of the
globe, and others also, of which the limits are far from the boundaries of man's
first residence, have become the scenes of creative power, at epochs subscquc?it to
the six days' work. [' And the Heaven and the Earth were finished, and all
their host.' ii.l.] And, further, there is nothing in the account of the six days'
Creation to militate against the idea, that Creation may have been going on over
the whole surface of the Earth at the same time. It simply requires us to suppose
that the animals, brought to Adam for him to name tln-m, must have been those
only in the neighbourhood of Paradise. [' The man called names to all the cattle,
and to the fowl of the heaven, and to every animal of the field,' ii.20.]

Delitzcii, too, assumes the actual historical truth of this
statement, when he observes of the ' deep sleep ' which fell on
Adam, p.lod : —

k 2

132 GEN.II.4-II.25.

This sleep is God's work, but caused by means of the weariness of the man, the
natural consequence of his attention having been directed to so many different
creatures, and deeply engaged in the contemplation of them.

190. The question here involved is, of course, this, whether
we are to believe, that there was originally only one centre of
creation, or more than one. If all animals of every kind — we
may suppose, one, or a pair, of each — came to Adam to be
named, then all must have been created in, or in the neighbour-
hood of, Paradise itself. But can anyone suppose that all kinds
of "plants were created in Paradise, and only there, so that the
seeds were scattered from thence to all ends of the earth, — as that
of maize or Indian com, for instance, which was not known to
the Eastern Hemisphere, till after the discovery of America, —
or that all kinds of reptiles, fishes, and insects, were formed only
in the neighbourhood of Paradise ? Why, then, must this be
believed with respect to all kinds of beasts and birds, in direct
contradiction to the conclusions of modern Science, from which
we learn that certain species of animals have lived all along, in
particular regions of the earth, in the same fixed habitats, from
an age long antecedent to the existence of man.

191. Thus Prof. Owen writes, Address at Leeds, 1858 : —

Of the present dry land, different natural continents have different faunae and
florae ; and the fossil remains of the plants and animals of these continents, respec-
tively, show that they possessed the same peculiar characters, or characteristic
fades, during periods extending far beyond the utmost limits of human history. p.3.

The class of animals, to which the restrictive laws of geographical distribution
might seem least applicable, is that of Birds. Their peculiar powers of locomotion,
associated in numerous species with migratory habits, might seem to render them
independent of every influence, save those of climate and of food, which directly
affect the conditions of their existence. Yet the long- winged Albatross is never met
with north of the Equator ; nor does the Condor soar above other mountains than
the Andes. . . Several genera of Finches are peculiar to the Galapagos Islands ;
the richly- and fantastically ornate Birds of Paradise are restricted to New Guinea
and some neighbouring islands. . . Some species have a singularly restricted
locality, as the Bed Grouse to the British Isles, the Owl-Parrot to Philip Island, a
small spot near New Zealand. The long-strong-limbed Ostrich courses over the
whole continent of Africa and conterminous Arabia. The genus of three-toed

- GEN.II.4-II.25. 133

Ostriches is similarly restricted to South America. The Emeu has Australia
assigned to it. The continent of the Cassowary has been broken up into islands,
including, and extending from, the north-eastern peninsula of Asia to New Guinea
and New Britain. The singular nocturnal wingless Apteryx is peculiar to the islands
of New Zealand. Other species and genera, which seem to be, like the Apteryx,
mocked, as it were, with feathers and rudiments of wings, hare wholly ceased to
exist, within the memory of man, in the islands to which they also were respec-
tively restricted. The Dodo of the Mauritius and the Solitaire are instances. In
New Zealand also there existed, within the memory of the Maori ancestry, huge
birds having their nearest affinities to the still-existing Apteryx of that island, but
generically distinct from that and all other known birds. I have proposed the
name of Di norm's for that now extinct genus, of which more than a dozen well-
defined species have come to my knowledge, all peculiar to New Zealand. . . A
tridactyle wingless bird of another genus, Mpyomis, second only to the gigantic
Dinornis in size, appears to have also recently become extinct — if it be extinct — in
the island of Madagascar. The egg of this bird, which may have suggested to the
Arabian voyagers, attaining Madagascar from the Eed Sea, the idea of the Eoc of
their romances, woidd hold the contents of 6 eggs of the Ostrich, 16 of the
Cassowary, and 148 of the common fowl. ^).34,35.

The two species of Orang are confined to Borneo and Sumatra ; the two species
of Chimpanzee are limited to an intertropical tract of the western part of Africa.
They appear to be inexorably bound by climatal influences, regulating the assemblage
of certain trees and the production of certain fruits. With all our care in regard to
choice of food, clothing, and contrivances for artificially maintaining the chief
physical conditions of their existence, the healthiest specimens of Orang or Chim-
panzee, brought over in the vigour of youth, perish within a period never exceeding
three years, and usually under shelter, in our climate.^?. 36.

Geology extends the geographical range of the Sloths and Armadillos from South
to North America. But the deductions from recent rich discoveries of huge terrestrial
forms of Sloth, of gigantic Armadillos, and large Anteaters, go to establish the fact,
that these pecidiar families of the order Bruta have ever been, as they are now,
peculiar to America. p.Z9.

The sum of all the evidence from the fossil world in Australia proves its mamma-
lian population to have been essentially the same in pleistocene, if not pliocene,
times, as now ; only represented, as the Edentate mammals in South America were
then represented, by more numerous genera, and much more gigantic species, than
now exist. pAQ.

192. But, if this be so, then there arises also the question,
whether all mankind are descended from one pair,orwhetherthere
may not be different races, generically alike, brothers, therefore,
of one great Family, having all the same precious gifts, of speech
and thought, reason and conscience, proper to humanity, but

134 GEN.II.4-II.25.

yet from the first differing as species : — so that it will be no
longer necessary to believe that the Bushman, Australian Savage,
and Andaman Islander, are only degraded descendants of
Adam or Noah, and that the European, Chinese, Negro, and
North American Indian, are all derived from one pair of an-
cestors ; and it may be possible to assume a different parentage
from ours for those ancient makers of flint-implements, who lived,
as scientific men assure us, many thousands — perhaps, tens of
thousands — of years before the Scripture epoch of the Flood.

193. Such questions as these must now be open questions,
since we are no longer bound to believe in the historical
infallibility of this composite record, which lies before us in
the book of Genesis. Meanwhile, the remarks of Dr. Nott are

very suggestive, Types of Mankind, p.7 6 : —

These facts [quoted from Prof. Agassiz] prove conclusively that the Creator has
marked out both the Old and New Worlds into distinct zoological provinces, and
that Faunae and Florae are independent of climate, or other known physical causes :
while it is equally clear that, in this geographical distribution, there is evidence of
a Plan, — of a design ruling the climatic conditions themselves. It is very
remarkable, too, that while the races of men, and the Fauna and Flora of the
Arctic region, present great uniformity, they follow in the different continents the
same general law of increasing dissimilarity, as we recede from the Arctic and go
South, irrespectively of climate. "We have already shown that, as we pass down
through America, Asia, and Africa, the farther we travel, the greater is the dis-
similarity of their Faunas and Florae, to their very terminations, even when
compared together in the same latitudes or zones ; and an examination will show,
that differences of types in the human family become more strongly marked, as we
recede from the Polar regions, and reach their greatest extremes at those terminating
points of continents, where they are most widely separated by distance, although
occupying nearly the same parallels of latitude, and nearly the same climates.
For instance, the Fuegians of Cape Horn, the Hottentots and Bushmen of the ( la | h
of Good Hope, and the inhabitants of Van Dieman's Land, are the tribes which,
under similar parallels, differ most. Such differences of races are scarcely less
marked in the Tropics of the Earth, as testified by the Negro in Africa, the Indians
in America, and the Papuan in Polynesia. In the Temperate Zone, we have in
the Old World, the Mongolians and the Caucasians, no less than the Indians in
America, living in similar climates, yet wholly dissi>nilar themselves.

History, traditions, monuments, osteological remains, every literary record and
scientific induction, all show that races have occupied substantially the same zones
or provinces from time immemorial. . . The Caucasian races, which have

GEN.II.4-II.25. 135

always been the representatives of [the highest] civilisation, are those alone that
have extended over, and colonised, all parts of the globe : and much of this is the
work of the last three hundred years. The Creator has implanted in this group
of races an instinct, that, in spite of themselves, drives them through all difficulties
to carry out their great mission of civilising the Earth. It is not reason, or
philanthropy, which urges them on ; but it is destiny. When we see great
divisions of the human family increasing in numbers, spreading in all directions,
encroaching by degrees upon all other races, wherever they can live and prosper,
and gradually supplanting inferior types, is it not reasonable to conclude that they
are fulfilling a law of nature ?

194. G.ii.22.

' And Jehovah-Elohim built the rib, which he took out of the man, into a
woman.'

Milton, Par. Lost, Book viii, appears to regard the act here
described as having taken place only in a vision, though his
language is painfully literal and graphic : —

3Iine eyes He closed, but open left the cell

Of fancy, my internal sight ; by which,

Abstract, as in a trance, methought I saw.

Though sleeping, where I lay, and saw the shape

Still glorious before whom awake I stood ;

Who, stooping, open'd my left side, and took

From thence a rib, with cordial spirits warm,

And life-blood streaming fresh ; wide was the wound.

But suddenly with flesh fill'd up and healed ;

The rib He form'dand fashion'd with His hands.

Kalisch notes, Gen.p.9l : —

The Greenlanders believed that the first woman was fashioned out of the thumb
of the man. It is, therefore, absurd to urge that the delicate body of woman was
formed — not out of the dust of the earth, but — of organic matter already purified, or
that the rib points to the heart of man and his love. The Hebrew historian intended
to convey his idea of the intimate relationship between man and woman, and of the
sacredness and indissolubility of conjugal life ; and he expressed this idea in a
form', which was familiar to his contemporaries, and which will, at all times. In-
acknowledged, as a beautiful and affecting mode of enforcing a moral truth of the
highest social importance.

195. G.ii.23,24.

' And the man said, ' This time this is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh :

136 GEX.II.4-II.25.

therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave unto his
wife, and they shall become one flesh.' '

Delitzch says, p. 162 : —

Is this utterance a prophetical saying of Adam about marriage, or merely a
reflection of the narrator? ... It is, indeed, the custom of this writer [the
Jehovist], to insert in the history remarks beginning, as this, with J2-?y. hal-ken,
'therefore,' x.9, xxvi.33, xxxii.32. But these and similar remarks are all of an
archaeological character, and lie within the historical matter-in-hand. On the
contrarv, the remark in t\24 would be a pure reflection, without any explanatory
object; and, as the story of the creation of the woman is only brought to a close in
y.25, it would disturb the historical connection.

But then the first man would be represented as using these
words, when he could as yet have had no idea of the relations of
father and mother, or even of the nature of marriage itself.
We may, therefore, suppose that t'.24 may be a note of the
Jehovist himself, as well as iii.20, ' because she was the mother
of all living.' Still the context makes this supposition in both
cases improbable.

Kalisch remarks on the above text, Gen.jj.\\% : —
We must not forget to mention that similar reflections to these are found in the
holy books of the Hindus and Persians. ' The bone of woman is united with the
bone of man, and her flesh with his flesh, as completely as a stream becomes one
with the sea into which it flows.' Manu. ix.22,45, YoxBohxen, Alt. Ind. ii.42.

Thus in the Hindu marriage ceremony the husband says,
.4s.i?es.vii.309 :—

I unite thy breath with my breath, thy bones with my bones, thy flesh with my
flesh, thy skin with my skin.

137

chaptee xirr.

GEN. III. 1- III. 24.

196. G.iii.l.

' And the serpent was subtle out of all animals of the field, which Jehovah-
Elohim had made : and he said unto the -woman, &c.'

Dr. Thomas Burnet observes, Arch.Phil.2x29 5 : —

We read that all these great and multifarious matters were transacted within the
short space of a single day. But I burn with pain, when I see all things upset
and disordered in a little moment of time, and the whole nature of things, scarcely
yet arranged and dressed out, sinking into death and deformity before the setting
of the first day. In the morning of the day God said, that all was ' very good ' :
in the evening all is execrable. How fleeting is the glory of created things ! The
work elaborated through six days, and that by the Hand of Omnipotence, the
infamous beast has destroyed in so many hours.

Dr. Burnet would have been relieved of some part of his
difficulties, if he had known that the statements, which he con-
trasts, were written by two different authors.

197. We are now, however, arrived at the point where De-
litzch produces his promised solution of the difficulties noticed
in (187), which we commend to the consideration of the reader :
Gen.p. 164-9.

But had then the animals at that time reason? Could the Serpent at that time
speak ? This question is too readily settled, if it is said that the Serpent is the
symbol of pleasure (Clem. Alex, and others, after Philo), or of the evil propensity
(Phillipson), or of the one-sided understanding (Btjnsen). Others, who do not
care at all if these fundamental histories are regarded as mere fables, maintain that
the author has really meant that the animals then could speak. But, after it has
been shown in chap.i that man was the conclusion of the progressive creations of
God, and in ii.7 that God directly ' breathed into him the breath of life,' the
author, surely, will not again displace the so-sharply-drawn boundaries of creation,

138 GEX.III.1-III.24.

and make now the beasts to be brothers and sisters of men, endowed with speech
and, therefore, with reason ! Let it be only considered that out of the Serpent
speaks the deepest possible wickedness. That it speaks at all, is not a bit more
strange than that it speaks such downright wickedness. That it speaks at all, is a
wonder. That it speaks such utter wickedness, proceeds from this, that it is the
instrument of a higher, but deeply-degraded, nature. It is thus a demoniacal
wonder that it speaks. . .

But when was it that evil entered into the Creation ? We are here arrived at
the point, where the two yet outstanding contradictions must be removed, viz. that
G.i only knows of a creation (i) of plants, and (ii) of animals, antecedent to the
creation of man, whereas G.ii brings them both back into close connection with the
creation of man, [placing them, however, both subsequent to it]. So, then, when
did evil enter into the creation ? Not first after the six-days' work, — for the
remains of animals and plants of the old world, ever coming before our eyes in
greater number and variety, are acknowledged to be older than the origin of man ;
and not already before the six-days' work, — for the ' desolation and emptiness '
concealed no Mollusks and Saurians ; it was the conglomerated mass of a world
very different from a world of such creatures as these, exhibiting themselves as
lowest links in the chain of development of the present creation. . .

Demoniacal powers have interfered with their work in the course of creation, —
not, certainly, as demiurgic powers, which might have opposed contradictory
caricatures to the creation of God, against which supposition Zoology raises a
protest which must be admitted, since it shows in the old-world Faunathe same laws
of construction and relations of form as in the existing, — probably, however, in
such a way that they misled the Earth translated thus into misery, stirred up the dark
fiery principle of the creature, and made unnatural intermixtures and mongrel-
formations, mutual murder, disease and death, common among the races of
God-created animals (!) Thus the Divine Creation was not merely a working-
out of the dark matter into a bright, living, form, but also a struggle with the
might of evil ; whole generations, called into existence by God, yielded to the
corrupting influence of that might, and must, consequently, be swept away. They
were imbedded in the bowels of the mountains. The first act of the Third Day
does not contradict this. For it consisted in the separation of the dry-land from
the water, not in unchangeable fixed definition of the earth's external form. The
shaping of the mountains began on the Third Day, without having been brought to
a close when plants and animals began to appear. The Earth became again and
again the grave of the organic beings, which she had long borne upon her surface.
If we cast a glance forwards, the reason for the judgment of the Flood, vi.1-4, will
show us that we are saying nothing strange to the Scriptural view. Also the story
of the temptation of man entitles us to look backwards. The creation of the Earth
and its inhabitants was, in some sense, a struggle of the Creator with Satan and hi.s
powers, as the redemption is a struggle of the Redeemer with Satan and his
powers. This back-ground of the Creation is veiled in G.i ; the writer has
pm-posely veiled it ; but we, to whom, through the N.T. revelation, an open look is

GEX.III.1-III.24. 139

allowed into the vanquished kingdom of darkness, — we know that the ' and behold !
it was very good ' is a word of victory, and that the divine Sabbath is a rest of
triumph, similar to the ' it is finished ! ' of the Redeemer and the triumphal-march
of the Ascension. . . The Nature, which was taken possession of by the spirits of
evil, is destroyed, and — here is the solution of the two contradictions — a plant-
world and an animal-world have now come into being, (as the last links of the
plant-and-animal-creation, which was begun with.the third and sixth days.) such as
corresponds to him. who is called to be lord and conqueror of evil. viz. Man. . .

It is now clear why Satan seeks to mislead the man, against God's command, to
taste the deadly fruit of the tree of knowledge : he wishes to destroy man, and, with
him, the whole of the last creation. . . It is clear also why he, since his power of
destruction is so limited and confined in the paradisiacal plant-world, makes use of a
beast in order to befool man, and to enslave him together with the last of the
creations. The narrator confines himself to the external appearances only of the
event, without raising the veil from the being behind. He might well have raised it,
since even the heathen legend gives a full, though distorted, account of it ; but he
veils it, because the unveiling would not be good for the people of his time, inclined
to heathenish misbelief, and heathenish intercourse with the demon-world (!). That
the Devil himself tempted the first pair, says the Book of Wisdom, ii.23,24. It
was also not so unknown to the narrator as might appear from his silence, since,
even in the human race external to Israel, a consciousness of this meets us in many
a legend and mythology. . . The Serpent is the first creature, through which
Ahrknan corrupts the first-created land of Ormuzd ; Ahriman is represented as
appearing in the form of a Serpent, and is even named the Serpent. Spiegel,
Avesta, i.26A.

198. The reader will perceive that, in order to reconcile the
contradiction, which Delitzch admits to exist between the two
accounts of the Creation, in respect of the order in which Man
and the animals were created, he is driven to make the following
assumptions : —

(i) The creation was a ' struggle ' between the Divine Creator and the ' might of

evil';

(ii) The Evil One prevailed so far as to ' mislead ' the animals ereated in the
fifth day, i.21, and in the sixth before the creation of man, L25;

(iii) Hence all these animals, beasts, birds, reptiles, fishes, insects, &c, were
obliged to be 'swept away,' together with the vegetation, created on the third
day, i. 12 ;

(iv) A new creation of plants and beasts and birds took place on the sixth day,
after the creation of man, as related in ii.9,19, — [but what of the reptiles and
fishes ?] ;

(v) The Evil Spirit tried to corrupt this last creation also, and, therefore, ' made
use of a beast ' in order to deceive the woman.

140 GEN.m.l-ni.24

199. G.iii.8.

'And they heard the sound of Jehovah-Elohim walking in the garden in the
breeze of the day.'

Delitzch explains this and other ' anthropomorphisms ' of the

Jehovist as being consequences of the Fall,&s follows, p.\76 : —

In this state they perceive the sound of God's footstep. God draws near to them,
as one man to another. That this was the mode, in which God originally had
converse with man, is not true. That, from this point onwards, the sacred history
marks such an outward distinction between God and man, has its good reason in
this, that through the Fall the inner unity of God and man is really lost, and now
a gradual return to approximation on both sides begins. Only then, when man lias
lost the uniform inner presence of God's Love, begin the (theophanies) Divine
appearances. Now, for the first time, God has intercourse with man in an external
form like this, corresponding to his changed condition. The relation of Love is
broken. This is what is now also historically manifest, with a view to the
historical restoration of it. The anthropomorphism of the mode of intercourse
culminates in the Incarnation (!)

Dr. Lightfoot defines the exact time of day, as follows,
Harmony &c. p. 5 : —

vith day of creation . . . his (Adam's) wife the weaker vessell; she not yet know-
ing that there were any devils at all . . . sinned, and drew her husband into the
same transgression with her; this was about high noone, the time of eating. And
in this lost condition, into which Adam and Eve had now brought themselves, did
they lie comfortlesse, till towards the eool of the day, or three o'clock afternoon.

200. G.iii.14.

' Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, all the days of thy life.'
Here the serpent is represented as having had its nature de-
graded and debased from what it was originally.

Josephus, Anti.l-A, and after him the Fathers generally,
conceived of the serpent as having had originally a human voice
and legs. And Delitzch at this very day maintains that the
serpent's form was actually changed, in consequence of its having
been used by Satan as the instrument of his deception, 2^180.

The punishment of the serpent, as all antiquity understood the sentence, consists
in this, that its mode of motion and its form were changed. The consequence of sin
is ever something abnormal, which lies beyond the proper end of creation : it
works deformity, as in the human body, though that is wholly the instrument of
the spirit, so also upon the serpent, though it has only been the instrument of a

GEN.in.l-m.34. 141

spirit. The serpent was before made otherwise : now, with its fiery colour, its
forked vibrating tongue, its poison-distiUing teeth, its dreadful hiss, its arrow-like
motion, like a flash of light, its occasionally fascinating glance, it is, as it were, the
embodiment of the diabolical sin and the divine curse. This its present condition
is the consequence of a divine transformation, and, as its speaking is the first demo-
niacal wonder, so this transformation is the first divine. Of the original condition
of the serpent it is, certainly, impossible to frame to ourselves a conjecture. "We
might imagine generally a machine, perhaps, but no living creature, were it even
a chimsera ; and even the reconstruction of one, that has previously existed, is im-
possible for us without given remains and indications.

201. But Greology shows us that the serpeut was the same
kind of creature, in the ages long ago, before man existed upon
the earth, as it is now. And the notion, that the Devil took pos-
session of the serpent, and used it as an instrument for his
malicious purpose, is disproved at once by the words of the curse,
which charge the crime upon the serpent itself, — 'because thou
hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle and beasts of
the field,'' — as well as by the expressions, 'upon thy belly shalt
thou go,' ' dust shalt thou eat,' which refer distinctly to the
animal. Is it possible to believe that a curse could have been
passed by the gracious Creator upon an innocent animal, which
the Devil had mastered, — while no mention is made of the
Devil himself being punished ? As well might we believe that
the Almighty Father would curse a human being, afflicted with
madness.

202. Dr. Thomas Burnet says, Arch. Phil, p.291 : —

But you will say, ' The woman ought to have been careful, not to violate a law
enforced by the penalty of death. ' On the day on which you shall eat thereof you
shall die, you and yours,' so ran the law.' ' Die ! what does this mean ? ' says the
virgin in her ignorance, who had never yet seen anything dead, not even a flower,
nor had felt yet death's image slap, or niyht, with her eyes or with her mind.
And, as to what you add about her posterity and the penalty upon them, nothing of
this is expressed in the law. But no laws ought to be twisted, — certainly not
penal laws.

Also no light difficulty arises about the punishment of the serpent. If the Devil
did the. whole under the form of a serpent, or if he compelled the serpent to do or
suffer all this, why is the serpent punished for the crime committed by the Devil ?
Then, as to the manner and form of the punishment inflicted on the serpent, viz.
that hereafter it should go on its belly, it is not easy to explain what this means. It

142 GEN.lII.l~in.24.

will hardly "be said that the serpent was formerly erect, or walked after the manner
of quadrupeds. But. if it went upon its belly from the first, as serpents do now, it
may seem unmeaning that something shoidd be imposed on this animal, as a
punishment and penalty for a particular deed, which it had always by nature.

203. On the point of the serpent's l eating dust,' Kalisch
observes, Gen.p.\'25 : —

The great scantiness of food, on which the serpent can subsist, gave rise to the
belief, entertained by many Eastern nations, and referred to in several Biblical
allusions, that they 'eat dust,' INIic-.vii.17. Is.h.v.25, Sil. Ital. vii.449, ' fervent i
pastus arena,' see Bochaet, Hier.iA, Kobeets's IUustr. of Scripture, p.7, — while
the Indians believed them to feed upon wind.

And, as to the ' enmity' between the woman's seed and the
serpent, he remarks : —

In many Eastern religions, the extirpation of the reptiles, and especially of the
serpents, was enjoined as an important duty. Among the Persians, it was con-
sidered as equivalent to the war for Ormuzd and against Ahriman, and the
most sacred festival was consecrated to this 'destruction of evil.' Heeod. i.140.
The Hindoos celebrated similar great feasts for the same purpose ; and in Cashmere
solemn sacrifices were offered for the annihilation of the serpents. (Feaxk, Vyasa,
£>.139.) Thus the ' open enmity' between man and the serpent recurs throughoiit
the whole Orient. It is everywhere impressed with a religious character ; it bears
a hidden symbolical meaning ; it is the combat either against the Tempter, or
against the Prince of Evil.

Among the Zulus, on the contrary, the snake is held in great

respect, and is not willingly killed ; as their dead ancestors

are supposed to reappear in the form of snakes. So among the

Greeks the serpent was the emblem of healing wisdom ; while

to the Phoenicians it became the symbol of eternity, from its

habit of coiling itself into a circle.

204. G.iii.lo.

'And enmity will I put between thee and the woman, and between her seed and
thy seed : it shall bruise thee on the head, and thou shalt bruise it on the heel.'

Kalisch notes, Gen.p.89 : —

Krishna also, as the incarnation of Vishnu, is represented now as treading on the
bruised head of a conquered serpent, and now as entwined by it, and stung in the
heel.

And so says Mr. Shakpe, Egyptian Mythology, pA5 : —

The serpent of evil, the great enemy of the human race, plays an important

GEN.III.l-in.24. 143

part in all [Egyptian] pictures and sculptures relating to the next world. . .
When it is pierced through the head by the spear of the goddess Isis, we see the
enmity between the woman and the serpent, spoken of in G-.iii. It is always con-
quered by the good, sometimes pierced through its folds by a number of swords,
and sometimes carried away alive in the arms of its conquerors in triumph.

205. Accordingly, the usual explanation of the above passage
is, that the ' seed of the serpent ' typifies in some way the Devil
and all that belongs to him; while the 'seed of the woman '
represents Jesus Chkist and all true believers ; the ' serpent '
shall bruise the woman's seed on the heel, i.e. shall have power
to injure, but not fatally ; while the ' seed of the woman ' shall
bruise it on the head, i.e. shall crush and utterly destroy the
power of evil. So writes Delitzch, 2>.182 : —

The crafty venomous bite of the snake on the heel of man, which he retaliates,
without having suffered fatal injury, by crushing its head with his foot, shadows
forth the conflict of the human race with the Devil and all who are ' of the Devil,'
— and who are, therefore, not so much the woman's, as the serpent's seed, — and the
decisive victory of the human race, in which this conflict ends.

206. It is probable that the deadly conflict of man with evil
is symbolised in this narrative by the mortal hatred, which, for
very natural reasons, exists almost everywhere between the
human race and the serpent tribe. So most people have a dislike
of scorpions, Lu.x.19, spiders, &c. But it is doubtful if the
injury is here supposed to be mortal in the one case, and not in
the other. The serpent stings the heel, — that part of the man
which is most accessible to its bite, — whenever it has an oppor-
tunity of doing so, with a fatal power ; while the man, in like
manner, wreaks his vengeance on the serpent by crushing its
head.

207. Thus Willet writes, Hexap. in Gen., p.5\ : —

Part of this sentence is literally true in the serpent. For, as Kupertus noteth,
if a woman tread upon the serpent with her bare foot, he presently dieth ; but if
he first bite her heel, the woman dieth of that poison. But, howsoever this be true,
it is most certain that between man and those venomous creatures, there is a natural
hatred, that one cannot endure the sight and presence of the other. Some do
marvel why the serpent is not made mute and dumb, seeing Satan abused his
tongue and mouth to tempt the woman. The Hebrews think that the punishment

J44 GEX.III.I-III.24.

is included, in that dust is appointed to be his meat ; for such, whose mouths are
filled with earth, cannot speak. And to this day we see that the punishment
remaineth upon the serpent, who maketh no perfect sound, as other cattle do, but
hisseth only (!).

208. Gr.iii.16.

' Unto the woman He said, Multiplying I will multiply thy pain, and thy concep-
tion ; in pain shalt thou bear children.'

There is no reason to suppose that the pain of childbirth
has really been increased to the woman. It would arise, from
the natural conformation of her body, if she was to bear children
at all, — and the mention of a man 'leaving his father and
mother,' ii.24, implies that she was meant to do so, in the view
of this writer, even in Paradise, before the Fall. In tropical
countries, indeed, the birth of a child seems often to be attended
with little more pain and disturbance than the birth of a
beast. It is merely the imagination of the Hebrew writer,
which ascribes the pain of childbirth, and the natural subjection
of the female to the male, (which also is not peculiar to man
amongst animals,) to her being foremost in sin.

209. Delitzch, however, assumes a change in the woman's

form, 23.184 : —

That the woman shall become a mother, is God's original will ; but the punish-
ment is, that she shall henceforth bear children with pains, which threaten her life
as well as the child's. This sentence also upon the wife changes the original state
of things judicially ; and, since the woes indicated are necessarily grounded on the
present physiological condition of the woman, this also must have undergone a
change, without our being able to frame to ourselves a conception of the original
state of things.

And again, as to the 'subjection ' of the woman to the man

he writes, p. 184 : —

It was intended from the first that the man should have a certain superiority
over the woman. But only now, when the harmony of their mutual wills in God
is disturbed, this superiority is changed to lordship : the man can command in a
lordly manner, and the woman is from without and within compelled to obey. In
consequence of Sin there exists that subjection, bordering on slavish, of the woman
to the man, which, as it is still in the East, was in the old world usual, and which
first through the religion of Revelation has been by degrees made more endurable,
and equalised with the human worth of the woman.

GEN.III.l— 111.24. 145

With reference to the words italicised in the above extract, we
cannot but be reminded of the words of Tacitus, who, speaking
of the ancient Germans, says, Genn.viu, —

Moreover, they think that there is something sacred, or gifted with foresight, in
their women ; nor do they either despise their counsels, or neglect their prophetical
utterances.

210. (x.iii.17,18.

' Cursed is the ground for thy sake : in pain shalt thou eat of it all the days of
thy life; and thorns and thistles shall it make-to-sprout to thee ; and thou shalt
eat the herb of the field ; in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread.'

Here the ground is represented as cursed for man's sake, and
on this account bearing briars and thorns, and requiring to be
cultivated with hard labour.

But Geology shows that the state of things upon the Earth,
before man appeared upon it, was just the same as it is now.
There are no signs of any curse having passed upon the Earth.
Thorns and briars were as plentiful in the primeval world as
they are now. The same abundant crop of weeds would have
sprung up, under the same circumstances, then as now, on
any ground uncared-for. And man, if he had lived then, could
only have eaten bread by the sweat of his brow, in those days as
now.

211. And, in fact, a life of toil and exertion is far more healthy,
joyous, and ennobling, — far more suited to man's bodily and
spiritual nature, — far better adapted to draw out his highest
faculties, — than one of inactivity and careless ease, such as the
life of Paradise is generally imagined to have been. It is the
kind of life evidently meant for man by his Creator, the life for
which man was made, — the normal kind of life which, when not
excessive in its labours, is natural and pleasant to him, happy
and healthgiving, and not one to remind him at all of sin and of
the curse.

VOL. II. l

146 GEN.III.l-in.24.

212. Gr.iii.19.

' Until thy returning unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken : for dust art
thou, and unto dust shalt thou return.'

Reddendo, est terras terra, says Euripides, in Cic.Twsc.iii.25.
This appears to be the writer's mode of accounting for death in
the human race. And Delitzch observes, p.\89 : —

With the man, however, — the threatened one, — a change has now taken place.
When he was threatened, he was only one. Now he is man and woman. Through the
fact, that God has given him the woman, arises on the one side the possibility of a
diminution of the fault, on the other the possibility of a fulfilment of the threatening,
without breaking off human history. It is now possible that the man may die,
without the human race coming to an end.

213. But Geology shows that living creatures of all kinds
died in the ages long ago, as they die now, — died, overwhelmed
by floods, or falling earth, or the fiery streams poured out by
volcanoes, — died by old age or the action of disease, their bones
being found distorted, carious, or twisted with pain, — died,
often tearing and devouring one another, even as now, the
boDes of one animal being found in the stomach of another.
As Dr. Pye Smith says, Geology and Scripture, p.89 : —

We can see and examine their powerful teeth, the structure of their bones for
the insertion, course, and action of muscles, nerves, and the tubes for circulation,
indicating the functions, and their very stomachs, beneath their ribs, replenished
with chewed bits of bone, fish-scales, and other remains of animal food.

Death, therefore, has been in the world from the very first,

as the universal law for the animal, as well as for the vegetable,

creation. And there is nothing to compel us to believe,— even

if we could gather a definite meaning to that effect from the

Hebrew writer, which, perhaps, we cannot, — that man's mortal

frame would have endured for ever, any more than those of

other animals similarly constituted to his.

214. Yet it may be questioned if this passage of Scripture
really means to say that death was inflicted as the penalty of
sin, notwithstanding the interpretation put upon it by the
later Jews, Wisd.ii.24, Ecclus.xxv.24. For, as Knobel observes,
pA9 : —

GEX.III.1-III.24. 147

According to the Bible, Adam is not to die because he has sinned, but because
he was ' taken out of the ground,' — because he ' is dust,' he shall ' return to dust.'
Hence he was created mortal ; through his original nature, according to -which he
is exposed to death, it is plain, he dies. He might have gained immortality
through the tree of life, ii.9, but only as something over and beyond his created
nature, only as a prerogative of the celestial beings. But, because he wilfully
appropriated to himself another prerogative of the spiritual powers, and was not
yet to become like to these, he was prevented from this, and death took place, in
accordance with his original nature. That prevention of further encroachment on
the prerogatives of the spiritual, and this entrance of the original destiny of man,
cannot be said to be the infliction of death as the punishment of sin. God cannot
be said to have taken from Adam immortality, — which he did not at all possess, —
and to have inflicted on him death, — which from the beginning was to have been
expected. But He left him simply with his original mortality, which finally took
effect through death.

And, indeed, Bishop Jeremy Taylor is quoted by Archd.
Pratt, jpA8, as having written, two centuries ago, as follows : —

That Adam was made mortal in his nature, is infinitely certain, and proved by
his very eating and drinking, his sleep and recreation, &c. That death, which
God threatened to Adam, and which passed upon his posterity, is not the going
out of this world, but the manner of going. If he had stayed in innocence, he
should have gone placidly and fairly, without vexatious and afflictive circum-
stances ; he should not have died by sickness, defect, misfortune, or unwillingness.

215. It need hardly be said, however, that the above explana-
tion of this scientific difficult}7, though supported by the au-
thority of so eminent a writer, does not satisfy the ardent
defenders of the traditional view, or those who have imbibed, as
unhappily we have, most of us, from childhood, the defective
theological teaching of that great poet, who wrote —

Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the world.

Accordingly, Archd. Pratt, who quotes it, does not agree with
the writer, but referring to Eom.v.12, { as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin,' he admits that death was in
the world before man's sin, but reconciles the difficulty, as
follows : —

Science here comes to our aid, to correct the impressions we gather from Scrip-
ture (!), and the lesson we learn from the Apostle is, not that death had never

L 2

148 GEK.III.l-in.24.

appeared even in the irrational world, before the Fall of man, but that, in that
fearful event, sin had degraded God's intellectual creature, to the level of the
brutes in his animal nature, and in his spiritual, to that of a lost and fallen
being. Death received its horrors when it fell upon man, who alone was made
in the image of God.

216. On this point Prof. Hitchcock writes as follows, Geology,
p.73:—

The common theory of Death maintains that, when man transgressed, there was
an entire change throughout all organic nature; so that animals and plants, which
before contained a principle of immortal life, were smitten with the hereditary
contagion of disease and death. Those animals, which, before that event, were
gentle and herbivorous or frugivorous, suddenly became ferocious or carnivorous.
The climate, too, changed, and the sterile soil sent forth the thorn and the thistle
in the place of the rich flowers and fruits of Eden. The great English Poet, in his
' Paradise Lost,' has clothed this hypothesis in a most graphic and philosophical
dress ; and, probably, his descriptions have done morethan the Bible to give it currency.
Indeed, could the truth be known, I fancy that, on many points of secondary [?]
importance, the current theology of the day has been shaped quite as much by the
ingenious machinery of the ' Paradise Lost,' as by the Scriptures, — the theologians
having so mixed up the ideas of Milton with those derived from Inspiration, that
they find it difficult to distinguish between them.

The truth is that we literally groan, even in the present day,
under the burden of Milton's mythology.

217. No mention, however, is made of the immortality of the
soul, of life after death, in this passage, Gr.iii.19 ; and, indeed, in
the writer's view^ apparently, the death of the body was the end
of all, as is so mournfully intimated in the Psalm of Hezekiah,
Is.xxxviii.10-20. Nor does he draw any strong distinction be-
tween the nature of man and the brute creation : both man and
beast are formed by Jehovah- Elohim Himself, out of the
ground, ii.7,19, each is called a 'living soul,' ii.7,19, each has
'in its nostrils the breath of life,' ii.7, vii/22. Delitzch takes
note of this, p.l43,\90, and places the excellency of man in the
fact, that of him only it is said, that 'Jehovah-Elohim breathed,
into his nostrils,' &c.

218. But it seems doubtful if the writer intended to express
this difference. By whom was the spirit of life breathed into
the nostrils of any of the creatures, unless by Jehovah-Elohim ?

GEX.III.1-III.24. 149

In the later Hebrew writings, indeed, we find, apparently,
a distinction drawn between the ' spirit of a man that goeth
upward,' and ' the spirit of a beast that goeth downward to the
earth,' Eccl.iu.21. And though the writer says, v. 19,20, —

' That, which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth
them : as the one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they hare all one spirit (rvpf
ruakh, E.V. 'breath'); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is
vanity; all go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again ' —

yet he seems to allow a preeminence to the spirit of man
above that of the beast, both in the words of iii.21 above quoted,
and in those of xii.7, where, speaking of the death of man, he
says,—

' Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who
gave it.'

219. Yet even this is doubtful, since ' spirit ' here means, pro-
bably, the same as in Ecc.iii.l9,where it is said thatman and beast
* have all one spirit,' and therefore the language here used of man
might be used of beasts also. And again in iii.21, ' Who knoweth
the spirit of a man, &c,' the construction of the interrogative,
without a negative, implies rather a negative answer, as in
Is.xl.13,14, ' Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah?' &c, or
Is.liii.lj 'Who hath believed our report?' — where the answer
is meant to be, ' No one.' So here the meaning may be, ' No
one knows whether the spirit of man goeth upward, and the
spirit of a beast downward.'

220. Delitzch takes account of some of the natural and
necessary phenomena of death, in the natural world of plants,
animals, &c, before the Fall, as follows, £>.187 : —

To come into being and be deprived of being, to be formed and unformed, to
appear and to pass away, are certainly grounded in the essence of natural life, and
it is true that the right of the individual among the creatures properly first begins
with man. Thus, even without the sin of man, the individual formations of nature
could not have existed eternally ; they would, generally, have been returned to that
from which they were taken, but without that anguish-and-torment-fraught. for
the most part violent, death, and that offensive, air-polluting putrefaction, which
the Scripture names ' death ' and ' corruption.'

221. The fact is, in short, that we have every reason from

150 GEX.III.1-III.24.

Science to suppose that for man, as well as other animals,
in his natural, normal, state, death is necessary, — that his
body also will at length be worn out naturally, as those of
the innumerable living creatures of all kinds, which have
died in the ages before him, by the wear and tear of seasons,
which are just the same now as in the days of old, or that
men may come, perhaps, to an untimely end, by such accidents
as those, which have buried so many beasts, birds, reptiles,
fishes, insects, &c, as well as plants, of past ages, in the very
prime of their strength, and in the midst of their activity.

222. But then man's nature is a glorious, spiritual, nature, con-
scious of personal identity, prescient, desirous of a future life, —
a nature fitted to have converse with the good and the true and
the beautiful, which things endure for ever, — a nature that can
live in eternity, that even now has kindred with the Divine, that
can be filled with the Light and Life of God. There is good
reason, therefore, for believing that the dissolution of this
mortal framework of the human body will not be the death of
the spirit of man.

223. Gr.iii.21.

' And Jehovah-Elohini made to Adam and to his wife coats of skin, and
clothed them.'

Delitzch takes this passage as being literally and historically
true. He makes this act, however, one of great significance,
^.192 :—

Man, in consequence of sin, needs a covering to hide his nakedness. He himself
has made the attempt to cover his nakedness by his own contrivance : however, he
has not succeeded ; before God he cannot present himself with his fig-leaves.
Only God himself prepares for him a covering, which may serve for man to appear
in before God, — and that, from the skins of slain animals, and, therefore, at the
cost of innocent life, at the expense of the shedding of innocent blood. This blood
was an image of the blood of Christ, this clothing an image of the clothing of
righteousness in Christ . . . The original couple, clothed by God himself, upon
believing apprehension of the word of promise, are the image of all men justified
through faith in Christ.

It is of course allowable for any to draw out such analogies,

GEN.III.1-III.24. 151

provided that they are not enforced as articles of faith, or as really
meant to be conveyed in a passage like this.

224. G-.iii.24.

' And He placed in front of the garden of Eden the cherubs.'

Dr. Thomas Burnet writes, Arch. Phil, p.293 :

The text says, ' They sewed together fig-leaves, and made to themselves girdles.'
Here we have the first step in the art of sewing. But whence had they a needle,
whence a thread, on that first day of their creation ? These questions may seem
to be too free : but the matter itself demands that we act freely, when we are seeking
the naked truth. When, however, they had made to themselves girdles, God gave
them besides coats, made, forsooth, out of the skins of beasts. But here again we
run into difficulties. To soften the matter, let us substitute in the place of God an
angel. An angel, then, slew and skinned the animals, or stripped the skin from
innocent and living animals. But this is the business of a slaughterer, or butcher,
not an angel. Besides, through this slaughter, whole races of animals would have
perished ; for it is not believed that more than two of each kind were created at
first ; and one without the other, its male, would have had no offspring.

After all this, however, transacted, what follows ? God drove our parents, thus
clothed in skins, out of Paradise, and placed at the entrance of the garden cherubim,
with a flaming, turning, sword, lest they should reseek the blessed abode by force,
or even by accident. Is there any interpreter who will bend this to the letter, and
will assert that angels stood, like guards, with drawn swords, before the entrance of
the garden through I know not how many ages ? — as the dragons are said by the
poets to have guarded the apples of the Hesperides. Why, how long did these
angelic watches last ? To the Deluge, I suppose, if not longer. Do you believe
that angels were so occupied, for more than 1,500 years, in keeping a garden night
and day ? How easy would it have been, in a well-watered place like Paradise, to
have surrounded the garden with a stream or river, which would have been an
abundantly sufficient obstacle to Adam and Eve, who knew nothing as yet of the use
and construction of boats or ships ! But these and such like considerations, lest
they should seem invidious, I would rather leave to be pondered by others.

152

CHAPTEE XIV.

STOKIES OF PARADISE AND THE FALL IN OTHER NATIONS.

225. The Persian myth, describing the Fall of Man, which
bears a striking resemblance to the story in Genesis, is thus given
by Kalisch, Gen.p.87 : —

The first couple, the parents of the human race, Mcshia and Meshia?ie, lived
originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised to them
by Ormuzd, the Creator of every good gift, if they persevered in their virtue. But
an evil demon (Dev) was sent to them by Ahriman, the representative of every-
thing noxious and sinful. He appeared unexpectedly in the form of a serpent, and
gave them the fruit of a wonderful tree, Horn, which imparted immortality, and
had the powers of restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations entered their
hearts ; all their moral excellence was destroyed. Ahriman himself appeared
under the form of the same reptile, and completed the work of seduction. They
acknowledged him instead of Ormuzd as the creator of everything good ; and the
consequence was, that they forfeited for ever the internal happiness for which
they were destined. They killed beasts, and clothed themselves in their skins ;
they built houses, but paid not their debt of gratitude to the Deity. The evil
demons thus obtained still more perfect power over their minds, and called forth
envy, hatred, discord, and rebellion, which raged in the bosom of the families.
Zendavesta, Kleuker's Ed. ii.217,280,iii.62,84,85.

It is unnecessary to point out the parallel features of this legend with the Mosaic
narrative. It contains almost all the materials of the latter, — the remarkable tree,
the serpent, the degradation and fall of man. It is, then, evident that all these »
traits are not specifically Mosaic ; they belonged to the common traditionary lore of
the Asiatic nations; they cannot, therefore, be essential in the system of Mosaic
theology ; they serve to represent the ideas, but are not indispensable for them ;
they are the vehicle used to convey certain truths, but these truths might have
been expressed in a thousand other shapes ; the truths are unchangeable and
necessary, the form is indifferent and accidental.

226. And he describes thus the Chinese myth, _p.89 : —

The Chinese, also, have their age of virtue, when nature furnished abundant

PAKADISE AND THE FALL IN OTHER NATIONS. 153

food to the happy men, who lived peacefully, surrounded by the beasts, exercised
virtue without the assistance of Science, and did not yet know what it meant to do
good or evil. The physical desires were perfectly subordinate to the divine spirit
in man, who had all heavenly, and no earthly, dispositions ; disease and death
never approached him ; but partly an undue thirst for knowledge, partly increasing
sensuality, and the seduction of women, were his perdition ; all moderation was
lost ; passion and lust ruled in the human mind ; the war with the animals began ;
and all nature stood inimically arrayed against him.

And many more such myths are found in the folk-lore of

other nations.

227. So, again, Kalisch writes of the garden of Eden : —

The Paradise is no exclusive feature of the early history of the Hebrews. Most
of the ancient nations have similar narratives about a happy abode, which care
does not approach, and which reechoes with the sounds of the purest bliss. The
Greeks believed that, at an immense distance beyond the pillars of Hercules, on
the borders of the Earth, were the islands of the Blessed, the Elysium, abounding
in every charm of life, and the Garden of the Hesperides, with their golden apples,
guarded by an ever-watchful serpent (Ladon). But still more analogous is the
legend of the Hindus, that, in the sacred mountain Meru, which is perpetually
clothed in the golden rays of the Sun, and whose lofty summit reaches into heaven,
no sinful man can exist, — that it is guarded by dreadful dragons, — that it is
adorned with many celestial plants and trees, and is watered by four rivers, which
thence separate and flow to the four chief directions. Equally striking is the
resemblance to the belief of the Persians, who suppose that a region of bliss and
delight, the town Eriene Vedsho, or Heden, more beautiful than all the rest of the
world, traversed by a mighty river, was the original abode of the first men, before
they were tempted by Ahriman, in the shape of a serpent, to partake cf the
wonderful fruit of the forbidden tree Hum.

The ' tree of life ' has analogies in the ' king of trees,' Hum, which the Persians
believed to grow at the spring Ardechsur, issuing from the throne of Ormuzd, and
in the tall Pilpel of the Indians, to which was also ascribed the power of securing
immortality and every other blessing. But the ' tree of knowledge ' may be
compared with the ' well of wisdom ' in northern mythology, from which even the
great God Odin drinks, and which gives knowledge even to the wise Mimer. ^>.108.

228. And so writes Delitzch, p.\52 : —

"When in the second Fargard of the Vendidad, Ormuzd commands Yima, under
whose lordship, before he yielded to the seduction of Ahriman, love, youth, and
immortality gladdened the life of man, to prepare a four-square well-fenced
garden, and to bring into it the most choice of the creatures, since winter, snow,
and, in consequence of them, sterility, have pressed into the world, and when it is
said that in this kingdom of Yima, shut against the world, eternal light shone, —
this, with many other features of the Iranian legend, is an echo of the Truth hidden
under the simple and almost colourless covering of the story before us.

154 STORIES OP PARADISE AND

And again, ^.156 : —

We are reminded of the ' tree of life' in this narrative, by the sacred tree of the
Hindoos, the Zoroastrian Horn, and by the ' tree of Life ' on the Assyrian monuments.
Layakd, Nineveh, pA27.

229. Tuch writes as follows, p.50: —

The mythology of many nations knows such a Paradise and such an Adam, to
■whom the fundamental cause of the fates of mankind is referred. Nothing else
than the paradisiacal life of Adam was that happy, golden, Saturnian, age ;
nothing else was that life, free from toil and misfortune, which, according to Hesiod's
poetry, men enjoyed, before woman was given to them. All evil was banished into
a vessel, which the Gods forbad to be opened. But Pandora takes the cover away,
and misery unfettered overpowers the human race. Among the Thibetans, the
paradisiacal condition was more complete and spiritual. The desire to eat of a
certain sweet herb deprived men of their spiritual life. There arose a sense of
shame, and the need to clothe themselves. Necessity compelled them to agriculture ;
the virtues disappeared, and murder, adultery, and other vices, stepped into their
place. India knows of no connected myth, which would be the complete analogue
to the Biblical, although many particular traits, as the wonderful trees, and Krishna's
struggle with the serpent, whose head he bruises, may be used as analogies. A
more exact analogy', depending upon the connection of mythical poetry, is presented
again by the Zend legend, which requires to be more fully explained and compared
with the Biblical. Here we find the tree Horn, the death- expeller, whose juice
makes immortal, and at the resurrection gives life to the dead. Here leaps from
heaven the death-fraught Ahriman, in the form of a snake, — the most usual self-
created form, in which the evil principle, together with his divs, appears. Here we
find Meshia and Meshiane, the progenitors of the human race, destined for
happiness, if they continue in unison with their Creator. But the evil spirit
intruded into their thoughts, and they recognised the creation of Good as
Ahriman' s work. The happiness of the pure soul, created for immortality, was
lost. Further, the Div put before them fruits, of which they ate. Of a hundred
blessings there remained to them but one. They clothed themselves with the
skins of animals. They built houses, but forgot to thank the author of life.
Through this, the divs obtained a fearful power over them, and caused among them
insurrections, hostility, envy, hatred.

230. Delitzch observes, p. 195 : —

The cherubs appear here as guards of Paradise, just as in the Persian legend
99,999, i.e. innumerable, attendants of the Holy One keep watch against the
attempts of Ahriman over the tree Horn, which contains in itself the power of the
resurrection. Much closer, however, lies the comparison of the winged lion-and-
eagle-formed griffins, which watch the gold-caves of the Arimaspian metallic
mountains, and of the sometimes more or less hawk-formed — sometimes only winged
and otherwise man -formed — guardians, upon the Egyptian and Assyrian monu-
ments. The resemblance of the symbols is surprisingly great, and the comparison

THE FALL IN OTHER NATIONS. 155

of the king of Tyre, Ez.xxviii.14-16, to a protecting cherub -with outspread -wings,
who, stationed on the holy mountain, ' walked up and down in the midst of the
stones of fire,' justifies us in assuming such a connection. Its explanation lies in
this, that the human race, when separating into peoples, took with them from their
original home the idea of the cherub, and fashioned it mythologically. But the
fundamental traces have remained unchanged. For the occupation of the griffin
is just as two-fold as that of the biblical cherub. They watch before the rock of
gold, but also they draw the chariots of the gods, and carry gods upon their wings.
iEscH. Prom. Vinct. So the cherubs keep watch over that which must not be
approached; and the name 2."n3, Mruv, kruv, is derived probably from 2")2>
' grab, grapple, grasp, gripe,' Sanscr. gribh, Pers. giriftcn. Goth, griffan ; comp.
Gr. ypvf, meaning a being holding fast, and making -what it holds unapproachable.
But the cherubs also are described as carrying the glory of God. -when He appears
in the world, Ps.xviii.lO, Ez.i.15, Ecclus.xlix.8.

231. Knobel observes upon the narrative contained in this
chapter, jpAl : —

Upon this passage is the doctrine of Original Sin [mainly] grounded. According
to it, the first pair found themselves at first in a state of perfection (status intcgri-
tatis), and had an original righteousness (justitia originalis), or the Divine image
(imago divina), to -which also belonged — in a corporeal point of view, incorruptibility,
health, freedom from pain, a temperate state of sensual impulses, (ceauale temperamen-
tum qualitatum corporis,) and agreement thereof with reason and -will, and, according
to many, immortality also, — in a spiritual point of view, right knowledge of God and
His "Will, also of self and of things generally, (recta ratio, sapientia concreata,) and
the power to love God, to fulfil His commands, and to act in entire agreement with
Him, (liberum arbitrium, sanctitas concreata). The first pair, however, allowed
themselves to be misled by the Devil to the transgression of the Divine Command,
and fell into sin : they lost the divine image, and experienced a corruption of their
whole nature, and of all their powers, viz. death, and other bodily evils, darkening
of the spirit and ignorance of God, inability to fear and love God, and to do His
Commands, general incapacity of the will for good, and supremacy of the evil
desires. This corruption (peccatum originate) descended by inheritance through
natural procreation to all the posterity of Adam.

As this doctrine, however, is framed, it finds very little support in the narrative
before us, independently altogether of the question whether it is historically true.

(i) The -writer does not teach any original state of perfection. As to the corpo-
real state he is silent, and simply with respect to the point of immortality betrays
his view to this effect, that man -was created originally mortal, and only through
partaking of the tree of life, which, however, never took place, might have become
immortal, ii.17, iii.19,22. Instead of perfect knowledge, he rather ascribes the
opposite to tthe first pair, vis. the not knowing good and evil, i.e. the want of
moral perception, and, in fact, to such an extent, that they did not perceive at all
that going nuked was unbecoming, and that clothing was proper, ii.25. This want

156 STORIES OF PAEADISE AND

made them tinlike God, iii.22, and was certainly^not regarded by the narrator as
sapientia concreata, and reckoned as part of the ' divine image.' Of the Will of God
they knew simply the command forbidding them to eat of the tree of knowledge,
il.l 7 ; at all events, the narrative tells us of no other. Just as little does the
writer ascribe to the first pair a moral perfection. He represents them rather as
finding themselves in a state of moral indifference, and could not do otherwise,
since he denies to them moral perception, — exactly that, through which all morality
and immorality is conditioned. Only they did not transgress the above-named
command before the temptation ; more than this is not to be seen in the narrative.

(ii) The writer relates nothing about the Devil, and the temptation of Eve
through him, but speaks only of a serpent, iii.1,15.

(iii) He does not teach that a general corruption was introduced through the
Fall. With reference to the body, he represents only in the case of Eve something
of that kind, iii. 16, without, however, mentioning it as a corruption. On the con-
trary, in the case of Adam, whom he makes merely to be punished with the labours
of agriculture, he is silent about any such change, and has certainly not assumed any
corruption of the sensitive nature of man, and especially not that the latter then first
became mortal through the Fall. In an intellectual point of view, he maintains not
a loss and retrogression, but a gain and advance, of the first pair, since he makes
them through the transgression attain a moral perception, and thereby become like
unto God, iii.22. How that can be a loss of the divine image, it is impossible to
see. In a moral point of view, he relates only that Adam and Eve had transgressed
the divine command, had committed a sin, and introduced evil into human life.
But he does not teach that, through one single transgression, the moral nature of
man was entirely changed and corrupted, and man has lost all capability for good.

(iv) He knows still less of a propagation of the moral corruption through pro-
creation, but has manifestly assumed a growing increase of evil through the free
inclination of man : at least, that terrible idea cannot be shown to exist in his
story. He sets forth the direction given to Cain to master sin, iv.7, and assumes
therefore, the possibility, and, consequently, the capability also, for good, as existing
with him.

(v) He knows nothing at all of the ' divine image ' in man, which only the Elohist
has, and says, therefore, nothing about the possession or the loss of it.

232. The truth is, that the expression ' divine image,' as used

in dogmatic theology, is used in a totally different sense from

that, in which the words are employed in i.26,27, where it

seems to mean chiefly the possession by man of a more noble

and divine form, and especially of superior intelligence, and

the power of reason and conscience :

' He gave him mind, — the lordliest
Proportions, — and, above the rest,
Dominion in the head and breast.'

THE FALL IN OTHER NATIONS. 157

And the doctrine, which is above stated, cannot be derived
by any process of just interpretation, from the narrative in
G.ii.l6-iii.24, though other passages of Scripture no doubt may
be adduced in support of it, e.g. Kom.v.12, lCor.xv.21,22.
The writer in Genesis rather appears to have considered that he
was giving an account of the subjection of the human race to
'physical evil : whereas St. Paul represents the death of the
human race in Adam as involving that tendency to moral evil,
that * lusting of the flesh against the spirit,' that ' bodily death,'
which he felt in himself, and perceived to be common to all
mankind.

233. It is sufficient merely to mention in this place the
horrible doctrine of St. Augustine, upon the dogma of ' Original
Sin,' with reference to which Bishop Watson writes as follows,
Apologies, &c. pA63 : —

The doctrine in the words of Fulgextius stands thus, Firmissime tene, et
nullatcnus dubites,parvidos, sive in uteris matrum vivere incipiunt etibi moriuntur,
site cum, dematribus nati, sine Sacramento sancti baptismatis de hocsecido transeunt,
ignis ietvrni svmpiterno si'pplicio pimiendos. 'Hold thou most firmly, nor do thou
in any respect doubt, that infants, whether in their mothers' wombs they begin to
live and there die, or when, after their mothers have given birth to them, they pass
from this life without the sacrament of holy baptism, will be punished with the ever-
lasting punishment of eternal fire.' Parent of universal good ! Mercifid Father of
the human race ! how hath the benignity of Thy nature been misrepresented ! how
hath the Gospel of Thy Son been misinterpreted by the burning zeal of presump-
tuous man! I mean not on this occasion to enter into the various questions, which
learned men have too minutely discussed concerning the lapse of our first parents,
original rectitude, and subsequent depravation of human nature. I simply mean to
say that a proposition, which asserts that infants dying in the womb will be tor-
mented in everlasting fire because of Adam's transgression, is a proposition so en-
tirely subversive of all our natural notions of the justice and mercy of the Supreme
Being, that it cannot be admitted unless a passage in Scripture could be produced,
in which it is clearly and in so many words revealed. And I am certain that no
such passage can be produced.

158

CHAPTEE XV.

GEN.IY.1-Y.32.

234. Gr.iv.2.

' Abel was a keeper of sheep.'

Delitzch observes, p.\99 : —

The small domestic cattle, sheep and goats, were kept in this earliest, extra-
paradisiacal time, on account of their woolly skin, not at all to be used as food,
although, perhaps, also for the sake of their milk, since milk is certainly an animal
nutriment, and, therefore, not used in paradise, but yet is not obtained through
the destruction of animal life. . . The calling of each brother was directed
towards food, — that of Abel especially towards that covering of their sinful nakedness,
which God's own initiation had consecrated.

It is obvious, however, that animals must have been slain,
if their hides were used for covering, — unless, indeed, Adam
and Eve were taught the art of weaving the wool into cloth,
which the statement in iii.21, * Jehovah-Elohim made coverings
of skin,' is very far from implying. It may be supposed that
they used the skins of animals killed for sacrifices. But we
have seen (157) that, even in the use of vegetable food, there
is necessarily infinite destruction of animal life.

235. Gr.iv.14.

' Every one that findeth me shall slay me.'

There seems to be an inconsistency here in the story. For, at
this time, the only man upon the face of the earth was Adam —
rather, the only male person, for Seth was not born till after
this, v.25, and, during the whole time which had elapsed since
the birth of Cain and Abel, Eve had borne no son, though she

GEN.IV.1-V.32. 159

may be supposed to have had daughters, among whom may be
reckoned Cain's wife, v.17. Hence Cain would hardly have
expected to find people ready to kill him. Delitzch writes,
p.205 :—

Eden (i.e. the land of Eden) was certainly at this time the exclusive dwelling-
place of the young humanity. The writer seems here to have forgotten himself.
But not so : for, whereas Cain fears that beyond Eden he shall be recognised as the
well-known murderer, the story explains this by saying that there was only one
human family, the family of Adam, and no other family standing out of connection
with it, [so that every person, whom he might hereafter chance to encounter any-
where, woxdd be a relative of the murdered Abel.] It is manifestly the aveng-
ing-of-blood, which Cain fears, when his father's family shall spread itself : for,
that murder is to be punished through the death of the murderer, is a principle
of justice written in every human breast ; and the circumstance, that Cain already
sees the earth full of avengers, is one quite usual with the murderer, who feels
himself everywhere surrounded and tormented by avenging spirits ('Epifves).

236. G.iv.17.

' And he (Cain) builded a city.'

Delitzch notes, p.209 : —

That already a city comes upon the scene, seems absiird to those, who choose to
imagine to themselves the advance of human cultivation, as no other than a slow
laborious progress, out of an entirely, or partially, animal state of existence. But,
— leaving out of consideration the fact that the introduction of settled dwelling-places
and buildings is lost in the legends of all nations, far back in the mythical primal age,
beyond the reach of memory,- — yet, when this Cainite town arose, already centuries
may have elapsed since the origin of the human race, and ' city ' means, at first,
nothing more than an enclosure with fixed dwellings, — in opposition to mere
shepherd's tents, standing near each other [like huts in a Zulu kraal], and, further,
changing from place to place. . . It must appear much more strange that Cain,
who according to God's judgment, was to be ' a fugitive and a vagabond,' settles
himself down so firmly. He has in this way set himself against the divine curse,
in order to feel it inwardly so much the more, as outwardly he seems to have
overcome it.

237. G.iv.17,18.

There is a considerable resemblance between the descendants
of Cain, as given in these verses, and those of Seth in Gr.v.
Thus ' Enoch ' and * Lamech ' are found in both genealogies ;
and in this we have |?*j2, T^J, rfy?>-int?, Keynan, Yered, Methu-

160 GEN.IV.1-V.32.

shelakh,m the other, $2, T?V, 7^np, Kayin, Hirad, Methushael :
also D^x, jlcZam, and ^38, Enosh, are both names for ' man.'
From this Buttmann infers that these are two different ver-
sions of the same tradition.

238. The argument is ingenious and plausible. But it scarcely
deserves to be noted by Prof. Kawlinson, Aids to Faith, p.27l,
as 'the boldest of all the attempts made to invalidate the
historical character of the Pentateuch,' and to be replied to
seriously at great length, while so many other difficulties of
far greater importance are wholly passed over. Havernick,
p. 109, considers that the circumstance of the similarity of the

two lists of names —

finds its most appropriate explanation in the small number of names, that were in

use in the old world (!)

It is possible that there may be here two different genea-
logies, or two different forms of the same genealogy. Knobel,
Gen.p.54, considers that the later form may have been merely
framed upon the model of the Elohistic genealogy in chap.v,
the names being transferred from the Sethite to the Cainite list,
with some modifications.

239. G.iv.20-22.

Here the first introduction of cattle-keeping, music, and
smithery, is ascribed to descendants of Cain. With respect
to these inventions, and especially that of music, Delitzch ob-
serves, p.21'2 : —

How comes the race of Cain to have the honour of making such important
advances in civilisation ? For this reason, that the race of the Promise has fallen
out with the world, while the race of the Curse is on good terms with it, — for this
reason, that the one is influenced from within, and the other from without, — for this
reason, that the one has in God its heart's treasure, the home of its thoughts, and the
object of its every aim and act, while the other lives in the sensual and visible, and
from this seeks to enrich, adorn, and establish, its poor, barren, restless life. All
human history confirms the observation, to which the beginning of this primary
history leads us, that culture becomes more extended and refined in the great bulk
of men, just in proportion as estrangement from God increases. The Arts do not
even now belie the root of the Curse, out of which they have sprung (!) There lies

GEN.IV.1-V.32. 161

a magical attraction in every Art and Science, which seeks to draw back the heart
from simplicity in God, and to ensnare it in the bonds of Nature, the Flesh, the life
of this world. There is also in all Music, not only an unspiritualised principle
still remaining, of material natural origin, but also a Cainite element, of impure,
sensual origin, which makes it at once the most seemingly innocent, but, at the same
time, most dangerously seductive, Art. But, although sprung from the soil of man's
corrupt nature, the Arts have, however, been taken into the service of Holiness,
because the ungodliness, which clings to them, is after all common to all on this
side the grave, &c.

240. G.iv.23,24.

'Adah and Zillah, hear my voice !

Ye wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech !

For I have slain a man for my wound,

And a youth for my hurt.

For Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,

And Lamech seventy-and-seven.'

This song may have been current in the popular legends, at
the time when the Jehovist wrote. It was then comparatively
old, as it would be, for instance, if it referred to events in the
age of their great-great-grandfathers. Bleek says, jj.'25-i : —

It is probable that the Jehovistic writer knew nothing himself distinctly as to
the occasion and reference of this song. This argues, however, directly for the
great age of the song, and in that case serves as a proof, that the editor of the
section in which it is found, and of Genesis itself as we now have it, must have
found it somewhere also beforehand, and taken it over from thence, — perhaps, in
an old collection of songs.

241. Schrader observes, Studien, p. 127 : —

In this song, in the last strophe, r.24, there is a mention of Cain, and that too —

which is the point most worthy of notice here — with the use of the very same

words, ' Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,' as we read in this same chapter, v.lo.

That this agreement is accidental, no one will maintain : rather, everyone will

allow that the one passage has been written with reference to the other. The

question now is, to which of the two belongs the priority, — whether the song arose

as a suggestion from i'.15, or the language of y. 15 was taken from the song already

existing. "When, however, one sees how that expression is involved so harmoniously

in the whole body of the song, and how that song itself forms a complete, simple,

and intelligible whole, — when, on the other hand, one cannot disguise from one's-

selfthatin v. 15 the words sound somewhat constrained, and through this betray

themselves manifestly, as applied first at a later day, quite from -without, to the

story here told, — we cannot hesitate for a moment to assign, with Ewald, P.leek,

Tuch, originality to the song, and to maintain that the author of r.9-16 has

VOL. II. M

162 GEN.IY.1-V.32.

borrowed from the song, which he found already in existence, the words in question
in ft.15, and freely interwoven them into his narrative of Cain's fratricidal act.

242. In this old song, however, Delitzch finds a deep meaning,

#.215 :—

We must not forget that Lantech did not speak Hebrew, so that this song has
passed over from its original form into Hebrew through a process of tradition (!)
It is not less a true mirror of the genesis of poetry. If we look only at the contents
of the song, how deeply significant is this conclusion of the Cainite primeval history !
There we find expressed that Titanic pride, of which the Scripture says that ' its
power is its god,' Hab.i.ll. Lamech looks at the first arms, which his son forges; his
song is the song of triumph at the invention of the sword . . . Here is the genesis
of the most spiritual of all Arts, Poetry. Not the glorifying of God, but the
glorifying of murderous arms, self-deification, deification of the ungodly, was its
origin. It was conceived and born in sin. Its birth-place is not Heaven, and not
Paradise, but the house of Lamech. It needed to be regenerated, in order to be
pleasing to God. But it is just the same with this regeneration as with that of
man : he becomes a new person, yet retains still the old nature. So has Sacred
Poetry certainly a new heart, directed towards God ; but its bodily form is and
remains entangled in vanity (<pdopd), weakness, want of clearness, want of harmony
of everything earthly (!) It is coupled, if not with sinful worldliness, yet with the
curse-stricken character of things on this side of the grave, and still awaits, though
sanctified, its glorification.

243. Delitzch, it will be seen, to make out his theory of
the ' curse-stricken ' nature of Poetry, assumes- -

(i) that this little song was the first piece of poetry ever
written, —

(ii) that it has connection with the forging of the first sword.

Such, however, is the deadly Manicheeism, which is taught by
many, even in this day, as Christianity ! It is that, which seeks to
turn this blessed world in which we live, and in which Grod dwells
— with all its light, and beauty, and glory, — into a dark, gloomy,
prison-house, and which represents the very excellencies of our
nature, its divine faculties, its God-given capabilities, its in-
finite strivings after improvement and progress, as standing in
close connection with the Curse, and its manifold developments
of genius, in all kinds of Arts and Sciences, as so many sources
of danger and death, instead of the healthy and happy mani-
festations of life.

GEX.IV.1-Y.32. 163

244. Upon the whole story in iv. 1-24 Tuch observes, p.100 : —

There lies in this myth the perfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East
ancient nations lived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation
extended, hut at the same time the assertion, that these could not prejudice the
renown of the Western-Asiatics, since the prerogatives, which their descent from
the first-born would secure to them, were done away through God's Curse, which
lighted on their ancestor, Cain. Thus the East is cut off from the following
history, and the thread fastened on. which carries us on in Genesis, right across
through the nations, to the only chosen people Israel.

245. Von Bohlen, ^).82, supposes that the people of Eastern

Asia, generally, and especially of India, are thus referred to.

In the narrative of the Hebrew compiler we find an acknowledgment, that the
Asiatic nations to the east of Palestine were of greater antiquity than the Jews,
[Cain was the first-born, r.l,] — that they did not worship Jehovah, [' from Thy Eace
I shall be hid,' 0.14, 'and Cain went out from the Face of Jehovah,' >'.16] — that
they followed agricultural pursuits at an earlier period than the Hebrew nation,
[' Jabal was the father of all such as dwell in tents and among cattle,' r.20,] and
inhabited towns, [' Cain was building a city,' i>.17,] and became civilised, [Jubal
invented 'the lute and the flute,' 0.22, Tubal-Cain wrought in -brass and iron,'
0.22, Lamech composed a song, ^.23,] — but that, with all this, they must be
regarded in the light of proscribed outlaws, ['fugitive and vagabond,' i\12,14.] . . .
We may notice the circumstances, that the Zend religion decidedly enjoins and
favours agriculture, [the occupation of Cain, v.2,] — this employment appearing to
be, according to its tenets, a species of divine service. [The very name ' Aryan,'
according to high authorities, Bunsen, Egypten, v.97, Max Mcllek, Science of
Language, p.224, is derived from Ar, 'to plough.'] ... On the other hand, a
pastoral life, [such as that of Abel, y.2,] which in Palestine never wholly
disappeared, was considered by the Hebrew narrator as protected and consecrated
by the blessing of Jehovah. Agriculture, too, according to the saint- writer, had
been imposed as a ptmishmeni on man, iii.17-19 ; and it was here degraded, from
the same feeling of antipathy to that employment, which the Hebrew derived from
his nomad origin, and which he still continued to manifest, long after he had been
obliged, by his settled position in Palestine, to devote himself to the cultivation of
the soil, and to enact agrarian laws. Agriculturists were always esteemed an
inferior class to shepherds among the Israelites ; kings kept their flocks ; men of
superior attainments arose from pastoral life.

246. He makes also the following ingenious suggestion,
^>.90 :—

Nod lay eastward of Eden : and if the compiler (as often happens in Arabic
with foreign names) was deceived by imagining that there was a Semitic article in
Hind, (Heb. and Arab, for India, for which ."nil, Hoddu = Hondv, stands in Esth.i. ] ,)
as if it had been ijn, we should in that case, of course, with J. D. 3Iichaf.ps,

31 2

164 GEN.IV.1-V.32.

have here an expression for India in the widest meaning . . . We are reminded by
the name of Cain's city, TpJIT Khanoch, of the very ancient commercial city of
Chanoge, Arab. Khanug, in northern India, celebrated in the early epics of the Hin-
doos, and called by the ancients Canogyza, of which the narrator might hare heard.

For our purpose, of course, uo stress can be taid upon the
above suggestion, which at the best cannot be raised beyond
a doubtful probability. It seems, however, very possible that
India, with its early progress in civilisation and the arts, may be
here referred to, since in Solomon's time, — the age in which it is
most likely that this Jehovistic chapter was written, — there
was probably considerable intercourse with the East, lK.x.ll,
and thus India, and even its great commercial town, c Chanoge,'
may have become known to the Israelites.

247. The only difficulty on that supposition, would be to ac-
count for the expressions ' fugitive ' and ' vagabond,' as applied
to the Indian population. If, however, there be any truth in
Von Bohlen's idea of the origin of the name ' Nod,' the use
of the words 13} yj, na\x vanad, ' fugitive and vagabond,' might
be explained, as an instance of that fondness for deriving
names, which we have seen to be characteristic of this writer.
And, indeed, as we have seen (236), he does not make Cain
really a ' vagabond,' but speaks of him as settling down and
building a < city.' It is well known that Zarathustra, (Zerdusht,
Zoroaster,) the great Reformer of the Aryan tribes, and founder
of the Zend Religion, was most earnest in recommending the
practice of agriculture in opposition to the pastoral life.

248. Knobel, p.53, considers that the nations referred to are
rather the Northern and Eastern peoples of Asia., the Hunnish
tribes of Mongolian origin, to whom belonged the original in-
habitants of Thibet and Higher India, as well as the Chinese,
Japanese, &c. The restless Tartar tribes would thus correspond to
the description ' fugitive and vagabond,' while the very ancient
settlement and civilisation of China would explain the notice of
inventions in the arts, &c. All these tribes, being marked with
a peculiar physiognomy, were quite distinguished, not only from

GEN.IV.1-V.32. 105

all the Shemitic tribes, but from the supposed kindred of
the latter, the descendants of Ham and Japheth. And, if the
words in iv.15 be translated, 'And Jehovah set a mark on Cain,'
and explained, as they are by many interpreters, to imply some
peculiar mark set on his person, there might be a reference to
the strangely-marked features of all the people of this race.

249. The Chinese are, indeed, supposed by Delitzch to be
mentioned by the writer of the last part of our book of Isaiah,
xlix.12, 'and these from the land of Sinim' But this is contra-
dicted by the fact, that the name Thsin — whence the Hindu
Tchin, and our China — was first adopted, as the name of the
Chinese empire, under Thsin-Chi-Hoang-Ti, the founder of the
Thsin dynasty, B.C. 221 : see Types of Mankind, _p.646. Ac-
cordingly, the LXX have sk <yrjs Hspacov, from the land of the
Persians. Still, it is possible that, through increasing acquaint-
ance with Eastern commerce, something may have been known
about them, and their very ancient polity and advanced culture,
even at the much earlier time, when, as we believe, this chapter
of Genesis was written.

250. No doubt, there is, as Knobel observes, a more im-
portant objection to any explanation of this kind, than even
the non-acquaintance of the Hebrews with these East- Asiatic
nations, viz. that, according to the story, the Cainites must
have been altogether swept away by the Deluge, and there-
fore it cannot be supposed that they represent nations living
after that event. But he remarks, p.54 : —

It cannot be doubted, however, that the writer was led to give the Table of
Cainite genealogy through his knowledge of the post-diluvian Eastern-Asiatics,
and follows this knowledge in the separate details about the Cainites. There
exists, then, an inconsistency, if, knowing of post-diluvian Cainites, he yet makes
all the Cainites perish through the flood. Such mistakes, however, are not un-
common with him, [as in the notice of Cain's fear of being killed, v.U, his build-
ing a city, y.17, and see the notes on vi.4.] This inconsistency might have been
avoided, if he had mentioned the Cainites, in case he did' not wish to omit them,
among the postdiluvian men ; but then he would have fallen into another error,
since he must have referred them back to Noah and his sons, while he yet know

166

GEN.IY.1-Y.32.

that the descendants of Noah, and those of Seth generally, were confined to the
West-Asiatic nations.

251. There is considerable difference between the Heh., the
Sam. Text, and the Sept. (which Josephus follows), with refer-
ence to the ages of the ten patriarchs, as will appear from the
following- table, in which the notices in the Sam. Text and Sept.
are given only when they differ from the Heb.

Hebrew.

Son's
Birth.

Remain-
ing.

Life.

Sam. Test.

Sept.

Adam

130

800

930

230

700

Seth

105

807

912

205

707

Enos

90

815

905

190

715

Cainan

70

840

910

170

740

Mahalaleel

65

830

895

165

730

Jared

162

800

962

62

785

847

Enoch

65

300

365

165

200

Methuselah

187

782

969

67

653

720

167

802

Lamech

182

595

777

53

600

653

188

565

753

Noah

500

950

1

In the case of Lamech, Josephus agree's with the Hebrew. In the other instances,
except that of Methuselah, it will be seen that in the Sept. the number of
years at the son's birth is systematically increased by 100, in every instance where
the father's age falls below 150 years in the Hebrew, and the number of remaining
years of life is diminished, so that the sum-totals remain throughout the same. Some
are of the opinion that the Sept. represents the numbers, as they stood originally ;
see Hai.es, Chronology, i.272-4. But if, according to the Sept., Methuselah was 167
years old at the birth of his son, he must have been (167 + 188 = ) 355 years old at
the birth of Noah, and, consequently, when the Flood took place, ' in the 600th
year of Noah's life,' G.vii.ll, he would have been only 955 years old, so that he
woidd have overlived the Flood 14 years — ' famosissima qusestio,' says Delitzch,
'for the Church Fathers.' There is, however, another Sept. reading, 1,87 years.

252. The great longevity of ancient days, beyond the reach
of authentic historv, is common to the traditions of all nations.

Dtod. Sic.i.26, Herod. iii.23, Plin. Hist. Nat.xiiAS, speak of persons who have
lived a thousand years. According to the Lamaic creed, the first man lived
60,000 years ; and the Indian traditions speak of four epochs, during which the
duration of human life sank, successively, from 400 to 300, 200, 100 years. . . .
There are ten Patriarchs reckoned before the Flood. So the Hindoos believed in
ten great saints, the offspring of Manu, and in ten different "personifications of
Vishnu ; the Egyptians knew ten mighty heroes, the Chaldeans ten kings before
the Flood, the Assyrians ten kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as many from

GEN.IV.1-Y.32. 167

Japhet to Aram ; and the book of Enoch enumerates ten periods, each comprising
seven generations, from Adam to the Messiah. Kalisch, Ge7i.p.l56,l(>0.

So Plato enumerates ten sons of Neptune, as the rulers of his imaginary Island
of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge.

253. Delitzch justly observes, _p.221, that the notion that
these great ages can be reduced to moderate dimensions, by-
supposing that a year meant a month, brings nonsense instead
of meaning into the story; for, in that case, Mahalaleel and
Enoch would have each had a son when only (65 months = )
51 years old. Besides which, the notices of Noah's age in the
account of the Deluge, vii.ll, viii.13, refer incontestably to
common years, as appears from the mention of second, seventh,
tenth, and first, months, vii.ll, viii.4,5,13,14.

254. As soon, however, as we come down in the Bible to the
account of really historical times, we see no more of these
extraordinary ages ; but the average extreme duration of human
life, — which is described as lying between 1000 and 700 years
from Adam to Noah, between 600 and 200 years from Noah
to Abraham, and between 200 and 100 years from Abraham to
Moses and Joshua, — sinks down at last to ' threescore-years-
and-ten,' Ps.xc.10, even as now.

255. Delitzch observes, p.223 : —

As the duration of life of the patriarchs appears to many incredibly long, so the
sum of the years from the Creation to the Flood, and from thence to Abraham,
■when compared with the Egyptian history appears to many too short. If Lepsius
assumes the year 3893 B.C., as the first of Menes, so that the first historical
dynasty fell within the first half of Adam's life, he must naturally regard the
numbers and genealogies in G.v as unhistorical. It is possible that already the
LXX were induced, through acquaintance with the chronological data of other
nations, to increase as much as possible the numbers of Genesis. . . Certainly
the difference between the reckoning of Manetho and the Bible is, and remains
under any circumstances, colossal enough ; but there is no reason to doubt of the
possibility of a reconciliation, at least after a time. . . We are justified for the
present in not believing in an extension of the old Egyptian sovereignty into the
time before the Flood ; although, should incontestable proof thereof be given, we
should not contend against it from a mere apologetic prepossession.

256. It is deserving of notice that, while we have statements
in the Pentateuch of the ages of all the principal persons men-

168 GEX.IV.l-V.3-2.

tioned, at the births of their eldest sons and at their deaths, we
have no such accounts of the ages of the Judges or Kings,
— (except Kehoboam, 2Chr.xii.13, but no mention of this is
made in the Book of Kings,)— before the time of Jehoshaphat,
1 K.xxii.4-2, — after which the ages of the Kings of Judah are
regularly given. Does not this seem to intimate that in
Jehoshaphat's reign more strict attention began to be paid to
recording these facts, as also that the exact chronological
details of the earlier times are not historical ?

257. V.3.

' And he (Adam) begat in his likeness after his image, and called his name Seth.

Knobel observes, -p.7 1 : —

This passage teaches —

(i) That the Elohist, also, assumed only one human pair, which is not distinctly
mentioned in i.26 ;

(ii) That Seth was [according to this -writer] an image of God; for the writer
first marks distinctly that man had been created after God's image, and then adds
that he begat in his likeness after his image, i.e. a being altogether like himself.

The Elohist, in fact, knows nothing of the account of the
Fall in Gr.iii, and, therefore, cannot mean to say, in the passage
before us, as some suppose, that Adam begat a son in his own
fallen image. That doctrine cannot be based on this passage
of Scripture, rightly interpreted according to the meaning of
its author.

258. G.v.24.

' And Enoch walked with Elohim, and he was not, for Elohim took him.'

Knobel here notes, _p.72 : —

With Enoch may be well compared the Phrygian King 'Awaniis or NaccoKifs,
who is said to have lived before the great Flood, and whose name was proverbial
for very ancient things, as well as for great calamities. According to Steph. Biz.
{'Xkoviov), it was predicted in the time of Annakus, (who was more than 300 years
old, and coxdd prophesy,) that after his death all should be destroyed, by reason of
which the Phrygians were very sorrowful, and, according to Zenob. Parana, iv.10,
who names older historians as his authorities, as well as Suidas (NawaKo's),
Nannakus saw the coming Flood beforehand, assembled all into the Temple, and
offered mournful intercessions. The connection of this legend with the Hebrew

GEN.IV.1-V.32. 169

cannot be doubted, especially as Enoch also, in the Jewish book of that name
attributed to him, appears as the prophetical announcer of the divine judgment, and
as intercessor. It is impossible, however, to conjecture its true ground of origi-
nation. The fables of the Jews and Arabs, according to which he discovered the
art of writing and bookmaking, arithmetic, and astronomy, must probably have
reference to his name (Enoch =) Khanoch, as derived from "n^rii Khanach,
'instruct, teach, initiate,' [see (Part 111.702) on Jehoshaphafs name,] and to the
astronomically significant number of his years, 365, precisely the same as the
number of days in the year.

N.B. For some account of the apocryphal ' Book of Enoch,' see the Appendix.

170

CHAPTER XVI.

GEX.VI.1-VI.4.

259. G.vi.1,2.

' And it came to pass that man began to multiply upon the face of the ground,
and daughters were born to them. And the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of
man that they were goodly : and they took to them wives of all whom they chose.'

By 'sons of God' the Scripture (44) invariably means
'angels,' Job i.6,ii.l,5xxviii.7, Ps.xxis.l,lxxxix.7: and, accor-
dingly, the Book of Enoch, gives a very full account of the
doings of these angels, who 'sinned' and 'left their first estate,'
and their punishment, as described in this book (App.9.xvi), is
distinctly referred to in 2Pet.ii.4, Jude 6. In the face of these
facts, it is not easy to suppose, as some have suggested, that
the expression here means only ' Sethites,' who are called ' sons
of Elohim ' on account of their piety, by which they were
distinguished from the Cainites, who are described, generally,
as 'man,'— or that it means 'rulers, chiefs, &c.' in opposition to
the people of lower rank, &c. On either of these suppositions,
indeed, it is difficult to see how ' giants ' could have been
conceived to have sprung from the union.

260. But this notion of the ' sons of God,' descending to the

beautiful 'daughters of men,' appears to have been borrowed

from foreign and heathen sources.

The sons of God cannot here be identical with the angels, or with the sons of
God mentioned in other parts of Scripture : they are not of Hebrew, but of general
Eastern, origin. And these notions were, gradually, more and more amplified ;
they were enlarged from other heathen sources, or from the fictions of imagination.
The book of Enoch shows that the chief of these sons of Heaven, Samyaza, at first
opposed their wicked design. But they pledged themselves by awful oaths and

GEN.YI.1-VI.4. 171

imprecations to execute it. They descended, two hundred in number, to Mount
Hermon ; they chose -wires, taught them sorcery and conjuration, introduced
ornaments of vanity and luxury, bracelets and trinkets, paints and costly stuffs.
Giants, three thousand cubits high, were the offspring of these alliances. They
first consumed all the produce of the earth ; then they devoured all the animals,
and afterwards began to turn against the men. The cries of the earth rose up to
heaven. The angels, Michael and Gabriel, Surgan and Urgan, brought the
complaint before the throne of God. He precipitated Azazel, the most wicked of
the ' sons of God,' into a dark cavern, where he lies in fetters, and covered with
rough pointed stones, in order to be thrown into the burning pool on the great day
of judgment. He inspired the progeny of these unnatural unions with fierce rage ;
and the consequence was that they destroyed each other in mutual murder, after
which they were tied to subterranean hills, to remain therefor seventy generations,
and then to be for ever hurled into the fiery abyss. But he assured the son of
Lamech, that an approaching deluge would spare him and his children, to become
Che ancestors of Letter generations. Kautsch, Gen.jy.l7l.

261. G.vi.3.

' And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not preside in man forever.'

Delitzch notes on this passage, £>.236 : —

Here is not meant the Holy Spirit with its judging, punishing, power, but, with
reference to ii.7, the created, human, spirit, which on account of its Divine origin
and God-related nature, or, perhaps, only as the Divine gift, is called by God 'My
spirit.' This rules (presides) in man, inasmuch as it animates and governs the
bodily part of man.

The expression ' for ever ' is used apparently to denote merely
a long time, as in the following instances : —

lS.i.22, 'I will bring him, that he may appear before Jehovah, and there abide
for ever : '

lS.xx.15,"' But thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever.'

262. G.vi.3.

' And his days sliall be a hundred and twenty years.'
Tuch explains these words as follows, jjAdI : —

This shall henceforward be the limit of human life, with reference to the much
greater age of the Patriarchs, G.v. The objection has been made that, even after
the Flood, the Patriarchs still overstepped this limit of life, and so these words have
been explained to mean, ' I will still give them a respite of 120 years, within which
they may repent.' But here it is overlooked that the continually decreasing term
of life at length reaches that limit, [Aaron, 123 years, N.xxxiii.39, — Moses, 120,
D.xxxiv.7, — Joshua, 110, Jo.xxiv.29,] and so the divine determination takes effect.
H the author had meant to express this thought, he would infallibly have made

172 GEX.VI.1-VI.4.

the time to the Flood extend to 120 years, which the data in T.32,vii.6, make
impossible.

The data, to which Tuch refers, show that Noah was 500 years

old before the announcement in vi.3 was made, and 600 years

old when the Flood began, so that only 100 years could have

intervened.

263. Gr.vi.4.

' The giants were in the earth in those days.'

The Targ. Jon. paraphrases here: —

Schamchazai (i.e. Samyaza, of the book of Enoch) and Uzziel, who fell from heaven,
were on the earth in those days.

As already observed (250) in the case of the descendants of
Cain, the writer, — who may be endeavouring to account for the
existence of the supposed giant races of the Mosaic times,
'great, many, and tall,' the Emims, Anakims, Zamzummims,
&c, which, according to the old legends, reported by the
Deuteronomist, ii.10,11,20, once lived in that 'land of giants,'
on both sides of the Jordan, — seems to have lost sight of the
fact, that all these gigantic beings, the product of this mixture
of the 'sons of Elohim ' with the ' daughters of man,' must have
been swept away by the Deluge.

264. It may be that the notion of the existence of gigantic
men in the primitive times, which is found among so many na-
tions, has really arisen from the discoveries of huge bones, the
remains of extinct animals, which have been ignorantly supposed
to be human bones, and has been confirmed, perhaps, by the
gigantic statues and vast architectural structures of Egypt,
Assyria, the Peloponnese, &c, among which may be reckoned
also the massive ruins of the Transjordanic lands (III. 602).
Or it may have expressed originally the sense of man, that
he was surrounded by gigantic powers in nature, to which he
gave a human form, as the Arabs do to their 'jins' at this day.

265. Mr. Farrar writes, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, i.^.688 ; —

The general belief (until very recent times) in the existence of fabulously

e

GEN.VI.1-YI.22. 173

enormous men, arose from fancied giant-graves, (see De la Y axle's Travels in
Persia, ii.89,) and above all from the discovery of huge bones, which were taken for
those of men, in days when comparative anatomy was unknown. Even the ancient
Jews were thus misled, Joseph, v.2.3, — [ ' There were till then left the race of giant*,
who had bodies so large and countenances so entirely different from other men, that
they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these
men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.']
Augustine appeals triumphantly to this argument, and mentions a molar tooth
which he had seen in Utica a hundred times larger than ordinary teeth {de Civ. Dei,
xv.9). No doubt, it once belonged to an elephant. Vives, in his commentary on
the place, mentions a tooth as big as a fist, which was shown at St. Christopher's.
In fact, this source of delusion has only very recently been dispelled. Most bones,
which have been exhibited, have turned out to belong to whales or elephants, as was
the case with the vertebra of a supposed giant, examined by Sir Hans Sloane in
Oxfordshire.

266. In Greek, however, the word gigas, ' giant ' = gegenes,
earth-born,' is strictly synonymous with autochthon, * indi-
genous.' The Athenians, as we know, carried down the claim
of being autochthones to a late day. Probably, it was for a long
time a mere name for men as ' earth-born,' until the term lost
its original force, like the names Ajjollon, Perseus, Endymion,
Hehatos, — all names of the Sun. People then began to think
of the old gegeneis or gigantes as distinct from themselves :
but — omne ignotum jpro magnifcco ; and so, as time went on,
they invested them, more and more, with the attribute of size.
Virgil undoubtedly believed, not only in a diminution of size
from primeval times, but that this diminution would continue.
When he speaks of the slaughter on the plain of Pharsalia,
he pictures the ploughman as going over the ground centuries
afterwards, and says, Georg.iA97 : —

Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepideris,

And digging up the graves at the huge bones
Will marvel.

That, however, the stature of the human race was really the
same, generally, in those days as now, is shown by the remains
discovered in ancient tombs and in the pyramids.

174 GEN.VI.1-VI.22.

267. Kalisch notes, Gen.p.\7l : —

This is the story of the Titans storming heaven ; it is a tradition which recurs,
in many modified forms, among most of the ancient nations. The giants are, in
the nrythology of the Hindoos, the enemies of the gods, who pollute the holiest
sacrifices ; . . . they belong to the highest order of the beings of darkness ; their
number is incalculable ... In the mythology of the Chinese, the giants are
the originators of crime and rebellion, who long waged a successful war against
the virtuous kings. And, iu the northern and western legends, they are
enormous beings, with the power, and sometimes the disposition, of doing mischief.
. . . Men of such extraordinary size seem never to have lived. The human race
has remained essentially the same iu its physical proportions ever since the
historical time. The large bones, -which have occasionally been found, are the
remains of huge antedduvian [old-world] animals, not of human beings. And the
men, who have been mentioned in history for their size, as being eight or nine
feet high, are as rare exceptions as the men ' with six fingers on every hand, and
with six toes on every foot,' 2S.xxi.20, and are no proof of a time when whole races
of such men existed.

268. Knobel also writes, Gen.p.84 : —

With this narrative the writer wishes to describe the origin of the giant races of
the primitive time. The Hebrew legendary lore names a number of peoples west
and east of Jordan, which appeared as aboriginal inhabitants, and are supposed
to have been distinguished through gigantic size, prodigious might, great and
strong towns, terrible fierceness, &c, N.xiii.33,D.ii.lO,11.21,ix,1.2. So the Arabic
legends mention such peoples as aborigines of Arabia, e.g. the Adites, Tliemudites,
Amalekites, ' the first of nations; X.xxiv.20, and ascribes to them gigantic size,
unbelief, ferocity, massive buildings, &c. The Greeks and Romans believed
that men generally in the primeval time had been much larger and stronger, Plin.
H.X.vii.l6,GELL.iii.lO,ll, and tell many stories about the digging-up of human
bones, which had a superhuman size, e.g. 7 ells long, Her.1.6S, SoLix.i.84r,85, of 10
or 11 ells, or even longer, PAUs.i.35,5,6,viii.29.3.32.4. A parallel to those, here
said to be begotten by the 'sons of God.' may be found, in respect of their heroic
deeds, in the heroes of the Greeks, which, according to the myths, sprang for the
most part from the intermixture of gods, or goddesses, and human beings. *So the
writer derives those renowned giant-races, in whose generation superhuman
energies appeared to have cooperated, from an intercourse of angels and the
' daughters of man ' ; he does this, however, only with the first generation. [The
'mighty men of old, the men of a name,' vi.4. were, in Knobel's view, begotten
by the offspring of this primary intermixture.] Their origin lie carries back, like
that of the Cainites, to a time beyond the Flood. He assigns them to the Sethites,
and annexes their origin accordingly to the Sethite genealogy, G.v, thereby indica-
ting at the same time how corruption had entered among the Sethites also, v.o is not
in close connection with v.l-4 ; but a fresh paragraph begins, and, perhaps, both

GEN.VI.1-YI.22. 175

Sethites and Cainites are included in v.o-8 : among the former arose overbearing
pride and giant-races committing acts of violence, — among the latter, cruelty, blood-
thirstiness, and murder, G.iv.

269. Kenrick observes, Primeval History, p.71-74 : —

The mythology of several ancient nations represents the dominion of the gods
as not having been established -without struggles with powerful enemies, by whom
they even suffered partial and temporary defeat. The general idea, which such
myths embody, is derived partly from the conflicting forces which are still active in
nature, and appear to have possessed even greater energy in primeval times,
partly from the mixture of evil with good, which pervades nature and human life.
In the Greek mythology, in which a moral element seldom appears, the conflict of
the gods with the Titans denotes merely the slow and reluctant submission of the
vast and turbulent powers of nature to those laws, by which the actual system is
preserved in harmony and order. The giants, who endeavoured to storm heaven,
and were buried in the Phlegrsean fields or under Mount Etna, represent the
violent disturbance which volcanic agency introduces. The Egyptian Typhon
combines physical and moral evil : so does the Ahriman of the Zoroastrian
mythology. The Hindoos have no such distinct and single personification of the
principle of evil : but their preserving god, Vishnu, becomes incarnate at
intervals, when either moral or physical evil is likely to predominate. These
fictions show, not only that man has been universally conscious of the mixed
influences to which he is subject, but also of the preponderance of the good. The
Titans have been cast down and imprisoned in Tartarus. Typhosus turns under the
weight of Etna, but cannot throw it off. Typhon has been vanquished by Horus,
and buried in the Serbonian bog. Ahriman still continues the contest with
Ormuzd : but the power of the evil principle has been already limited, and will be
ultimately overthrown.

The fiction of a race of giants, engaged in warfare with the gods, is so remote
from all historical probability, that its true nature is at once seen. But it may be
thought that there is something of an historical foundation for the very prevalent
belief that a race, of stature, strength, and longevity far surpassing that of later
degenerate days, has once occupied the earth, and even left on it the traces of
mighty works. "We by no means deny the possibility that such a race may have
existed ; but . . . the direct evidence will be found to be fallacious. . . . The sup-
posed remains of gigantic human bones, which afford to poptdar credulity an
argument of their former existence, when examined, prove to be those of cetaceous
animals or elephants. The traditions, which ascribe great works to them, are only
proofs how completely the remembrance of their real origin has been lost.
Looking upward from the base of the Great Pyramid, we might suppose it the
work of giants : but it is entered by passages, admitting with difficulty a man
of the present size, and we find in the centre a sarcophagus about six feet long.
The strength and stature of the men of past ages have been exaggerated, from the
same causes as their happiness and their virtu*-.

176

CHAPTER XVII.

GEN.VI.5-V1.22.

270. Cr.vi.16.

' A light shalt thou make for the Ark, and unto a cubit shalt thou finish it
upward.'

If we were obliged to regard this story of the Deluge as his-
torically true, the question, of course, would arise, how the
animals in the three stories, or, if one was used for the food,
in tivo of them, could have had the necessary supplies of air
and light, if there was only one window, and that, apparently,
only a cubit, = 22 inches, high.

271. Delitzch notes, £>.250 : —

According to Baumgarten's idea, this opening, a cubit wide, was carried along
the whole upper length of the Ark, and, what must also be conceived in addition
to this, was overarched, — [i.e. was supplied with some kind of jpent-hov.se, to keep
the floods of rain from beating in, when the window was opened to admit air.~\
Was it also carried along both sides of the ship ? [But, as there were three
stories, even thus a great many of the creatures would have had no light or air, —
not to lay stress on the fact that, in viii.6, Noah is spoken of as 'opening the
window which he had made,' which seems plainly to imply that this window was
small enough to be so opened, and was specially intended for the use of Noah
himself and his family.] On the other hand, most commentators understand a
window a cubit each way, — according to Tuch, for giving light to Noah's chamber,
while the animals had to be in darkness. So Luther, after the Vulgate. This
explanation is so far modified by the Syriac, that the Heb. word for window, *\{y\{
tsohar, is taken collectively [=a row of windows] ; but this is not probable, not so
much because in viii.6 mention is made of only one ' window,' }i?n khallon, as
because then the number of the windows would have been given. [Still the
difficulty of having light and air in the different stories remains.] . . . Are we to
think of this window, or row of windows, as transparent"? The name "lftVi tsohar,
'light.' is favourable to this supposition: also from viii.7,9, it seems that we must

GEN.VI.5-VI.22. 177

imagine a easement, so that the birds flew to and fro before a transparent window,
[of glass or of horn ?] without being able to get in, until Noah opened the window.

272. G.vi.17.

' I am bringing the Deluge of waters upon the earth.'

It is plain from the whole description of the Deluge, and espe-
cially from the mention of Eden, Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria,
Euphrates, and the other three rivers, in Gr.ii, as well as the
' land of Nod ' in iv.16, that the face of the earth was supposed
by the writer to have been, generally, the same before and after
the Deluge ; so that there is no room for the theory, which some
have advanced, of the land and sea having changed places at the
time of the Deluge, or of the general geographical disposition
of the earth having been different from what it is now. We do
not refer, as evidence of this, to the 'mountains of Ararat,''
mentioned in viii.4, since it might be said that these may have
first made their appearance, and received their appellation, after
the Deluge.

*o"

273. G.vi.19.

' Of every living thing out of all flesh.'

These words are as general and comprehensive as possible;
and evidently the * fowls ' and i creeping-things ' of v.20 must be
understood to include not only birds and reptiles, but creeping
and flying things of all kinds, worms, insects, &c. Otherwise,
as has been observed already (151), no provision is made at
the Creation for the existence of these things, or at the Deluge,
for the continuance of them ; and a new and very extensive
creation would have been required after the Flood, of which
the Scripture tells us nothing. And, indeed, as we have seen,
(151), different kinds of locusts are expressly named among the
' fowls,' and the lizard and snail among the ' creeping things,'
L.xi.22,30.

274. How then could these snails, and worms, and snakes,
and lizards, of all kinds, have found their way to the Ark,

VOL. II. n

178 GEX.YI.5-IV.22.

across vast countries, mountains, seas, and rivers, from the

distant localities in which they lived ? or how could they have

returned to them ? Every great continent has at this time its

own peculiar set of beasts and birds ; and these are known to

have occupied the circles around these centres in ages long

before that ascribed to the Deluge.

When America -was first discovered, its indigenous quadrupeds were all dissimilar
from those previously known in the Old "World. The elephant, rhinoceros,
hippopotamus, camelopard, camel, dromedary, buffalo, horse, ass, lion, tiger, apes,
and baboons, and a number of other mammalia, were nowhere to be met with on
the new continent ; while, on the old, the American species of the same great class
were nowhere to be seen, such as the tapir, lama, peccary, jaguar, cougar, agouti,
paca, coati, and sloth. Bvffox, in Sir Charles L yell's Principles of Gcol. iii. 6.

And most of these can live only in a certain zone of latitude,
and perish, if suddenly transferred to an uncongenial climate.

Could, then, the sloth and armadillo, from the tropical regions
of South America, have marched up to the Icy North, and so
across the Behring's Straits, and at length, after many years of
painful wandering over field and flood, have been received into
the Ark? and did they again, after the Deluge, travel back
once more in like manner to their present abodes?

275. What again shall be said of the wingless bird (apteryx)
of New Zealand, or the ornithorhynchus, wombat, and kangaroo,
of Australia, which are found nowhere else upon the globe?
Many insects have no wings : many live but a few days, or even
a few hours, after they have obtained their wings. How, then,
could these have reached the Ark before the Flood ? Or how,
after it, could they have made their way to the distant regions
of the earth, where they are now found, having crossed vast
continents and oceans to do so ?

*

276. I shall support this part of my argument by reference
to the authority of Prof. Owe>", who writes as follows, Brit.
Fossd Mamm.p.xbr : —

Not a relic of an elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, bison, or hysena, has yet
been detected in the caves or the more recent tertiary deposits of South America.

GEN.VI.5-VI.22. 179

On the contrary, most of the fossil mammalia from those formations are as distinct
from the Europseo-Asiatic forms, as they are closely allied to the peculiarly South-
American existing genera of mammalia. . . If even the first types of the primary
groups of the class mammalia radiated from a common centre, it must have been at
a period incalculably remote ; and there is small hope of our being able to determine
its site, by reason of the enormous alternations of land and sea, that have taken
place since the class was first introduced into our planet. We find, however, that
from the period, when the great masses of dry land assumed the general form and
position that they now present, the same peculiar forms of mammaLia characterised
their respective faunae. . . . According to the hypothesis, that all existing land-
animals radiated from a common Asiatic centre within the historical period, we
must be prepared to believe that the nocturnal Apteryx, which is organised
neither for flying nor swimming, migrated across wide seas, and found its sole
resting-place in the island of New Zealand, where alone the remains of similar
wingless birds have been found fossil, — that the wombats, dasyures, and kangaroos
travelled as exclusively to Australia, where only have been found the remains of
extinct and gigantic species of the same genera or families of marsupialia. — and
that the modern sloths, armadillos, and ant-eaters, chose the route to South
America, where only, and in the warmer parts of North America, are to be found the
fossil remains of extinct species of those very peculiar edentate genera.

277. And again, in his Address at Ipswich, in Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, Feb. 1850, Prof. Owen says: —

Had all the terrestrial animals, that now exist, diverged from one common centre
within the limited period of a few thousand years, it might have been expected that
the remoteness of their actual localities from such ideal centre woidd bear a certain
ratio with their respective powers of locomotion. With regard to the class of Birds,
one might have expected to find that those which were deprived of the power of flight,
and were adapted to subsist on the vegetation of a warm or temperate latitude, would
still be met with more or less associated together, and least distant from the original
centre of dispersion, situated in such a latitude. But what is the fact ? The species of
no one order of birds are more widely dispersed over the earth than those of the wing-
less or struthious kind. Assuming that the original centre has been somewhere in the
south-western mountain range of Asia, there is but one of the species of flightless
birds whose habitat can be reconciled with the hypothesis. By the neck of land still
uniting Asia with Africa, the progeny of the primary pair, created or liberated at the
hypothetical centre, might have travelled to the latter continent, and there have pro-
pagated and dispersed themselves southward to the Cape of Good Hope. It is
remarkable, however, that the Ostrich should not have migrated eastward over the
vast plains or steppes which extend along the warmer temperate zone of Asia, or
have readied the southern tropical regions ; it is in fact scarcely known in the
Asiatic continent, being restricted to the Arabian Deserts, and being rare even in
those parts which are most contiguous to what we may call its proper continent —
Africa.

N 2

180 GEN.VI.5-VI.22.

If we next consider the locality of the Cassowary, we find great difficulty
in conceiving how such a bird could have migrated to the islands of Java, the
Moluccas, or New Guinea, from the continent of Asia. The Cassowary is not
web-footed like the swimming birds ; for wings it has only a few short and strong
quills. How could it have overcome the obstacles, which some hundreds of miles
of ocean woidd present to its passage from the continent of Asia to those islands ;
and furthermore, how is it that no individuals have remained in the warm tropical
southern border of Asia, where the vegetable sustenance of the Cassowary seems as
abundantly developed, as in the islands to which this wingless bird is now
exclusively confined?

If the difficulty ab'eady be felt to be great in regard to the insular position of
the Cassowary, it is still greater wheii we come to apply the hypothesis of dispersion
from a single centre to the Dodo of the island of Mauritius, or the Solitaire of
the island of Rodriguez. How, again, could the Emeu have overcome the
natural obstacles to the migration of a wingless terrestrial bird from Asia to
Australia ? and why should not the great continent of Asia have offered in
its fertile plains a locality suited to its existence, if it ever at any period had
existed on that continent ? A bird of the nature of the Emeu was hardly less
likely to have escaped the notice of naturalist travellers than the Ostrich itself;
but, save in the Arabian Deserts, the Ostrich has not been found in any part of
Asia, and no other species of wingless bird has ever been met with on that con-
tinent : the evidence in regard to such large and conspicuous birds is conclusive
as to that fact.

In order that the Rhea, or three-toed Ostrich, should reach South America,
by travelling along that element on which alone it is organised and adapted
to make progress, it must, on the hypothesis of dispersion from a single Asiatic
centre, have travelled northward into the inhospitable wilds of Siberia : it must
have braved and overcome the severer regions of the arctic zone : it must have
maintained its life, with strength adequate to the extraordinary power of walking
and running over more than a thousand miles of land or frozen ocean, utterly devoid
of the vegetables that now constitute its food, before it could gain the northern
division of America, to the southern division of which it is at present, and seems
ever to have been, confined. The migration in this case could not have been
gradual, and accomplished by successive generations. No individual of the large
vegetable-eating wingless bird, that now subsists in South America, could have
maintained its existence, much less hatched its eggs, in arctic latitudes, where the
food of the species is wholly absent. If we are still to apply the current hypothesis
to this problem in Natural History, we must suppose that the pair or pairs of the
Rhea that started from the highest temperate zone in Asia capable of sustaining
their life, must have also been the same individuals, which began to propagate their
kind, when they had reached the corresponding temperate latitude of America.
But no individuals of the Rhea have remained in the prairies or in any part of North
America; they are limited to the middle and southern division of the South
American continent.

GEN.VI.5-VI.22. 181

And now, finally, consider the abode of the little Apteryx at the Antipodes, in
the comparatively small insulated patch of dry land formed by New Zealand. Let
us call to mind its very restricted means of migration, — the wings reduced to the
minutest rudiments, the feet webless like the common fowl's, its power of swimming
as feeble. How could it ever have traversed six hundred miles of sea, that separate
it from the nearest land intervening between New Zealand and Asia ? How pass
from the southern extremity of that continent to the nearest island of the Indian
Archipelago, and so from member to member of that group to Australia, — and yet
leave no trace behind of such migration, by the arrest of any descendants of the
migratory generations in Asia itself, or in any island between Asia and New Zealand?

278. Again, it is obvious that the fish also in the rivers and
fresh-water lakes must almost all have died, as soon as the salt-
water of the sea broke in, and rendered them brackish. And,
as the flood still increased, and the waters of the sea began
to lose their saltness, the fish in the sea and the shellfish on
the shore must also have perished.

So, too, a Flood such as this must have destroyed, not only
all animal life, but all vegetation also, from off the face of the
earth. Of the innumerable species of known plants, very few
could have survived submersion for a whole year ; the greater
part of them must have certainly perished.

Yet nothing is said in vii.21,23, about the destruction of either
fish or plants : nor are we told of any new creation to supply
the loss of these. On the contrary, an olive leaf is brought
plucked apparently fresh and green from a tree, which had been
eight or nine months under water, viii.ll.

279. The difficulty, that so long an immersion in deep water

would kill the olive, had, no doubt, never occurred to the

writer, who may have observed that trees survived ordinary

partial floods, and inferred that they would just as well be able

to sustain the deluge, to which his imagination subjected them.

Of the enormous 'pressure* that would be caused by such a

* The pressure of a column of water, 1 7,000 feet high, woidd be 474 tons upon each
square foot of surface. This, however, would be the pressure of such a Deluge, as
that here described, at the ordinary sea-level; and olives would grow far above this.
Still, even at the level of the snow-line of Ararat, the column of water would be
3,000 feet high, and its pressure 83 tons on every square foot of surface.

182 GES.Yl.5-YI.-22.

superincumbent mass of water, he was, we may be sure, en-
tirely ignorant. And, supposing that vegetable tissues may
have power to adapt themselves rapidly even to such a pro-
digious increase of pressure, yet what would be the state of an
olive-tree, after having been buried for months in water, some
thousands of feet deep, without its natural supplies of air and
light?

280. G-.vi.19.

' Tv:o out of all shalt thou bring into the Ark, to keep-alive with thee : male and
female shall they be.'

But there are many kinds of animals, which do not 'pair, but
one male consorts with many females, as in a herd of buffaloes,
or one female with many males, as in a hive of bees. Hence,
while some of the animals in the Ark would he in the natural
state, which was most proper for them, the condition of others
would be most unnatural, if they were admitted two by two
into the Ark. As Xott writes, Types of Mankind, p.73 : —

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Almighty -would hare created [or preserved
in the Ark] one pair of locusts, of bees, of wild pigeons, of herrings, of buffaloes,
as the only starting-point of these almost ubiquitous species ? The instincts and
habits of animals differ widely. Some are solitary, except at certain seasons ; some
go in pairs, — others in herds or shoals. The idea of a pair of bees, locusts,
herrings, buffaloes, is as contrary to the nature and habits of these creatures, as it
is repugnant to the nature of the oaks, pines, birches, &c. to grow singly, and to
form forests in their isolation. In some species, males — in others, females — pre-
dominate, and in many it would be easy to show that, if the present order of things
were reversed, the species coidd not be preserved, — in the case of bees, for example.
.... It is natural to have one female for a whole hive, to whom many males
are devoted, besides a number of drones.

281. G-.vi.21.

' And thou, take to thee out of all food which is eaten, and thou shalt gather it
unto thee, and it shall be to thee and to them for food.'

We have noticed already (48.iii) that, in the Elohistic narra-
tive, the creatures are to 'come' to Noah of their own accord, —
impelled we may suppose, by a Divine impulse, or by a fore-
boding sense of the great calamity which was impending, and he

GEN.VI.5-VI.22. 183

has only to 'bring them into the Ark,' vi.19; whereas, in the
Jehovistic, he is to ( take them to him,' vii.2, and this seems to
imply the writer's notion that he was to go out and gather them.
But, however this may be, he is here commanded to e take to
him ' food, for himself and all the creatures ; and this, of course,
implies that he or his must go out in person into all lands, and
gather these supplies of food, and must know also the different
kinds of food on which the different animals subsist.

282. But what provision could he have made for the carni-
vorous animals, — for the lions, tigers, leopards and hyaenas, the
eagles, vultures, kites and hawks, — and that for more than
twelve months' consumption ? How could he have supplied the
otters with their fish, the chameleons with their flies, the
woodpeckers with their grubs, the night-hawks with their
moths? How could the snipes and woodcocks, that feed on
worms and insects, in the bottoms of sedgy brooks, or the
humming-birds that suck the honey of the flowers, have lived
for a whole year in the Ark ? And what would happen, when
they were all let out of the Ark, and the predaceous animals
turned, we must suppose, to seek at once their usual food ? The
loss of one single animal out of a pair would be the destruction
of a whole species.

283. It is hardly necessary to estimate the size of the Ark, so
as to compare it with that required for the reception of so many
thousands of animals of all sizes, from the elephant and hippo-
potamus down to the shrewmouse and the humming-bird, besides
half a million species of insects, and innumerable snails, together
with their food for more than a year, — or to consider how Noah
and his three sons could have brought together the materials for
building this huge vessel, seven times as large as the Great
Britain steam-ship,* and have built it, either with their own hands,
or with the help of hired labourers, remembering with what

* Ark, 550 ft. x 93 ft. x 55 ft., Great Britain, 289 ft. x 41 ft. x 33 ft.

184 GEN.VI.5-VI.22.

expenditure of labour such a ' Great Eastern ' must have been
constructed, — or to form conjectures as to the way in which,
day by day, during this whole year, supplies of food must have
been taken round, morning and evening, by the eight human
inmates, to these tens of thousands of living creatures, shut up
(apparently) without light or air, who must have needed also to
be furnished daily with water and fresh litter, their cribs being-
cleansed, and impurities removed, — though hoiv, and whither,
they could have been removed, are questions equally perplexing.
Yet, if this ancient story is still to be put forward, and the
people are to be required to believe that it is historically true,
— as if this were necessary to salvation, — as if ' all our hopes
for eternity,' ' all our nearest and dearest consolations,' de-
pended upon our believing this, — such questions as these must
be asked, till the fact is recognised that they cannot be an-
swered.

In the next chapter we shall consider some of the arguments,
with which the defenders of the traditionary view endeavour to
maintain their position.

185

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS.

284. Dean \Vilkiiss, F.R.S., disposes of some of the scientific
difficulties which are raised by the Scripture story of the Deluge,
as follows, Essay towards a real Character and a philosophical
Language, p.\63-6: —

'Tis agreed upon as most probable that the lower story [of the Ark] was assigned
to contain all the species of beasts, the middle story for their food, and the upper
story in one part of it for the birds and their food, and the other part for Noah,

his family and utensils As for the Morse, Seal, Turtle or Sea Tortoise,

Crocodile, &c, these are usually described to be such kind of animals as can
abide in the water ; and therefore I have not taken them into the Ark, though, if
that were necessary, there would be room enough for them, as will shortly appear.
The serpentine kind, Snake, Viper, Slowworm, Lizard, Frog, Toad, might have suffi-
cient space for their reception and for their nourishment in the drain or sink of the
Ark (!), which was probably three or four foot under the floor for the standings of
the beasts. As for those lesser beasts, Eat, Mouse, Mole, as likewise for the
several species of Insects, there can be no reason to question but that these may
find sufficient room in several parts of the Ark, without having any particular
stalls appointed for them.

The carnivorous animals upon a fair calculation are supposed equivalent, as to
the bulk of their bodies and their food, unto twenty-seven Wolves: but, for greater
certainty, let them be supposed equal to thirty Wolves ; and let it be further
supposed that six Wolves will every day devour a whole Sheep. According to this
computation, five Sheep must be allotted to be devoured for food each day of the
year, which amounts in the whole to 1,825. Upon these suppositions, there must
be convenient room in the lower story of the Ark to contain the fore-mentioned
sorts of beasts, which were to be preserved for the propagation of their kinds,
besides 1,825 Sheep, which were to be taken in as food for the rapacious beasts.
And, though there might seem no just ground of exception, if these beasts should
be stowed close together, as is now usual in ships, when they are to be transported
for a long voyage, yet / shall not take any such advantage, but afford them such
fair stalls or cabins, as may be abundantly sufficient for them in any kind of

186 THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TKADITIONAEY WKITEES.

posture, either standing, or lying, or turning themselves, — as likewise to receive all
the dung that should proceed from them for a whole year, [so as (we may suppose)
to save Noah and his family from the necessity of cleansing daily the stalls. Alas !
for the boa-constrictors and others of the serpentine kind, ' snakes, vipers, slow-
worms, lizards, frogs, toads,' condemned to live in the ' drain or sink ' containing
the whole year's drainage !]

285. The learned Dean then estimates that 1 Beeve = 7 Sheep,
and that the total number of hay-eating animals = 92 Beeves, —
'but,' he says, ' to prevent all kind of cavil,' say 100 Beeves = 700
Sheep, — and those eating ' roots, fruits, and insects J = 21 Sheep ;
the carnivorous animals are reckoned, as we have seen, 'for greater
certainty,' as = 30 Wolves = 30 Sheep ; so that the room required
for all the animals preserved would be equivalent to 751 Sheep,
while more than twice as much room would be required for the
1,825 Sheep alone, to be taken in merely as food for the car-
nivorous animals. And the food for these Sheep again would
require nearly twice as much room as the food of the herbivorous
animals ; or rather, as the Dean observes, only half this extra
quantity of food will be required, as Noah and his sons will be
killing five Sheep daily, cutting them up, and distributing the
pieces to the representatives of the ' thirty Wolves.'

286. He has forgotten, however, to provide 'insects' for the
swallows and ant-eaters. And Hugh Miller, Test, of the Rocks,
^.326, reckons that there are 1,658 known species of mammalia,
6,266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects, — which
numbers, of course, are being daily increased with the advance
of geographical science. But then, quite in the spirit of Dean
Graves, and other ' reconcilers,' ancient and modern, Dean
Wilkins concludes with the usual stereotyped form of asser-
tion, p. 168 : —

From what hath been said it may appear that tin: measwre and capacity of the
ArJc, which some atheistical, irreligious, men make use of, as an argument against
[the historical credibility of portions of] the Scriptures, ought rather to he esteemed
a most rational confirmation of the truth and divine authority of it.

287. The following are the views of Willet, Hexap. in Gen.
p.SO :—

THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS. 187

(i) There were neither four rooms, or regions, in the Ark, as Josephus supposeth ;

(ii) Nor yet five, as Obigen thinketh, the first for the clung of the cattle, the
second for their food, the third for the cruel and savage beasts, the fourth for the
tame and gentle, the fifth for man ;

(iii) Neither were there, beside the three regions in the Ark, certain cabins
without, in the side of the Ark, for the beasts called amphibia, that live both in the
waters, and upon the earth, as the crocodile, sea-calf, and such like, as Hugo
thinketh ; for all the beasts came into the Ark, which were preserved ;

(iv) Neither, beside the three partitions in the Ark, was there a bottom beside to
receive the filth of the Ark, as Pererius, for conveyances might be made otherwise
in the side of the Ark for that use, and it woidd have been a great annoyance to
have kept the dung of the cattle one whole year in the Ark.

All these opinions are repugnant to the the text, which presenteth but three ranks,
the lower, second, and third.

288. Concerning the distinctive use of these chambers, he

writes: —

(i) Some make the lowest for the dung, the next for the food, the third for the
cattle ;

(ii) Some, the first for the beasts, the second room for their food, which might
be put down into their cabins with ease ;

(iii) Some will not have the cruel and tame beasts together, but make two several
regions for them ;

(iv) Some do place men and beasts together in the upper and third room ,dividing
it into three parts, having both the ends for the beasts, the middle for the men ;

(v) Some do place the beasts together in the lowest, — which they make also the
drain of the ship, — their food in the middle, and men together with the fowls in the
uppermost ;

(vi) It is most likely that the food and provender was in the lowest room, and the
beasts in the middle, because of the fresh and more open air, as also for the better
conveying of their dung by the sides of the Ark into the water . . . Otherwise, if
the cattle ware in the lowest room, we must be forced, contrary to the text, to make
a fourth place in the bottom, to he as the sink and drain of the Ark . . . Neither
was the door five cubits from the bottom, as Pereeius: but it was placed lowest of
all, for the more easy entrance of the beasts, which, being entered, might ascend by
stairs and other passages to their cabins.

289. If it be said that the opinions of Willet, A.d. 1605, and
Dean Welkins, F.R.S., a.d. 1668, are now somewhat antiquated,
yet the same views — the same in substance, though varying in
details — have been maintained within the last few years, and are
still maintained, by dignified clergy of the Church of England,
as e.g. by the Rev. Sir (f. ULacwibsgob, Bart., ' Keetor of Swallow,

188 THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS.

and Rural Dean, in his Notes on Genesis, designed principally

for the Use of Students in Divinity, 1853, who writes thus,

p.\55 : —

From this it follows that no genus, at least, — if not no species, — u-as lost in the
Flood. Therefore these fossil land animals of extinct species, which we discover
in the strata, must have existed anterior to the Adamic economy; and, therefore, the

strata which contain them must have done so likewise God has often made

the beasts subservient to man's purposes. At Creation, they came to Adam to
exercise his powers of language. Here they come to Noah, to be included in

the Ark This was as much a miracle as any of the foregoing, when the

animals all came to Noah, two of every sort, for preservation. It does not seem
likely that this included animal food, for animal food would not keep well in the
Ark ; nor is it implied that more than two animals of a kind were in the Ark ;
therefore it was probably farinaceous or vegetable food. If so, this would agree
with the notion that the carnivorous animals were originally created herbivorous,
and were, in fact, omnivorous.

290. The ' Rural Dean,' it will be seen, purposes to relieve his
' Students in Divinity,' — that is, the clergy of the next genera-
tion,— from the difficulty of taking account of the 'thirty
Wolves,' for whom Dean Wilkixs provides so carefully. Others,
again, dispose of the whole question in another and much more
summary wa}T : e.g., the Ecclesiastic, quoted in my Preface to
Part II, p.xix, can still, in this age, ask seriously —
What difficulty can there be in accepting the hypothesis, which seems so likely,
that these animals were further kept during their sojourn in the Ark in a state of
torpor 1 —

though in Gr.vi.21 Noah is commanded to ( take unto him of all
food that is eaten,' for the beasts, as well as for himself, and
though, on that hypothesis, the building of the Ark at all
would have been unnecessary. It is clear that the writers de-
scribe it as built, in order to keep the animals alive by natural
means. If we are to introduce miracle for their preservation
at all, why not let each animal go to sleep where the Flood
found it, and be preserved in a state of torpor under the water ?
The omnipotence of the imagination is as competent to the one
task as to the other.

291. Some, again, have suggested, that it may have sufficed that

THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS. 189

only a very few primary types of animals should be preserved
in the Ark, from which the numerous existing species have all
been developed, — so that, for instance, from one single pair of
wolves, preserved from the Flood, may have been derived all the
different varieties of the canine tribe, dogs, wolves, hyaenas,
foxes, jackals, &c. But, without disputing the possibility of
such development, yet, at all events, a great length of time
would have been required for it. Whereas on the most ancient
monuments of Egypt, of older date than the time of Abraham,
we find depicted the wolf, hyaena, jackal, greyhound, blood-
hound, turnspit, common dog, of 4,000 years ago, just exactly
the same animals as now; See fig. 236-50, in Types of Man-
kind.

292. Willet writes on this point as follows, Hexap. in Gen.
p. 8 7 :—

Neither came there of every kind of living thing, for these are excepted : —

(i) All that liveth in the water, — either wholly, or partly in the water, partly in
the land ; for such creatures only came which moved upon the earth ;

(ii) Such creatures as come by corruption, not by generation (!), as flies, of the
water, worms, of dung, bees, of bullock's flesh, hornets, of horse-flesh, the scorpion, of
the crab or crevice [ ? ' crayfish,' or else ecrevisse, ' crab,'] moths, of putrefied herbs,
and certain small worms, of the corruption of wood and corn ; for those creatures
only entered, which increase by generation ;

(iii) Such creatures are excepted, which are of a mixed kiud, ... as the mule.

293. Delitzch writes, p.252 :

We find it possible to explain how Noah could assemble the numerous animals,
and among them wild animals : the presentiment which had come over the animal-
world of the approaching catastrophe impelled them to him. Also it does not
appear to us surprising that Noah could keep them all in subjection : he had the
power to do so' through the strength of his faith, with the additional assistance of the
terror of the judgment. But how could he have managed to get together all
animals without exception, unless possessed of a knowledge of zoology wonderfully
advanced beyond the point of culture of antiquity ? And how could he have got
possession of them so without exception, without making great journeys, since the
reindeer and sloth, the white-bear and crocodile, without doubt, have never lived in
the same climate? Further, how was it possible that all animals, even if we
lessen considerably the numbers of those now known, together with their supplies
of food, should have found room in the Ark ? — that they should all have been fed,
as need required, by eight persons ? &c.

190 THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS.

The text of the sacred history does not require that we demolish these
objections. On the contrary, we might deduce from it the impossibility that,
without exception, all kinds of animals then living could hare entered the Ark.
The water-animals are expressly excluded, vii.21,22. [But how did the salt-wnt^v
fish survive, when the sea was deluged with rain, or the frcsk-vrntev, when the sea
broke in upon the lakes ?]

And since these, although the judgment speaks of the destruction of ' all flesh,'
were excepted in the narrative itself, so likewise may the reception of pairs of ' all
flesh' into the Ark be reduced to a certain n latin »rss. The measure of this
' relativeness ' cannot be more closely determined. For, on the one hand, it is
possible that, contemporaneously with the formation of races of man and the
domestic animals, the primeval types of the wild kinds of animals may have
separated into a variety of different forms, which we now regard as different
species, — [i.e. Delitzch seems to mean that representatives of these ' primeval types,'
having been preserved in the Ark, may have since the Deluge 'separated' again
into a 'variety of different forms.'] On the other hand, it is impossible to estimate
the multitude of natural and accidental means of preservation, — as the egg-, larva-, or
pupa-form, winter-sleep. &c. — which God might make use of, in order to maintain
the life of many kinds of animals, lying altogether outside of Noah's horizon, with-
out their being received into the Ark. We might just as reasonably assume that
land-species also were preserved outside the Ark, as that marine-species (dtogcther
perished through the Flood, since it mixed together fresh-water and sea, although the
record is silent about both (!) To assume with Prichakd a subsequent creation,
is unnecessary and quite inadmissible ; for between the completed creation, and the
history which begins from thence, stands the Divine Sabbath, which excludes
that after-creation.

294. The reader may now, in conclusion, consider the chief
arguments of Havernick, to prove the historical truth of this
narrative : Pent, p.l 12-1 14 : —

Here, if anywhere, everything is combined, which can -give the Bible-naiTative
the stamp of the highest credibility. (!) Consider only the following points.

(i) The exact statements concerning the Ark and the mode of its construction,
where we have not the slightest trace of mythical ornament. The simplicity of this
vessel is sufficiently clear from the account [of the one door and the one window
for the three stories] ; and it is quite in accordance with that period, as its colossal
size also is quite in harmony with the primitive age, and with the strength and
duration of its erections, to us enigmatical. Were it not in our power still to view
with our eyes the^ruins of Thebes (!), the narrative of the royal city of a hundred
gates would be undoubtedly referred to the region of the fabidous. Yet the re-
lation of those monuments to those that are recent is quite the same as of this
Bible-fact to the modern art of ship-budding (!), especially as our narratiw says
nothing of a ship, but only of an Ark. It is only the scoffing frivolity of the

THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY AVRITERS. 191

enemies of Revelation, that would think of doubting the accomplishment of sueh
an undertaking.

Ans. If we had been told that one of the Pharaohs had killed his thousands of
slaves in the labour of building the Ark, the work, though gigantic, and only to be
paralleled 'with the building of Thebes, 'would yet be conceivable. But, if this be so
difficult to be believed, is it ' scoffing frivolity,' to doubt the building of such a
vessel as the Ark by Xoah and his three sons, even if aided by a body of hired
labourers ?

(ii) Add to this, that the calculations, made by excellent mathematicians in
reference to it, show that the size of the Ark bore a suitable proportion to the
number of beasts- contained in it, as it has been demonstrated that more than
6,000 kinds of animals would have had room in it.

Ans. But we require room, air, light, food, attendance, for more than 40,000.

(iii) So also it is proved by facts that the climate' of the antediluvian age was
one different from ours, with respect to the variety of changeable zones, since an
equable tropical climate prevailed through the whole Earth, and, consequently,
tbe reception of the different kinds of beasts into the Ark, which in itself is quite
conceivable and probable, obtains practical confirmation.

Ans. Supposing this ' equability ' of climate before the Flood, of which there is
no proof whatever, yet how did the sloths cross the Atlantic from their present
habitat in South America, or how did the wingless bird of New Zealand find its
way to the Ark? Or if, before the Flood, under the ' equable' climate, they lived
near the Ark in its place of construction, yet how, after the Flood, did they cross
the seas, and reach their present strictly-defined localities ?

(iv) The exact statement of the natural causes, that concurred in the Deluge, in
no wise removes the miraculous nature of the whole fact who has unveiled the
mysteries of nature ? — but certainly shows how exact was the attention paid to the
external phenomena of the Deluge.

(v) The statements, exactly agreeing with what has been observed of the remains
and traces of a Deluge (!), of the universality of the Flood, though not of such an
effect resulting from it as a change of firm land into sea, and the reverse, — the
fearful might of the Flood, exactly harmonising with the statement of the height of
the waters, &c, — prove how fully our information is founded on facts, and, when
compared with the slight and shallow objections urged against it, make the little-
ness of these very manifest.

(vi) The careful statements of the chronology, which marks with such exactness
day and month in the course of this occurrence, [but so that the different data are
at variance with each other (55,64.xiv ),] puts all suspicion of the history to shame.

29o. It may be well to quote here the words of the late Hugh
Miller, Testimony of Hie Rocks, p. 335-9, who, however, while

192 THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS.

himself proving the impossibility of a general Deluge, attempts,
it will be seen, to show that Noah's Flood was not universal,
but 'partial, — a point which we shall consider presently.

The Deluge -was an event of the existing creation. Had it been universal, it
would either have broken up all the diverse centres [of existing creation], and
substituted one great general centre instead, — that in which the Ark rested ; or
else, at an enormous expense of miracle, all the animals, preserved by natural
means by Noah, would have had to be returned by supernatural means to the
regions, whence by means equally super-natural they had been brought. The
sloths and armadillos, — little fitted by nature for long journeys, — would have
required to be ferried across the Atlantic [after the Flood] to the regions [of South
America, from whence also they had been brought before the Flood], — the kangaroo
and wombat, to the insulated continent [of Australia], and the birds of New Zealand,
including its heavy flying quails and its wingless wood-hen, to the remote islands
of the Pacific.

Nor will it avail aught to urge, with certain assertors of a universal deluge, that,
during the cataclysm, sea and land changed their places, and that what is now
land had formed the bottom of the antediluvian ocean, and, vice versa, what is
now sea had been the land on which the first human inhabitants of the earth
increased and multiplied. No geologist, who knows how very various the ages of
the several table-lands and mountain-chains in reality are, could acquiesce in such
an hypothesis. Our own Scottish shores, — if to the term of the existing we add
that of the ancient coast-line, — must have formed the limits of the land, from a
time vastly more remote than the age of the Deluge.

But even supposing, for the argument's sake, the hypothesis recognised as
admissible, what, in the circumstances of the case, would be gained by the
admission ? A continuous tract of land would have stretched, — when all the
oceans were continents and all the continents oceans, — ■ between the South
American and the Asiatic coasts. And it is just possible that, during the hundred
and twenty years (?), in which the Ark was in building, a pair of sloths might
have crept by inches across this continuous tract to where the great vessel stood.
But after the flood had subsided, and the change in sea and land had taken place,
there would remain for them no longer a roadway ; and so, though their journey
outward might, in all save the impidse which led to it, have been altogether a
natural one, their voyage homewards could not be other than miraculous. . . Even
supposing it possible that animals, such as the red deer and the native ox, might
have swam across the Straits of Dover or the Irish Channel, to graze anew over
deposits, in which the bones and horns of their remote ancestors had been entombed
long ages before, the feat would have been Burely far beyond the power of such
feeble natives of the soil, as the mole, the hedge-hog, the shrew, the dormouse, and
the field-vole.

Dr. Pye Smith, in dealing with this subject, has emphatically said, that, ' all land
animals having their geographical regions, to which their constitutional natures

THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS. 19;}

are congenial, — many of them being unable to live in any other situation, — we
cannot represent to ourselves the idea of their being brought into one small spot
from the polar regions, the torrid zone, and all other climates of Asia, Africa,
Europe, and America, Australia, and the thousands of islands, — their preservation
and provision, and the final disposal of them, — without bringing up the idea of
miracles more stupendous than any that are recorded in Scripture. ' The great
decisive miracle of Christianity,' he adds, — 'the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, —
sinks down before it.'

And let us remember that the preservation and re-distribution of the land-
animals would demand but a portion of the amount of miracle, absolutely necessary
for the preservation, in the circumstances, of the entire fauna of the globe. The.
fresh-water fishes, molluscs, Crustacea, and zoophytes, could be kept alive in a
universal deluge only by miraculous means. It has been urged that, though the
living individuals were to perish, their spawn might be preserved by natural means.
It must be remembered, however, that, even in the case of some fishes whose proper
habitat is the sea, such as the salmon, it is essential for the maintenance of the
species that the spawn should be deposited in fresh water, nay, in running fresh
water ; for in still water, however pure, the eggs in a few weeks addle and die.
The eggs of the common trout also require to be deposited in running fresh wafa r ;
while other fresh-water fishes, such as the tench and carp, are reared most
successfully in still, reedy, ponds. The fresh-water fishes spawn, too, at very
different seasons, and the young remain for very different periods in the egg. The
perch and grayling spawn in the end of April or the beginning of May, — the tench
and roach about the middle of June, — the common trout and powan in October and
November. And, while some fishes, such as the salmon, remain from ninety to a
hundred days in the egg, others, such as the trout, are extruded in five weeks.
Without special miracle, the spawn of all the fresh-water fishes could not be in
existence, as such, at one and the same time ; without special miracle, it could not
maintain its vitality in a universal deluge ; and without special miracle, even
did it maintain its vitality, it could not remain in the egg-state throughout an
entire twelvemonth, but would be developed into fishes, of the several species to
which it belonged, at very different periods. Farther, in a universal deluge, without
special miracle, vast numbers of even the salt-water animals coidd not fail to be
extirpated.

Nor would the vegetable kingdom fare greatly better than the animal one. Of
the one hundred thousand species of known plants, few indeed woidd survive
submersion for a twelvemonth ; nor would the seeds of most of the others fare
better than the plants themselves. There are certain hardy seeds, that in
favourable circumstances maintain their vitality for ages ; and there are others,
strongly encased in water-tight shells or skins, that have floated across oceans to
germinate in distant islands. But such, as every florist knows, is not the general
character of seeds; and, not until after many unsuccessful attempts, and many
expedients had been resorted to, have the more delicate kinds been brought
uninjured, even on shipboard, from distant countries to our own. It is not too
TOL. II. 0

194 THE DELUGE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONARY WRITERS.

much to hold that, -without special miracle, at least three-fourths of the terrestrial
vegetation of the globe -would have perished in a universal deluge, that covered
over the dry land for a year. Assuredly, the various vegetable centres or
regions, — estimated by Schottw at twenty-five, — bear witness to no such catas-
trophe. Still distinct and unbroken, as of old, either no effacing flood has passed
over them, or they -were shielded from its effects at an expense of miracle many
times more considerable than that, at which the Jews were brought out of Egypt
and preserved amid the nations, or Christianity itself was ultimately established.

195

CHAPTER XIX.

GEN.YII.1-YIII.22.

296. (x.vii.4,12,17, viii.6.

The Jehovist here introduces the number ' forty,' which
occurs so frequently in the subsequent history. Thus Isaac and
Esau were each forty years old when they married, Gr.xxv.20,
xxvi.34. Forty days were fulfilled for the embalming of Jacob,
Gr.1.3. Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights on
each occasion, E.xxiv.l8,xxxiv.28. The spies were forty days in
searching the land of Canaan, N.xiii.25 : the people wandered
forty years in the wilderness, N.xxxii.13. So the land ' had rest '
forty years on three occasions, Ju.iii.ll,v.31,viii.28, and was
' delivered into the hand of the Philistines ' forty years, Ju.xiii.l.
Eli judged Israel forty years, lS.iv.18 : Goliath presented himself
forty days, lS.xvii.16: David and Solomon reigned each forty
years, lK.ii.ll,xi.42 : Elijah ' went in the strength of that meat
forty days and forty nights,' &c. &c. From these instances, it
is plain that the number was used in a loose, indefinite, sense,
to express a large number ; just as we find, among other oriental
nations, the forty sources of Scamander, and the fwty pillars
of Persepolis.

297. G.vii.19,20.

' And the waters were very, very, mighty upon the earth ; and all the high moun-
tains, that were under all the heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards the
waters were mighty, and the mountains were covered.'

Here the waters are said to have covered the Earth to the

o 2

196 aEN.YII.l-YIII.22.

height of (15 cubits = ) 27 feet above the tops of the highest
mountains, — where, however, the density of the air, and, con-
sequently, the temperature, would have been much the same as
on the present surface of the earth, while the Deluge lasted,
since the effect of a universal rise of the waters would be to push
out the air to a corresponding distance from the Earth's centre.

298. But, when the waters had retired from the Earth, i.e.
for at least hvo months, according to the story, the air would
scarcely have supported respiration, and all living creatures in the
Ark must have been frozen to death. For the story evidently
supposes that the Ark rested on the highest mountain-summit for
73 or 74 days ; since it says that it ' rested ' on the seventeenth day
of the seventh month,' viii.4, and the mountain-tops were seen
on 'the^rstf clay of the tenth month,' viii.5. Now the highest
summit of Ararat is 17,000 feet high, more than 1,000 feet
higher than Mont Blanc (15,668 feet), and 3,000 feet above the
region of perpetual snow, — above which, according to the story,
they must have lived, from ' the seventeenth day of the seventh
month ' to i the twenty-seventh day of the second month,' viii.14,
for more than seven months.

299. Delitzch describes Mount Ararat as follows, p.267 : —

Mount Ararat raises itself in two high summits above the plain of the Araxes,
Great Ararat to 16,000 feet, and Little Ararat about 4,000 feet lower. Great
Ararat forms a pretty regular cone : its snow-field descends 3,000 feet from its
summit, and its dark base, 10,000 feet high, forms a majestic pyramid, visible far off
with its suowy crown. The eastern declivity is connected by a narrow ridge, like a
neck, with the Little Ararat, which shows a clear conical form. F. Parrot, who,
as head of a scientific expedition, set on foot by the Petersburg Academy of
Sciences, first made the ascent of Great Ararat, Sept.26-8, 1829, found a slightly-
curved, almost circular, surface of 200 feet in circumference, which at the edge
went down sheer on every side, covered with eternal ice, interrupted by not a
single block of stone, — from which a wide panorama offered itself to the astonished
gaze. On one^of the summits of this mountain was Noah's landing-place, the
starting-place of new humanity, spreading itself over the whole earth. [Parrot
' describes a secondary summit, about 400 yards distant from the highest point,
and on the gentle depression, which connects the two eminences, he surmises that
the Ark rested.' Smith's Diet, of the Bible, p.100.] There is no point of the old

GEX.YII.1-VIII.22. 197

continent, -which lies inland, and yet so truly island-like, surrounded by mighty
waters. It is as if from these heights the water must run down on all sides.
And there is no point of the old continent, which would have a position in so
many respects central, — in the middle of the great African and Asiatic desert-
track, in the middle of the greatest line of breadth of the Caucasian race, in the
middle of the longest old lines of land, between the Cape of Good Hope and
Behring's Straits, equally distant from the south point of Farther India and the
north-west Spitzbergen Islands. This insular and central position of Mount
Ararat, next to the peaks of Himalaya, the highest summit of the Old World,
serves as a surprising confirmation of the historical truth of the Biblical record (!)

300. But, further, the depth of water needed for a literal
eompliauce with the story is tivo miles greater than the height
of Ararat, and this would require, according to Dr. Pte Smith's
estimate, about eight times as much water as is contained in all
the seas and oceans of the Earth. Therefore, if all the water on
the Earth were evaporated, and poured clown as rain, the fact
of the Deluge, as stated in the book of Genesis, would require a
miraculous creation of this vast amount of water, and a mi-
raculous removal of it by natural processes, viii.1-3, of which
the Bible gives not the least intimation.

301. Dr. Pye Smith's words are these, Geology and Scripture,

p.140 :—

The mass of water, necessary to cover the whole globe to the depth supposed,
would be in thickness about five miles above the previous sea-level. This quantity
of water might be fairly calculated as amounting to eight times that of the seas
and oceans of the globe, in addition to the quantity already existing. The questions
then arise, Whence was this water derived? And how was it disposed of, after its
purpose was answered ? These questions may, indeed, be met by saying that the
water was created for the purpose, and then annihilated. That Omnipotence could
effect such a work none can doubt. But we are not at liberty thus to invent miracles ;
and the narrative in the Book of Genesis plainly assigns two natural causes for the
production of the diluvial water, — the incessant rain of nearly six weeks, — called
in the Hebrew phrase, the ' opening of all the windows of heaven,' i.e. of the sky, —
and the 'breaking up of all the fountains of the great deep.' By the latter phrase
some have understood that there are immense reservoirs of water in the interior of
the earth, or that even the whole of that interior, down to the centre, is a cavity
tilled with water, — a notion which was excusable in the defective state of knowledge
a century ago, but which, from the amplest evidence, we now know to be an im-
possibility. The use of this expression, in other parts of Scripture, sufficiently

198 GEN.VII.1-VIIL22.

proves that it denotes the general collection of oceanic waters. It is scarcely
needful to say that all the rain, which «ver descends, has been previously raised by
evaporation from the land and water that form the surface of the earth. The
capacity of the atmosphere to absorb and sustain water is limited. Long before
it reaches the point of saturation, change of temperature and electrical agency
must produce copious descents of rain : from all the surface below, evaporation is
still going on ; and, were we to imagine the air to be first saturated to the utmost
extent of its capacity, and then to discharge the whole quantity at once upon the
Earth, that whole quantity would bear a very inconsiderable proportion to the entire
surface of the globe. A few [about Jive*] inches of depth would be its utmost extent.
It is, indeed, the fact that, upon a small area of the Earth's surface, yet the most
extensive that comes within experience or natural possibility, heavy and continued
rain for a few days often produces effects fearfully destructive, by swelling the
streams and rivers of that district. But the laws of Nature as to evaporation, and
the capacity of atmospheric air to hold water in solution, render such a state of things
over the whole globe not merely improbable, but absolutely impossible.

Dr. Smith, therefore, endeavours to maintain the notion of a

partial Deluge, which, as we shall presently see, the Scripture

itself, as well as scientific considerations, will certainly not allow.

302. Lastly, geological facts are decisive against the possi-
bility of an universal Deluge having ever taken place within
recent ages of the world's history, — that is, within a period long
antecedent to the time of the Creation, as narrated in the book
of Genesis. Not only are there no indications of such an
eventj — though if 'the fountains of the great deep' were
' broken up,' and the ' windows of heaven opened,' and the
waters covered the Earth for a whole year, we must expect to
find numerous and distinct traces of such a stupendous occur-
rence in former days, — but the researches of Geology absolutely
deny and disprove the fact of such an event having ever taken
place.

303. The following quotation from Sir Charles Lyell's

* Atmospheric air holds in solution tliree-fifths of its own quantity of water.
Therefore, ' supposing the vast canopy of air, by some sudden change of internal
constitution, at once to discharge its whole watery store, this precipitate would form
a sheet of scarcely Jive inches thick over the surface of the globe.' Sir John
Leslie's Discourse on the Progress of Mathematics, Enc. Brit. i. ^.650.

GEN.VII.1-Vin.22. 199

Elementary Geology, p.197,198, will sufficiently attest the truth

of the above assertion.

We are presented in Auvergne with the evidence of a series of events of astonish-
ing magnitude and grandeur, by which the original form and features of the
country have been greatly changed, yet never so far obliterated, but that the}- may
still, in part at least, be restored in imagination. Great lakes have disappeared, —
lofty mountains have been formed, by the reiterated emission of lava, preceded and
followed by showers of sand and scoriae, — deep valleys have been subsequently
furrowed out through masses of lacustrine and volcanic origin, — at a still later
date, new cones have been thrown up in these valleys, — new lakes have been
formed by the damming up of rivers, — and more than one creation of quadrupeds,
birds, and plants, Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene, have followed in succession ; yet
the region has preserved from first, to last its geographical identity ; and we can
still recall to our thoughts its external condition and physical structure, before these
wonderful vicissitudes began, or while a part only of the whole had been completed.
There was a period, when the spacious hikes, of which we still may trace the
boundaries, lay at the foot of mountains of moderate elevation, unbroken by the
bold peaks and precipices of Mont Dor, and unadorned by the picturesque outline
of the Puy de Dome, or of the volcanic cones and craters now covering the granitic
platform. During this earlier season of repose, deltas were slowly formed,— beds of
marl and sand, several hundred feet thick, deposited, — siliceous calcareous rocks
precipitated from the waters of mineral springs, — shells and insects imbedded,
together with the remains of the crocodile and tortoise, the eggs and bones of
water birds, and the skeletons of quadrupeds, some of them belonging to the same
genera as those entombed in the Eocene gypsum of Paris. To this tranquil con-
dition of the surface succeeded the era of volcanic eruptions, when the lakes were
drained, and when the fertility of the mountainous district was probably enhanced
by the igneous matter ejected from below, and poured down upon the more sterile
granite. During these eruptions, which appear to have taken place after the dis-
appearance of the Upper Eocene fauna, and partly in the Miocene epoch, the mas-
todon, rhinoceros, elephant, tapir, hippopotamus, together with the ox, various kinds
of deer, the bear, the hyaena, and many beasts of prey, ranged the forest or pastured
on the plain, and were occasionally overtaken by a fall of burning cinders, or buried
in flows of mud, such as accompany volcanic eruptions. Lastly, these quadrupeds
became extinct, and gave place to Pliocene mammalia, and these, in their turn, to
species now existing.

There are no signs, during the whole time required for this series of events, of
the sea having intervened, nor of any denudation which may not have been accom-
plished by currents in the different lakes, or by rivers and floods accompanying re-
peated earthquakes, during which the levels of the district have in some places been
materially modified, and perhaps the whole upraised relatively to the surrounding
parts of France.

200 GEX.VIU-YIII.22.

304. Here are also the words of Kalisch with reference to

the same remarkable phenomena : Gen.20.208.

In the centre of France, in the provinces of Auvergne and Languedoc, are still
the remains of several hundred volcanic hills and mountains. The craters, some
of which are higher than that of Vesuvius, ejected immense masses of lava to the
heights of fifty, one hundred, and many more feet, and spreading over many miles
of area. Distant periods separated the different eruptions. Distinct mineral for-
mations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and animal life, bespeak an epoch
far anterior to the present condition of our planet. And yet. since these volcanoes
ceased to flow, rivers have worked their way through that vast depth of lava ; they
have penetrated through basalt rocks one hundred and fifty feet in height, and have
even considerably entered into the granite rocks beneath. The time required for such
operations is immeasurably slow. Centuries are required to mark the least per-
ceptible progress. The whole period, which was necessary for the rivers to over-
come that hard and compact mass, is large almost beyond the conception of man ;
all our measures of chronology are insufficient ; and the mind stands amazed at the
notion of eternal time. That extraordinary region contains rocks, consisting of
laminated formations of siliceous deposits; one of the rocks is sixty feet in thick-
ness ; and a moderate calculation shows, that at least 18,000 years were required
to produce that single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote
than the date of the Noachian flood ; they show not the slightest trace of having
been affected or disturbed by any general deluge ; their progress has been slow, but
uninterrupted ; even the pumice-stone, and other loose and light substances, with
which many of those hills and the cones of the volcanic craters are covered, and
which would have been washed away by the action of a flood, have remained
entirely untouched.

305. And, further, I add the words of Hugh Miller, Test,
of the Rocks, p.341,342:—

The cones of volcanic craters are formed of loose incoherent scoriae and ashes ; and
when exposed, as in the case of submarine volcanoes, such as Graham's Island and the
island of Sabrina, to the denuding force of waves and currents, they have in a few
weeks, or at most a few months, been washed completely away. And yet, in various
parts of the world, such as Auvergne in central France, and along the flanks of
^Etna, there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes, which, though
of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian Deluge, and though composed of the
ordinary incoherent materials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the
calculations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the
forest zone of iEtna during the last twelve thousand years, — for such is the antiquity
which he assigns to its older lateral cones, that retain in integrity their original
shape ; and the volcanic cones of Auvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains
of extinct animals, and present an outline as perfect as those of iEtna. are deemed
older still. Graham Island arose out of the sea early in July, 1831 ; in the beginning

GEX.YII.1-VIII.22. 201

of the following August it had attained to a circumference of three miles, and
to a height of two hundred feet ; and yet in less than three months from that time
the waves had washed its immense mass down to the sea-level ; and in a few weeks
more it existed hut as a dangerous shoal. And such, inevitably, would have been
the fate of the equally incoherent cone-like craters of iEtna and Auvergne, during
the seven and a half months, that intervened between the breaking up of the foun-
tains of the great deep and the re-appearance of the mountain-tops, had they been
included within the area of the Deluge.

202

CHAPTER XX.

WAS noah's flood a partial deluge ?

306. There are some, however, and as we have seen, Hugh
Miller among them, who endeavour to make it appear that the
Flood in Noah's time was not universal, but partial. Xot,
however, that the difficulties already noticed, besides others yet
to be named, will really be removed by this supposition. For
it is just as inconceivable that the worms, and snails, and grass-
hoppers, should have crawled into the Ark, from different parts
of some large basin in Western Asia, (as Hugh Miller
imagines), as from different parts of the world. One small
brook alone would have been a barrier to their further progress.
Xor could Xoah have provided for the wild carnivorous animals
of these parts, which included the lion and leopard, the eagle
and vulture. Besides, in such a case, what need would there
have been to crowd the Ark with 'the fowls of the air by
sevens'? Gr.vii.3, — since birds, surely, might have made their
escape easily beyond the boundaries of the inundation.

307. And so writes Archd. Pratt, Scripture and Science,p.55 :

The words of Scripture, were there no facts [of Science], like those I hare
mentioned, to modify our interpretation, would by most [? aU~\ persons, be under-
stood as describing an universal flood of waters over the whole extent of the glol ie.
There would be no cause for questioning this, and, therefore, no ground of doubt.
[The words of Scripture, consequently, woidd be taken in their plain, obvious,
meaning, as any simple-minded reader would understand them.] But, when the
new facts become~known, as they are at present, then [the words of Scripture must
be twisted to meet them, or, as Archd. Pbatt puts it,] the question is started,
' Does the Scripture language present any insuperable obstacle to this more limited
interpretation ? ' That it does not, may be inferred from the fact that two of our

WAS XOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE ? 203

celebrated commentators on Scripture, Bishop Stlllingfleet and Matthew Pool,
both in the 1 7th century, long before the discoveries of natural science required it,
advocated this view (!) [3Iodern science has proved, by pointing to the hills of
Auvergne, that there certainly never was an universal deluge. But Stlllingfleet
and Pool, doubtless, felt some of the other insurmountable difficulties of the case
as strongly as we do, and were tempted to ' twist ' the Scripture accordingly, to suit
the facts which 'required' it.]

And as to the birds, Archd. Pratt writes, p.55 : —

A better acquaintance with the habits of many of the non-migratory birds will
convince an objector, that even in a local deluge, of the extent which we suppose
the Deluge may have attained, many species would have become extinct but for
their preservation in the Ark, as the surrounding regions could not have supplied
them. [But why, on this account, should all the birds, &c, within this limited'
district have been preserved in the Ark, since most of them existed also beyond its
boundary ?]

308. But, surely, plainer words could hardly be used than the
Scripture employs to show that the.Deluge was universal : —

vi.7, ' Jehovah said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of
the Earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and, the fowls of the air'

vi.17. " Behold, I, even I, do bring a Flood of waters upon the Earth, to destroy
alljltsh. wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything, that is in
the Earth, shall die.'

vi.19, ' Of every living thing of all flesh, &c.'

vii.4, • Em ry living substance, that I have made, will I destroy, from off the face
of the Earth.'

vii.lo. ' Two and two, of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.'

vii.19, '■All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.'

vii. 21-23, 'And all flesh died, that moved upon the earth, . . . all, in whose
nostrils was the breath of life, of all that ivas in the dry land, died. And em ry
living substance was destroyed, which was upon the face of the ground, both man,
and cattle, and the creeping things and the fowl of the heaven. And Noah only
remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark.'

See also viii.21,ix.ll,lo.

309. Archd. Pratt, indeed, refers to D.ii.25, as a proof that the
expression 'under the whole heaven ' may mean not the whole
globe, ' but only Palestine and the countries in its immediate
neighbourhood.' But, first, this is not the only expression,
which is employed here to denote the universality of the ca-
tastrophe ; and secondly, in the very passage quoted, the
expression is plainly used to express all nations on the face of
the whole earth : —

204 WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE ?

' This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the
nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall
tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.'

It appears, then, to be impossible to donbt, — if only the
expressions of the Bible are to be regarded, and not the incredi-
bility, which in that case will attach to the story, as is freely
confessed by such well-informed geologists as Hugh Miller
and Hitchcock, — that the Scripture speaks distinctly of an
universal, and not a partial, Deluge-

310. The difficulties, which are presented by geological con-
siderations to the belief in the Scripture story of the Deluge,
are summed up concisely in the following words, by one who
labours to maintain the literal historical truth of the Bible
narrative, by making this assumption of a partial Deluge, — the
Kev. Alfred Barry, M.A., Fell. Tr'ui. Coll. Carnb., Intr. to the
Study of the O.T.,j?.144,&c. : —

The real difficulties of Geology, stated in their strongest form, amount to this.

(i) There is no existing evidence of a general simultaneous Deluge, the present
diluvial deposits having clearly been formed by degrees, and at long intervals of
time. There is, indeed, abundant evidence of gigantic diluvial deposits at the higher
levels : but they are in all cases local, and to be referred to a Pre- Adamite antiquity.
This conclusion is the more undoubted, because so many leading geologists,
Buckxand, Sedgwick, &c, who once referred the 'diluvium ' to the one period of
the historic Deluge, have now publicly withdrawn that opinion.

(ii) There is positive evidence to the contrary, inasmuch as, in some volcanic
regions, — especially, the remarkable one, forty miles by twenty, in Auvergne and
Languedoc, — there are deposits of scoriae and lava, extending over many miles, and
in some places fifty or a hundred feet deej), which must have taken many thousand
years to accumulate, and which yet have certaiuly not been submerged.

(iii) In all the diluvian deposits, no trace of human remains has ever been
found.

311. To the first and third of the above objections Mr. Barry
replies that —

It may have pleased God that, as the Deluge was- miraculous, it should pass
away, without leaving its footprints amidst the traces cf natural formation.

This, of course, assumes that the Deluge was such a miracle

as the Bible represents it, which we are only obliged to believe,

was noah's flood a partial deluge?

20c

if we believe the history in the Pentateuch to be infallibly true,
as literal, historical, matter-of-fact. But we have seen that it is
no longer possible to believe this. And, if so, this answer falls
at once to the ground.

The third objection, however, might be fairly met by saying
that, in the regions where the human race is believed to have
been first planted, the diluvium has not yet been sufficiently
examined, to enable us to say that no human remains are buried
up in it.

312. The answer, above given by Mr. Barrt, would, indeed,
if valid, apply just as much to the second objection as to the
others. The writer, however, feels this second objection to be so
strong, and so stubbornly opposed to the notion of an universal
Deluge, that he also gives up this point, and tries to argue that,
'although Gr.vii.19,20, seems certainly to speak of universality,'
yet the words are ' clearly capable of explanation,' thus : —

We are told that the waters prevailed upon the Earth ; but -whether over the
whole globe, or only over that portion of it, which was occupied by human life, we
know not.

Yet it is written, ' all flesh died, that moved upon the Earth,'

— l all, in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was

in the dry land,' — ' every living substance, which was upon the

face of the ground.'

313. But Mr. Barry goes on to say —

It is quite possible that the human race, and the animals given them for service,
may as yet have extended only over a limited portion of the Earth round the
garden of Eden.

And so he argues —

' All flesh ' may have been destroyed by a partial Deluge.

Surely, then, we should require another miraculous inter-
ference, to have kept any one of the birds from flitting during
all that long period of nearly two thousand years, which had
elapsed since the Creation, and straying to the uttermost bounds
of the Old Continent, — at all events, far beyond the reach of
this merely local inundation.

206 WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE?

314. But what would be gained after all, even if this were
granted ? There would still be the same difficulty in accounting
for such facts as these —

(i) That all kinds of animals, which are now found upon the
Earth, should have lived together in one climate ;

(ii) That the creatures, saved in the Ark, should have become
afterwards dispersed from one centre, across rivers, mountains,
and oceans, to all the corners of the Earth ;

(iii) That Noah and his family, and these animals of all kinds,
should have lived for months above the top of Ararat, in a
region far above the snow-line.

315. However, let us suppose that the Deluge was partial,
and that, instead of the eight thousand species of beasts and birds
(286), leaving out of consideration the reptiles, insects, &c. —
only eight hundred — nay, only eighty — needed to be received into
the Ark, and that, of these, twenty were species of clean animals,
and sixty of unclean. Then the whole number of animals
taken into the Ark would have been 20x14 + 60x2 = 400.
And now let any person of common-sense picture to himself
what would be the condition of a menagerie, consisting of four
hundred animals, of all kinds, confined in a narrow space, under
these circumstances, for more than twelve months ! We must
first suppose, of course, that Noah and his wife and children were
occupied every day, and all day long, incessantly, in taking to
these 400 creatures, two or three times a day, their necessary
supplies of dry food and water, bringing fresh litter, and clearing
away the old. But, shut up together closely in this way, with
scarcely any light and air, is it not plain that, in a very short
time, every part of the ship would have been full of filth, cor-
rupting matter, fever, and pestilence ?

316. 'But the ship may have been kept clean, and the air
pure, and the animals healthy, though shut up without light and
air, by a miracle.'' Yes, certainly : by multiplying miracles ad
infinitum, of which the Bible gives not the slightest intimation,

WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE? 207

— which, rather, the whole tenor of the story as plainly as
possible excludes, — if this is thought to be a reverent mode of
dealing with Scripture, or at all more reverent than a course of
criticism of the kind which I am now pursuing, while thus
endeavouring to set the plain facts of the case, in a clear, strong,
light, before the eyes of the reader. I feel it to be my duty to
do this, to the best of my power ; nor ought I to be deterred
by being told that I am treating the Bible with unwarrantable
freedom, that I am using a ' vulgar ' and ' coarse' kind of criti-
cism, and delighting ' like a successful fiend ' in dwelling upon
the details of the sacred narrative.

317. It is absolutely necessary that thoughtful persons should
be called to look at these things from a practical every-day point
of view, — that they should be induced to think for themselves
about the details, involved in the Scripture statements, and see
for themselves that the notion of such a ' Flood,' as that de-
scribed in these chapters of Genesis, whether it be regarded as a
universal or a partial Deluge, is equally incredible and impos-
sible. If this be so, then it will also follow plainly, that, by
believing ourselves, or teaching others to believe, in this account
of ' Noah's Flood,' as a statement of real historical matter-of-fact,
merely because the Bible records it as such, we shall be sin-
ning against God and the Truth, and simply making an idol of
the Bible.

318. But, indeed, the waters of a Deluge, that could cover
'the high hills, that were under the whole heaven,' and the
' mountains ' in Armenia, must have found their level on the
surface of the whole Earth, unless the Law of Gravitation was
suspended, by another stupendous miracle, for the space of
twelve months.

319. Delitzch observes on this point as follows, p.260 : —
The absolute generality of the Flood, if it was to be expressed at all, could not

be expressed more clearly. It seems as if we must imagine the Flood to have
covered the highest peaks of the Himalayas and. Cordilleras, reaching to a height of

208 WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE?

26,843 ft. [28,178 ft] But t\20 makes that impossible : 'Fifteen cubits upward the
waters were mighty, and the mountains were covered.' That can only be a concise
datum from a particular stand-point, and this stand-point is in that case the Great
Ararat, by far the highest mountain-summit of the neighbourhood, upon which the
Ark grounded immediately after the highest state of the waters. The Ark went 15
cubits deep : and so, at the moment when it grounded, the water also reached the
height of 15 cubits over the top of Ararat. If this be so, then the statement in c.19,
that ' all the high hills that were under the whole heaven' were covered by the
waters, must not be understood literally in the sense of universal.

Ebeaed contests the possibility of this, not only exegetically, but as a matter of
fact. 'A partial Flood,' he says, 'which reaches 15 cubits over the tops of even
moderately high mountains, is a nonentity, an impossibility. A partial Flood is only
conceivable in a basin, enclosed by mountains, and, even here, only then, when it does
not reach the ridges of the enclosing mountains.' But this objection is not well-con-
sidered. It proceeds from the false supposition that the water coidd not form an
irregular surface, — that it could not assume a conical for m (!). But this is only true of
standing water, which receives no supply. If, in the region about the Ararat, the
supply from beneath was greatest in intensity, the Flood might go far above Ararat,
without at the same time covering far distant mountains, — even low ones. It has, in
fact, justly been remarked, in order to make the possibility of the Flood conceivable,
that it stood to the map of the Earth in no greater relation than a general profuse
sweat upon the body of a man, and that the mountain-heights, in relation to the
whole mass of the Earth, appear but as a needle-scratch upon a globe. [What of
that ? do the rivers, then, — the smallest brooks — the minutest currents of ' perspira-
tion ' — not, as a matter of fact, run down from the hills? or would the waters of the
Flood not speedily forsake the ' conical form,' and find their own proper level over
the whole of the Earth's surface ?] And to the proof, which long ago Tertcixiax
[die pall.), according to the measure of the limited scientific knowledge of his time,
adduces in those ingenious words, — adhuc maris concha et buccince pcrcgrinantur in
montibus, cupientes Platoni probare etiam ardua ftuitasse, ' still the mussels and
shells of the sea are found as strange travellers among the mountains, desiring to
prove to Plato that even high places have been once under water,' — some have
added facts, which, if they stood in connection with the Deluge, would strikingly
prove its absolute universality. Alex. v. Humboldt found layers of coal — buried
remains of old forests and former water- and land-plants — in Huanoco in S. America,
at a height of 13.800 feet, near the modern limit of perpetual snow. Bones of the
mastodon have been found on the Cordilleras at a height of S,000 feet. Avalanches
have brought down bone-breccia from the snow-region of the Himalayas, from a
height of 16,000 feet. Generally, in the highest mountains of the three quarters
of the globe, Mont Blanc, Himalaya, and the Cordilleras, bones of antediluvian
animals are imbedded.

But are we to conclude from this, that once the waters of the Flood went
over these mountains ? The advanced state of Geognosy forbids it. The con-
tents of the mountains are no proof in her eyes, since they belong to a pn-

WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE? 209

historic time. The existence of convincing 'proof of such a kind for the historical
Deluge she must regard generally as doubtful, as has been noticed above. As to
the fact, that, in historical times, (to which we oppose the time before the creation of
man asjjrchistorical^agre&t flooding of the Earth has occurred, Geology can neither
deny nor confirm it. We do not need, however, its confirmation : our faith rests
upon the testimony of tradition, and above all on the historical testimony of Holy
Scripture. Only the mere generality of the historical Deluge is subject to geological
doubt. Thus, for instance, the English Geologist, Ltell, has drawn attention to a
phenomenon, which seems to testify against a general Flood since the Tertiary
age, — i.e. one covering the whole of the Earth's surface. There are found, for
instance, upon the extinct volcanoes of Auvergne, — which, as appear from the bones
enclosed here and there in their lava-streams, were [last] active in the Tertiary
period, and so before the creation of man. — a great number of quite loose cones of
cinders, which could not possibly have withstood the pressure of a Flood, though
they are not injured by rain, as they very easily imbibe it. It seems, therefore,
as if this locality has not been affected by the Flood.

Granting that Geology might raise such and other proofs, against the mere uni-
versality of the Flood, to a power of producing irresistible conviction, yet we are not
bound under any necessity of maintaining the contrary as an article of faith. Not as
if we were against the universality of the Flood, because we might not be able to see
how to account for it naturally : even the present matter of fact, upon which Geology
lays stress, does not move us. But the Scripture requires generality of the Flood only
for the Earth as inhabited, not for the Earth as such, and it has no interest in the
universality of the Deluge for itself, but only in the universality of the judgment
fulfilled through it upon the ' old world,' 2Pet.ii.5. That, with the exception of
one single family, the whole then existing human race, together with the animal-
world in their neighbourhood, within a great circle of the earth, was destroyed, that,
and that only, is the Scripture statement. The human race, however, was then not
yet spread over the whole surface of the earth, since they were not yet enough in
number to fill it.

Ans. Manifestly, the idea of the Flood is that 'all flesh,' — that is, animals as well
as men, — had ' corrupted its way upon the Earth,' and must be destroyed ; see G.ix.
5. where guilt is spoken of in the case of animals, as well as men, — 'your blood
will I require, at the hand of every animal will I require it, and at the hand of man.'

320. Mr. Barry adds, #.148,—

The case, therefore, stands simply thus. It is impossible to conceive any
interpretation, except the literal one, which is at all consistent with the veracity of
the Mosaic narrative. And, therefore, if the Scripture be in any sense inspired, wo
must accept this portion of it as simple and literal history.

Mr. Barky should have written, ' If the Scripture be inspired
in the popular, traditional, sense of the word.' For that the
Spirit of Goodness, Truth, and Holiness, does breathe in the

VOL. II. p

210 WAS NOAH'S FLOOD A PARTIAL DELUGE?

words of the Bible, so that the Sacred Book will to the end of
time be 'profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness,' — in spite of the legends and myths
which it contains, and the passages of a contrary nature, by
which it is in some parts disfigured, — cannot be doubted by
any devout mind.

Nay, it is this very mixture in the Bible of human frailty,
ignorance, mistake, with that Divine Truth which is the Eternal
Word of Grod, that makes its special value as a true, natural,
history — not, certainly, of the mere facts, which it details, but
— of the progress of human life and religion, which is illus-
trated for the thoughtful mind in every page. It would not be
this, if the rude conceptions of the earlier periods were not
truly recorded.

211

CHAPTER XXI.

STORIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS.

321. Many heathen nations have traditions concerning either
an universal or a partial Deluge. These are given at length by
Kalisch, Gen.jp.202-204. That, with which the Hebrew agrees
most closely, is the Chaldsean, as follows.

The representative of the tenth generation after the first man was Xisuthrus, a
pious and wise monarch. The god Chronos (or Bolus) revealed to him that
continual rains, commencing on a certain day, the fifteenth of the month Dgesius,
would cause a general Deluge, by which mankind would be destroyed. At the
command of the deity, Xisuthrus built an immense ship, 3,000 feet long and 1,200
broad ; [and, having first as commanded, buried the records of the primitive world
in Sippara, the city of the Sun,] he ascended it with his family, his friends, and
all species of quadrupeds, birds, and reptiles, having loaded it with every
possible provision, and sailed towards Armenia. When the rain ceased, he sent
out birds, to satisfy himself about the condition of the earth. They returned
twice : but the second time they had mud on their feet ; and the third time they
returned to him no more. Xisuthrus, who had by this time grounded upon the
side of some Armenian mountain, left the ship, accompanied only by his wife, his
daughter, and the pilot. They erected an altar, and offered sacrifices to the gods,
but were soon raised to heaven on account of their exemplary piety. Those, who
had remained in the ship, now left it also with many lamentations. But tiny
believed that they heard the voice of Xisuthrus, admonishing them to persevere in
the fear of the gods ; after which they settled again in Babylon, from which they
had .started, and became the ancestors of a new human population. The ship was
thought to be preserved in the highland of Armenia, in the mountain of the
Cordyseans ; and pieces of bitumen and timber, ostensibly taken from it, were in
later times used chiefly as amulets.

322. Tucn gives the following account of these myths,
£>.137-154, which is here condensed from Mr. Heywood's edition
of Von Bohlen, ii.p.161-184.

Many legends of a Flood are handed down to us from antiquity, which represent

P 2

212 STOEIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS.

the inundation to have been in some cases a partial one, as in the Samothracian
Flood, Diod. Sic. v.4~, explaining geographical relations, and in other cases describe
it as a general Flood over the -whole Earth. [There is no ancient Egyptian legend
of this kind, so that Egypt certainly was not the source of them.] Greece.
furnishes the accounts of two. In one, Ogyges survives a universal Flood, which
had covered the whole surface of the Earth to such a depth, that he conducts his
vessel upon the waves through the air. The other Grecian legend, which relates
to Deucalion, is more complete, but, like that of Ogyges, is only narrated by later
winters. Neither Homer nor Hesiod makes any mention of a Flood ; and even
Herodotus, though he mentions Deucalion, i.56, does not connect the name with
any inundation. Pixdar first mentions Deucalion's Flood, Ofy»?p.ix.62-71 * ; and it
is given in a more perfect form by Apollodorvs, Bibl.i.7, Oved, Met.i.2i0-45\, and
Lucian, de Bed Syr. xii,xiii.f The object of the Hellenic deluge appears to have been
the annihilation of the brazen race, which according to Hesiod perished withotit
any Flood. The race, which was destroyed, had acted wickedly, disregarded oaths
and the rites of hospitality, attended to no expostulations, and in the end became
necessarily punished. Jupiter sent violent torrents of rain, and the Earth, says

* Man's first abode Deucalion reared,

When from Parnassus' glittering crown,

With Pyrrha paired, the Seer came down.

Behind them rose their unborn sons,

The new-named laity of stones,

A homogeneous mortal throng.' Moore's Pent-. i.^j.94.

The idea of the creation of human beings, from stones thrown behind them by
Deucalion and Pyrrha, evidently originated in the similarity of the words Idas,
' stone,' and laos, ' people.'

f ' I heard a story about Deucalion among the Hellenes, which the Hellenes tell
about him. Now the fable is this. The present generation, the men now living, were
not the first that came into being ; but that generation all perished. These, how-
ever, are of the second generation, which a second time grew to great numbers after
the age of Deucalion. But about that generation the story is as follows. Being
thoroughly insolent, they did unlawful deeds ; for they never kept oaths, nor
entertained strangers, nor spared suppliants, — for which things the great calamity
befel them. All at once the earth poured forth much water, and much rain fell, and
the rivers came down in floods, and the sea rose to a great height, until all became
water, and all perished. Only Deucalion was left of men for a second generation, on
account of his prudence and piety. And this was the way in which he was pre-
served. He embarked his children and wives in a large Ark which he had. And,
as he entered, there came to him swine, and horses, and different kinds of lions, and
serpents, and whatever else lives in the Earth, by pairs. And he received them all.
and they did him no harm, but great friendship existed between them by the will
of Jove. And in one Ark they all sailed so long as the water prevailed. '

STOEIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHEK NATIONS. 213

LtX'iAN, opened in order to let the immense body of water run off. Deucalion, the
only righteous man, entered the vessel which lie had made, with his wife Pyrrha,
[Luc. ' with his wives '], and, according to the later form of the legend, took with him
different kinds of animals in pairs. After nine days and nine nights he landed on
the summit of Parnassus, which remained uncovered, Patjs.x.6 ; * while the greatest
part of Greece was laid under water, so that only a few men, who had fled to the
highest mountains, escaped alive. Plutarch, de Soll^Anim.^m.,^ mentions the
dove, which Deucalion employed to find out if the rain had ceased or the heavens
had become clear.

The Phrygian legend is similar, though we have only faint traces of it.
Annakos, the Biblical Enoch, foretells the coming Flood ; and coins of Apamea, of
the time of Septimius Severus, a.d. 194-211, represent a floating vessel, in which a
man and his wife may be discerned, whilst upon the vessel is a bird, and another
is flying towards it, holding a twig in its claw. The same couple are seen standing
on the dry land, with their right hands uplifted, and upon these specimens of the
coin is the name Nfl. This Phrygian legend must refer in some degree to a Flood,
and it settled the landing-place of the Floating Ark to be near Apamea, which
bears the name of ki/Ioitos, 'Ark.' The close coincidence, however, with the Biblical
narrative, even in the occurrence of the name of Noah (NH), excites suspicion, and
favours the presumption that this representation of the coins was derived from the
Hebrew.

The same fundamental ideas are contained in all these legendary narratives of
the Flood. In every instance the legend was transplanted by the people who
relate it to their own countiy. Himalaya, Ararat, and Parnassus, occupy the
same place in one set of myths, as Meru, Albordj, and Olympus do in the others.
The Hebrew legend alone removes it entirely from Canaanitish soil, because the
Israelites constantly retained the conviction that they had not originally belonged
to that country. The scene of their legend of the Flood was the original home of
their national forefathers, which was to them an inheritance of primeval
antiquity.

323. The following lines are taken from Dean Milman's trans-
lation of ' The Story of the Fish,' in Nala and Damayanti and
other Poems, p.114-5, where Manu is represented as addressed
by Brahma in the form of a fish, as follows : —

"When the awfid time approaches, — hear from me what thou must do.
In a little time, 0 blessed ! all the firm and seated earth, —

* ' And of the people, all, who were able to escape the storm, were saved through
the howling of wolves, by escaping to the heights of Parnassus, following the
beasts as guides of the way.'

t ' .Story-tellers say that a dove, sent out from the Ark, became a sign of tempest
by returning in again, and of fine weather by having flown away.'

214 STORIES OP THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATION'S.

All that moves upon its surface,— shall a deluge sweep away.

Near it comes— of all creation the ablution-day is near ;

Therefore, what I now forewarn thee, may thy highest weal secure.

All the fixed and all the moving, — all that stirs or stirreth not, —

Lo ! of all the time approaches, the tremendous time of doom.

Build thyself a ship, 0 Manu, strong, with cables well prepared ;

And thyself, with the seven sages, mighty Manu, enter in.

AH the living seeds of all things, by the Brahmins named of yore,

Place them first within the vessel, well secured, divided well. . . .

Earth was seen no more, no region, nor the intermediate space ;

All around a waste of water, — water all, and air, and sky.

In the whole world of creation, princely son of Bharata !

None was seen but those seven sages, Manu only and the fish.

Years on years, and still unwearied, drew that fish the bark along,

Till at length it came, where lifted Himavan its loftiest peak.

There at length it came and, smiling, thus the fish addressed the sage :

' To the peak of Himalaya bind thou now the stately ship.'

At the fish's mandate quickly, to the peak of Himavan

Bound the sage his bark, and ever to this day that loftiest peak

Bears the name of Naubandhana, from the binding of the bark.

324. We add here the following- quotation from Reneick,
Primeval History, p.33 : —

It must appear very doubtM whether the earliest mythology of the Greeks
contained any reference to a destruction of the Iranian race by a Flood. But the
coincidence of the Babylonian, the Indian, the Mexican, and the Jewish accounts,
can hardly be explained, without supposing a very high antiquity of the Asiatic
tradition, an antiquity preceding our knowledge of any definite facts in the history
of these nations. . . However high we may be warranted to carry up the existence
of this tradition in Asia, it will not necessarily follow that it was founded upon a
real fact. . . There is abundant evidence that the past changes of the globe, and
the fate of the human race as influenced by them, have excited the imagination to
specidate on their caxises and circumstances, and that these speculations, assuming
an historical form, have been received as matter of fact. The Mexicans believed
in four great cycles, — the first terminated by famine,— the second by fire, from
which only birds and.two human beings escaped, — the third by storms of wind, which
only monkeys escaped, — the fourth by water, in which all human beings save two
were changed into fishes ; and to these cycles they ascribed an united duration of
18,000 years. It was a popular legend among the Greeks that The^saly had once
been a lake, an! that Neptune had opened a passage for the waters through the
Vale of Tempe. . . The legend, no doubt, originated in a very simple speculation.
The sight of a narrow gorge, the sole outlet to the waters of a whole district,
naturally suggests the idea of its having once been closed, and, as the necessary

STOKIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 215

consequence, of the inundation of the whole region, which it now serves to drain.
The inhabitants of Samothrace had a similar traditionary belief, that the narrow
strait by which the Euxine communicates with the Mediterranean was once closed,
and that its sudden disruption produced a Deluge, which swept the sea-coast of
Asia, and buried some of their own towers. The fact of traces of the action of
water at a higher level in ancient times on these shores is unquestionable. . . But
that the tradition was produced by speculation on its cause, not by an obscure
recollection of its occurrence, is also clear : for it has been shown, Cuvtek, Bcv.
du Globe, ^-87, by physical proofs, that a discharge of the waters of the Euxine
would not cause such a Deluge as the tradition supposed. . . The inhabitants of
Polynesia have a tradition that the islands, with which their ocean is studded,
are but the fragments of a continent which once existed. In Greece, the continent
of Lyctonia was supposed to have been split into the islands of the Mediterranean.
The inhabitants of the western part of Cornwall have a tradition, that the Scilly
Islands were once united to the mainland, by a tract now submerged. In none of
these instances does any historical fact appear to lie at the foundation of the
tradition, even where, as in the case last-mentioned, it is not in itself improbable.
If the tradition of a Deluge is more widely spread than any of these, so also are
the phenomena on which it is founded. . . The sand and shells, — which induced
Herodotus to believe, ii.12, that all Lower Egypt, and even the hills above Memphis,
had once been covered by the sea, — had lain there for ages, before they drew his
attention ; and surely his was not the first reflecting mind that had speculated on
their origin. . .

If, from these marks of the action of water on the Earth, the notion of a Deluge
arose, it would not only include, as a necessary consequence, the destruction of all
living things, but also the guilt of the race which thus violently perished. No
principle appears more universally to pervade the legends of early times than that
great calamities implied great guilt. At Mavalipuram, on the coast of Coromandel,
the remains of several ancient temples and other buildings, now close to the sea,
suggested the idea that a splendid city had been buried under the waters. Such a
calamity must have been inflicted by the gods, as a punishment for some enormous
crime ; and this was found in the impiety of the tyrannical king, the great Bali.
According to another account, the gods destroyed it, because its magnificence
rivalled that of the celestial courts : see Southey's Kehama, xv. It was on account
of the wickedness of the Atlantians that Jupiter submerged their island and
drowned the whole race. Plat. Tim. ii.25 : comp. Crit. iii.109.

A similar tale is related of an island near China, the impious inhabitants of
which thus perished, while their righteous king escaped. The remains of buildings,
or rocks which fancy has converted into such, seen through the transparent waters
near the margin of lakes, have very generally given rise to legends of the destruction
of towns for the wickedness of their inhabitants. Dr. Robinson, Trav. in Palest.,
ii.589, mentions a tradition that a city had once stood in the desert between Petra
and Hebron, the people of which had perished for their vices, and been converted
into stone, .^eetzex, who went to the spot, found no traces of ruins, but a

216 STOEIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS.

number of stony concretions, resembling in form and size the human head. They
had been ignorantly supposed to be petrified heads, and a legend framed to account
for their owners suffering so terrible a fate.

325. How easily legends grew up in those days, through pious
speculations, with reference to ancient facts or memorials, the
real meaning and true history of which was unknown, or had
long been lost, may be gathered from one which Josephfs,
Ant.i.2,o, sets forth, as being quite as much a piece of authentic
history, as that of the Flood itself or the Tower of Babel.

Seth, -when he was brought up, and came to those years, in -which he could
discern \rhat was good, became a virtuous man ; and, as he ■was himself of an
excellent character, so did he leave children behind him, who imitated his virtues.
All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country
without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling
upon them, till they died. They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of
wisdom, which is concerned with the heavenly bodies and their order. And, that
these inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's
prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and
at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars, the
one of brick, the other of stone, and inscribed their discoveries on them both,
that, in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone
might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind, and also inform them that
there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land
of Siriad to this day.

326. The ground of the latter part of the above legend may
have been the fact of the existence of remarkable pillars, which
are said to have been erected by Sesostris, king of Egypt, to
commemorate his victories, — not by Seth, son of Adam, and his
descendants. And this part of the legend has given birth to
the former part, viz. that Adam made such a prediction.
Herodotus writes of these, ii.106, —

As to the pillars, which Sesostris, king of Egypt, erected in the different
countries, most of them are no longer in existence ; but in Syrian Palestine I
myself saw some still remaining.

327. Delitzch observes, p.242, —

The legends about the Flood, which are found in different nations, have just as
much their corrective in the Biblical record, as this has in them a proof of its
historical value. In them are similar fundamental portions, which form the basis
of the heathen legends, only mythologically coloured, and altered in such a way,

STOKIES OF THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 217

that the moral significance of the event retires into the background, the locality of
the place of settlement is brought as near as possible, the horizon of an universal
Flood contracts itself more or less in national, special, interests, and the forms of
national common-life are carried back into the antediluvian time. Nearest to the
Biblical record stand the Flood-legends of the West- Asiatic circle of nations. . .
With these Semitic legends without doubt are connected as -well the Phrygian, about
the king 'AvvaKos or NawaicSs (i.e. Enoch) in Iconium, — who was more than 300
years old, predicted the Flood, and prayed with lamentation for his people, — as
also the Armenian, which, as might be expected, agrees with the Biblical in respect
of the locality ; and LrciAN de Syr. Dca, xiii, tells us of a Sjrrian, connected with a
cleaving of the earth near the Syrian Hierapolis, whence the waters of the first
Flood had poured forth. . . .

328. So, Delitzch: says, in Persia, India, and China, there is

a second group of Flood-legends, peculiar to the countries of

Eastern Asia. And he continues : — ■

A third group is formed by the legends of the Grecian circle — in the first place,
that of Ogyges (Plat. Tim.), and the further-developed one of Deucalion and
Pyrrha, (first in Pln-dar, then brought nearer to the Biblical account by Apollo-
doeus, Plutarch, Lucian, Ovid), — both fundamental legends of one and the same
general Flood, but thoroughly Hellenised ; and upon these many trivial legends
group themselves, as the Attic. Thessalian, Phocian, Samothracian, which localise
the Flood with more or less narrowed horizon. What Dtod. Sic, i-10„ and Plato
(Tim.) report of Egyptian statements about the Flood, sound so Hellenistic, that we
cannot well discern therefrom the veritable form of the Egyptian Flood-legend.

329. A fourth group is formed by the legends of nations lying
beyond the intercourse of the ancient world, as the Welsh,
Mexicans, Peruvians.

The legend of the Mexicans and Islanders of Cuba agrees even as to the dove
and raven with the Biblical account, (von Raumeh, AUgcm. Geog. ^>.4'29). According
to the legend of the Macusi-Indians in South America, the only man, who sur-
vived the Flood, repcopled the earth by changing stones into nun. According to
that of the Tamanaks of Orinoko it was a pair of human beings, who cast behind
them the fruit of a certain palm, and out of the kernels sprang men and women. .
Also the legends of a general Flood, among theTahitians and other Society Islanders,
betray an Asiatic origin, as generally much in this group of people reminds us of
India. The inhabitants of Raiatea show — as a proof that a flooding of the land once
took place — the corals and mussels, which arc found on the highest summits of th •
island.

330. The inference, which Delitzch draws from the 'dove
and raven' appearing in the mythology of Mexico and Cuba,
viz. that these legends are all most probably derived from one

218 STOEIES OF THE FLOOD AMOXG OTHEE NATIONS.

primeval historical fact, would be justified, if the other chief
details of the story were found repeated in these legends.
Otherwise, it might be just as fairly argued that the primeval
fact involved also the changing stones into men, which appears
so prominent in these South American legends, as well as in
that of the Greeks.

331. In fact we can account for the observed resemblance in
one of three ways : —

(i) The different legends do point to one common primeval
fact ; but, if so, the ' stones ' must have formed a feature in it
quite as much as the ' birds ' ;

(ii) The legends of the new World may have been derived
from those of the Old ; but, if so, the American Indians must
have had connection with the old mythology of Greece, which
contains the ' stones,' as well as of India, which has the ' dove ';

(iii) The legend in each case has arisen from the same cause,
viz. the inventive faculty of man, as he observed the circum-
stances with which he was surrounded, and pondered upon
them.

332. We have just read that the inhabitants of Eaiatea
produce, as a proof that a Flood of waters must have covered
their country in former days, —

the corals and mussels, -which are found on the highest summits of the island.

Probably, we have here the real solution of the question
before us. The Eaiateans were right in believing that the
existence of the remains of these shellfish upon their hills was
a certain indication that the sea had once covered their land.
But they attributed to some remote era in the history of their
own people, what, as we now know, from the teachings of Geology,
may have happened vast ages — perhaps, even millions of years —
before man lived upon the face of the earth. It seems probable
that, in all these different nations, the discoveries, which were
made from time to time of these remains of marine creatures,

STORIES OP THE FLOOD AMONG OTHER NATIONS. 219

far away from the sea, and far above the sea-level, must have
led to speculations upon the cause of these phenomena. And
what account could be given of them, but that they were the
result of some tremendous Flood, which covered the whole
earth, and left these signs of its terrible violence upon the high
mountain-tops, which were buried beneath the waters ? In such
a Flood all living things must have perished, except such as
might have been saved by some kind of floating vessel.

333. Thus the legend in each case would gradually shape
itself, according to the special peculiarities of the people or
country in which it originated : just as the discovery of huge
bones of extinct animals, and the sight of the vast remains of
ancient buildings, seem (264) to have given rise in different
countries to the legends about a race of primeval giants. It is
quite possible also that, in certain cases, some actual fact, handed
down by tradition from former days, may have helped to give a
substantial basis to the legendary story. The Hebrew narrative,
for instance, may have had a real historical foundation in some
great Flood, which overwhelmed a considerable tract of country
in the neighbourhood of Ararat, just as it is possible that, since
the existence of man upon earth, the country of Lyonness, be-
tween the Land's End and Scilly Isles, has been actually sub-
merged, as the Welsh legend teaches.

334. Thus the Scripture story of the Deluge may rest upon a
reminiscence of some tremendous inundation of the ancient
fatherland of the Hebrew tribes, — possibly, as Baron Bunsen
supposes, resulting from geological changes, connected with the
formation of the present Caspian Sea, mixed up with recollec-
tions of some more recent catastrophe in the lower plains of
Mesopotamia, which are not unfrequently flooded by the Tigris
and Euphrates, the latter of which rivers has its source in the
Armenian mountains, and is swelled prodigiously, at times, by
the melting of the snows. It is noticeable that these inundations
take place in the Sjprmg, when Noah's Flood also was at its

220 STOEIES OF THE FLOOD AMOXG OTHER NATIONS.

height, which began with the autumnal rains in the middle of
the second month (October), Gr.vii.ll, and was at its height, at
the end of 150 days, in the middle of the seventh month {March),
Gr.viii.4.

335. "We have the following account of such a Flood in the
plains of Bagdad in the month of April.

A remarkable Flood occurred in April 1839, in Mesopotamia, when the Tigris
and Euphrates were both out at the same time, and the greatest exertions were
required on the part of the inhabitants of Bagdad, to prevent their city from being
swept away by the inundation. . . On April 21, Dr. Bell wrote to a relative
that the water was high upon the ramparts of Bagdad, and six feet above the level
of the city. As far as the eye could reach, nothing was to be seen, from the highest
tower of the Mosques, but a great waste of waters, studded here and there with a
few date groves, which appeared like little islands ; all cultivation in corn and
garden-produce was completely destroyed. Thousands of square miles of country
were at that time inundated, and numerous encampments of Arabs were drowned
in the localities, where they had been accustomed to dig wells for a scanty supply
of brackish water. So extensive, indeed, was the inundation, that the Euphrates
steamer, under the command of Capt. Lynch, made long excursions across the
newly-formed Flood. Nearly a third of Mesopotamia was under water. Heywood's
von Bohlex, ii.p.178.

Dr. Bell further mentions the fact, that the ferry-boats in
use on the Tigris at the present day are still ' covered with
bitumen'; ccmip. Gr.vi.14, —

' Thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.'

221

CHAPTER XXII.

GEN. IX. 1 -IX. 29.

336. Gr.ix.3.

' Every creeping-thing that livetli, to you it shall he for food ; as the green herb,
I give to you all.'

Delitzch notes here, p.27l : —

Not as though men had not yet enjoyed the use of any animal food, hut now
first it is allowed to them ; since, now that the fruitfulness of the ground and the
nourishing power of its products have been diminished by virtue of the divine
curse, iii.l7,v.29, man required a more extensive and more strengthening nutri-
ment.

But it rather seems that, whatever may have been the case
(234) with the Jehovist, the Elohist did not suppose that, before
the Flood, animal-food was used, as he makes no provision of
such food for Noah and his family during the twelve months in
the Ark. And yet, of course, as already noted (213), even in
the eating of vegetables by men, or grasses and leaves by
animals, — nay, even in the drinking of water, — there must
have been abundant destruction of animal life, as common
observation, and, at all events, the microscope, teaches. And
great numbers of fish live by suction, and cause thus infinite
destruction of animal life.

As regards the curse, it may be observed that the Jehovist
seems rather to regard the Flood as having produced an alle-
viation of toil, v.29,viii.21.

337. Willet writes on this point, Hexapl. in Gen. p.105 : —

The sounder opinion is, that not only the eating of flesh was permitted before the
Flood, but used not only among the profane race, but witli the faithful, — though witli
greater moderation. Our reasons are these: —

222 GEX.TX.1-IX.29.

(i) Because there is made no new grant, neither in this, nor in the rest, as of
multiplying, but only the ancient privileges, granted to man, are confirmed ;

(ii) The distinction of clean and unclean beasts was known to the faithful before
the Flood, G.vii.2, and they are counted clean beasts, which it was lawful for them
to eat, and they unclean, whereof they might not eat, L.xi.1-8 ;

(iii) It is evident by the oblation of Abel, who offered the first fruit of his sheep,
and the fat of them, iv.4 : but it had been no praise to Abel to offer the fatlings,
if he used not to eat of them ; it had been all one to God, whether to offer lean or fat ;
but herein Abel is commended, because he preferred the service of God before his
own private use ;

(iv) In that express mention is here first made of eating of flesh, it is not, as one
well resolveth, quantum ad v.svm, ' in respect of the use,' but quantum ad necessitates,
' in regard of the necessity.' The food of flesh began now to be more necessary,
because the plants and herbs had lost now — [rather, had lost at the Fall, iii. 18] —
the first natural vigour and strength.

338. It is plain, however, that the Elohist does here imply a
new grant of the use of animal food, since in r.3, he expressly
contrasts the present grant with the former, i.29, —

< every creeping-thing that liveth, to you it shall be for food ; as the green herb, I
give to you all,' —

and besides lays so much stress in vA on their not eating blood, —
about which something would have been said before, if they had
been supposed to be permitted the use of animal food. But
it will be seen that Willet's reasons (ii), (iii), (iv), are all caused
by statements occurring in Jehovistic passages.

339. (x.ix.4.

' Only flesh, with its soul, its blood, ye shall not eat.'

This may either be a recognition by the Elohist, in the form
of an express law, of a custom already existing in his time, of
abstaining from the use of blood as food, or it may have
been introduced with the view of checking and extirpating
among the Hebrews the practice of eating raw meat, which, as
Kalisch observes, is still customary among some tribes of Syria,
as it is to a certain extent among the Zulus, but especially
among the modern Abyssinians, who are said to eat raw steaks
cut from the living animal.

Aristotle, de Anim. i.2, considered the blood as the seat of the soul, whilst

GEX.IX.1-IX.29. 223

[according to Pixt. Plac. Phil, iv.o.] Ewpedocles limited it to the blood of
the heart (aljua irepucdpSiov'). Yibgtl speaks of an effusion of the 'purple soul,'
purpuream vomit ille animam, JEn. ix.349. It was the doctrine of Chitias, that
blood is the soul, and of Pythagoras, that the soul is nourished by the blood.
Kalisch, ^>.218.

340. (x.ix.13.

'My bow do I set in the cloud.'

The writer evidently intends to account in this way for the
first appearance of the rainbow. This is the plain meaning of
the language here used, which must be twisted to imply that,
though the rainbow had often been seen before, — as it must
have been, if there was rain and sunshine together before the
Deluge, — it was then first, after the Deluge, made the sign of
peace between Grod and man. The writer supposes it was then
first set in the clouds after the Deluge.

341. Delitzch notes, as follows, p.276 : —

It is plain that, in the writer's meaning, the rainbow now appears for the first
time, although — and this requires to be especially noticed — only that rainbow, which
is visible far off in the clouds of heaven, after they have discharged their burden of
water. For the same phenomenon of refraction is also to be observed at a water-
fall, and it shows itself at times in a dew-dropping mist. But first after the deluge,
with the entrance of the (so-called) rainbow, entered also the natural conditions,
which made possible the appearance of the rainbow, as a cloud-bow bending itself
high and far away over the earth. The production of the rainbow through a
cooperation according to natural laws, of air, and water, and light, is no proof
against its here described origin and object.

The Hindoos see in it Indra's weapon, [with which he discharged his arrows of
lightning against the Asuras, the assailants of heaven, and] which he placed by his
side, [as a sign of peace for men,] after his fight was ended. The Greeks named it
Iris, [the daughter of Thaumas {wonder) by Electra (brightness), the daughter of
Oceanus, Hes. Tlieog. 265,] ' the messenger between gods and men,' [or they deemed
it the path by which Iris herself descended]. Among the Germans, it is the great
bridge made by the gods, connecting Heaven and Earth. . . The Samoides call it
the border on the mantle of Xum, i.e. the Deity. According to still existing
German folk-lore, golden coins drop from it, and, in the spot where it rises, there
lies a golden key, or one finds hidden treasures. These and similar views, existing
also outside of Israel, show that the knowledge of the origin and signification of
the rainbow had travelled out of the house of Xoah into the world of peoples, and
had not yet quite died away, though overpowered and repressed by various, and, in
part, contradictory imaginations.

224 GEX.IX.1-IX.29.

342. Surely, we must believe that these and similar views
are merely the results of human speculation upon the origin,
and attempts to explain the meaning, of this remarkable
phenomenon. The Hebrew, however, is the most intelligent
and beautiful of all these imaginings, and true, as beautiful.
For it is true that God has set His bow in the heavens, as a
sign of His croodwill to us ; but He has done this from the time
when He first created the light and the rain, — not then first after
the Flood. All things beautiful in heaven and earth are signs
of His Loving-kindness, — of His special favour to a creature
like man, who is gifted with power to behold this and other
manifestations of the glory and beauty of the universe, and
with power also to reflect upon and realise their meaning, as
messages of peace, with which our Father's goodness cheers us.
The very fact, that we have eyes to see the rainbow and rejoice
in it, is a sign that we are children of God, that we share His
favour, and are not an accursed race.

343. The Elohist, then, was right, when he viewed the
rainbow as a pledge of God's continuing care for man ; though
he has limited and narrowed its meaning, by connecting it thus
with the story of the Flood. To the eyes of all mankind, the
appearance of the mild hues of the rainbow after a storm is
very soothing and refreshing. As Delitzcii says, ^-277 : —

Shining out upon the dark ground, which was just before discharging itself with
lightning flashes, it images forth the victory of the Divine Love over the dark fiery
Wrath. Caused by the effect of the sun's rays upon the gloomy mass of cloud, it is
a figure of the willingness of the Heavenly, to penetrate and work upon the
Earthly. Outspanned between Heaven and Earth, it announces peace between
God and Man. Overspanning the horizon, it shows the all-embracing universality
of the covenant of grace.

344. These metaphors may be multiplied to any extent, and
they have their proper use, as imaginative expressions, setting
forth broken images of the great eternal truth before our eyes.
But we must not forget that a rainbow ma}7 herald a tremendous
cominq storm, as well as illumine the dark cloud that has passed.

GEX.IX.1-IX.29. 225

And, indeed, Homer speaks of it as a * sign ' {rspas),* portend-
ing either war or winter-storms, J/.xi. 27-28, xvii.547-48 ; and
the Chinese also regard it as the prognosticates of calamity.

345. We may fall back with a sure, quiet, trust on the firmer
ground of the comprehensive fact just mentioned, that He, who
has made the rainbow and other things so grand and beautiful,
and has given us eyes to see, and hearts to appreciate, the
beauty and glory of His works, has surely kind and gracious
thoughts towards us. He would not mock a world lying under
the power of the wicked one, — a race, of whom (as some
suppose) the vast majority are doomed to endless woe, — with
these bright exhibitions of His Goodness : for ' as His Majesty is,
so is His Mercy.' Ecclus.ii.18.

346. G-.ix.25.

' Cursed be Canaan : a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren."
The other descendants of Ham, according to G.x.6, viz. the
Ethiopians (Gush), Egyptians (Mizraim), and Moors (Phut),
are not included with Canaan under this sentence of servitude ;
nor are the Babylonians and Assyrians, the descendants of
Cush, x.8-12, or the different offshoots of Mizraim, r.13,14, as
the Philistines. Only Canaan is doomed to be a ' servant of
servants to his brethren.' This Scripture, therefore, though so
often appealed to for this purpose, gives not the least sanction
to the notion, that the African races, generally — as s sons of
Ham ' — are doomed to be slaves.

347. Some explain the fact of the Canaanites alone beino-
selected fortius condemnation, by supposing that Canaan, Ham's
youngest son, was the first to detect his grandfather's condition,
and reported it scoffingly to his father, — though the Bible says
nothing of this. Delitzch writes, p.281 : —

* yIpiSes . . . oi Tf Kpoviuv,

'Ev vifyti flT7jp«{e, Tepees fiepSiruv avdpwirwv.

Rainbows, . . . which Kronos' son
Set in the cloud, portent to speaking men.
vol.. ii. y

226 GEN.IX.1-IX.29.

Noah's curse lights on Ham, not in the ease of all his descendants, but solely in
that of Canaan, the youngest of them ; the others receive neither blessing nor
curse ; and that, too, has its meaning in reference to the -world's history. But is it,
then, reconcilable with the righteousness of God, that for Ham's sin Canaan should
be punished, and not in person merely, but in the entire body of his descendants ?
Noah looks through the innermost machinery of the actions of his sons : the develop-
ment, proceeding from these acts as first beginnings, is spread out before his prophetic
eyes. His curse attaches itself to the descendants of Canaan, in so far as the sin
of their father became the type of their moral condition ; and between them and
their sin arises a chain of consequences, occasioned through their tribal extension and
national unity.

348. Supposing, however, that the Jehovist wrote in a far
later age than the days of Moses, e.g. in Solomon's age, it would
be obvious that these words contain no prediction, but rather,
— like the ' Song of Moses,' — convey, most probably, an
actual description of the state of things when the writer lived.
The history of Samuel, Saul, and David, exhibits several
obstinate struggles with the tribes, whom the migrating Hebrews
found in possession of the land of Canaan. And many more
such struggles must have preceded those times. The story
before us seeks to find a justification for the manner in which
the Canaanites were subdued, and subjected, as we find they
were, for instance, in Solomon's days, lK.ix.20,21 : —

1 All the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites,
and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that
were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able
to exterminate, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service unto
this day.'

349. Hence is explained the significant repetition of the fact,
that Ham was the 'father of Canaan,' v. 18,22. The vicious
practices of the Canaanites are accounted for by their being-
supposed to inherit the shameless character of their progenitor.
The other great Hamite nations, as the Egyptians and Baby-
lonians, would in that case, probably, not be included with
Canaan in the sentence of servitude, for the reason that, at
the time when these words were written, there was no likeli-
hood of those mighty nations being ever so reduced.

!

GEX.IX.1-IX.29. 227

350. G.ix.20.

' And Noah began to be a man of the ground, and he planted a vineyard.'

Von Bohlen observes, u.p.148 : —

It is well known that the finest vines grow over the whole of the Caucasus, and
frequently in a wild state, — so abundantly, indeed, that in some parts the trees
throughout whole forests are covered with vines. Elphinstoxe, Kabul, i.409. The
Grecian mythology also transfers hither the scene of the legend of Dionysus (or
Bacchus).

Schrader, p. 15 6, note, objects to the translation, 'And Noah

began (to be) a man of the ground, and he planted, &c.,' as not

being in accordance with the idiom of the Hebrew language, which

requires that e to be ' should be expressed in such a case in the

original ; and he translates, ' And Noah, the (man of the ground)

husbandman, began to plant, &c.' : but see lS.iii.2, >bm V^in

ninp, vehenayv hekhelu chehoth, i and his eyes began (to be) dim.'

351. G-.ix.27.

' And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.'

This appears to be the true rendering of this verse, and not —
as some translate the words —

and he shall dwell in tents of renown,' —

or, as others, — ■

' but He (Elohim) shall dwell ( Tarrj. Onlc. ' make His Shechinah to dwell) in the

tents of Shem.'

The Hebrew, indeed, will allow of this latter renderino-:

corny). Job xi.l4,xviii. 15. But there is no instance in Scripture

where Jehovah is said to i dwell in the tents ' of Israel ; while

the phrase here employed is used of one people living upon the

ground of other people, in lCh.v.10: —

' They made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand, and they dwelt in
their tents'

352. If ' Elohim ' be the subject of the verb, the meaning of
the passage is obvious : ' Elohim will bless and prosper Japheth ;
but He will make His abode with His people Israel.' If
' Japheth ' be the subject, it is not so easy to explain the allusion.
Tar<j. Jon. has, ' his sons shall be proselyted and dwell in the

Q2

228 GEX.IX.1-IX.29.

schools of Shem.' But were the sons of Ham to he excluded
from this privilege? Manifestly not: since the children of
an Egyptian in the third generation might. c enter into the
congregation of Jehovah,' D.xxiii.8. Still less can the words be
explained of the reception of the Japhethites into the Church,
as Augustine * and Jerome f understand them : since surely the
enjoyment of this blessing would not have been limited to two-
thirds only of the great human family.

353. There may be here, as some suppose, a reference to an
introduction of Japhethites, by colonisation or conquest, into the
district which belonged properly, in the writer's view, to the
sons of Shem. The words in this case are thought to imply
that the descendants of Japheth should be so numerous, that
there should be no longer room for them in their old locations,
and they would overflow into those of Shem. But if so, our
want of sufficient acquaintance with the details of Israelitish
history makes it impossible to conjecture with any degree of
confidence the circumstances referred to, — more especially, as
we have not yet arrived at any definite conclusion as to the age,
in which this Jehovistic passage was most probably written.

354. Possibly, bodies of people of Japhetic origin, among
whom are reckoned in x.2,4, the Cimmerians (Gomer),
Scythians (Magog), Medes (Madai), Thracians (Tiras), Greeks
(Javan), including Hellas (Elisha), and Cyprus (Kittim), —
some, perhaps, for trading purposes, others, it may be, forced on
by the increase of population, — had settled in some parts of the
land of Canaan itself, which was reckoned as belonging of right

* Aug. c. Faustum, xii.24: in tentoriis Sem, id est, in Ecclesiis, quasJUii Prophe-
tarum Apostoli construxerunt, in the tents of Shem, i.e. in the Chiu-ehes, which the
Apostles, the sons of the Prophets, have built

f Jek. Trad. Heb.: quod autem ait, et habitet in tabernacvlis Sem, de nobis pro-
phetatur, qui in eruditioneetscientia Scripturarum, ejeeto Israel, versamw, in say-
ing, ' and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,' he prophesies concerning us, who
engage ourselves in the study and science of the Scriptures, now that Israel has
been cast out.

GENJX1-EL29. 229

to the Hebrew tribes, and had "been allowed to do so with-
out opposition. It is not unlikely that, on the northern
boundaries of Palestine, there was always a pressure from
without: and we read in Is.ix.l of 'the land of Zabulon and
the land of Xephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles.* In the times of Josiah, a formidable
horde of Scythians overspread Media, and almost all Asia.
They then marched towards Egypt, and were diverted by pre-
sents from the King Psammetichus. Upon this they returned
into Palestine ; some of them plundered the temple of Astarte
at Ascalon ; others settled at Bethshan, in the tribe of Manasseh,
which from them was called Scythopolis.

355. Something of this kind may have happened in earlier
day-.

Or the reference mav be to the fact that the Medes,
Ja/phethites, lived in close contact with the Assyrians and
Mesopotamians, Shermites, or to the founding of Greek settle-
ments upon the coast of Asia.

Or. perhaps, the words may be meant to express nothing more
than this, that there was no bar to the existence of friendly
relations between the Hebrews and the people of Japhetic
descent, whereas a very different feeling was entertained by the
former towards the Canaanites.

230

CHAPTEE XXIH.

GEN.X.1-X.32.

356. Gr.X.

In this chapter we have a very interesting record of the
extent of the Jehovist's geographical and ethnological know-
ledge,— though it gives plain signs, of course, of the limited
knowledge of the times. As Delitzch notes, p.289 : —

We cannot avoid the admission, that the horizon of the author of this tabular
list of nations was only as wide as the relations of his time allowed. Hence it is
explained why e.g. he leaves the Chinese unmentioned, who are probably named in
Is.xlix.12, ' and these from the land of Sinim,' [?] but who in the time of Joshua
[? Solomon], in which we place the composition of the Table, were as yet unknown
in Western Asia. They were not known either to the Egyptians, whose ethnogra-
phical knowledge, as the monuments indicate more and more clearly, was, in con-
sequence of the conquering expeditions of the Pharaohs, surprisingly extensive,
or to the Phoenicians, although their ships went westward, as far as Spain, and
eastward, as far as India.

357. We find here entered many names of countries, cities,
and peoples, of which the writer had, doubtless, heard some
rumour, — and especially, if he wrote in Solomon's days, through
the closer intercourse which in that age existed between the
people of Israel and the Phoenicians, lK.v.l-12,x.22, and also
the Egyptians, lK.iii.l,x.28,29. Many of them are named in
Ez.xxvii, as having commerce with Tyre, e.g. Kittim, Elisha,
Arvad, Elam, Lud, Phut, Aram, Togarmah, Dedan, Sheba,
Eaamah, &c, comp. especially, ( Javan, Tubal, Meshech,'
named in the same order in Gr.x.2,Ez.xxvii.l3.

358. But about some of these he may have known little more
than the bare name, or stories current among the common people.
We have an instance of such popular talk in v. 9, in the case of
Nimrod : —

GEX.X.1-X.32. 231

' He -was a mighty oue in hunting before Jehovah': wherefore it is said, 'Even as
Nimrod, the mighty one in hunting before Jehovah.'

Kxobel observes, Gen.p.103, thatt his account of nations —

confines itself to Europe, Northern Africa, and Western Asia, and in particular
reaches eastward only so far as to the people lying next beyond the Tigris. It
includes consequently about the same extent of district, as was covered by the
commerce of the Phoenicians at the time of its composition ; and we may assume
that the ethnological knowledge, expressed in it is in a great measure derived from
the connection of the Hebrew with the Canaanite Phoenician people.

359. No tribes are so fully described as those of Canaan,
v. 15-1 9. Tuch writes, 25.199 : —

In the plainest manner the national interest of the writer betrays itself in
reference to the Canaanites, who, contrary to the actual relations, are derived from
Ham, in order to exclude them from having anything in common with the Shemites,
especially the Hebrews, for which preparation is already made in ix.25. While
recognising in all these indications the Hebrew, who allows his feeling of interest to
influence his combinations, we have at the same time gained a measure for the whole
Table, which, accordingly, together with imich correct data, confirmed also from
other quarters, delivers much, which rests upon special modes of explanation and
private speculations ; and we have through the Table itself no certain guarantee
for any statements, where other ancient authorities leave us in the dark, — to say
nothing of those, which are contradicted by them.

360. The nations of Eastern Asia are not mentioned at all,
having probably been unknown, even by name, to the Jehovist,
who, however, as already observed (249), appears to have had
some vague notion of the existence of distant Eastern nations,
not reckoned among the descendants of Seth. In a later age,
when these nations became better known, attempts were made
to connect them with Noah through Japheth, whom Arabic *

* Some Eabbinical writers also make Shem to be the youngest son of Noah, upon
these grounds :

(i) The order of the genealogy in G.x is (i) Japheth, (ii) Ham, (iii) Shem, —
[but this appears to be thus arranged, in order to bring the family of Shem into
connection with the account of his descendant Abraham, in the following chapters ; J

(ii) If Noah begat a son at the age of Jive hundred, v.32, and entered the Ark at
the age of six hundred, vii.ll, and yet Shem was only a hundred years old, two years
after the Flood, xi.10, he must have been the youngest son, and Japhet the eldest.

[This discrepancy, no doubt, exists : but it is evident that in the lists of G.v,xi,
the ancestors of Abraham are, in every other instance, the first-born sons of their
respective fathers, — (the Elohist knowing nothing of Cain and Abel), — and it is
not likely that the case of Shem would be exceptional.]

•232 GEN.X.1-X.32.

writers describe as the eldest, not — as he is in the Bible — the
youngest, son of Noah. Thus Kalisch writes, Gen.p.236 : —

They relate that Noah gave him ( Japheth) a mysterious stone, long preserved in the
possession of the Mongolians, on which the holy name of God waswritten, and which
furnished him with power to call down rain from the skies at his pleasure. They
consider him as an inspired prophet, and as the ancestor of the Turks, and call him,
therefore, Aboulturk ; and they ascribe to him seven sons, by whom he became the
sire of as many tribes or nations, the most celebrated of which are the Chinese, the
Goths or Scythians, the Russians, and the Turcomans.

361. Many names of peoples and places are here set down as
names of individuals, such as Tarshish, vA, Sidon, v. 15, Ophir
and Havilah, r.29. So Mizraim, v.13,14, which is merely the
dual name of the Double Egypt, Upper and Lower, begets six
sons, each of whose names is a Plural Proper Name, and evidently
represents a tribe or people, e.g. ' Casluhim, out of whom came
Philistim,' the Philistines. Thus the Arabs derive the Persians
from Pharis, the son of Aram, the son of Shem, and the Romans
from Rum, the son of Esau, the son of Isaac. (Lengkerke,
Kenaan, £>.xviii.) But from the occurrence of the above
Plural Names and Patronymics it is plain that the writer was
aware of the real nature of the account which he was giving, —
that he himself did not mean these names to be taken as the
names of individual men, — at least, not in all cases, — but
wished to be understood as writing a chorographic description
of the world as then known.

362. Kxobel writes on this point, p. 106 : —

As the Greeks assumed the mythical persons of Pelasgus, Lelex, Hellen, iEolus,
Dorus, Achseus, Ion, Tyrrhenus, Iber, Kaltus, Scythes, &c, as progenitors of the
peoples of like name, so the Hebrews referred back the different nations to separate
progenitors having the same names. This appears also from the signification and
form of the names. They are partly designations of countries, [Cash, Phut, Havilah,
Mizraim, &c] which passed over from the countries to their inhabitants, and then
are applied to the assumed progenitors, — partly ]>!ural names, [Kittim, Dodanim,
Ludim, &c], which do not suit the progenitors, as single individuals, — ■ partly
patronymics, [Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, &c.,] which apply to races, not to
single persons. In the last two cases, it seems almost as if the author himself had
not thought on separate individuals as progenitors. Leaving out of consideration

GEN.X.1-X.32. 233

the derivation of the peoples, this list of nations is an historical document, for the
nations brought forward in it are historical : their existence was the occasion of
the author's composing his description, aud his knowledge enabled him to do so.
We need not be surprised at this, if we realise the relation of the Hebrews to the
Phoenicians, and their comprehensive commerce.

And Kalisch adds, Gensp.235 : —

The Hindoos also connectedall the nations, of which they had the least knowledge,
with their own history. But they traced the other nations to illegitimate alliances
with the different castes, and regarded them all as impure rebels.

363. The word JW?, Kenahan, 'Canaan/ v.15, means 'low,'
i.e. Lowlands, in opposition to W}$3 Aram, ' high,' the High-
lands of Syria. Mr. Grove describes the district of Aram,
Smith's Diet, of the Bible, i._p.98, as —

the great mass of that high table-land, which, rising with sudden abruptness from
the Jordan and the very margin of the Lake of Gennesareth, stretches at an
elevation of no less than 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, to the banks of the
Euphrates itself, contrasting strongly with the low land bordering on the Medi-
terranean, the 'land of Canaan,' or the 'low country.'

And he writes of Canaan, Ibid, i.246 : —

High as the level of much of the country west of the Jordan undoubtedly is,
there are several things which must always have prevented, as they still prevent, it
from leaving an impression of elevation. These are —

(i) That remarkable, wide, maritime plain, over which the eye ranges for miles
from the central hills, — a feature of the country, which cannot be overlooked by
the most casual observer, and which impresses itself most indelibly on the recol-
lection ;

(ii) The still deeper, and still more remarkable and impressive, hollow of the
Jordan valley, a view into which may be commanded from almost any of the heights
of central Palestine ;

(iii) The almost constant presence of the line of the mountains east of the Jordan,
— which from their distance have the effect more of an enormous cliff than of a
mountain range, — looking down on the more broken and isolated hills of Canaan,
and furnishing a constant standard of height, before which everything is dwarfed.

364. The above is, beyond a doubt, the true meaning of the
word as expressing the country, though the Hebrew writer has
introduced a person, — Canaan, the son of Ham, — and given
him eleven sons, of whose names nine are tribal names, and one
is the name of the ancient city, Sidon. The Canaanites were,
in point of fact, the lowland tribes of that district, including
the Phoenicians, who lived upon the coast, and who both called

234 GEX.X.1-X.32.

themselves Canaanites, and are so denominated in the Bible ;

thus we read —

Is.xxiii.ll, ' Jehovah hath commanded concerning Canaan [E.T. 'the merchant
city ' = Tyre] to destroy the strongholds thereof ;

Zeph.ii. 5, ' 0 Canaan, land of the Philistines, I will even destroy thee, that
there shall be no inhabitant.'

365. Gtesenius says of the name Canaan, Heb. Gram. p.&,
note 1 —

It is the native name both of the Canaanitish tribes in Palestine, and of those
who dwelt at the foot of Lebanon, and on the Syrian coast, whom we call Phoeni-
cians, while they are called jyjj Kcnahan, ' Canaan,' on their own coins. Also the
people of Carthage gave themselves the same name.

The Hebrew tribes were originally Syrians, i.e. Aramaeans or
Highlanders, and probably, as we shall presently see, they were
in reality kindred tribes with, and spoke the same language as,
the Canaanites or Loivlanders, whence the Hebrew language is
called in Is.xix.18, 'the (lip) language of Canaan.'

366. In all probability, the nations in this chapter are, as
Kxobel says, historical, that is, they had a real existence in the
view of the writer, and are not, as some have supposed, in many
cases, a mere fiction of his own imagination. There is, however,
one point, in respect of which there is an indication of artifi-
ciality in the list, viz. that there are exactly seventy national
names given in this register, if we omit the passage about Nim-
rod,* r.8-12, which has some appearance of being a later interpo-
lation, whether by the same or another writer, — (since five sons
of Cush are given in v.7, and it is strange that the story should
begin again, v.8, e and Cush begat Ximrod,') — and which at all
events is concerned with the acts of an individual person, and
not with a tribe or people. This number ' seventy ' may have

* So writes 3Ir. Bevax, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, p.545: 'It does not seem to
have formed pari of the original genealogical statement, but to be an interpolation
of a later date. It is the only instance in which personal characteristics are
attributed to any of the names mentioned. The proverbial expression, which it
embodies, bespeaks its traditional and fragmentary character ; and there is nothing
to connect th sje either with what precedes or with what follows it.'

GEX.X.1-X.32. 235

reference to the ' seventy ' souls of the House of Jacob, which
came into Egypt, Gr.xlvi.27 : comp. also D.xxxii.8, —

'When the 3Iost High divided to the nations their inheritance, -when He sepa-
rated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number
of the children of Israel.'

367. But there are several discrepancies in this account,
which show some uncertainty in the traditions, reports, or theories,
on which the writer relies ; and there are other points, on which
it is at variance with the ethnological science of the present day.

Thus the names of Sheba and Havilah, — doubtless, the names
of countries, — occur both among the sons of Ham, r.7, and
the sons of Shem, r.28,29 ; and again Sheba occurs among the
grandsons of Abraham, xxv.3. There may have been two branches
of each of these two tribes, one settled on the E. coast of Africa, the
other in Arabia ; and the first in each case may have been reckoned
by the writer with the sons of Ham, and the other with the Shem-
ites. But then the two branches of each name must really have
been related to each other ; they must have been both Shemitic,
or both Hamitic. And so Delitzch notes, 25.307 : —

It is impossible for us to keep asunder the Cushite Sheba, x.7, the Joktanite
Sheba, x.28, and the Abrahamite Sheba, xxv.3.

368. But if so, then both Sheba and Dedan, who are reckoned
together as grandsons of the Shemite, Abraham, xxv.3, must be
connected with the Hamite Sheba and Dedan of x.7.

Again, Tarshish* {Tartessus in Spain), and Kittim (Cyprus),

* The Chronicler writes, 2Ch.ix.21, 'For the king's ships went to Tarshish with
the servants of Hiram : every- three years came the ships of Tarshish bringing
gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks,' to king Solomon. Here he has
evidently meant to copy the corresponding datum in 1 K.x.22 : — ' For the king had
at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the
navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.' But
the writer in Kings speaks only of a ' navy of Tarshish,' i.e. a fleet of merchant-
vessels, the phrase ' ship of Tarshish ' having become proverbial for ' merchantman,'
Ps.xlviii.7Js.ii.l6,xxiii.l,14,lx.9,Ez.xxvii.25, from the great traffic which the Phoe-
nicians had with Tarshish (or Tartessus) in Spain. The Chronicler, however,
has understood the expression literally, and therefore writes of Solomon's ships going
to Tarshish.

So we find in lK.xxii.48, ' Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir

236 GEX.X.1-X.32.

which are known to have been Phoenician settlements, are
classed among- the Japhethites, vA, though Sidon or Phoenicia
itself is placed among the Harnltes, v. 15.

The Medes also (Madai) are separated as Japhethites from
the probably kindred tribes of Asshur and Elam, who are
reckoned as >Shemites,— perhaps, because the territory of the
Medes was supposed to extend indefinitely towards the north.

369. Again, there exists a discrepancy between r.ll, as it
stands in the E.V., and the statement in r.22, that Asshur was

of the family of Shem ; for we read in v.W —

' Out of that land (the land of Nimrod, a Hamite) went forth Asshur (a Shemite),
and built Nineveh.' &e.

Kalisch adopts, as we do, the marginal reading' —
' Out of that land he (Nimrod) went out to Asshur, and built Nineveh,' &c.

And he remarks further as follows, p.254 : —

It was a general conviction among the Israelites, that the tribes of Assyria were
kindred with those of Aramsea, from which Abraham had sprung. They were,
therefore, to be placed among the children of Shem. But the language of the later
Assyrians and Babylonians was strange and unintelligible to the Hebrews. It was

for gold: but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber.' But in
2 Ch.xx.36, 37, we read, 'And he joined himself with him to make ships to go
to Tarshish ; and they made the ships at Ezion-geber. . . And the ships were
broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish.' That is to say, the earlier
writer says, very correctly, that Solomon built merchant ships at Ezion-geber, at
the top of the Bed Sea, to go to Ophir, on the S.E. coast of Arabia: whereas the
Chronicler says that Solomon made ships on the Bed Sea to go to a port in Spain.
Some commentators have attempted to ' reconcile ' the difficulty by supposing
Tarshish to be in Asia: but there is no real ground whatever for this: comp.
Is.xxiii.6, Jon.i.3, from which it is plain that Tarshish was directly accessible
from the coast of Palestine. Mr. Twisleton writes, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, iii.
^;.1440 : ' The compiler of the Chronicles, misapprehending the expression ' ships of
Tarshish,' supposed that they meant ships destined to go to Tarshish ; whereas,
although this was the original meaning, the words had come to signify large
Phoenician ships of a particular size and description, destined for long voyages,
just as in England ' East Indiaman' was a general name given to vessels, some of
which were not intended to go to India at all. . . . This alternative is in itself by
far the most probable, and ought not to occasion any surprise'

GEX.X.1-X.32. 237

to them a barbarian tongue, without sense or meaning — a stammering speech, dis-
cordant to their ears. Is.xxxiii.19.xxviii.il. Further, the histoiy of the Israelites
teaches that they had no more powerful or more deadly foes than the kings of
Assyria and Babylon. They were in almost constant conflict with, and in perpetual
dread of, those insatiable princes. They entertained, therefore, towards them feel-
ings far from fraternal. They believed that this antipathy was explicable only on
the supposition that the original inhabitants of the countries near the Euphrates
and Tigris had, at an early period, been subdued or expelled by bold invaders from
the south, descended from the hateful stem of the Hamites, who included all the
national enemies of the Hebrews.

This explanation removers the discrepancy, but leaves the
historical fact, as stated by the Scripture writer, to be this, —
that Nimrod and his people, Hamites, shifted entirely their
original locality, and settled down permanently, building their
great cities, Babylon, Nineveh, &c, close to the settlements of
the Shemites, Elam, Asshur, and Aram.

370. In point of fact, it does seem probable that there is some
historical ground for the association of the Chaldees with Ham,
— at least, with the Egyptians. Egyptian settlements have
been traced, along the shores of the Persian Gulf and Indian
Ocean, to the mouth of the Indus. Chaldee tradition speaks of
an Oannes, a fish -man, who came up the Persian Gulf, and
taught astronomy and letters to the settlers at the mouth of the
Tigris and Euphrates. The inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes
apply the names Cush and Phut to races bordering on Chaldea ;
co77ip.Ez.xxvii.10, where Persia, Lud, and Phut are linked
together. The Greeks connected the names Cepheus and Mem-
non, sometimes with countries in Africa, sometimes with coun-
tries on the Euphrates, and state that the Phoenicians emigrated
from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Lastly, some
skilful Egyptologers consider the Egyptian as the first, and the
Chaldee as the second, stage, in the development of the Phoe-
nician or Semitic tongue. See Eawlinson's Herod. i.643-7 ,
hi. 241, 248, Bunsen's Egypten (conclusion).

371. The town "M ri2m,I£ekhoboth~H.ir,]it. 'streets, city,' E.V.
'city of Rehoboth,' r.ll, if the same as 1$0 rfarn, Eekhoboth

238 GEX.X.1-X.32.

han-Nahar, lit. 'streets of the River,' E.V. 'Rehobothbythe Eiver
(i.e. Euphrates),' may perhaps find its modern parallel in the
town Aneh, described as consisting of two long streets, one on
each side of the Euphrates, Delia Valle, L187.

It has also been suggested that the clause at the end of v. 12,
'that is the great city,' may refer to Nineveh in v.ll, and that
the four places, Nineveh, Eehoboth, Calah, and Resen, formed
a kind of Tetrapolis, which was collectively called Nineveh, ' the
great city,' and may now be represented by the four mounds,
Nebi Yunus, and Kuyundjik, near Mosul, — Nimrud, eight hours
from Mosul, — and Khorsabad, five hours to the north. See
Delitzch, p. 303.

It is usual to understand the phrase in 17.12, 'that is the
great city,' as referring to Resen just before named. But, if
Resen was the chief city of those parts, it seems strange that
it should be described as ' lying between Nineveh and Calah.'

372. On these verses Kalisch writes, Gen.p. 255: —

The whole import of this interesting passage has been perverted and contorted.
The ' hero ' Nimrod has been, [through a false interpretation of his name, as
from TiJO, marad, 'rebel,'] transformed not only into a giant, a tyrant, and a
ravager, but into a rebel against the authority of God, into a proclaimer of wicked
principles, teaching the docile people that they owe all their happiness to their
own virtue and exertion, and not to the power and goodness of God, — that the
Divine rule was an intolerable tyranny, which had inflicted a general flood, but
which they could for the future escape by gathering around one great centre, the
tower of Babel. He was regarded as a hunter of men, as well as of wild-beasts ;
his very name is believed to imply impious revolt ; he has been identified with the
fearful monster 'Orion,' [called p^DSj Kesil, 'fool' or 'knave,' Job.xxxviii.31,]
chained in the expanse of heaven with indestructible fetters, to warn and to
terrify; he was, among the later Arabic writers, the subject of incredible fables,
which (it is asserted) are hinted at in these verses. And all this because Nimrod
is here called a ' hero ' and a ' mighty huntsman' !

373. Gf.x.21.

' Sheni . . . tlie father of all the sons of Eber.'

By 'sons of Eber (y^V. Hever)' are evidently meant ' Hebrews
(D,|"py, Hivrimy ; in other words, the writer here deduces
from the name of an imaginary personal ancestor, as a patro-
nymic, the appellative name, ' Hebrew,1 which is most probably

GEX.X.1-X.32. 239

derived from 139., hever, ' across, beyond, on the other side of,'
and was applied by the Canaanites to the people of Israel, as
men who had ' crossed over,' i.e. had come originally from
beyond the Euphrates. Hence the LXX express the word
' Hebrew' by Trspdrrjst ; and exactly in the same way the natives
of Natal speak of the thousands of fugitive Zulus, who have
* crossed-over ' the boundary Eiver Tugela into the British
colony, for protection from their tyrannical kings, as abaiuelayo,
it. ' crossed-over.'

374. Hence i Eber ' in this passage is not really the name of
a man, but, as Mr. Bevan says, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, iii.j9.
1545,—

represents geographically the district across (i.e. eastward of) the Euphrates. . .
the country, which had been the cradle of their race, and from which they had
emigrated westward into Palestine. Ibid.i.j).77Q.

The name ' Hebrew ' is first used of Abraham, Gr.xiv.13, and
is applied to his descendants, either in the mouth of foreigners,
G.xxxix.14,17, xli.12, E.i.16, ii.6,7, lS.iv.6,9, xiii.19, xiv.ll,
xxix.3, or when they are contrasted with foreigners, Gr.xl.15,
xliii.32, E.i.15,19, ii.ll,13,xxi.2, D.xv.12, lS.xiii.3,7.

375. In v.2'2 there are numbered among the children of Shem
the people of Elam (Susiana), Asshur {Assyria), and Aram
(Mesopotamia) ; yet it is considered certain that the language
of Elam, and very probable that the Assyrian tongue, has no
affinities with the Shemitic family of languages. Bleek writes
on this point, Mnl.jp.39 : —

In G.x.22 the sons of Shem are named Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.
Of these Arphaxad is made the grandfather of Eber, and Eber the father of Peleg
and Joktan. From the latter of these two, many Arabic tribes are derived in the
following verses. The former is made the great-great-grandfather of Terah, the
father of Abraham ; so that Arphaxad may be regarded as the ancestor of the
Hebrews and other peoples of cognate language. To the same family of languages
would Aram belong, as ancestor of the Aramaean tribes. But then Elam* certainly
does not belong to it, but to the same as the Persians; probably also not Asshur,

* Archd. Ohmehod in Smith's Dirt, of the Bible, iii.1253, note, states, on the
authority of Prof. Max MiJiXEE, that the name 'Elam,' is 'simply the pronunciation

according to the organs of W. Asia of Iran = Airyama=Airjana.'

240 GEX.X.1-X.32.

nor Lud, supposing with Josephus that this last represents the Lydians. However,
it is not certain what language the Lydians had, and the question is still in dispute
with regard to the Assyrians.

On the other hand, in x.15-19 the Canaanites and Phoenicians, and in r.6,7,
Cush (the Ethiopians), and several Arabian peoples, are referred hack to Ham, with
respect to whom, however, it is certain that, according to their language, they be-
longed to the same root as the Hebrews and Aramaeans. [See (370) for the possible
origin of this apparent confusion.]

376. The Jehovist in this chapter has deduced the inhabitants
of the countries with which he was best acquainted, whether
through extended intercourse with Egypt, Phoenicia, and the
East, or through other means, from the three sons of Xoah, — ■
►Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Hebrew, the name Ham, Dn,
kham, would be derivable from the word Don, khamam, ' be
hot ' ; but its real origin appears to be the native designation
for Egypt, khemi, ' the black country,' — Plutarch, %77/u'a,
(whence ' chemistry,' ' alchemy,') — which it received from the
colour of its soil.

377. Kalisch observes on this point, Gea.p.'2±l : —

Ham {Kham) is the ancestor of all the southern nations of the globe. It is,
therefore, natural that the name should be connected with the Hebrew root, Q£n

- T '

Jchamam, ' to be warm,' and that the Hamites should be regarded as the inha-
bitants of the tropic zones. It is, however, certain, that the name Ham is not of
Hebrew, but of Egyptian, origin. It was a very early name for Egypt, which was
still in use in the time of Jeboue. It occurs on the inscription of Eosetta under
the form chme ; and it signifies ' the black country.' for the soil of Egypt is generally
of that colour.

Shabpe writes, Egyptian Mytlcology, pA :—

Another great god [of the Egyptians] was their narrow valley, the country in
which they lived, clearly divided from the yellow desert by the black Xile-mud,
by which it was covered and made fertile, and hence called chemi, the black land,
or, when made into a person, Chem or Ham.

Plutaech, Is. et Osir.xxxii, says that ' Ham ' was the domestic
name of Egypt. Hence we read of ' the tabernacles of Ham,'
Ps.lxxviii.51, 'the land of Ham,' Ps.cv.23,27,cvi.22.

378. The name Japheth, D?», yepheth, is supposed by some
to be derived from nsj, yaphah, i be fair, beautiful,' and to have

GEN.X.l-X.3-2. 241

reference to the light colour of the European nations : while
DK', Shern, means 'a name, renown,' vi.4,xi.4, and may imply
the favour, with which the Hebrew branch of the Shemites was
distinguished by Jehovah, or, more generally, the grandeur and
fame, which, in the earliest historical times, was attached to the
nations of Western Asia : cornp. in modern Europe, ' la grande
nation.' The Jehovist, however, in ix.27, connects the name
Japheth with nns, pathah, ' enlarge,' though he does not profess
to derive it from this word ; and we have seen other instances
already, where he has evidently referred a name to what is
not its true root. Some, as Buttmann, connect it with the
Greek lapetos. The Targ. Jer. upon G.ii.7, says that God
created man ' red, black, and white,' — showing that the idea
of a triple partition of mankind, according to colour, was
current among the Jews.

379. It is probable, however, that the negro races of Africa
are not represented at all in the ethnographical table of G.x —
possibly, not being yet known to the Hebrews at the time when
this document was written. Nott writes, Types of Mankind,

p.84. :—

Ethnology was no new science even before the time of Moses. It is clear and
positive that at that early day (fourteen or fifteen centuries B.C.), the Egyptians
not only recognised, and faithfully represented on their monuments, many distinct
races, but possessed their own ethnographic systems, and already had classified
humanity, as known to them, accordingly. They divided mankind into four
species, vis. the Bed, Black, White, and Yellow . . . Although the Red, or
Egyptian, type was represented with considerable uniformity, the White, Yellow,
and Black, are often depicted, in their hieroglyphic drawings, with different
physiognomies, — thus proving that the same endless variety of races existed at that
ancient day, that we observe in the same localities at the present hour.

The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes, Arabs, and other types
are as faithfully delineated on the monuments of the xviith and xviiith Dyna-
[from 1671 b.c. downwards,] as if the paintings had been executed by an artist of
our present age. ^>.88.

380. Those, who receive the Jehovist's account as a sufficient
explanation of the origin of the different nations of antiquity,
must be prepared to explain how such remarkable pei-maie

VOL. II. E

•242 GEX.X.1-X.32.

differences in the shape of the skull, bodily form, colour,
physiognomy, as are exhibited on the most ancient Egyptian
monuments, — where we see depicted the Mongol with his
distinctive features, shaven except the scalp-lock on the crown,
or else with long hair and thin moustache, and the Negro,
black, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, woolly-haired, just exactly as
now, the children even with the little tufts of woolly hair
erect upon their heads, (see Types of Mankind, p. 252,
fig. 173,) with corresponding peculiarities in other cases, —
could have developed themselves so distinctly in the course
of a few centuries, though no perceptible change has taken
place in the negro face for 4,000 years to the present time.
Nay, according ,to the Biblical accounts, the period allowed
for the development of the physiological and linguistic differ-
ences in the races of men commences, not with Adam or even
Noah, but with Peleg, in whose days mankind was dispersed,
Gr.x.25 ; and Peleg was born (435) only 191 years before the
birth of Abraham.

381. On this point writes Dr. Pte Smith, Geology and
Scripture, p.353 : —

We have no instance of a white family or community acquiring the proper negro
colour, nor of a negro family losing its peculiarity, and becoming of a proper, healthy,
North-European white, where there are not intermarriages with fair persons, long
continued in the favourable direction. This, I believe, must be admitted ; and
another fact of great importance must be added to it. The recent explorings of
the Egyptian tombs and temples have brought to light pictures of native Egyptians'
and of men and women of other nations, comprising negroes, who are distinguished
by their characteristic form of face and their completely black colour. Some of these
highly interesting representations are proved to be of the age of Joseph and earlier,
and some, in which negro figures occur, are of the eighth century after the flood.
Assuming, then, that the complexion of Noah's family was what I ventured to
suppose as the normal brown, there was not time for a negro race to be produced by
the operation of all the causes of change with which we are acquainted.

382. And so writes Nott, Types of Mankind, p.58 : —

"We are told of the transmission from parent to child of club feet, cross eyes, six
fingers, deafness, blindness, and many other familiar examples of congenital pecu-
liarities. But these examples merely serve to disprove the argument they are

GEN.X.1-X.32. 243

intended to sustain. Did anyone ever hear of a club-footed, cross-eyed, or six-
fingered race, although such individuals are exceedingly common ? Are they not,
on the contrary, always swallowed up and lost ? Is it not strange, if there be any
truth in this argument, that no race has ever been formed from those congenital
varieties which we know to occur frequently, and yet races should originate from
congenital varieties, which cannot be proved, and are not believed, by our best
writers, ever to have existed? No one ever saw a Negro, Mongol, or Indian, born
from any but his own species. Has anyone heard of an Indian child born from
white or black parents in America, during more than two centuries that these races
have been living there ? Is not this brief and simple statement of the case sufficient
to satisfy anyone, that the diversity of species now seen on the earth, cannot be
accounted for on this assumption of congenital or accidental origin ? If a doubt
remains, woidd it not be expelled by the recollection, that the Negro, Tartar, and
Whiteman, existed, with their present types, at least one thousand years before
Abraham journeyed to Egypt, as a supplicant to the mighty Pharaoh ?

383. It is impossible to assign with any degree of confidence
the situation of many of the places or peoples here named.
Some of them, of course, are well-known from the later history,
while others have been identified with considerable probability
from a comparison of their names, and of the order in which they
are here enumerated, with descriptions which occur elsewhere in
sacred or profane authors. Thus Japheth represents the nations
of the north and ivest (in Europe and W. Asia), Ham, those of
the south (in Africa and W. Asia), Shem those of the central parts
of W. Asia, — comprising, probably, all those of which the writer
had had some definite information, though it is not impossible
that some may have been omitted or inserted, to make up the
important number seventy. The Japhethites, being probably
least known, are given only to two generations, the Hamites to
three, the Shemites to four ox five.

384. Among these may be noticed —

Gomeb = Ki/j.fx4pioi (?) ; comp.Cimbri, Cymry, and his descendants —
Ashkenas =the Germans (?);
Eiphath =the Kelts (?), whom tradition connects with the Bhipcean or

Carpathian mountains ;
Toyarmah — Krim-T-dThivs (?), or Armenia ;
I\Ia.gog = Scythians ; Gog = .K7fo^A(Indo-Germ.), 'mountain,' found in Ka&K-curos,
Caue-asus, ' mountain of the Asi,' from whom Asia is named;

R 2

244 GEN.X.1-X.32.

Madai = Medes ;

J a van = Ionians, on the coasts of W. Asia, from whom are derived— (contrary to
the Greek tradition, which makes Ion the descendant of Hellen) —
Elishah = Hellas or (?) iEolians ;
Tarshish = Tartessus, in Spain ;
Kittim = Cyprus ;

Bodanim = Rhodes, if the reading of the Sam. Vers., Rodanim, (as in lCh.i.7)
is correct.

Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras (? Thrace) are very uncertain.
Among the descendants of Ham and Shem are —

Lehabim =the Lybians ;

Caphtorim = Cretans ;

Arvadite =people of Aradus, an isle on the Phoenician coast;

Arphaxad =Arrapachitis, a district in Northern Assyria;

Hazarmaveth = Hadramaut,

For a complete discussion of all the seventy names, reference
may be made to Kalisch, 6ren.29.231-287, Knobel, Gen.
p.103-124, Tuch,2>. 185-266, von Bohlen, ii.p.210-254, G-lid-
don, Types of Mankind, pA66-556.

•245

CHAPTEE XXIV.

IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS AND CANAANITES.

385. We proceed now to the consideration of the language
spoken by the Hebrew tribes. According to the traditionary
view, Hebrew must have been the language of Paradise, since
all the conversations are recorded in that tongue, — the words of
Jehovah-Elohim, those of Adam and Eve, and of the serpent,
and, especially, the two names given by the man to his wife,
ii.23, iii.20, names given with express reference to their meaning
in Hebrew. So, too, after the expulsion from Paradise, the names
are pure Hebrew : and Noah is made to play upon the name of
Japheth, ix.27, with reference to a Hebrew root of like sound.

Accordingly, there are some who have maintained that
Hebrew was actually spoken in Paradise, and by all the in-
habitants of the world before and after the Flood, without
suffering any material modification, for 2,000 years (!), so that
they remained still a people of ' one lip,' until, at the i confusion
of tongues,' the one primeval language was shattered into a
variety of different languages, or, rather, a multitude of different
languages were separated at that time from the parent Hebrew
tongue, — which, however, was still maintained in its purity among
the descendants of Peleg, — 'in whose days the earth was
divided,' x.25, — in the line of the eldest son till the time of
Abraham. Delitzch, as we have seen (174), cannot conscien-
tiously maintain this view, but believes that the transactions
in Paradise were carried on in a different language, so that only

•246 IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE

broken reminiscences of what then took place have been handed
doAvn to us by tradition.

386. But, however this may have been, we must suppose, it
would seem, that Abraham, while living at Haran, xi.31,32,
xii.4,5, in his ' father's house,' — which is elsewhere described as
the ' city of Nahor, in Mesopotamia,' xxiv.10, comp. xxvii.43, —
spoke the language of the country, the Aramaic. We are told,
however, that when Laban, the grandson of Nahor, Abraham's
brother, gave an Aramaic name to the stone set up by himself
and Jacob, xxxi.47, Jacob gave to the same stone a Hebrew name
of like signification. From this, regarded as an historical matter
of fact, wTe should infer that Jacob spoke Hebrew, as his mother-
tongue, before he left his father Isaac's house, and that he re-
tained his command of that language during the twenty years of
his residence in Haran, (where, of course, Aramaean was spoken,)
and adopted it again on his return to the land of Canaan.

387. But this would show also that Abraham's family, while
living in the land of Canaan, had already changed their language
from Ararnsean to Hebrew; and it is natural to suppose that
they did this, by adopting the tongue of the people among whom
they dwelt. But, since the Hebrew and Aramaic are merely
different forms of the same Semitic family of languages, this
would imply that the Canaanites spoke the same tongue
fundamentally as the Hebrews themselves, before, as well as
after, the migration of Abraham, — in other words, that the
Hebrew tribes were originally kindred tribes to those of Canaan,
and were not, as they are represented in Gr.x, the sons of Shem,
while the Canaanites were the children of Ham.

388. By those, who maintain Hebrew to be the original tongue
of Paradise, or the nearest representative of the original tongue,
it will be assumed that it was continued in its purity in the line
of Abraham, while Aramaic was a deflection from it, — a dialectic
variation. Admitting this, the difficulty will remain the same
as before, to account for the fact of the Canaanites and

HEBEEWS AND CAXAAXITES. 247

Phoenicians speaking Hebrew, or, at least, a language substan-
tially the same as the Hebrew, if they were, indeed, descendants
of Ham.

389. That they did this, is clearly implied in the narrative,
where the Hebrews are represented as having had no difficulty
at any time in communicating freely, by word of mouth, with
the aboriginal inhabitants of Canaan. In Egypt we find Joseph's
brethren speaking with their brother, supposed to be an Egyp-
tian, by means of an interpreter, xlii.23. The Hamite language
of Egypt, then, was very different — as, of course, we know it
was — from the Hebrew. But we find Abram conversing freely
with the Canaanite King of Sodom, and with Melchizedek, the
Jebusite King of Salem, xiv. 19-24, — (who, however, has been
supposed by some to have been no other than the Patriarch
Shem, and who, in that case, of course, would speak Hebrew,
if that was the original tongue,) — as also Lot with the people
of Sodom, xix.5-9, Abraham and Isaac with the Philistine King
of Grerar, xx.9-15,xxi.22-32,xxvi.7-10,26-29, Abraham with
the Hitt'des, xxiii.3-16, Jacob, with the Hivites, xxxiv.8-12.

390. It may be suggested that these three Patriarchs had,
perhaps, hived so long among the Canaanites, as to have acquired
the power of speaking their tongue, supposed to be Eamitic,
without having lost their own Aramaean, or that form of it, the
Hebrew, into which it had become modified among the members
of their families, who were originally, for the most part, also
Aramaeans. But then we find also the harlot Eahab in Jo.ii
talking freely with the Hebrew spies, and the Hivites of Gribeon
with Joshua, Jo.ix.6-13, and the man of Luz with the spies in
Ju.i.24 : so that these different natives of Canaan are repre-
sented as speaking a language substantially the same as that of
the Hebrews.

391. Again, the names of the Philistine King, S|?e*38, Abi-
melech, G.xx.2, and of the Jebusite Kings, p*jy"*??&, Melchizedek,
and PjyT1^ Adonizedek, G.xiv.18, Jo.x.l, are pure Hebrew, —

•248 IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE

meaning, respectively, ' father of the king,' ( king of righteous-
ness,' ' lord of righteousness ', the last two being, in fact, iden-
tical. So the names of many of the Canaanite cities in Joshua,
— e.g. ' Kirjath-sepher = city of the book,' Jo.xv.15, and see
those in Jo.xv.21-62, — are pure Hebrew. Nay, in Isaiah's time,
the Jews, — speaking Hebrew, of course, since their Prophets
addressed them in that tongue, — did not generally understand
the Syrian or Aramaean tongue, 2K.xviii.26, Is.xxxvi.ll.
Hence it is impossible to suppose that the Hebrew was merely
such a slight modification of the Aramaean, as might have
sprung up among the members of one particular family. And,
in fact, we know that the two languages, though closely allied,
are very different in form, and quite as distinct from each other,
as Dutch from Grerman, or Spanish from Portuguese ; though,
says Mr. Twisleton, Smith's Diet, of the Bible, ii.p.863, —

It seems to be admitted by philologers that neither Hebrew, Aramaic, nor
Arabic, is derived the one from the other, just as the same may be said of Italian,
Spanish, and Portuguese.

. 392.. Mr. Twisletox writes further on this point, ibid. : —

As this obviously leads to the conclusion that the Hebrews adopted Phcenician
:;- their own language, or, in other words, that what is called the Hebrew language
was, in fact, 'the language of Canaan,' as a prophet called it, Is.xLx.18, and this
not merely poetically, but literally, and in philological truth, — and, as this is
repugnant to some preconceived notions respecting the pecidiar people, — the question
arises whether the Israelites might not have translated Canaanitish names into
Hebrew. On this hypothesis, the names now existing in the Bible, for persons and
places in the land of Canaan, would not be the original names, but merely the
translations of those names. The answer to this question is : —

(i) That there is not the slightest direct mention, nor any indirect trace, in the
Bible, of any such translation :

(ii) That it is contrary to the analog}' of the ordinary Hebrew practice in other
cases ; as, for example, in reference to the names of the Assyrian monarchs,
(perhaps of a foreign dynasty,) Pul, Tiglath-Pileser, Sennacherib, or of the Persian
monarchs, Darius, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, which remain unintelligible in Hebrew,
and can only be understood through other Oriental languages ;

(iii) That there is an absolute silence in the Bible as to there having been any
difference whatever in language between the Israelites and Canaanites, although
in other cases, where a difference existed, that difference is somewhere alluded
to, as in the case of the Egyptians, Ps.bcxxi.5,cxiv.l, [G.xlii.23,] the Assyrians,

HEBREWS AND CANAANITES. 249

Is.xxxvi.ll, and the Chaldees, Jer.v.lo. Yet in the case of the Canaanites there
was stronger reason for alluding to it, and, without some allusion to it, if it had
existed, the narration of the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua
would have been singularly imperfect.

393. In short, there can be no doubt that the tribes of

Canaan themselves spoke substantially the Hebrew language,

which the descendants of Abraham adopted from them, and

which is therefore called the 'language of Canaan,' Is.xix.18.

And so writes Bleek, Einl. p.Ql : —

The geographical position also of Canaan, between the Aramaic and Arabian
tribes, would lead one to assume beforehand that the Canaanites belonged to the
same family of nations, and had a kindred speech, which, in respect of its character
and dialectic peculiarities, would lie between the Aramaic and Arabian dialects, as
in fact, the Hebrew does. That, however, the Canaanites — (that is, the people in-
habiting the land before Abraham's arrival) — spoke one and the same tongue with
the Israeb'tes, or, at least, a tongue much more nearly related to the Hebrew than
the Aramaic was, may be concluded from the fact, that, so numerous and intimate
as were the relations of the Hebrews with these people, we find no indication what-
ever of any difference in their language, which either hindered them from mutually
understanding one another, or made an interpreter necessary. Lastly, the Proper
Names of Canaanitish persons and places are pure Hebrew, and expressed in
Hebrew, not Aramaic, forms. It cannot be doubted, then, that the Canaanites spoke
substantially the same language as the Hebrews. But it cannot be supposed that they
adopted it from the solitary stranger, Abraham. Hence it is obvious that he must
have adopted it from them, after settling in the country, having dropped
gradually by disuse the Aramaic dialect, which he spoke in his father's house.
This language must the Israelites have taken with them to Egypt, and brought
back again into the land of Canaan.

394. But, besides the indications thus afforded, that the
vernacular language of the Canaanites was substantially the
same as the Scripture Hebrew, we have other positive proof in
the case of the Phoenicians, who are spoken of as Canaanites in
Obad. 20 :—

' And the Captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of th
Canaanites even unto Zarephath,'1 i.e. ' Sarepta, a city of Sidon,' Luke iv.26.

So in Matt.xv.22 we read of the ' woman of Canaan,' who
came e out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon ' ; and Sidon is
named in G.x.15 as the first-born son of Canaan.

250 IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OP THE

395. Accordingly, Augustine, speaking of the rural population
of the Phoenician colony of Carthage, writes as follows, Exp.
Inchoat. ad Rom.xni : * —

* The whole passage is a wonderful instance of patristieal reasoning. Quo loco
prorsus non arbitror prcetcreundum, quod pater Valerius animadvertit admirans, in
quorundam rusticanorum collocutione. Cum enim alter alteri dixisset, Salus
qucesivit ab eo, qui et Latine nosset et Punice, quid essct Salus : responsum est,
Tria (Heb. &')?&, shalosh). Turn ille, agnoscens cum gaudio salutem nostram esse
Trinitatem, convenientiam linguarum non fortuitu sic sonuisse arbitratus est, sed
occultissima dispensatione divina providential, ut, cum Latine nominatur Salus, a
Punicis intelligantur Tria, et, cum Punici lingua sua Tria nominant, Latine intelli-
gatur Salus. Chananesa enim — hoc est, Punica — mtdier, definibus Tyri et Sidonis
egressa, salutem petebat filice sua ; cui responsum est a Domino, ' Non est bonum
panem filiorum mittere canibus.' . . . Tria enim 7nulieris lingua Salus vocan-
tur ; erat enim Chananma. (Unde interrogati rustici nostri, quid sint, Punice re-
spondentes, Chanani, corruptd scilicet, sicut in talibus solet, una litera, quid aliud
respondent quam Chanancei ?) Petens itaque salutem, Trinitatem petebat . . .
Panem autem appellans Dominus id ipsum, quod a muliere petebatur, quid aliud quam
Trinitati adtestatur ? . . . Sed hac verborum consonantia, sive provencrit, sive
provisa sit, non pugnaciter agendum est, ut ei quisque consentiat, sed quantum in-
terpretantis elegantiam hilaritas audientis ad?nittit(l)

In which place I think I must not by any means omit to mention what Father
Valerius notices with admiration, in a conversation of certain rustics. For, when
one had said to the other Salus, he enquired of him, who knew both Latin and
Punic, what Scdus meant : the answer was, Three. Then he, recognising joyfully
that our salus (i.e. 'health or salvation ') was the Trinity, considered that the
coincidence of sound in the two languages did not occur thus by chance, but by
a most secret dispensation of divine providence; so that, when in Latin salus
(salvation) is named, by Punics shoidd be understood Tkree, and, when Punics in
their own tongue name Three, there should be understood in Latin salus (salvation).
For the Canaanitish — that is, Punic — woman, who ' came out of the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon,' kept asking the salus (salvation) of her daughter, to whom it was
replied by the Lord, ' It is not good to cast the children's bread to dogs.' ....
For in the woman's tongue Three are called salus : for she was a woman of Canaan.
(Whence, our rustics being asked, who they are, answering in Punic, ' Chananites,'
by the corruption of one letter, as is usual in such cases, what else do they answer
than 'Canaanites ' ?) Asking therefore for salus, she was asking for the Trinity (!).
The Lord also, calling that same thing for which she was asking by the name of
bread, what else does He than testify to the Trinity (!) ? . . . But this conso-
nance of words, whether it have occurred by chance, or by providence, is not to be
treated pugnaciously, as if every one must agree to it, but so far as the pleased
feeling of the hearer admits the ingenuity of the interpreter (!)

HEBREWS AND CANAANITES. 251

Interrogate rustici nostri, quid sint, Punice respondentes, Chanani, quid aliud re-
spondent quam Chanancei ? Our rustics being asked who they are, answering in Punic
" Chananites,' what else do they answer than ' Canaanites ' ?

So, Hept.vii, quwst. 16, he writes : —

Istce lingua non multum inter se differunt, those tongues (Punic and Hebrew) do
not differ much from one another.

And, Tract, in Joh. Evang.xv.27 : —

Cognatce sunt lingua ist<e et vicina, Hebrcea et Punica et Syra, those tongues are
allied, and belong to neighbouring people, the Hebrew, and Punic, and Syrian.

And, Locut.i.24:, ad (je?i.viii.9, —

Locutio est, quam propterea Hebresam puto, quia et Punicm lingua familiarissima
est, in qua multa invenimus Hebrais verbis consonantia, it is an expression, which
I consider to be Hebrew for this reason, that it is also very familiar to the Punic
tongue, in which we find many words agreeing with Hebrew.

And contr. lit.Petil.ii.239, —

quod verbum (Messias) Punicce linguce consonum est, sicut alia Hebraa permulta et
pane omnia, which word (Messias) corresponds with the Punic tongue, as do Tery
many other, and, indeed, almost all, Hebrew words.

Jerome, also, Cbmm.iii, ad Is. vii, says : —

Lingua Punica, qua de Hebraorum fontibus manure dicitur, the Punic tongue,
which is said to be derived from the fountains of the Hebrews.

And, in Comm.v, ad Jer.xxv, he states that Carthage was a

Phoenician colony, —

unde et Pceni, sermone corrupto, quasi Pheeni, appellantur, quorum lingua Hebrace
lingua magna ex parte confinis est, whence also they are called Pceni, by a corrupt
form of expression, as if Pheeni, whose tongue has to a great extent affinity with
the Hebrew tongue.

396. We have seen instances of this connection already
(166), in the expressions out of the Phoenician creation-myth,
which Eusebius, Prcep. Ev.i.lO, ascribes to Sanchoniathon, viz.
Kolpia, and his wife Baau.

But our actual knowledge of the ancient Phoenician tongue is
far more extensive than this, and, as Bleek notes, is derived
from the following sources : —

(i) Words quoted by old authors as Phoenician or Punic, such as names of persons,
places, &c., as well as many other words ;

(ii) The passages produced by Plautus, Pcew.v.1-10, ii.35, &c, as speeches of
the Carthaginian Hanno in the Punic tongue;

(iii) Inscriptions on coins of the Phoenicians and their colonies ;

•252 IDENTITY OP LANGUAGE OF THE

(iv) Inscriptions on engraved stones and vessels, pillars, votive tablets, and
sepulchral monuments ;

(v) Especially the two very important, newly-discovered, Phoenician relics, viz.
an altar of the fourth century B.C., discovered in June 1845, by the fall of part of
a house in Marseilles, the ancient port Massilia, and the sarcophagus of the Sido-
nian king, Eschmunazar, with a very perfect inscription, discovered at Sidon, Jan.
15, 1855.

397. As instances of the substantial agreement of the
Phoenician with the Hebrew language, we may quote the
following : —

Plaut. Pcen.v.l, yth alonim valonutli, which Plautus renders deos deasque,
— niJV/>yi O^N nS. e^1 elonim vehelyonoth, superos superasque, 'the gods, male
and female,' — or, rather, according to the inscription of Eschmunazar, D^pX. DX
DiUPXI, eth elonim velonoth.

Proper Names of Persons : —

(') Abdalonimus, = D'Oivy *V2V keved helyonim, 'servant of the powers
above,' the name of a king of Tyre in the time of Alexander ;

(2) Abdelemus,= DpX 13U heved elim, 'servant of thegods,'JosEPH.c.Ap.i.21;

(3) Anna,= nUPI- khannah, 'Grace,' sister of Dido ;

/ T _

(*) Dido, = ITIi dido, 'his darling;'

(5) Eliza, = ntvy> h.dlizah, ' rejoicing,' another name of Dido ;

(6) Asdrubal, = ^y^ ."nty, hasru bahal, ' help ye Baal ' or (?) ' help of Baal ' ;

(7) Hannibal, = ^]}2 ''Jin, khanni bahal, 'favour or gift of Baal'; comp.

Hanniel, Hananeel, ®e68wpos ;

(8) Hamilcar, = "I3^p ||"|> khan melkar, 'favour of Melcar ' (Moloch).
Proper Names of Places : —

(') Zidon, = j'-py, tsidon, ' fishing ; '

(2) Tyre, = -\)¥ or *yi^, tsor or tsur, ' rock ' ;

(3) Carthage, = ntihn T\"\p,~ kercth khadashah, 'new-town,' so explained by

SoLDfus and Eustathtcs, found also on a coin of Palermo ;

(4) Berytos, a Phoenician town, so named, according to Steph. Btz., Bia rb

evvSpov firip yap rb <ppiap trap' avrols, ' because of its being well supplied
with water, for ber means well in their language,' where fZrjp is plainly
"1X3, beer, plur. rii~lX3, beeroth, from which is formed ' Berytos ' ;

(5) Byrsa, the citadel of Carthage = mV2> ^otsraK ' fortress,' corrupted into
the Greek Bvpva, from which the myth of the ' bull's hide,' cut up into strips, was
formed.

Other words which are quoted by old writers as Phoenician or Punic : —
(J) alma (Jee.), ' virgin,' = n)D?y, halmah ;
(8) yar (Aug.), 'forest,' = "iyi, yahar ;

(3) salus (Aug.), ' three,' = &\}&, shalosh ;1

(4) sufes, pi. sufetes, 'judges,' = ttgit»J, shophet ;

HEBREWS AND CANAANITES. 253

(5) messc (Aug.), 'anoint,' = nt^E* meakdkh;

(e) Baalsamen (Aug., Eus.), ' lord of heaven,' = D^ftt^ 7V2> iiahal shamaim ;
(7) ZoKpacre/itv (Eus.), explained to mean ovpavov KarS-iTTai, 'watchers of heaven,'
= D^tJ' *B V> tsophe shamaim.
The Phoenico-Punic inscriptions on coins and monuments
exhibit Hebrew, and not Aramaic, forms, as p, ' son,' not ~\2, — J"Q,
'daughter,' not n~Q. Many other instances of this may be
seen in Bleek's Einleitung,p.68,69.

398. Prof. Eawlinson, however, Aids to Faith, p.269, main-
tains that the Phoenicians were an entirely different race from
the other inhabitants of Canaan, and were, in fact, Shemites, —
so that they might speak the same language as the Hebrews, —
while the Canaanites, generally, were Hamites : —

As for the argument from the presumed identity of the Canaanites with the
Phoenicians, though it has great names in its favour, there is really very little to be
said for it. Phoenicia, as a country, is distinguishable from Canaan, in which it
may, perhaps, have been included, but of which it was, at any rate, only a part.
And the Phoenician people present in many respects a strong and marked contrast
to the Canaanites, so that there is great reason to believe that they were an entirely
different race.

But if, as seems probable (407), the Phoenicians were She-
mites, what, then, becomes of the Scripture statement in Gr.x.15,
that Sidon was the ' first-born ' of Canaan, and brother of the
Hittite, Jebusite, Amorite, &c?

399. Prof. Rawlinson seeks to confirm his view, by observing
in a note, —

Whereas between the real Canaanites and the Jews there was deadly and per-
petual hostility, until the former were utterly rooted out and destroyed, the Jews and
Phoenicians were on terms of perpetxial amity, — an amity encouraged by the best
princes, who would scarcely have contracted a friendship with the accursed race.

But he here only draws attention to another of the difficulties,
which embarrass the traditionary view. If the laws of the
Pentateuch, as we now find them in E.xxiii.31-33 —

'I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and thou shalt drive
them out from before thee: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their
gods : they shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me : —

had really been in existence, and recognised as of Divine

authority, in the days of David and Solomon,, it can hardly be

254 IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE

believed that these, among the < best princes,' would have con-
tracted such close alliance with the Phoenicians, who are expressly
named in Ju.iii.3, among the nations of Canaan not yet exter-
minated, but ' left ' for a while ' to prove Israel ' —

' five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the
Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon,' —

or that, — even if Solomon could import horses for the ' kings
of the Hittites,' lK.x.29, as well as take wives of the ' Zidonians
and Hittites,' lK.xi.l, — the prophet Amos, two centuries later,
would have threatened the Tyrians with punishment, because
they ' remembered not thebrotherly covenant ivith Israel,' Am.i.9.

400. The conclusions, to which Bleek arrives upon the whole
subject, are as follows: —

(i) The Phoenicians spoke originally the same language as the other Canaanitish
peoples, and substantially the same as the Hebrews, who borrowed their speech
from the Canaanites.

(ii) It is probable that the language of the Phoenicians themselves was not
identically the same in all parts of their territory, but, on the northern boundary,
where they touched upon the Aramaic tribes, it became by degrees more and more
affected with Aramaic peculiarities, — especially in later days, as was the case also
with the Hebrew language.

(iii) There is still less reason to doubt that this common ' language of Canaan,'
in course of time, developed itself somewhat differently (especially with reference
to the modifications of the meaning of words) among the Hebrews, who were re-
markably distinguished from their neighbours through their monotheism and
many peculiarities, as well as through their whole character, from what took
place among the heathen peoples, and especially the Phoenicians, who, as a wide-
spreading trading nation, might appropriate much from other people, with whom
they had intercourse.

(iv) So, in the Phoenician colonies, the common mother-tongue was in the course of
time considerably modified, so that the Phoenician, in the mouth of the Carthaginians
and Numidians, took many of the peculiarities of the Libyan tribes, as in later
days, probably, it took also from the Latin. Hence says Jekoite, Ep. ad Gal., Prof.
in lib. ii, 'quum ct Afri Phcenicum linguam nonmdld ex parte mutaverint,' since even
the Africans have changed in some respects the language of the Phoenicians.

401. It is true that in Xehemiah's time, Neh.xiii.24, the speech
of Ashdod differed materially, it would seem, from the Jews'
language. But this was after their return from the Captivity,

HEBREWS AXD CAXAAXITES.

^oo

and when it is highly probable that their speech — at least, that
of the younger people — had become considerably modified by
so long a residence in Babylon. As Bleek observes, —

We have no means of knowing certainly what the Jews' language was at that
time, whether the old Hebrew, or the Aramaic (Chaldee); nor do we know in what
the difference consisted, perhaps only in a broader utterance.

402. The Semitic dialects are principally three, —
(i) The Northern or Aramaic, including the Chaldee, Sa-
maritan, and Syriac ;

The Chaldee passages in Scripture are Jer.x.ll,Ezra,iv.8-vi.l8,vii. 12-26,
Dan.ii.4-vii,2S;

The earliest instance of the Aramaic dialect is in G-.xxxi.47 ;

(ii) The Southern, including the Arabic and Ethiopic ;
In G.x.26, we have, apparently, an Arabic form, "niopX. Almodad, with the
Arabic article ~>$ al ;

(iii) The Middle, including the Hebrew, Phoenician, and

Canaanitish.

These dialects wonderfully agree. By far the greater number of the root-words,
which exist in Hebrew, are found in the other Semitic dialects, and with the same,
or very little modified, meanings. But the Arabic appears to be by far the richest
of these dialects, partly because we have so many books written in this language on
all subjects, poetry, philology, history, geography, mathematics, and especially
astronomy. The Arabic grammarians produce one thousand different words for
' sword,' five hundred for 'Hon,' two hundred for 'serpent,' four hundred for ' mis-
fortune.' Bleek, j?.42.

256

CHAPTEE XXV.

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED.

403. It would seem, therefore, as we have said, that the language
of the Canaanites and Hebrews was radically the same, from the
earliest times, and that the former are incorrectly separated, as
to their origin, from the latter, and referred to Ham, as their
ancestor. Delitzch, however, writes as follows, p.295 : —

The Semitic language of the Canaanites is not opposed to their Hamitie origin ;
they have, as other Hamites, become Sanitized. It is possible that they adopted
the language of the primeval inhabitants of the future Canaan ; for, to judge from
the remains of Proper Names, which have come down to us, these were Semitic. It
it is possible also that, on their way from the East to the West, 'they dwelt long
among the Semitic tribes of Arabia, whereas the settlement of the primitive
Egyptians was comparatively sudden, and therefore may not have been attended
with any important intermixture with foreign elements. The old Hamitie tongues
have certainly succumbed to Semitic, — at last, even in Egypt, — where the use and
knowledge of the Coptic have almost entirely died out. The inability of the
Hamitie, and, especially of the Canaanitish, peoples, to maintain themselves in the
possession of their natural tongue, corresponds to the absence of a blessing for Ham,
and to the curse of servitude laid on Canaan (!)

404. It is obvious to reply that the Hamite Egyptians
retained the use of their mother-tongue, long after the Hebrew
had ceased to be the vernacular of Palestine. Gesenius says
(see Parker's de Wette, pA57) : —

This only is certain that, in Nehemiah's time, the people still spoke Hebrew, and
that, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, the Hebrew was still
written, though the Aramaean was the prevalent language ; whereas, about this time,
and shortly after Alexander the Great, even the learned Jews found it hard to
understand difficult passagesjn the old writings, because the language had ceased
to be a living speech.

405. Again, Nott writes, Types of Mankind, ^9.195 : —

It is no longer questionable, that the Gheez, or Ethiopic, idiom of the Ethiopic

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED. 2o7

version of the Scriptures, and other modern books, which constitute the literature
of Abyssinia, is a Semitic dialect, akin to the Arabic and Hebrew.

'There is no reason to doubt,' says Prichard, 'that the people, for whose use
these books were written, and whose vernacular tongue was the Gheez, were a
Semitic race.' The Gheez is now extant merely as a dead language. The Amharic,
a modern Abyssinian, has been the vernacular of the country ever since the extinc-
tion of the Gheez. . . It is not a dialect of the Gheez or Ethiopic, as some have
supposed, but is now recognised to be, as Prichard affirms, ' a language funda-
mentally distinct.' . . It was, probably, an ancient African tongue, and one of the
aboriginal idioms of the SE. provinces of Abyssinia. Prichard winds up his
investigation with the following emphatic avowal, ' The languages of all these nations
are essentially distinct from the Gheez and every other Semitic dialect.'

In other words, we have here the Semitic Gheez language
becoming extinct, while the African or Hamitic Amharic is still
spoken, — in contradiction to Delitzch's theory.

406. It is, of course, impossible to disprove the assertion, that
the whole body of Canaanites were Hamites, who once spoke the
same language, substantially, as the EgyptiaDs, but became Semi-
tised, by dwelling among the (assumed) aboriginal Semitic tribes
of the future Canaan, or by tarrying long among the Semitic tribes,
through which they are supposed to have passed on their way from
the eastern districts westward, — much longer than their brethren,
the primary founders of the Egyptian race. But the assertion is
supported by no evidence, and is altogether improbable.

407. There appear to have been traditions, to which Hero-
dotus, vii.89, refers, of the Phoenicians having been settled
originally in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, from
which they migrated to the coasts of the Mediterranean. The
Philistines also are expressed in the Sept. Vers, by A\\6(jiv\oi,
' Emigrants,' and are believed to have come back to the main
land, from the Phoenician settlements in Caphtor, i.e. Crete
(Part III.599), of whom the Deuteronomist writes, ii.23, —

' As to the Avims, which dwelt in the villages unto Gaza, — the Caphtorims, which
came out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead ; ' —

from which passage Tuch infers, _p»244, that the clause in
G.x.14, 'out of whom came Philistim,' may, perhaps, have been
misplaced, and should stand properly after Caphtorim.
VOL. II. s

258 THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED.

408. But the fact, that the Phcenicians had come originally
from the Persian Gulf, would only make it more probable that
they belonged to the Semitic family of nations, and spoke a
Semitic tongue, — as did also, most probably, the other Canaanite
nations, Hittite, Jebusite, &c, whatever may have been the case
with the aboriginal tribes, whom they may have dispossessed.

409. But we must here notice another point bearing upon the
question of the Mosaic authorship of the story of the Exodus.
That story represents the people of Israel, when coming out of
Egypt, after a residence there of, at least, two centuries, speak-
ing 'perfectly pure Hebrew., without the slightest intermixture of
either Aramaic or Egyptian idioms. Moses, throughout the
Pentateuch — and not merely in the later book of Deuteronomy
— speaks to the people always in the purest Hebrew, — makes
his addresses, writes his song, E.xv.1-18, and delivers his laws,
in pure Hebrew; — nay, the Ten Commandments, as recorded to
have been uttered on Sinai, are expressed in pure Hebrew.
Throughout the first four books, with the exception of one or
two Aramaean words, as Laban's expression, Nri-ITu^ "i^, yegar
shahaclutha, ' heap of witness,' Gr.xxxi.47, and one or two
Egyptian words, as ^"!?N, avrech, 'bow the knee,' xli.43, —
introduced, however, with special reference to Aramaean or
Egyptian circumstances, — the language is pure Hebrew, perfect!}'
uncorrupted by Aramaean or Egyptian peculiarities.

410. Now let us consider for a moment the circumstances under
which this perfectly pure Hebrew of the Pentateuch is supposed
to have been written. We find Jacob, as we have said (386), on
his return from Haran to the land of Canaan, returning also to the
use of the Hebrew tongue, which we may suppose him to have
been familiar with, as the language spoken in his father Isaac's
house, during the first seventy-seven years of his life, and not
to have lost, though he had but little opportunity of speaking-
it, during the twenty years of his sojourn with Laban. But his

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED. 259

four wives, and all the servants, male and female, which he
brought with him into Canaan, must all have been Aramaeans,
■ — must all have spoken the same language as Laban, viz. the
Syrian or Aramaean tongue ; and we must suppose that the
young children, of whom the eldest was not more than twelve
years old, brought up with their mothers and these servants,
must have spoken Aramaean also.

411. We may, indeed, assume that during the thirty years
which they spent in Canaan, before going down to settle in
Egypt, they may have changed their language, as Abraham
did, and, dropping the Aramaean, have acquired the Hebrew
tongue of the tribes of Canaan. But it is not easy to understand
how they should have changed it so completely, as to have lost
all trace of the Aramaean, or how, going down into Egypt, as
they did, and living there, under the circumstances described in
the book of Exodus, for two hundred and fifteen years at least,
they should have retained the Hebrew tongue, if they took it
with them, in perfect jjurlty, without the slightest inter-
mixture of any foreign element. As to the first point, the
captives in Babylon, we know, had their tongue soon corrupted,
so that Chaldaisms abound in later Hebrew. But Jacob's
family (we must suppose) exchanged the Aramaean for the
Hebrew completely in thirty years, although for every one of
those, who came into Canaan, except Jacob himself, — for all the
adult women and servants, as well as the young children, — the
Aramaean was their mother-tongue, which they had spoken from
their birth.

412. We will suppose, however, that Jacob's children, being
so young, may have acquired the new tongue perfectly, through
intercourse with Canaanites, as Hamor, Cf.xxxiv, and others.
Thus Jacob, himself, and his sons and daughter, Dinah, may
have spoken Hebrew, when they went down into Egypt. And,
though his son's wives, unless taken from the Canaanites as
Judah's, xxxviii.2, and Simeon's, xlvi.10 — (both these two,

s 2

260 THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED.

however, seem to be noted rather as exceptional cases) — would
not have spoken Hebrew, we may assume that their children,
brought up among Canaanitish servants, may have learned,
from them and from their fathers, to speak the language
of the land. And so the majority of the ' seventy souls,' who
went down with Jacob, may be regarded as speaking Hebrew, —
though scarcely, we should suppose, pure Hebrew.

413. But how could this small community of 70 souls,
surrounded, as they were, by Egyptians, with whom they were
continually in contact, — as friends, in the first instance,
during the first hundred years of their sojourn,— as slaves,
afterwards, for (at least) the last eighty years, — have main-
tained during all this time that perfect purity of language,
which we find exhibited in the Pentateuch, uncorrupted by
the slightest influx of Egyptian, or any other foreign, idioms?
They may have intermarried among themselves, or taken
wives from the Egyptians or other foreigners, or from their old
Syrian home : but they could only have been reinforced, in
respect of maintaining the pure Hebrew tongue among them,
by marrying Canaanites. Some Hebrew women may have
married Egyptians, lCh.ii.34,35, and their offspring would be
reckoned as Hebrews: Moses himself married an Ethiopian
woman, N.xii.l : a 'mixed multitude ' went up with them out of
Egypt, E.xii.38. The children and grandchildren of Joseph, we
must suppose, — at least, during the 80 years of Joseph's dignity,
— must have been brought up under Egyptian influences, and
in intimate connection with the members of the high Egyptian
family, to which Joseph's wife belonged, Gr.xli.45. And, indeed,
the expression in G.1.23, —

the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up on Joseph's knees, —
implies his close relations with them.

414. Under these circumstances, during all this time, for more
than two centuries, it would indeed be strange if they could
maintain their language identically the same pure Hebrew, as

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED. 261

that which their forefathers, — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, —
spoke, while living in daily contact with the tribes of Canaan.
It may, perhaps, be alleged that the language of the Pentateuch
is sufficiently explained, if Moses spoke and wrote Hebrew
perfectly. Yet how should Moses, — who, for the first forty
years of his life, was brought up in Pharaoh's house, ' in all the
learning of the Egyptians,' — who may, of course, have spoken
Hebrew, as well as Egyptian, but could only have learned it from
the speech of his fellow-countrymen, when they had already
been living in Egypt, under the circumstances above described,
for 130 years to the day of his birth, — and who spent the next
forty years of his life in the deserts of Midian, — have maintained
all along the perfect Hebrew tongue, pure and simple, without
the slightest adulteration from any foreign influences, neither
vocabulary nor syntax being in the least degree modified ?

415. What effect the residence of 150 years in Babylon had
already upon the language of the captive Jews, notwithstanding
the noble literature which they had among them, in the writings
of their psalmists, prophets, and historians, may be seen, as
we have said, in the numerous Chaldaisms, which distinguish the
later Scriptures of the 0. T. The natives of Natal, though they
have lived only thirty years under European government, have
already adopted many corruptions of English and Dutch words
into their common language. Who can believe that the Hebrews,
so small a community at first, only seventy souls, of whom
many were mere children, and many others did not speak
Hebrew as their original tongue, — and who at that time possessed
no literature, — maintained their language, amidst the joys of
their prosperous, and the oppressions of their miserable, days in
Egypt, without adopting a single idiom, or a single term, —
even the name of a common article of food or dress, tool, im-
plement, &c. — from the Egyptians, or from those with whom
they may have intermarried, when they did not marry Canaan-

262 THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED.

itish women ? Did these foreign mothers not affect in the
slightest degree the speech of their children ?

It may be said, l a special miracle may have been wrought for
this.' But wrought for what end ? To maintain in its purity
among the Hebrews the language — not of the primitive home of
the Hebrew race, but — of the idolatrous tribes of Canaan !

416. Upon the whole, the simple fact, that the Pentateuch
is written in such pure Hebrew, appears to us a strong confir-
mation— if we do not press it, as a positive direct proof — of
its having been written,— not at a time when the tribes were
just fresh from their long Egyptian sojourn, — but at a much
later period of their national history, when the language of
Canaan had become, after several generations, the common
tongue of the invading Hebreivs, as well as of the heathen
tribes, whom they deprived of their possessions in Canaan, and
whom they were unwilling to acknowledge as brethren, although,
it is plain, the language of the Canaanites belongs to the same
group, as that spoken by the collateral branch of the Hebrew
family in the * city of Nahor.' Thus, in those later days, con-
versation is supposed to pass without difficulty between the
Philistine garrison and Jonathan, lS.xiv.12, and between the
Philistine Achish and David, lS.xxix.6-10; and we do not read
of any interpreter interfering in the colloquy between David and
Goliath, LS.xvii.43-47.

417. But what seems to demonstrate plainly the later author-
ship of one important passage, at least, of the Pentateuch, is this,
that the prophecies of Balaam, who was ' brought from Aram,
out of the mountains of the east,' N.xxiii.7, comp.D.xxiuA, and
who is represented as speaking in the ears of Balak, king of
Moab, and of all the princes of Moab, v.6, are expressed in the
purest Hebrew. His conversation with the Moabite messengers,
and with the ass, which also speaks and, apparently, understands

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED. 263

Hebrew, may be supposed to have been modified, and to be
merely described and reported in the 'language of Canaan.'
But the prophecies, to be worthy of credence as historically true,
must have been delivered in the form in which we now possess
them, and in which we have an Aramaean, speaking in the
purest Hebrew, to a company of Moabites.

418. By whom, it may be further asked, were these prophe-
cies remembered, or written down, as Balaam uttered them, and
communicated to Moses ? Is it not plain that we have here a
grand composition of a later age, — 'profitable,' no doubt, 'for
instruction in righteousness,' but not to be received as an in-
fallible record of historical matter-of-fact, involving the obliga-
tion of believing in the story of the speaking ass, or imputing
the massacre of 68,000 Midianitish women and children to a
direct Divine Command?

What missionary, indeed, would not shrink from reading either
of these passages, in the ears of an intelligent class of cate-
chumens, as undoubted facts, — to the truth of which the Divine
Veracity is pledged, — upon belief in which depend all 'our
hopes for eternity,' — of which to express any doubt or disbelief,
is to shake ' the very foundations of our faith,' to ' take from us
ail our nearest and dearest consolations ' ?

264

CHAPTEK XXVI.

GEN.XI.1-XI.9.

419. G.xi.l.

' And the -whole earth was of one lip, and of one language.'
The Jehovist — a person, evidently, of a very enquiring and
philosophical mind, and, for the age in which he lived, singularly
well-informed on geographical and ethnological matters — wishes,
apparently, to account for the variety of languages, which he
finds existing among the different families of the human race.
He assumes that from the time of the Creation — for about 2,000
years — no diversities of language had yet arisen. Mankind was
still of ' one lip,' and still spoke the same primeval tongue, —
the Hebrew, we must suppose, — which was spoken by Adam,
when he named his wife in Paradise, ii.23,iii.20— by Eve, after
their expulsion from Paradise, when she gave names to her sons,
Cain and Seth, iv.1,25,— by Lamech, shortly before the Flood,
when he explained the name of. Noah, v.29. And, indeed, it is
obvious that the names of the whole series of Patriarchs, from
Adam to Noah, in (x.v, and from Noah onwards in Gr.xi. 10-26,
are, in almost every instance, pure Hebreiv names. On the tra-
ditionary view, then, we must suppose that Hebrew was cer-
tainly the primitive tongue.

420. Thus Willet writes, Hexapla in Gen. p. 133 : —

Now, if any be desirous to know what language this was, which before this con-
fusion of tongues was used through the world, it is agreed by the most learned
interpreters, that it was the Hebrew.

(i) Augustine's reason is, de civ. Dei, xvi.ll,xviii.39, because the Hebrew
is so called of Heber, in whose family that, which was the common tongue before,

GEX.XI.1-XI.9. 265

remained : that tongue, which Heber used before the division of tongues, was the
common speech ; but that was the Hebrew.

(ii) Hieeom's reason to prove the Hebrew to be matrix, the mother of all other
languages, [is] because every tongue hath borrowed some words of the Hebrew.

(iii) Tostatus's reason is, becaus.e those names, which were first given, as of
Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, are Hebrew words, as may appear by their several deriva-
tions in that tongue.

421. Delitzch, however, as we have already seen (174),
finds himself unable to adopt this view, and writes as follows,

p.515 : —

The Synagogues, the Fathers of the Church, and many of our orthodox teachers,

are, indeed, of opinion that Hebrew was the primitive tongue, maintained in the

family ofEber, the tougue already used before the Flood, the tongue of Paradise.

It is said that Noah, (who overlived the. event), Shem, and those of kindred mind,

certainly took no part in the godless undertaking, and, consequently, were not

affected by 'the confusion of tongues.' Reference also is made to the names of the

primeval history, with some of which the derivations are given, as ' Adam,' ' Ishah' =

woman, 'Khawah = Eve, ' Kain,' &c. But both these arguments want convincing

power. The family, from which Abram proceeded, was certainly an Aramaic, not a

Hebrew, family ; it was a family speaking Aramaic, as the history of Jacob and

Laban shows, G-.xxxi.47 xomp.D.xxxi.o. ' The Hebrew language,' says Asteuc, and

his view is incontestably correct, — ' was the common language of the Canaanites ;

and Abraham, when he arrived among them from Chalda?a, needed to learn it,

which was not difficult for him, because the language of the Chaldseans, which was

his natural tongue, had considerable affinity with it, and was a sort of dialect of it.'

Hence the assertion of Arabic and Persian writers, that the Syriac or Xabatsean

tongue, — that which, after the confusion of tongues, was maintained at Babylon

itself, — was the primitive tongue, is comparatively more probable. However,

dialects are branches which imply a common stem. We should, therefore, in place

of Hebrew or Aramaic, have to assume the existence of a Semitic fundamental

language, which later, though at a very early age, branched into dialects. But in

opposition to this stands the fact, that the Semitic family of languages, setting aside

it- peculiar honours, is inferior to others, as the Indo-Germanic, in richness and

expressiveness, and does not by any means possess the completeness, which must

have belonged to the primitive tongue, — as also the fact, that the family, from

which Abram proceeded, had fallen away to idolatries just as the others, Jo.xxiv.-2, 14 ,

and that the so-called 'Hebrew,' which we should rather call ' Canaanite.' Is.xix.18,

although, as a sacred tongue, it has had a very peculiar course of development,

appears originally as the language of Canaan, the curse-laden, to whom it had

passed from the equally heathen aboriginal inhabitants of the land.

Also, the proof drawn from the names of the primeval history so little avails, that,
in point of fact, the ante-Babylonic language cannot possibly have been the language
of Paradise. Adam says in Dante, Par. xxvi.124-6: —

o66 GEN.XI.1-XI.9.

The speech, -which once I spoke, was quite extinct,

Before that to th' impracticable work

The race of Nirnrod set their energies.
How can it possibly have been otherwise? Certainly, the principle of the ' dis-
persion ' was first powerfully energetic after the event in G.xi.1-9. But the Fall of
Man must have changed their mode of speech, as well as thought : it brought among
them ever-spreading loss of spirituality, materialisation, and — since the nature of
sin is false— self-seeking, the destruction of their unity, though, perhaps, at first, not
yet to the extent of losing the power of mutual intelligence. ' The first man,' as
Drechsi.ee thence justly infers, ' was not called Adam, nor the first woman Eve,
nor their sons Cain and Abel ; only they are so-called in Hebrew; their names are
all true, but only relatively true. With the occurrence of G.xi.1-9, the names of
the old traditionary history degenerated also in, and with, the general language,
without any damage thereby to the authenticity of these names and their etymo-
logies ; since it is the same thing, for example, whether I say that Adam's firstborn
had a name, which corresponds to the name J*j?, Kain, from np9, Kanah, 'acquire,'
or to the Greek name KT?7<n'as, from ktS.<tOcu, ' acquire.' The veracity of the Law,
which imparts to us here the tradition, viewed in the light of the spirit, which was
inherited to Abraham and Israel, through Shem from the family of Noah, is not a
verbal, but a living, veracity,— it stands not in the letter, but in the spirit.' So it
is. . . The derivation of all languages from one primeval tongue we hold fast
upon the authority of the Scripture. But the possibility of demonstrating such a
primeval language, out of a more or less close relationship of all existing tongues, —
this possibility, before maintained by us, we now dismiss, as though awakened
from a dream.

422. It is manifest that Delitzch's great difficulty is this —
to account for the fact that the primeval Hebrew tongue,
spoken in Paradise, and by all before, and in Noah's family
after, the Flood, should have been retained amidst the 'curse-
laden ' tribes of Canaan, and not in the family of Abraham,— so
that the latter must actually first have learned it, when he came
into contact with them. Not being able to allow the possi-
bility of this, he falls back upon the notion that the names, Adam,
Ishah, Eve, Cain, Abel, Nod, Noah, are all translations of the
original forms, into words of similar meaning in Hebrew, — a
theory, which requires also to be swelled by the assumption,
that all the conversations, recorded in (x.i.l-xi.9, are only
translations, and that all the names in Cf.v are, in like manner,
modified from the original forms into pure Hebrew words,

GEX.XI.1-XI.9. 267

expressing literally the same meaning, and not only these, but
also the names in Gr.xi. 10-25, — at least, till we come to Peleg,
in whose time ' the earth was divided.'

423. The extravagance of these assumptions, to which this
able writer is driven in attempting to maintain the traditionary
view, makes it unnecessary to discuss them at further length.
It is sufficient to remark that, if the authority of Scripture is
sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, it must also
prove that this language was Hebrew. "VVe have no right to
assume a process of translation, to which the original documents
make no allusion.

424. Kalisch notes on this point as follows, Cen._29.318 : —
The linguistic researches of modern times have more and more confirmed the

theory of one primitive Asiatic language, gradually developed into various modi-
fications by external agencies and influences. Formerly, the Hebrew tongue
was, by many scholars, advocated as the original idiom : for it was maintained,
both by early Jewish and Christian authorities, that, as the race of Shem were no
partners in the impious work of the Tower, they remained in possession of the
first language, which the fathers of the earliest age had left to Noah. But this
view, — like the more recent one, that a child, if left alone without human society,
woidd speak Hebrew, — is now classed among popular errors. At present, the scale
of probability inclines more to the Sanscrit, although the disquisition is far from
being concluded or settled.

According to Prof. Max Muller and Baron Bunsen, the
Sanscrit and Semitic tongues are alike modifications of an
'agglutinative' language, that is, of a form of speech, in which
the original compound roots had not been rubbed down into
affixes and suffixes.

425. But Kalisch's observation applies only to the different
languages of one race, as the Caucasian or the Mongolian. No
one would say that there was any affinity between the Chinese
tongue and the Indo-European family of languages, or between
these and those of the North-American Indians. Card. Wiseman,
Lect. ii, Connection between Science and Revealed Religion,
admits a e radical difference ' anions languages : —

As the radical difference among the languages forbids their being considered
dialects, or offshoots of one another, we are driven to the conclusion that, on the

268 GEN.XI.1-XI.9.

one hand, these languages must have been original]^ united in one, whence they
drew their common elements, essential to them all (?), and on the other, that the
separation between them, which destroyed other and no less important elements of
resemblances, could not have been caused by any gradual departure or individual
development, — -for these we have long since excluded, — but by some violent, unusual,
and active force, sufficient alone to reconcile these conflicting appearances, and to
account at once for the resemblances and the differences.

426. Gr.xi.4.

' And they said, Come, let us build for us a city, and a tower with its head in
heaven.'

The story of the ' dispersion of tongues ' is connected by the
Jehovistic writer with the famous unfinished Temple of Belus,
(Birs Nimroud), of which, jDrohably, some wonderful reports
had reached him, in whatever age we may suppose him to
have lived. The language and actions, here ascribed to the
Divine Being, are strangely anthropomorphic. But the deri-
vation of the name h22, Babel, from the Hebrew hbz, balal,
6 confound,' which seems to be the connecting point between the
story and the Tower of Babel, is, as we have already noticed (75),
altogether incorrect,- — the word being compounded either of
'Bel,' so as to mean ' House of Bel,' < Court of Bel,' ' Grate of Bel,'
&c, or, perhaps, as some suppose, of ' El ' or ' II,' in which case
' Bab-El ' means ' Gate of God.' This is sufficient to show
that the story before us is not historically true. It does not,
however, necessarily imply, as Tuch and Knobel assume, that
the Jehovist himself origiaated the story, as he may have
received it in this form from others.

427. Upon the name 'Babel' Delitzch writes as follows,p.31 2 :

As the name ' Jerusalem ' gains its proper sense in the light of prophecy, so is the
name, which Babylon has received, whether with or without the intention of him
who first named it, a significant character, marking the Divine judgment inter-
woven into the origin of the world-city, and of the tendency, at all times peculiar
to it, to a God-resisting unity. That the name, in the view of the world-city itself,
signified something different, does not contradict this. Already the Etyrnol. Magn.
derives it dirb rov B-qAov, ' from Belus,' and so do Persian and Nabatsean scholars.
According to this it has been explained as meaning ' Gate of Bel,' or ' House of
Bel,' or, lastly, ' Castle of Bel' (3, Ba, = 33, Bab, 'gate,' or = flvj, Beyth, 'house,'

GEN.XI.1.-XI.9. 269

or = *Q> Bar, f°v riT?' Birath, 'castle'). Schilling's remark, that bob, in the
sense of ' gate,' is peculiar to the Arabic dialect, is unfounded : it is just as much
true in Aramaic as in Arabic, that 33, bob, ' enter,' is a primitive development of
K3 ' £0 in.' Rawlinson, however, and Oppert have shown, upon the ground of

T J

inscriptions, that the DivineName — i.e. of the Babylonish-Phoenician Kronos ( Saturn)
— is not t>3 bel, but ^tf, 'M,' and thus ^33 Babel, denotes the ' Gate of EL'

Professor Kawlinson says, Smith's Did. of the Bible, i/p.149:

The name is connected in Genesis with the Hebrew root, balal, ' confundere,' —
'because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.' But the native
etymology is Bab-Il, ' the gate of the God II,' or, perhaps, most simply ' the gate
of God.' And this, no doubt, was the original intention of the appellation as
given by Nimrod, though the other sense came to be attached to it after the ' Con-
fusion of Tongues.'

428. The following account of Birs Nimvoud is given by
Kalisch, Gen.jo.315 : —

The huge heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basalt, are irregidarly mixed,
covers a surface of 49,000 feet ; while the chief mound is nearly 300 feet high, and
from 200 to 400 feet in width, commanding an extensive view over a country of
utter desolation. The Tower consisted of seven distinct stages or square platforms,
built of kiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty feet high, gradually diminishing in
diameter. The upper part of the brickwork has a vitrefied appearance ; for it is
supposed that the Babylonians, in order to render their edifices more durable,
submitted them to the heat of the furnace ; and large fragments of such vitrefied
and calcined materials are also intermixed with the rubbish at the base. This
circumstance may have given rise to, or at least countenanced, the legend of the
destruction of the Tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among the
Arabians. The terraces were devoted to the planets, and were differently coloured
in accordance with the notions of Sabaean astrology, — the lowest, Saturn's, black,
the second, Jupiter's, orange, the third, Mars's, red, the fourth, the Sun's, yellow,
the fifth, Venus's, white, the sixth, Mercury's, blue, the seventh, the Moon's, green.
Merodach-adan-akhi is stated to have begun it b.c. 1100. It was finished five
centuries afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar, who has left a part of its history on two
cylinders, which have lately been excavated on the spot, and thus deciphered by
Rawlinson. 'The building, named the Planisphere, which was the wonder of
Babylon, I have made and finished. With bricks, enriched with lapis lazuli, I
have exalted its head. Behold now the building, named ' the Stages of the Seven
Spheres,' which was the wonder of Borsippa, had been built by a former king.
He had completed forty -two cubits of height : but he did not finish the head.
From the lapse of time it had become ruined. Thejr had not taken care of the
exit of tlie waters ; so the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. The
casing of burnt brick lay scattered in heaps. Then Merodach, my great lord,

270 GEX.XI.1-XI.9.

inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I
destroy its foundation-platform. But, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspi-
cious day, I undertook the building of the raw-brick terraces, and the burnt-
brick casing of the Temple. I strengthened its foundation, and I placed a titular
record on the part which I had rebuilt. I set my hand to build it \ip, and to exalt
its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure. As it
had been in former days, thus I exalted its head.'

429. If the Jehovist lived in Solomon's days, about b.c.1015-
975, and the Temple of Belus was begun, as Kalisch has just
said, by Merodach-adan-akhi in B.C. 11 00, not more than a
century would have elapsed to his time, hardly long enough for
the unfinished building, however wonderful, to have become the
subject of a legend. But, as the tower was apparently an
observatory, and the fact of its being dedicated to the seven
ancient planets shows that astronomical observations had made
considerable progress among the Chaldreans at the time when it
was built, the traditions connected with it may have embodied
stories of a much earlier date, to which the new building gave
fresh currency.

430. Prof. Rawlinson, however, says, Smith's Dict.i.pA59 : —

The supposed date [of the 1 wilding of the Temple of Mugheir] is B.C. 2300 — a little
earlier than the time commonly assigned to the building of the Tower [of Babel].
Probably, the erection of the two buildings was not separated by a very long
interval, though it is reasonable to suppose that, of the two, the tower was the
earlier. If we mark its date, as perhaps we are entitled to do, by the time of
Peleg, the son of Eber and father of Reu, we may perhaps place it about B.C. 2600.

But it is evident that the above reasoning is very loose, and
based almost entirely on traditionary prepossessions. And here
the date of the building of the Tower is carried up beyond 2348
B.C. the date which the Hebrew Scriptures fix for the Deluge,
though it is still below that fixed by the LXX, — on which point
see (444).

431. Mr. Bevan also gives from OrrEET, in Smith's Diet, of
the Bible, iii. _p.l554, another version of the inscription, agree-
ing substantially with the above ; but instead of the passage, —

Behold now the building, named ' the stages of the Seven Spheres,' which was
the wonder of Borsippa, had been built by a former king. He had committed forty-

GEN.XI.1-XI.9. 271

two cubits of height :. but he did not finish the head. From the lapse of time it
had become ruined —

Oppert translates : —

This edifice, the house of the seven Lights of the Earth, the most ancient
monument of Borsippa, — a former king built it, (they reckon forty-two ages), but he
did not complete its head. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without
order expressing their words.

And this is quoted as ' mentioning the Tower in connection
with the Confusion of Tongues,' — though Oppert says, —

This allusion to the ' Tower of the Tongues ' is the only one that has as yet been
discovered in the cuneiform inscriptions.

The reader must judge for himself as to the degree of sup-
port afforded to the probability of the historical reality of the
Scripture story by the above translation.

432. Kalisch describes also the latter fates of the Temple,

as follows, 6rem.j3.316 : —

The temple of Jupiter Belus with its tower was regarded as one of the most
gigantic works of antiquity, and attracted the curiosity of travellers from every
country. Herodotus, who saw it himself, dwells upon it with emphasis, i.181. . .
It was partially destroyed by Xerxes, when he returned from Greece, B.C. 490 ;
upon which the fraudulent priests appropriated to themselves the lands and
enormous revenues attached to it, and seem, from this reason, to have been averse
to its restoration. A part of this magnificent edifice still existed more than five
centuries later, PLix.vi.30. But the other part was. in the time of Alexander the
Great, a vast heap of ruins. The ambitious Macedonian determined to rebuild it,
and issued his orders accordingly. But, when the work did not proceed with the
vigour and result which he had anticipated, he resolved to undertake it himself
with his whole army. He lacked, however, the perseverance of the oriental
despots; for, when 10,000 workmen were unable to remove the rubbish within two
months, he abandoned his pretentious designs. AEE.vii.l7,iii.l6, STBAB.xvi.738-9.
However, the portion of the structure, which was in existence in Pliny's time, was
imposing enough to be still called the Temple of Belus. And Benjamin of Tudela,
in the twelfth century, described it as a brick building, the base measuring two
miles, and the breadth 240 yards; he adds, that a spiral passage, built round the
tower, in stages of ten yards each, led up to the summit, which allows a wide
prospect over an almost perfectly level country ; and concludes with the old
tradition, that the heavenly fire, which struck the tower, split it to its very
foundation. Plix.H.N.vl30, B. Tudela,£>.107. More than six hundred years, the
ruins of Birs Nimroud remained unnoticed and unknown. They were first redis-
covered by Niebuhe, in 175G, — then more accurately described by Ebb Poetee,

272 GEX.XI.1-XL9.

Rich, Buckingham. &c. : but their examination, and the discovery of some of the
monumental records they contain, were reserved to the last decennium, 1848-58.

433. Kalisch also observes, Gen.p.Sl3 : —

Most of the ancient nations possessed myths concerning impious giants, who
attempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or to expel
them from it. In some of these fables, the confusion of tongues is represented as
the punishment inflicted by the deities for such wickedness. And even Josephxs,
Ant.i.W.3, quoted a similar tradition [in the words of the Sibyl, probably of very
late date, and copied from the Scriptural story, 'the gods sent storms of wind, and
overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language: and for this reason
it was that the city was called Babylon *].
Delitzch adds, ^.314 : —

Actually the Mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well. as of a Flood.
Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, budt the great pyramid of
Cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods, angry at his audacity, threw fire
upon the building, and broke it down, whereupon every separate family received a
language of its own. We will not lay much stress upon it, since the Mexican
legend has experienced much colouring at the hands of the narrators, — chiefly
Dominicans and Jesuits ; and we lay still less upon the point, that the Mexican
terraee-pyramid has a great resemblance to the construction of the Temple of
Belus : but both these points deserve to be noticed.

434. And upon the credibility of the whole story, as a matter
of history, he writes as follows, p.314 : —

We have, however, other and incomparably more important remains of the event
than those uncertain ruins, — [uncertain, only in respect of the question whether
the mound, Birs Nimroud, does represent the ruins of the Temple of Belus — it is
certain that such a Temple, as above described, once existed, — ] or these scanty
reminiscences. They exist in the languages themselves, standing in more or less
remote connection of consequences with that event. Each of these languages is,
no doubt, the production and expression of the spiritual and natural constitution
of the people, to which it naturally belongs. . . . Certainly, if this wonderful
divine influence had not occurred, the one primeval tongue would not have
remained in stagnating immobility. It would, by virtue of the rich abundance of
the gifts and powers, vouchsafed to man, have gone through a process of continual
self-enrichment, and have gained in spirit and uniformity. Now, however, when
the lingual unity of the race was lost, together with their unity in God, together
also with the unity of their all-defining [aUesbestimmenden] religious conscious-
ness, instead of a manifoldness in unity, there came a splitting-up with loss of unity,
a cleaving-asunder with utter loss of connection, — such, however, as points back '
with a thousand fingers to the fact of the original unity.

If the last statement be true, yet how does it prove the
historical truth of the narrative in G.xi.1-9 ?

27.3

CHAPTER XXVII.

GEN.XI.10-XI.26.

435. The following Table exhibits the variations from the
Heb., of the Sept., Sam., and Josephus, in respect of the
numbers which express the parent's age at the eldest son's birth,
in the list of the Post-Diluvian Patriarchs : —

Shem (after the Flood)

Arphaxad

Cainan (not in Heb.)

Salab.

Eber

Peleg

Reu

Serug

Nahor

Terah

Abraham's migration

Total from Flood

Heb.

2
35

30
34
30
32
30
29
70
75

36^

Sept.

2
135

130

130

134

130

132

130

79

70

75

1,147

Sam.

Josephus

2

12

■ 135

135

130

130

134

134

130

130

132

130

130

132

79

120

70

70

75

75

1,017

1,068

436. The Scripture story, then, represents that in Abraham's
time, not four centuries after the Deluge, the descendants of
Noah's three sons, (who had no children before the Flood, xi.10),
had so multiplied, that there were already in existence the four
kingdoms of Shinar (Babylon), Elara, &c. mentioned in Gr.xiv.l,
as engaged in a joint campaign against five kings of Canaan,
and those of Egypt, Gr.xiii, and Gerar, Gr.xx. Besides these,
however, there were the Rephaims, Zuziras, Emims, Horites,
who were smitten by the king of Elam, Gr.xiv.2,5,6, and the multi-
tude of other nations, Gomer, Magog, Madai, &c, who are referred

VOL. II. T

274 GEX.XI.10-XI.26.

to in G-.x, as already existing before the time of Abraham, —
as appears from the fact, that ' the earth was divided ' in the
days of Peleg, the fourth in descent from Shem, and Abraham
was in the ninth, whereas all the other nations are described as
being in the first or second from one or other of the sons of
Noah, except the Arabian tribes in v.26-29, mentioned as the
sons of Joktan, Peleg's brother. Nay, the small district of
Canaan was already occupied by many powerful nations, x. 15-1 9.
■437. And some of these nations had already attained a very
high state of civilisation.

When Egypt first presents itself to our view, she stands forth not in childhood,
but with the maturity of manhood's age, arrayed in the time-worn habiliments of
civilisation. Her tombs, her temples, her pyramids, her manners, customs, and arts,
all betoken a full-grown nation. The sculptures of the ivth Dynasty, the earliest
extant, show that the arts at that day, some 3,500 B.C., [date of Menes, more than
3,400 b.c. (Humboldt )— 3,643 B.C., (Buxsex)— 3,892 B.C., (Kehbick)— 3,893 b.c.
(Lepsius) — 3,895 b.c, (Hixcks) — in each case more than 1,000 years before the
Usherian date of the Deluge,] had already arrived at a perfection little inferior to
that of the xviiith Dynasty, which, until lately, was regarded as her Augustan age.
Xott, Types of Mankind, p.211.

Bas-reliefs, beautifully cut, sepulchral architecture, and the engineering of the
pyramids, — reed-jperas, inks (red and black), papyrus-^aper, and chemically-prepared
colours, — these are grand evidences of the civilisation of Memphis 5,300 years ago,
that every man with eyes to see can now behold in noble folios, published by France,
Tuscany, and Prussia. Ibid.p.237-

The glimpse which we thus obtain of Egypt, in the fifth century after Menes,
according to the lowest computation, [still 1,000 years before the Deluge,] reveals to
us some general facts, which lead to important inferences. In all its general charac-
teristics, Egypt was the same as we see it a thousand years later, [and for how
many centuries before ? ] — a well organised monarchy and religion elaborated
throughout the country, — the system of hieroglyphic writing the same, in all its
leading peculiarities, as it continued to the end of the monarchy of the Pharaohs.
Kexbicx's Ancient Egypt, _p.l31.

438. Moreover, as before observed, in this short interval, the
most marked differences of physiognomy must have become
stamped on the different races, since we find on the most
ancient monuments of Egypt precisely the same negro face,
head, hair, form, and colour, fully-developed, as we observe in
our own days. In three or four centuries — not of the 'primeval

GEX.XI.10-XI.26. -21 o

time before the Flood, but when that deteriorating change,
whatever it may have been, which is intimated in Gr.vi.3, had
already passed upon the race — the complete change of colour,
form of skull, and general physical character, had been effected,
which seems not to have been modified in the least, from that
time to this, during the lapse of four thousand years. Archd.
Pratt says, in reference to this, Scripture and Science, p.55 : —

There is 110 evidence (!) that Shem, Ham, and Japhethhad not in them elements
differing as widely, as the Asiatic, the African, and the European, differ from each
other (!) They may have married, too, into different tribes, and their wives have
been as diversified as themselves.

439. Delitzch notes on this point, ^-290 : —
Thus far the possibility of the derivation of the peoples from one family is
established by Natural Science. Meanwhile, we do not wish to be silent as to the
fact, that the maintenance of the contrary is becoming more and more prevalent.
The distinguishing characteristics, it is said, of the races, lie not only in the colour
of the hair, but also especially in the form of the skeleton and particularly of the
skull. This difference is in the case of the principal races so great, that it is
impossible to account for the variation through any kind of climatic or other
ordinary influence. And, even if such a variation were possible, yet, in any case, a
space of time of about 400 years, (from the Flood to the patriarchal times, in which
the race-development is already an accomplished fact,) is besides far too short ;
so that both Natural Science and Chronology give positive proof of manifold
division of the human race from the very first. As regards the first proof, how-
ever, no account is here taken of the incalculably great, and, in correspondence
with the character of the primeval time, doubly intensified, influence of the
spiritual and moral tendency of that age upon the bodily development. And as
regards the second, we await complacently the final results of the investigation of
the monuments, especially the Egyptian, and of such enquiries as that about the
age of the by-gone American— especially, Mexican — civilisation. Perhaps, the
chronological net of the Biblical primeval history really requires an extension. . .
Allowing, however, that the Scripture has in fact leapt over hundreds, or even
thousands, of years, would that be sufficient to throw our thoughts into confusion
about it ? The Bible history is the history of salvation : the history of salvation
is, however, the heart of the world-histor}*. And, as the heart is smaller than the
man, although it determines his life, so, perhaps, the Bible-chronology is more
contracted than the world-chronology, although this is raised upon the scaffold of
the other (!). For the sacred history, that of the Gospel as well as of the
Pentateuch, is complex, i.e., it steps from one main-point of the history of
salvation to the next, without drawing marked attention to the interval between
them.

T 2

276 GEN.XI.10-XI.26.

440. As Delttzch observes, the difficulty lies not so much in
the question whether the derivation of all the races of the earth
from one family is possible. Mr. Darwin's recent investiga-
tions, on the origin of species, have shown us that such deriva-
tion is, perhaps, not scientifically inconceivable, provided only
that a sufficient lapse of time be allowed for it. But then this
theory would require thousands or tens of thousands of years,
instead of four hundred, which is all the Bible allows us for
the development of seventy distinct nations from the three sons
of Noah : since, at the time when Abram came into the land of
Canaan, we are told, c the Canaanite and Perizzite dwelled then
in the land,' Gr.xii.6,xiii.7.

441. Accordingly, Prof. Bawlinson writes, Aids to Faith,

p.2%2: —

Were we bound down to the numbers of the Hebrew text, in regard to the
period between the Flood and Abraham, we should, indeed, find ourselves in a
difficulty. Three hundred and seventy years would certainty not seem to be
sufficient time for the peopling of the world, to the extent to which it appears to
have been peopled in the days of Abraham, and for the formation of powerful and
settled monarchies in Babylonia and Egypt. But the adoption of the Septuagint
numbers for this period, which are on every ground preferable, brings the chro-
nology into harmony at once with the condition of the world, as shown to us in
the account given in Scripture of the times of Abraham, and with the results
obtainable from the study, in a sober spirit, of profane history. A thousand years
is ample time for the occupation of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt, by a consider-
able population, for the formation of governments, the erection even of such build-
ings as the Pyramids, the advance of the arts generally to the condition found to
exist in Egypt under the eighteenth dynasty, and for almost any amount of sub-
division and variety in languages.

442. In another place he writes, p.259 : —

The date of the Deluge, which we are most justified in drawing from the sacred
documents, is not, as commonly supposed, B.C. '2348, but rather, B.C. 3099, or even
B.C. 3159. The modern objectors to the chronology of Scripture seek commonly to
tie down their opponents to the present Hebrew text. But there is no reason
why they should submit to this restriction. The LXX version was regarded as of
primary authority during the first ages of the Christian Church ; it is the version
commonly quoted in the N.T. ; and thus, when it differs from the Hebrew, it is, at
least, entitled to equal attention. The larger chronology of the LXX would,
therefore, even if it stood alone, have as good a claim as the shorter one of the
Hebrew text, to be considered the chronology of Scripture. It does not, however,

GEN.XI.10-XI.26. 277

stand alone. For the period between the Flood and Abraham, the LXX has the
support of another ancient and independent (?) version, the Samaritan. It is
argued that the LXX numbers were enlarged by the Alexandrian Jews, in order to
bring the Hebrew chronology into harmony with the Egyptian. But there is no
conceivable reason why the Samaritans shoidd have altered their Pentateuch in this
direction, and no very ready mode of accounting for the identity of the numbers in
these two versions, but by supposing that they are the real numbers of the original.

443. However, even if we adopt Prof. Kawlinson's extreme
estimate, and suppose the Flood to have occurred B.C. 3,099, yet
still this is not sufficient (437) to bring the Scripture narrative
into agreement with scientific fact. And thus we have Lepsius
writing, Brief e aus Egypten, p.o5 : —

We are still busy with structures, sculptures, and inscriptions, which are to be
classed, by means of the now more accurately-determined groups of kings, in an
epoch of highly-flourishing civilisation, as far back as the fourth millennium lie/ore
Christ. We cannot sufficiently impress upon ourselves and others those hitherto
incredible dates. The more criticism is provoked by them, and forced to serious
examination, the better for the cause. Conviction will soon follow angry criticism ;
and finally those results will be attained, which are so intimately connected with
every branch of antiquarian research.

444. But the whole argument, which Prof. Eawlinson derives
from the identity of numbers in the Septuagint and Samaritan,
versions of the Pentateuch, falls to the ground at once, when
we take account of the fact noticed in (19.ii.), that the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch was most probably formed from a copy of the
Pentateuch obtained from Alexandria, not from Jerusalem, and,
therefore, probably agreeing generally with that, from which
the Septuagint version itself was made. It is easy to under-
stand why the Alexandrian interpreters may have altered the
numbers, either for the reason above mentioned, or, perhaps,
because they already saw the difficulty, which the smaller
numbers occasioned. But can any good reason be conceived for
the Hebreivs corrupting their Scriptures, and changing the
numbers in their Pentateuch, if they had originally the same
numbers as are now found in the Septuagint ?

445. Hales, indeed, Elements of Hist. Chronology, i.p.278,
says : —

278 GEX.XI.10-XI.26.

The motive, -which led the Jesvs to mutilate the Patriarchal genealogies, is most
clearly exposed by Ephrcm Syrus, who died a.d. 378. 'The Jews.' says he, 'have
subtracted 600 years from the generations of Adam, Seth, &c. in order that their
own books micht not convict them concerning the coming of Christ, He having been
predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind after 5,500 years.'

He quotes also Abulfakagius to the same effect, — the cor-
ruption being supposed to have been made after the Christian
era, in order to give more time for the appearance of the Messiah,
who was expected by tradition to come in the sixth millenary
age of the world.

446. But the authority is very slight for the above statement.
And, as only 4,000 years had elapsed from the Creation to the
Christian era, and the Messiah was not expected for 1,500 years,
there would seem to have been hardly sufficient reason for the
Jews making the alteration in question at so early a time, — if
ever they desired to make it. Mr. Poole says, Smith's Diet, of
the Bible, i.p.320 :—

With respect to probability of accuracy arising from the state of the text, the
Hebrew certainly has the advantage. There is every reason to think that the
Rabbins have been scrupulous in the extreme in making alterations. The LXX, on
the other hand, shows signs of a carelessness that would almost permit change, and
we have the probable interpolation of the second ' Cainan,' — [whose name is
inserted between Arphaxad and Salah in the LXX, but is rejected by all commen-
tators as an interpolation into the original text.]

Besides which, it would seem (251), that, according to
the Septuagint chronology, Methuselah did not die till fourteen
years after the Deluge. This would be a plain irreconcilable
contradiction in matter of fact : whereas the difficulty, arising
from the smaller ages of the Post-Diluviau Patriarchs, as given
in the Hebrew, are only scientific difficulties, which would not
be likely to be felt by a writer of so early au age.
447. Prof. PiAwlixson adds further, p.264 : —
"Whether the chronology of these versions admits of further expansion (!) —
whether, since the ehronologiesjjf the Hebrew Bible, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and
the LXX differ, we can depend on any one of them (!), — or whether we must not
consider that this portion of Revelation has been lost to us, by the mistakes of
copyists, or the intentional alterations of systematisers (!), — it is not necessary at
present to determine. ' Our treasure,' as before observed, ' is in earthen vessels.'

GEX.XI.10-XI.26. 279

The revealed Word of God has been continued in the world, in the same way as
other written compositions, by the multiplication of copies. Xo miraculous aid is
vouchsafed to the transcribers, who are liable to make mistakes, and may not
always have been free from the design of bending Scripture to their own views.
Still, at -present, we have no need to suppose that the numbers have in every case (!)
suffered.

448. It is difficult to see what could be the object of a
miraculous revelation of numbers, if there was not to be a
miraculous 'preservation of them. But, as regards the numbers
now under consideration, it is plain, from the Table given in
(435), that the numbers in the genealogy to the birth of Terah
' have in every case suffered,' and been designedly altered, either
by the Hebrews diminishing, or the -LXX increasing, each
age by a century. There is no indication in these lists of any
other than 'intentional alterations of systematisers.' The
question is, who are most likely to have corrupted the original
numbers, the Hebrews or the Alexandrians?

449. Upon the general question of the possibility, that all
human beings may have been derived from one pair, aud that all
the now-existing varieties of the race may have been gradually
developed during a prodigious lapse of time, through a long
succession of ages, the following remarks of Dr. Nott, tending
to show that there may have been different centres of creation
for the human race, are well worthy of consideration, Types of
Mankind, p.273-5.

These authorities, in support of the extreme age of the geological era to which
man belongs, though startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a
few : but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the leading geologists
everywhere. And, although antiquity so extreme for man's existence on earth
may shock some preconceived opinions, it is none the less certain that the rapid
accumulation of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific world to
this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have already carried us far beyond all
chronologies heretofore adopted ; and, when these barriers are once overleaped, it is
in vain for us to attempt to approximate, even, to the epoch of man's creation.
This conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such archaeologists as
Lepsius, Btjnsen, Birch, Humboldt, &c, but on those also of such writer- as
EJENKiCK, Hincks, Osbobx, and we may add, of all theologians, who have redly

280 GEN.XI.10-XI.26.

mastered the monuments of Egypt. Nor do these monuments reveal to us only a
single race, at this early epoch, in full tide of civilisation, but they exhibit faithful
portraits of the same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold
intercourse with Egypt at the present day.

Now the question naturally springs up, whether the aborigines of America were
not contemporary with the earliest races, known to us, of the eastern continent. If,
as ;s conceded, ' Caucasian,' 'Negro,' ' Mongol,' and other races, existed in the Old
World, already distinct, what reason can be assigned to show that the aborigines of
America did not also exist, with their present types, 5,000 years ago ? The
naturalist must infer that the fauna and flora of the two continents were contem-
porary. All facts, and all analogy, war against the supposition, that America
should have been left by the Creator a dreary waste for thousands of years, while
the other half of the world was teeming with organised beings. This view is also
greatly strengthened by the acknowledged fact, that not a single animal, bird,
reptile, fish, or plant, was common to the Old and New Worlds. No naturalist of
our day doubts that the animal and vegetable kingdoms of America were created
where they are found, and not in Asia.

The races of men alone in America have been made an exception to this general
law. But this exception cannot be maintained by any course of scientific reasoning.
America, it will be remembered, was not only unknown to the early Eomans and
Greeks, but to the Egyptians ; and, when discovered, less than four centuries ago,
it was found to be inhabited, from the Arctic Sea to Cape Horn, and from Ocean to
Ocean, by a popidation displaying peculiar physical traits, unlike any races in the
whole world, — speaking languages bearing no resemblance in structure to other
languages, — and living everywhere among animals and plants, specifically distinct
from those of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceanica.

Further, in reflecting on the aboriginal races of America, we are at once met by
the striking fact, that their physical characters are wholly independent of all
climatic or known physical influences.'" Notwithstanding their immense geographi-
cal distribution, embracing every variety of climate, it is acknowledged by all
travellers, that there is among this people a prevailing type, around which all the
tribes (north, south, east, and west) cluster, though varying within prescribed limits.
With trifling exceptions, all American Indians bear to each other some degree of
family resemblance, quite as strong, for example, as that seen at the present day among
full-blooded Jews ; and yet they are distinct from every race of the Old World, in
features, language, customs, arts, religions, and propensities. In the language of
Mobton, who studied this people more thoroughly than any other writer, ' All possess,
though in various degrees, the long, lank, black, hair, — the heavy brow, — the dull,
sleepy, eye, — the full, compressed, lips, — and the salient, but dilated nose.' These
characters, too, are beheld in the most civilised and the most savage tribes, along
the rivers and sea-coasts, — in the valleys, and on the mountains, — in the prairies,
and in the forests, — in the torrid and in the icebound regions, — amongst those that
live on fish, on flesh, or on vegetables.

The only race of the Old World, with which any connection has been reasonably

GEX.XI.10-XI.26. 281

conjectured, is the Mongol. But, to say nothing of the marked difference in
physical characters, their languages alone should decide against any such alliance.
No philologist can be found to deny the fact, that the Chinese are now speaking
and writing a language substantially the same as the one they used fire thousand
years ago, — and that, too, a language distinct from every tongue spoken by the
Caucasian races. On the other hand, we have the American races, all speaking
dialects indisputably peculiar to this continent, and possessing no marked affinity
with any other. Now, if the Mongols have preserved a language entire, in Asia,
for 5,000 years, they should likewise have preserved it here, or, to say the least,
some trace of it. But, not only are the two linguistic groups radically distinct, but
no trace of a Mongol tongue, dubious words excepted, can be found in the
American idioms. If such imaginary Mongolians ever brought their Asiatic speech
into this country, it is clear that their supposed descendants, the Indians, have lost
it, and the latter must have acquired, instead, that of some extinct race, which
•preceded a Mongol colonisation. It will be conceded that a colony or nation
could never lose its vocabulary so completely, unless through conquest and amalga-
mation,— in which case they woidd adopt another language. But, even when a
tongue ceases to be spoken, some trace of it will contimie to survive in the names
of individuals, of rivers, places, countries, &c. . . The appellatives, Mississippi,
Missouri, Orinoko, Ontario, Oneida, Alabama, and a thousand other Indian names,
will hive for ages after the last Bed Man is mingled with the dust. They have no
likeness to any nomenclature in the Old World.

450. He adds also on p.281 : —

The following conclusions were advanced by Mr. Dcponceatj, as early as 1819,
in substantially the following language : — -

(i) The American languages, in general, are rich in words and grammatical
forms; and in their complicated construction the greatest order, method, and
regularity prevail ;

(ii) These complicated forms appear to exist in all these languages from
Greenland to Cape Horn ;

(iii) These forms differ essentially from those of the ancient and modern
languages of the Old Hemisphere. We have no reason to believe that a race would
ever lose its language, if kept aloof from foreign influences. It is a fact that in
the little island of Great Britain the Welsh and the Erse are still spoken, although
for 2,000 years pressed upon by the strongest influences, tending to exterminate a
tongue. So with the Basque in France, which can be traced back at least 3,000
years, and is still spoken. Coptic was the speech of Egypt for at least 5,000 yen-.
and still leaves its trace in the languages around. The Chinese has existed equally
as long, and is still undisturbed. . . The language of Homer lives iu a state of
purity, to which, considering the extraordinary duration of its literary existence
(2,500 years at least), there is no parallel, perhaps, on the face of the globe.

Although the nations of Europe and Western Asia have been in constant turmoil
for thousands of years, and their languages torn to pieces, yet they have been

282 GEX.XI.10-XI.26.

moulded into the great heterogeneous Indo-European mass, everywhere showing
affinities among its own fragments, but no resemblance to American languages.

451. This question, however, of the Plurality of Eaces, is in-
dependent of that of the reliance to be placed on the accounts
here given of the Patriarchs after the Flood. And that these are
unhistorical is sufficiently shown by the following Table, where
the numbers express the years after the Flood of the respective
events.

years after the Flood.

Noah

died

350

Shem

)>

502

Arphaxad,

born

2

?>

404

Salah

»?

37

»?

470

Eber

»»

67

»

531

Peleg

)»

101

>>

340

Eeu

j'

131

)»

370

Serug

»

163

))

393

Nahor

jj

193

«)

341

Tergh

>»

222

J)

427

Abraham

»

292

J)

467

Isaac

)>

392

»>

572

Jacob

?j

452

?)

599

452. According to the above, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, &c. —
in fact, all of Abraham's progenitors — were living during many
years of Abraham's life, and Shem, Salah, and Eber, outlived
him. Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Serug, Terah, were living
at the birth of Isaac ; and Shem and Eber lived, the one during
fifty, and the other during nearly eighty, years of the life of
Jacob. Yet we do not find the slightest intimation that either
Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, paid any kind of reverence or at-
tention to any of their ancestors, more especially to their great
ancestor Shem, who had gone through that wonderful event of
the Deluge, — (except, indeed, on the strange supposition that
Melchizedek was Shem), — or that Abraham ever paid a visit to
Noah, who, however, is supposed by some (without the slightest
warrant from Scripture) to have colonised the extreme East,
China, &c, and so to have gone out of his reach.

GEN.XI.10-XL26. 2s3

453. Again, it will be found that at the time of Isaac's birth,
— when Sarah is represented as ' bearing a son to Abraham in
his old age,'' Gf.xxi.2, — when Abraham and Sarah were ' old and
well-stricken in age,' Gr.xvii.17, and Abraham 'laughed, and
said in his heart, Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred
years old ?' as if that were an extraordinary and surprising age
for a man to beget children, — -there were actually living, as
above, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Serug, Terah, aged 580,
390, 355, 325, 229, 170 years respectively, and Eber lived 139
years longer. Must we suppose that none of these had children
at the age of a hundred ? But of Shem himself we are told,
Gr.xi.10,11—

'Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the Deluge ;
and Shem lived, after his begetting Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begat sons
and daughters.'

454. It is plain, then, that Shem's children were all born after
he was a hundred years old ; and Shem himself, and, we may
suppose, these children, or some of them, were still living at the
birth of Isaac. As to the other patriarchs, we are only told
their ages at the birth of the firstborn son in each case, and these
ages range from 29 to 35 years, except in the case of Abraham's
father, who appears to have begotten Abraham at the age of
70, Gr.xi.26. This last, however, is not certain : as the text
may only mean that Terah's three sons were born before he was
70. In all the other cases it is merely said that they ' begat
sons and daughters,' and it may be supposed that none, except
Shem, had children at the age of a hundred, or near it. But
this would involve the incongruity that Arphaxad, Salah, and
Eber had no children born to them, during three-fourths or
even four-fifths of their lives, which is out of all proportion to
the state of things in the present day, and conflicts with the
notion, usually entertained, of a remarkable fecundity in these
early times, by which the human race was replenished so soon
after the Flood.

284 GEXXI.10-XI.26.

455. It will be observed also that the more ancient progenitors,
according- to the above list, survived the later ones. Thus Noah
died ten years after Peleg, and therefore he was living at the
time of the ' dispersion of tongues.' So also were Shem,
Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, and, perhaps, also all the other forefathers
of Abraham, viz. Eeu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, since Peleg died first
of them all, and we are not told in what year of his life the dis-
persion took place. It is impossible to say whether the writer
supposed that all these Patriarchs, or any of them, took part in
the project of building the tower. "We may suppose that Xoah
and Shem did not : but, as to the others, the Scripture only
informs us that Terah and his family were idolators a hundred
years before the death of Shem, Jo.xxiv.2 ; see also Judith v.6,7.

456. The following remarks are quoted from Dr. Hales by
Kitto, Hist, of the Jews, £>.17 : —

Upon this supposition, idolatry must have begun and prevailed, and the patri-
archal government have been overthrown by Ximrod and the builders of Babel,
during the life-time of Xoah himself, and his three sons. If Shem lived unto the
110th year of Isaac, and the oOth year of Jacob, why was not he included in the
covenant of circumcision made with Abraham and his family ? Or why is he
utterly unnoticed in their history ? How coidd the earth have been so populous in
Abraham's days ? Or how could the kingdoms of Assyria, Egypt, &c. have been
established so soon after the Deluge ? This last difficulty was strongly felt by Sir
W. Raleigh, who in his History of the World remarks, — ' In this patriarch's time,
all the then parts of the world were peopled ; all nations and countries had their
kings ; Egypt had many magnificent cities, and so had Palestine, and all the
neighbouring countries, yea, all that part of the world besides, as far as India, and
these not built with sticks, but of burnt stone and with ramparts, which magni-
ficence needed a parent of more antiquity than those other men hare supposed.'
In another place he forcibly observes, ' If we advisedly consider the state and
countenance of the world, such as it was in Abraham's time, yea, before his birth,
we shall find it were very ilklone, by following opinion without the guide of
reason, to pare the times over-deeply between the Flood and Abraham ; because
in cutting them too near the quick, tic: reputation of the whole story might per-
chance bleed.'

285

CHAPTER XXVin.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO THE CREATION, THE FALL, AND

THE DELUGE.

457. It becomes now an interesting, and, for the supporters
of the traditionary view, a very important, question, to consider
what notice has been taken by the later Scripture writers of
these early portions of the Pentateuch.

Do the Psalmists and Prophets refer to the story of the First
Man, — to that of the Garden, the Forbidden Fruit, the Serpent,
the Fall, and the Deluge, — as undoubted facts, the truth of
which had been attested by Divine authority? Do they
speak of these subjects, or any one of them, as if they were
well-knowo and familiar to their own thoughts, and to the
thoughts of all around them ? Do they quote them freely, as a
modern devout poet or preacher would do, — as any earnest
student of the Bible, holding the traditionary view, would do, —
as if they believed in them, as truths divinely revealed and
infallibly certain ?

458. The reply is easy to be given. They do nothing of the
kind. The story of the first man is scarcely even once referred
to at all, and only, if at all, — which, as we shall presently see,
is exceeding^ doubtful, — with a slight passing notice, enough
just to show. that the story was written (as we suppose it was),
and in some measure known to the writer and his readers.
Xone of its details are ever mentioned. As Lengkerke observes,
Kenaan, p.xvii : —

One single certain trace of the employment of the story of Adam's Fall is

286 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO THE CREATION,

entirely 'wanting in the Hebrew Canon. Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the 'woman's
seduction of her husband, &c, are all images, to which the remaining words of the
Israelites never again recur.

At all events there is not the slightest indication that, in the
teaching of the Hebrew Prophets, the account of the Fall was
quoted and dwelt upon, as we must certainly believe it would
have been, — at least, occasionally, — if they had believed in the
Divine authority of the narrative.

And as to Noah, his name is never once mentioned, nor is
any reference made to the Deluge by any one of the Psalmists
and Prophets, except in the latter part of the book of Isaiah,
is.liv.9, and in Ez.xiv.14,20, by writers undoubtedly living
after the Captivity.

459. Kurtz, however, i.p.87, endeavours to prove that there
is, at least, some reference to the story of the Fall in the later
writings of the O.T., though he admits that —
it is indeed remarkable that special references to these events occur so rarely.

But the following are the only instances of this kind which
he is able to produce, and they include all which Dr. M'Caul

has produced.

(i) The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the
bullock, and dust shall be the serpents meat. Is.lxv.25.

But these words, instead of referring in any way to the curse pronounced in
G.iii.14, express quite another idea. In the passage of Genesis, it is pronounced,
as part of the curse upon the serpent, that it should 'eat dust,' while the venomous
creature itself was to retain all its power to sting and injure, — to ' bruise the heel'
of man. But the Prophet's language implies that the serpent then, in the Mes-
sianic time, like the wolf and lion, shall be no longer hostile and deadly to other
creatures or to man, but shall feed contentedly on ' dust ' as they upon straw.
The Prophet merely refers to the common notion of those times, that the serpent
lived partially, if not wholly, on the sustenance which it drew from the dust through
which it wriggled. See the note of Kalisch quoted above in (203).

(ii) ' They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes
like creeping things of the earth ; they shall be afraid of Jehovah our Elohim, and
shall fear because of Thee.'1 Mic.vii.17-

The cause must have been a desperate one, indeed, which compelled Dr. Kurtz
to quote this passage, — which merely describes men wriggling along in terror, like

THE FALL, AXD THE DELUGE. 287

worms, upon the ground, (just as the Zulus used to do, when approaching their
dreaded king Chaka, and as people still do, when appearing before an Oriental
despot,) as having any reference whatever to the curse pronounced upon the serpent
in Gr.iii.14.

Dr. M'Caul, however, goes yet further, and says, ^.176 : —

' We have here not only a reference to G.iii.14, hut a quotation of certain words
from D.xxxii.24. The Hebrew word for ' creeping-things ' (^riT, zoJchide) occurs
only here, in Deut, and in Job xxxii.6.'

That is to say, because in D.xxxii.24 we find ' creeping-things of the dust,'1 and
in Mic.vii.17, 'creeping-things of the earth' and the two phrases used in totally
different connections, therefore Micah has made a ' verbal quotation of certain words '
(N.B. one word at the most) from Deuteronomy ! The allegation reminds one
of the ingenious critic, who adduced, as a proof of Shakespeare's acquaintance
with Latin, the verbal agreement between the sentence, ' I prcs, sequar,' to be found
in Terence, and the corresponding sentence, ' Go before, I'll follow,' to be found
in Shakespeare. If there is any copying in the case, which appears to us most
improbable, we apprehend that it is the later Deuteronomist, who must have
imitated his predecessor Micah.

(iii) Thou hidcst Thy face, they are troubled ; Thou taJcest away their breath,
they die, and return to their dust. Ps.eiv.29.

(iv) His breath gotth forth ; he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his
thoughts perish. Ps.cxlvi.4.

All go unto one place ; cdl are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Ecc.iii.20.

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto
Elohim who gave it. Ecc.xii.7.

There may be a reference in these verses to G.iii.19. But, surely, the sight or
the burial of a corpse might suffice of itself to awaken in any pious mind such
reflections as these, — even, as we have seen (212), in the mind of a heathen. And,
in any case, Ps.civ,cxlvi, are two strongly Jehovistic Psalms, and were, perhaps,
written long after the Captivity. And the book of Ecclesiastes does not contain
the name Jehovah at all ; which fact combines with other internal evidence to
show that it was not written by Solomon, as is generally supposed, but composed
(as most critics agree) in a much later age, long after the Captivity, when the
name was disused altogether, it would seem, for superstitious reasons. There
is no doubt that the present Pentateuch was in existence and well-known in
those days, and therefore might have been referred to by any writer ; but it cannot
be pronounced with any confidence that there is actually any reference to it in the
above passages.

But even these passages speak only of the mortality of man. There is no
reference whatever to the Temptation, the Sin, the Fall, as an article of the
Hebrew Faith, either here or elsewhere.

288 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO THE CREATIOX,

460. Kurtz, however, says : —

Equally clear is the reference in Jobxxxi.33, and Hos.vi.7, to the history of the
Fall.

With the limitation l equally clear ' the statement may be
admitted ; for neither in these passages, nor in the former, is
there, as it appears to us, the slightest reference to the Fall,
though, in the case of Hos.vi.7, we have Dr. M'Caul's opinion
confirming that of Dr. Kxrtz.

In the first of the above texts, Job.xsxi.33, the E.V. reads : —

' If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my
bosom.'

In the second, Hos.vi.7, we find : —

' But they, like men, have transgressed the covenant.'

461. The Hebrew is the same, DlX?, he Adam, in both the ex-
pressions italicised ; though our translators have rendered it dif-
ferently in the two cases. It is clear that, in the second instance,
the word can hardly be translated ' Adam,' since Adam had not
transgressed any 'covenant,' unless it be supposed (with some
commentators) that he transgressed a ' covenant of works ' ; and,
certainly, in any case, the sudden allusion to him would be very
abrupt, — the more so, as the other Prophets do not refer to him
freely in this wa}T, nor, indeed, do they ever once mention his
name at all under any circumstances. Our translators, therefore,
have understood the phrase to mean ' like men,' f after the

manner of men,' as in Ps.lxxxii.7, —

' But ye shall die like men (D1X2 )> and fall like one of the princes.'

462. And this is, no doubt, the meaning in the other passage
also, as will be seen by the following instances of translation.

In Job xxxi.33, the Vvlg. has, 'Si abscondi, quasi homo, peccatum meum,' — the
Syr. (Walton), ' Si celavi, ut homines, peccata mea,' — the Sept., Et 5e kcl\ au.aprwv
anova-iccs Zupv^a tV auzpTiav /xov, — the ChahL Par. (Walton), ' Si operui, sicut
Adam, peccatum meum,' — Cahex, 'Si comme les hommes j*ai cache mes peches.' —
Diodati, ' Come sogliono far gli huomini," — Schmidt, ' Num texi sicut homo prae-
varicationes meas,' — Juxius-and TuEMELLirs, ' Si texi more hominum defectiones
meas,' — Iather, 'Habe ich mcine Schalckheit vrie c-in Mensch gedeckt.'

In Hos.vi.7, the Vvlg, has, 'Ipsi autem, sicut Adam, transgressi sunt pactum,' —
the Syr., 'Ipsi tamen. ut filius hominis, transgressi sunt frcdus meum,' — the Arab.,

THE FALL, AND THE DELUGE. 289

' At isti sunt similes homini fcedus illic prsevaricanti,' — Targ. Jon., ' At ipsi, sicut
generationes priscfe. transgressi sunt pactum ineum,' — the Sept., AvtoI 5e eltrtv ws
avdpanros -rrapafSatvuiv SiadTJKVv, — Cahen, 'Mais ils ont, comme le rulgaire, trans-
gresse 1' alliance,' — Schmidt, ' Et illi, ut homo, transgressi sunt fcedus,' — Juntos
and Tremelltos, 'At isti tanquam homines transgressi sunt fedus ; ' but Luther
has, ' Sie iibertreten den Bund wie Adam.' — And further, on this passage see Dr.
Davidson's Introduct. to Old Test, vol.iiip.241.

463. Kurtz further proceeds to say: —

The same remark applies to Is.xliii.27, where the expression, ' thy first father
hath sinned,' can only refer to Adam, as the best commentators have shown.
However, Hofman views the latter passage as an allusion to Abraham.

But, if we consider the whole verse, —

' Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against
me,' —

it is clear that the reference cannot possibly be to Adam,
whoever may be meant by it. What had Adam to do particularly
with the people of Israel ? The reference is manifestly to the
people of Israel itself, when on its march out of Egypt, which is
here personified as the ' first father ' of the present generation.
And, accordingly, the LXX has ol iraTspss v/xcov irpwToi, which
Luther follows, ' Deine voreltern haben gesundiget.'

464. Kurtz adds, —

Let it also be remembered that all the sacrificial services of the O.T. are based
on Gi-.iii (!). Nor can we be mistaken in finding in the expression ' surely die,'
which so frequently occurs in the Mosaic criminal legislation, a reference to the
'surely die ' of the first legislation in Gr.ii.l7(!).

If any inference could be drawn from the occurrence of such

a phrase both in Leviticus and in Gr.ii. 17, it would only be this,

that the same writer was concerned in both cases.

465. Finally, Kurtz sums up, as follows: —

If any doubt should still remain, we submit that the facts, recorded in these
chapters, are chronicled with a childlike simplicity, and that hence the manifold
deep bearing of this narrative required a lengthened training, before it could be
perfectly apprehended in the consciousness of the individual [even of such a
Prophet as Isaiah or Jeremiah, or of any one of the Psalmists, after a ' lengthened
training ' of so many centuries !] So rich and deep is always the commencement
of a development, that the continuation of it is not sufficient fully to bring its
treasures to light. It is only at its completion, that all which had lain concealed
in it appears.

VOL. II. U

290 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO THE CREATION

466. We thus see how very slight, if any, is the reference to
this part of the Pentateuch, in the writings of the most devout
men of later days ; though we find distinct references to the
Fall in the apocryphal book of Wisdom, ii.24, where also the
1 Serpent ' is for the first time identified with the Evil Spirit,
after the Hebrews had come into close contact with the later
Persian mythology : —

■ Through enTy of the Devil came death into the world.'

And so we read in Ecclus.xxv.24 : — ■

' Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.'

467. Tuch observes, p.54 : —

This later revival [of the ancient myth in G.iii] explains itself through the
acquaintance, which, while in exile, the Israelites made with the religion of the
Parsees, the influence of which shows itself plainly in this, that the serpent is
explained to mean Satan, now incorporated into the Jehovah-worship . . . Thus
the old Hebrew form of the myth is brought nearer to the Persian (225). The
essential difference of the two myths ought to be a sufficient proof against the
derivation of the Hebrew from the Persian, maintained by yon Boklen and
others, who deduce from this the later [rather, very late] origin of Gen.iii. For
why should not, in that case, Satan appear in action, [i.e. in person, not in the
form of a serpent,] ichich the later form of the Hebrew religion allowed ? Certainly,
however, these myths stand in a sisterly relation, having proceeded from one
primary legend, which in different forms has spread itself over the whole Orient.

468. But in the older Canonical Scriptures we find no such
references, — no allusion of any kind to the story of Adam and
Eve and the Fall, or to that of Noah and the Deluge, except,
as we have said, in Js.liv.9, Ez.xiv. 14,20.

Mention, indeed, is made in the Proverbs of the ' tree of life '
in four passages, —

' She is a tree of life to them that lay hold iipon her,' iii. 18 ;
' The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,' xi.30 ;
' When the desire cometh, it is a tree of life,' xiii.12 ;
' A wholesome tongue is a tree of life,' xv.4 ; —

and of the ' fountain of life ' in four others, —

' The mouth of the righteous is a, fountain of life,' x.ll ;

'The law of the wise is -a fountain of life,' xiii.14 ;

'The fear of Jehovah is a fountain of life,' xiv.27 ;

' Understanding is a fountain of life unto him that hath it,' xvi.22 : —

THE FALL, AND THE DELUGE. 291

and so too we read, Ps.xxxvi.9, —

' With Thee is the fountain of life.1
But these expressions are evidently proverbial, and drawn at
all events from some other source than Gr.ii,iii, which makes no
mention at all of the ' fountain of life.'

469. It is very difficult to explain this silence on the
traditionary view, as it is stated by Dr. M'Caul, Examination,
&c. £).208, viz. that —

there never was a time in Israel, from the days of Moses on, when the Pentateuch
was unknown.

It seems, in fact, with only the above evidence before us,
impossible to believe, that the devout Prophets, Priests, and
Kings, and pious people all along, were thoroughly conversant
with the written Law, were deep in the study of it, and
practising its precepts daily, — were reminded annually of its
existence by the sacred ordinances, which the more religious
minds among them faithfully observed, and were also summoned
once in seven years to hear the whole Law read at the Feast of
Tabernacles, D.xxxi.9-13.

470. But it is easy to account for this phenomenon, if we
suppose that the story of the Fall was, as we have seen already
some reason to believe, written by the Jehovist, not earlier than
the latter part of David's reign, and was known to the great
and good of that time as only a narrative, written for the
edification of the people, by some distinguished man of the age.
Probably, one or two copies may have been made of it, or,
perhaps, only one, which remained in the charge of the Priests,
and may have been added to from time to time. But the
existence of this was so little known in after days, — in other
words the book, in the form which it had then assumed, was
allowed, even by the best Kings, Priests, and Prophets, to drop
so completely into oblivion, — that in the time of Josiah, when
the ' Book of the Law ' was found in the Temple, the very
idea of any such book being still in existence seemed quite
strange to the king and to his people.

tr 2

•202

CHAPTEE XXIX.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

471. We have now completed the analysis and examination
of the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis. The analysis has
clearly shown that this portion of the Pentateuch, at all events,
is not the work of one author, — that the hands of (at least) two
distinct writers can be traced throughout in it, one of whom, as
far as present appearances indicate, must have written sub-
sequently to the other, and with the older document before him,
— though it still remains to be considered whether the later of
the two wrote merely to fill up the blanks, which appeared to his
mind to exist in the older story, or whether he composed origin-
ally a complete separate narrative, which was afterwards, in a
later age, incorporated with the older work. It is possible also,
as we have seen (98), that some of the Jehovistic passages in
these chapters may be due to the hand of a later compiler. But
to any one, who has followed carefully the train of reasoning in
Chap.iii-viii, by which the above main result has been obtained,
it will be evident, as we believe, that it does not rest on mere
fancy or conjecture, — that it is an undeniable fact.

472. If this be true, there is no room for the supposition
of Dr. Pte Smith (25), that these are merely fragments of
older documents, handed down from Jacob, Abraham, Noah, —
even from Adam, — worked in by Moses himself into the narra-
tive, which he was composing in the wilderness for the in-
struction of the people of Israel in all future ages. Even wTere

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 293

this supposition well-founded, the historical value of this part
of the Bible would be seriously weakened, and its (supposed)
infallible accuracy impaired, not only by the contradictions,
which it presents, as we have seen, throughout to innumerable
facts of Modern Science, but also by the discrepancies which
are observed to exist, when separate statements of the different
authors, whose writings are here put together, are compared
with one another.

473. But the supposition itself is inadmissible,* because the

* Still less is there any room for the strange notion of Prof. Kingsley, who,
however, feels himself obliged to abandon some part of the traditionary view, but
writes as follows, Gospel of the Pentateuch, p.o : —

' All I shall say about the matter is, that the first chapter of Genesis and the
three first verses of the second, [i.e. our first Elohistic section, G.i.l-ii.3,] may be
the writing of a prophet older than Moses, because they call God ' Elohim,' which
was His name before Moses's time ; and that Moses may have used them, and
worked them into the book of Genesis ; while he, in the part which he wrote
himself, called God at first by the name ' Jehovah Elohim,' the Lord God, in order
to show that Jehovah and El were the same God, and not two different ones ; and,
after he had made the Jews understand that, went on to call God simply ' Jehovah,'
and to use the two names, as they are used throughout the rest of the Old Testa-
ment, interchangeably. [On further consideration Prof. Kingsley, I think, will
perceive unmistakable signs of, at least, two distinct authors in Genesis, as is shown
by our analysis, from which it appears (77) that about half of G.i-xi is due to one
writer, and half to another.] . . . That, I think, is the probable and simple account,
which tallies most exactly with the Bible. As for the first five books of the
Bible,— -the Pentateuch, — having been written by Moses, or at least by far the
greater part of them, I cannot see the least reason to doubt it. . . . The tradition
of the Jews, (who really ought to know best), has always (!) been that Moses wrote
either the whole or the greater part. Moses is far the most likely (!) man to have
written them, of all of whom we read in Scripture. [What do we know of Moses,
except from the Pentateuch itself?] We have not the least proof (!), and, what is
more, never shall or can have (! !), that he did not write them. And, therefore, I
advise you to believe, as I do, that the universal tradition of both Jews and
Christians is right, when it calls these books the books of Moses,' — [and when it
assigns to Moses certainly G.i.l-ii.3, as well as the rest.]

But, indeed, Prof. Kixgsley's mode of defending the historical truth and
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is very peculiar. As to the former he says,
p.222, ' I know no stronger proof of the truth of the book of Deuteronomy, and of
the whole Pentateuch (!), than — its ending so differently from what we should have

294 CONCLUDING REMAKES.

same two hands can be traced distinctly, not only throughout
the rest of the book of Genesis, but also in the later part of the
history, where Moses himself in person comes upon the scene.
Thus all critics allow that in E.vi.2-4 we have a portion of the
Elohistic document, written undoubtedly by the selfsame hand
which wrote G.i. If, therefore, it be supposed that Moses
himself was the writer of E.vi.2-4, — and it would seem that
Moses must have written it, if he wrote any part of the Penta-
teuch, since no other but Moses could have given an account,
from actual 'personal knowledge, of the revelation of the name
' Jehovah ' contained in this passage, — it must be admitted
that this older document, by the hand of the great Lawgiver
himself, has been greatly enlarged and materially modified,
by the introduction of a number of important passages by a
later hand.

474. But, whether Moses wrote the Elohistic document or
not, — a question which we must leave to be discussed in a
future Part of this work, — it is plain, from what we have had
before us, that not only is the Elohistic matter of this part of
Genesis at variance in some important points with the Jeho-
vistic, but they both conflict repeatedly, in the strongest manner,
with the undoubted facts of Science, and neither, therefore, of
the two narratives can be regarded as throughout historically
true. For, as already observed, the Light of Eevelation cannot
be at variance with the Light of Science : the real Word of Go
cannot either contradict itself or contradict the real Work of
God. It follows from this that we must not look for the real
Word of God in these contradictory statements of matter of fact,
— in the mere outward shell, the letter, of the Scriptures. The
Word of God, in the high and proper sense of this expression,
is that in the Bible — the living Word — which speaks to the

expected, or indeed wished.' (!) And as to the latter lie asks, p.lS5, ' If Moses did
not write it, who did ? ' As well might Boyle have asked in the famous contro-
versy, ' If Phalaris did not write the letters of Phalaris, who did ? '

COXCLUDIXG REMARKS. 295

hearts and consciences of living men, — which stirs within them
divine thoughts, kindles devout feelings, impels to faithful
action, awakens holy desire, reveals to the longing eye and the
pure heart the Living God.

475. As Prof. Owen has admirably said, Inaugural Address
at Leeds, Dec. 16, 1862, ^>.8 : —

Those who contend that such religious truths rest essentially on the basis of the
literal and verbal accuracy and acceptability of every physical proposition in the
Pentateuch, hazard much, and incur grave responsibilities. . . When a physical
fact is demonstrated, and contradicts a canonical statement, it is sometimes
objected that the contradiction is apparent, not real ; or, if the propositions are too
plainly and diametrically opposed, it is next said that ' the truth, as it is manifested
in the works, and as it is affirmed in the Word, of God, must be one, must ultimately
harmonize.' But here the very point at issue is assumed, viz. whether the ancient
statement of a physical fact be truly, as alleged, a direct verbal inspiration from
above, a literal Word of God. . . whether, I say, the alleged inspired statements
as to these phenomena, in their plain sense, be conformable to the certain knowledge,
which it has pleased the Aiithor of all Truth to put us in possession of, by the
exercise of the powers He has given for that purpose, and at the times when, in His
Providence, it was proper that such truths should be communicated to mankind.

When the canonical statement and the scientific demonstration do concur, who
rejoices more than the Christian philosopher? When they do not, and the opposing
statements are irreconcilable, who is more bound than the Christian philosopher
[or the Christian minister] to deliver the truth and declare the error, and fling from
hi in the sophism by which the error is salved or veiled, that it may still be reverently
cherish d, notwithstanding the admitted demonstration of its erroneous naturet

476. It is only, however, an analysis, such as that con-
ducted in Chap.iii-vi, which can dispel effectually from
the minds of many even intelligent persons, well read in
science, the lingering remains of that fancy, with which, per-
haps, they have been thoroughly imbued in their youth, that
the Bible cannot be a Teacher — a Divinely-given Teacher —
for us in spiritual thiugs, unless we regard it as a part of our
religious duty to receive, with submissive, unquestioning, faith,
all its statements of fact, as indisputable, infallible, words of
historical truth, to the accuracy of which the Divine Veracity
itself is pledged. So strong, indeed, is the force of habit, that,

296 CONCLUDING REMARKS.

while the Pentateuch is regarded as wholly or chiefly the work
of Moses, men will still cling to the notion, — or the notion will
still cling to them, — that it may be possible in some way to
reconcile its statements with fact. It is onlv, when the work is
resolved into its separate elements, that the charm is broken, —
the delusion passes off, — and the power ceases to act, which
binds men to the mere letter of the Scrinture as the revealed
"Word of God.

477. And then comes the danger — the result of all this
erroneous teaching, which insists upon maintaining that —

the very foundations of our faith, the very basis of our hopes, the very nearest and
dearest of our consolations, are taken from us, when one line of that Sacred
Volume, on which we base everything, is declared to be unfaithful or un-
trustworthy.

It is this, — that, when men's eyes are opened to the real facts
of the case, in an age like this of great scientific activity, they
may lose their reverence for the Scriptures altogether, and cease
to regard the Bible with that true, devout, intelligent, affection,
■ — with that deep sense of the blessings, of which in God's Pro-
vidence it has been the minister to man, and that living faith in
the Divine Truths, which it has been the means of maintaining
and propagating through the world, — which every true Christian
will feel, and which it is the desire and aim of such critical
labours as these to develope and foster.

478. Nay, even in the case of those, who, having been
steeped to the lips in Bibliolatry of this kind from their infancy,
have gradually worked their way out of it through the greater
part of a life, not without help in various degrees from this
teacher and that, — even in their case there may come at length a
crisis, when the apologies, the explanations, the transcendental
meanings, the looking for the clearing up of some hitherto dark
mysteries, from which light is to fall on all other disputed
points, — when all these are seen to be needless, mere cobwebs
of men's brains, spun to bridge over a chasm, which does not

CONCLUDING EEMAKKS. 297

really exist between the Scriptures and other writings. And
when this crisis arrives, it is not surprising that there should
often come with it at first a danger of some revulsion of feeling
against that which has been treated as an idol, and before which
so much anxious thought, so much painful feeling, has been
offered as incense. Even before the crisis, it is probable that
the study of that book will have been growing less and less
general, and the parts most dwelt upon confined to certain
more favourite passages.

479. But what is the case even now, practically, with the
more intelligent clergy, — nay, with the clergy generally ? For
practice is always a surer guide to the real opinions of men
than mere theory. The theory of very many clergymen of
the Church of England is this, that every line of Scripture is
'given by inspiration of (rod,' and is therefore i 'profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous-
ness.' But the practice of all of them is to select for the texts
of their sermons only such passages, as seem to them to be
' profitable' for any of the above purposes, or, to use the modern
phrase, ' edifying.' Yet, if the Bible is in every part of it ' the
Word of God,' what right have we, as ' ministers and stewards
of God's Word,' to hold back any portion of that Word from
our congregations? How can we say to our people, as the
Apostle Paul said to the elders of Ephesus, that we c have not
shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God,' when we
pass over scores of verses, and even whole chapters, of the Bible,
in the choice of subjects for our addresses to them from the pulpit?

480. The opinion that the Bible is the 'Word of God,'
and special vehicle of the knowledge of His Will, only so
far as it contains the Word of God, is viewed with alarm by
very many of the clergy, because they say that it constitutes
each individual the judge to decide what is the Word of God,
and what is not. No doubt it does : the responsibility must lie

•298 CONCLUDING- EEMABKS.

on every living man to know when lie feels in his heart the
penetrating force of God's living Word, —

' quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, a discerner of
the thoughts and intents of the heart,' Heb.iv.12. —

to know when he hears the ' Word of God,' that he may receive
and obey it- But, every time that a clergyman site down to
choose a text for a sermon, he constitutes himself a judge of
God's Word unconscioush*. He picks out certain portions of
the Bible, because he feels that they embody a certain amount
of ' moral and religious truth,' and, as such, are especially fitted
to come home to the hearts and consciences of Ids hearers.
He passes over certain other portions of the same book, be-
cause he feels that they would not be ' profitable,' — neither ' for
doctrine,' nor ' for reproof,' nor ' for correction,' nor ' for
instruction in righteousness.'

481. Yet this is the New Testament test of an inspired writing,
that is to say, of one containing the Word of God. Our own
moral instincts warn us off from some passages of the Bible,
as being- not only unprofitable, but contrary to the spirit and
letter of Christ's Gospel. Our own common-sense also tells us
that certain other passages would not be 'profitable' to our
congregations, as containing only mere lists of places or genea-
logies. Another class of passages we leave untouched, because
we feel that, though profitable in times past to those for
whose instruction they were written, they are no longer profit-
able in the altered circumstances of our own age, and do not
therefore contain that 'moral and religious truth,' which, as being
of eternal and universal application, we may safely proclaim,
at all times and to all persons, as the 'Word of God.' In all
such cases, then, we do, as a matter of fact, judge for ourselves,
what parts of Scripture we will make use of in the pulpit, as
speaking from God to us, and invested with divine authority.

482. But many of the clergy go much further. They dwell

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 299

on certain favourite texts of Scripture, because they fall in, or
seem to fall in, with their own doctrinal prepossessions, and never
preach on certain other texts, which are, or seem to be, opposed
to those prepossessions. Surely, these, at least, are in the habit
of judging for themselves what is (to them) the 'Word of Grod,'
and what is not, — what is ' the Gospel,' and what is not. It
is possible that the sermon-registers of some of the clergy, hold-
ing extreme views on either side of well-known controversies,
would yield some remarkable statistics on this point.*

483. It will by this time, however, I trust, be apparent to
any, who will thoughtfully consider the evidence produced in
these chapters, that, whatever may have been the case in times
past, our religious duty now, — our duty to obey the Truth,
and to follow the revealed Will of our Creator, — so far from
requiring us to receive any longer the stories, which we
have been considering, as true, unquestionable, facts of history
— on the contrary, requires us to reject them as such. It
requires us all,— instead of forcing the Scripture narrative, in
these first chapters of Genesis, to yield to us lessons, which it
would not naturally teach us, or trying to evade the conclusions,
which may naturally be drawn from these and other passages, f — ■

* For proofs of the truth of the above remarks, I need only refer to the very
useful Cydopcedia Bibliographica, Part I, compiled byllr. Darling, and containing
the texts and titles of an enormous number of sermons, carried through every book
of the Old and New Testament. An analysis of this stupendous work would be
most interesting and instructive, with reference to the above subject ; but it would
show that there are very many passages of the Bible, i.e. as some say, of the
revealed ' Word of God,' which are never preached on, as also there are many which
in some Churches are never read to the congregation.

t As the justification of slavery from N.xxxi.40, ' of which Jehovah's tribute
was thirty and two persons,' or of the execution of witches from E.xxii.l8.L.xx.27,
'they shall stone them with stones, their blood shall be upon them.' How
can the New-Zealand natives be blamed for 'punishing cursing, adultery, and
witchcraft, by stoning,' because they believed the Levitical Law to be the best of
laws, since that Law, they were told, was Divine (see Part ILp.170, note)? Or
why should we wonder if the Essex villagers believed that, in murdering a wretched

300 CONCLUDING REMARKS.

to be ready to receive, with devout faith and humble adoration,
that wondrous Kevelation of Himself, which Grod is manifestly
making in these our days, by giving us the glorious Light of
Modern Science, — those grand lessons of Eternal Truth, which
that Light displays to us.

484. Why should not our clergy be the first to teach these
lessons to their flocks, varying, the dry routine of dogmas, or
the stereotyped ' improvements ' of Scripture texts, to which the
discourses of so many of them are now exclusively confiued, by
bringing before them freely the ennobling and strengthening,
yet, at the same time, sobering, humbling, solemnizing views,
which the great scientific discoveries of our own time unfold to
us ? There are, indeed, many among the clergy, who are them-
selves distinguished in scientific pursuits, and who are so con-
stituted mentally, that they do not heed the restraints imposed
on such studies by dogmatic theology, or do not feel them. It is
far otherwise with many others. They dare not entertain some
of the great questions of the day, or face for themselves, much
less for their congregations, some of the most interesting and
certain conclusions, at which scientific men have unanimously
arrived.*

old man, who professed to be a wizard, on Sept. 27, 1863, they were only doing
what the State neglected to do, and ' working out the righteousness of God,' who
had commanded Moses, ' Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ' ?

* Brydone writes, Tour through Sicily and Malta, p.%2 : ' Recupero has made
use of this, as an argument to prove the great antiquity of the eruptions of this
mountain (Etna) . . . He tells me, he is exceedingly embarrassed by these
discoveries, in writing the history of the mountain, — that Moses hangs like a dead
weight upon him, and blunts all his zeal for enquiry ; for that really he has not the
conscience to make his mountain so young, as that prophet makes the world ....
The Bishop, who is strenuously orthodox, has already warned him to be on his
guard, and not to pretend to be a better natural historian than Moses, nor to
presume to urge anything that may in the smallest degree be deemed contradictory
to his sacred authority.'

But, even in our own days, wehave had some remarkable instances of the deference
paid, even by scientific laymen, to the popular notion of the infallibility of all
Scripture statements, as in the. case mentioned in Part I, ^-xxiv, note, or in the
following passage from Sir J. G. Wilkinson, who wrote in 1835: 'I am aware that

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 301

485. Brought up in that narrow school of theological tram-
mo-, which ignores altogether the plainest results of Biblical
criticism, — taught to regard every word and letter of the
Scripture as infallibly true and unspeakably Divine, — they dare
not, for their own peace of mind, discuss with any freedom such
questions as that of the 'Antiquity of Man,' or the possible
existence of different races of mankind, not all derived from
one pair of ancestors, but corresponding to different centres of
creation, as the animals among which they are found. They
shrink from examining into the historical credibility of the
accounts of the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge, from dis-
cussing the Scripture account of the formation of woman, of her
temptation, of the entrance of death into the world, of the
sentence passed on the dust-eating serpent, the childbearing
woman, the labouring man, — of the curse passed upon this blessed
Earth, blooming now as (Geology tells us) it did of old, when
there was no man upon the Earth to till it, no one to see its
beauty, and to tell out the Greatness and Goodness of God.

48b". Or, if any one dares to do this, he is in danger of fall-
ing at once under the ' thunders of censure,' threatened by
Bishop Wilbeeforce in his recent Charge, or under the weight
of his dictum, Guardian, Nov. 25, 1863 —

the era of Menes might be carried back to a much more remote period than the date
I hare assigned it. But, as we have as yet no authority further than the uncertain
accounts of Manetho's copyists, to enable us to fix the times, and the number of
reigns intervening between his accession and that of Apappus, I have not placed
him earlier, for fear of interfering with the date of the Deluge of Noah, which is
2348 b.c' Yet when treating geological!!/ a few years afterwards, on the antiquity
of the Delta, he makes the following scientific assertions: 'We are led to the neces-
sity of allowing an immeasurable time for the total formation of that space, which,
to judge from the very little accumulation of its soil, and the small distance it has
encroached on the sea, since the erection of the ancient cities within it, woidd
require ages, and throw back its origin far beyond the Deluge, or even the Mosaic
era of the Creation.' And, in 1851, he too carries Menes up above the Deluge to
b.c. 2700, [and he says, ' many ages of civilisation must have preceded the accession
of their first monarch,' Anc. Egypt, iv. 12, 131.] See Types of Mankind, p. 671, 683.

302 CONCLUDING REMAKES.

The Church requires of a man a solemn declaration of his belief in that which he
is to teach, and that engagement must last so long as he continues to exercise his
office. If he ceases to believe, — [e.g. in the literal, historical, truth of the account
of Noah's Flood or the numbers of the Exodus,] — he is bound, in common honesty,
to resign his office ; and, if the dulness of his spirit does not allow him to ap-
prehend that necessity, the Church is bound to remove him.

If the Bishop of Oxford means the « belief,' which he speaks
of, to include belief in the literal, historical, truth of all Scrip-
tural narratives, he is distinctly at variance with the Court of
Arches, which has now expressly declared that that is not the
law of the Church. Dr. Lushington said : —

To put a particular construction on a part of Holy Scripture, cannot be deemed a
contradiction of the Deacon's declaration of his belief in Holy Scripture. Judgment
in Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams.

As to the right claimed by Mr. Wilson, to deny the reality of any of the facts
contained in the Scriptures, it is one thing to deny that the narratives are contained
in Holy Scripture, and a very different thing to maintain that such narratives are
to be understood in a figurative sense. Judgment in Fendall v. Wilson.

487. Dean Hook has said very justly, Manchester Church
Congress, 1863, that 'the principle of the Eeformation (as dis-
tinguished from Medievalism),' is —

the necessity of asserting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And he added, —

The Medisevalist did not deny the necessity of maintaining the truth ; nor does
the Protestant deny that the principle of love is a principle enforced in the
Scriptures of the New Testament. But the difference is here, — that the Mediae-
valist, in his desire to enlist the affections in the cause of religion, could, when the
assertion of the truth was likely to promote discord, postpone the true to the
expedient ; whereas the Protestant is prepared to sacrifice peace to the maintenance
of truth, or what he believes to be such.

488. We, then, Ministers of the Church of England,— Minis-
ters, not of a mediaeval, but of a Eeformed Protestant Church,
— are at once both exercising our right, and discharging our
duty, in declaring to our people, as opportunity shall offer,
'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' on
these matters, so far as. we already know it. And, when all
Europe is moving on with the advance of the age, we must
refuse, as the clergy of a great National Institution, to be held

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 303

in fetters by the mere word of any man, or to be forbidden to
search out thoroughly the truth, in respect of these questions
of science and criticism, and to speak out plainly the truth
which we find.

489. For instance, while drawing from these first chapters
of Genesis such religious lessons as may be fairly and naturally
drawn from them (161), we may proceed to show how we
here possess, by the gracious gift of God's overruling Pro-
vidence, a precious treasure in these most ancient writings,
some parts of which are, beyond all doubt, as we believe, among
the most ancient now extant in the world. For we have here
preserved to us a most deeply interesting and instructive record
of those first stirrings of spiritual life among the Hebrew people,
which prepared the way for the fuller Kevelation, in God's due
time, of His Fatherly Love, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, — from
which also, by the quickening influences of the Spirit of Grace,
has been developed by degrees our modern Christianity, — not
without contributions from the gifts bestowed on other portions
of the great Human Family, as the same good Spirit has been re-
vealing all along the Name of their Creator to the hearts of men,
' at sundry times and in divers manners,' by different means, in
different measures, among the various races of mankind.

490. And then, too, while tracing in these chapters the first
imperfect beginnings among the Hebrew people of cosmological,
astronomical, geographical, ethnological, science, we may say
plainly that the accounts of the Creation, &c. there given, cannot
possibly be regarded as historically true, since the results of
Modern Science emphatically contradict them. But we may go
on to say also that Science itself is God's precious gift, light
coming from the Father of Lights, and specially coming in
greater splendour in this very age in which we live, and given
to us by His Grace in order that, by means of it, we may see
more clearly than before His Glory and His Goodness.

491. Such teaching as this, which I venture to quote in con-

204 CONCLUDING REMAEKS.

elusion from a small book, First Lessons in Science, written by
me for the use of Zulus and others, though not published, is
surely not so very unsound and ' dangerous,' that it needs to
be ' inhibited ' in all the pulpits of the land.

(i) ' Standing on the threshold of this Science (Geology), we feel almost
overwhelmed, at first, with the awful sense of the enormous lengths of time
which have passed, since first the world in which we live was called into
being. "We obtain from it such an idea of immeasurable duration, or what
is popularly called eternity, as we have never, perhaps, realised before. We
look in, as it were, into a dim vaulted chamber, and see arch after arch,
reaching away before us, till we can see no farther. We follow, trembling
■with emotion and dread, through the still, solemn, halls ; and when we have
at length stepped on into the gloom, far from the light of day and the
converse of our kind, we see the interminable range of arched pillars, stretched
out as before, age after age, into the infinite Past. Such is the feeling, with
which any thoughtful person must read the records of the Earth's past
history, written upon the rocks.

(ii) ' And man has been living for a few thousand years at most upon the
Earth. "We know this certainly, because, though we find traces innume-
rable of other living creatures, buried up in the older strata of the Earth's
crust, we find none whatever of man, except in those of comparatively modem
date. Surely, then, we cannot say that the earth was made exclusively for
Man. When we think of the ages full of glory and beauty and life, which
have passed away before Man was, and of the veiy small portion of the Earth's
surface — still less of the Earth's thin crust — which we can even see and
examine, we cannot presume to say that the whole huge Earth was made
only for Man. As well might we say that the Sim was made only to give
him warmth by day, and the Moon and the Stars to give him light by
night.

(iii) ' Yet, if not made only for Man, these things have certainly been
made, in the Great Creator's scheme, with express and most gracious
reference to Man. The Sun, that, hundreds of thousands of years ago, gave
light and heat, under which the forests grew in those primeval swamps,
where the coalbeds were formed, must have shone with some express reference
to such a being as Man, who should be able to make use of such stores aa
these of hidden treasure, to draw them out of the depths in which they had
so long been buried, to turn them to his uses, to extract from them metals and
medicines, to obtain from them supplies of light and heat, to contrive the
mighty engines, that minister so vastly to the comforts of his daily life, and
afford the means of intercourse and communion with his fellows ?

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 305

(iv) ' Who hid a creature like Man could have turned to account the coal,
and the lime, and the slate, and the building-stones of various kinds, — the
iron, copper, tin, and lead, and a multitude of other substances, mineral and
vegetable, which the care of the Creator has provided ? How plainly does
the simple fact, that these things are, and that Man alone is capable of using
them, prove to the reasoning mind, that whatever may be the case hereafter,
whatever may become of the Earth, whatever creatures may be placed upon
it in the ages yet to come, yet Man was intended from the first to inhabit
this world in his own appointed time, and all the ages that have past,
whatever else they have done, have done this also, to fit the Earth to be the
home for a time, and the working-place, of Man !

(v) 'Ah, yes! Man's working-place — a place, where we must work out
that which accords with the spiritual nature given to us, — a work unto life,
or a work unto death. We are sure that, in the sight of Him who is a
Spirit, spiritual beings, such as we are, must have a value very different
from that of creatures who have merely soul and body, who have merely
bodilv life and those lower instincts, which distinguish the brute beast from
the plant. Tliey cannot know the right from the wrong, the good from the
evil. We have the Law of God written within our hearts by the finger of
our Maker. We have the gracious teachings of His Spirit, the whisperings
of His Love, the sense of His Displeasure. "We have within us the faint
reflexions of His glorious excellences. "We know His perfect Truth, and
Puritv, and Goodness, by that very power which He has given us, to take
delight in Truth, and Purity, and Goodness, — ay, to love and honour and
glorify it in our very heart of hearts, even when we are giving way to some
vile temptation, and consent to do what we know to be evil. And there is
that within us which tells us, as plainly as the Bible tells us, that " the wages-
of sin is death," that " he who soweth to the flesh shall reap corruption."'
And there is something too which tells us that to do the "Will of God is
fife, such life as spirits need and long for, — the life Eternal, which comes
from knowing Him more truly, from whom all Light and Life are flowing.

(vi) ' If we had not the Bible to teach us, — wherein we find the utterances
of men's hearts in other days, breathed into by the Spirit of God, and
answering to that which we feel within ourselves, breathed by the One and
selfsame Spirit — yet the contemplation of the works of God shows us an,
Order, also, in His universe — a steady, constant sequence of cause and effect —
the permanence of fixed laws, from the very first age of the world's existence
until now. Those, who first begin to study the formation of the Earth's crust,
may be led, as many have been, to imagine, that only by wild, irregular,
convulsive efforts, unlike any which we now see in nature; the rocks were

VOL. II. X

306 CONCLUDING REMARKS.

made, and the mountains raised, and the valleys sunk. They may fancy
that such immense results as these could only have been brought about by a
succession of violent earthquakes, by mighty volcanic action, such as might
speak, indeed, of Power and Wisdom, of a Will working all things to an end,
but would leave upon the mind a painful bewildering sense of disorder, con-
fusion, insecurity.

(vii) ' But true Science teaches us otherwise. It tells us that there is,
indeed, a Living Ruler of the Universe, who has made His actual Presence
felt, and showu forth His Might and Wisdom, in calling into existence, from
time to time, new races of living creatures, differing in size, and form, and
character, in wonderful number and variety, to fill up their part in His
stupendous whole. But it tells us also that all things are under Law. It
tells us that even the volcano and the earthquake, the hurricane and
thunderstorm, are all under Law to God, are all governed by laws such as
even we can turn to account for a thousand daily uses, when we bind the
giant Steam to do our work by land and by sea, and bid the Lightning carry
our messages. It teaches us also that far greater results than these, which
have been wrought by the hidden action of fire and flood, have been produced
by slow, long-continued, action of God's laws, ceaselessly working with
unwavering, unfailing certainty.

(viii) ' In one word, it makes us sure that all things are ruled by Law and
Order, under the government of God, in the natural world ; and this tells us
that the same also is true in the moral world. We are made to feel that, if
we break God's Order, or lead others to break it, by acts of sin and fleshly
self-indulgence, we shall surely reap the fruit of our doings, — that the results
of our actions, whether good or evil, are sure and certain, each answering to
its kind, whether completed by some sudden stroke at once, or long delayed,
to be brought about, after a greater lapse of time, by the same Eternal Laws.

' Some men's sins are open beforehand, leading the way to judgment ; and
others they follow after. Likewise also the good deeds of some are manifest
beforehand ; and they which are otherwise cannot be hid.'

(ix) ' This thought makes us feel safe and happy under the government of
God. It would be a miserable world to live in, if we could be left alone in sin, —
if sin did not surely find us out with judgment, — if we were not sure of this,
that things do not go on at random, by caprice and arbitrary choice, under
God's government, but by fixed, unerring, immutable Laws, the Laws of
Righteousness and Truth, administered, not by mere Sovereign Authority,
but by Fatherly Love.

(x) ( And the worlds around us— are these inhabited ? We know not vet ;
nor, perhaps, will it ever be given to man to know this certainly in this life.

CONCLUDING REMAKES. 307

And one "wise man of out own days has taught us to remember this, that
we do not know, — that, as far as we do know, the Moon and other Planets
are probably not inhabited, — that the moon, at all events, presents no condi-
tions of life, analogous to those needed for animal and vegetable life on
Earth, — tbat this Earth, therefore, may be the only body of our svstem, may
be the only body of the Universe, wherein is placed a creature gifted with
reason and conscience, such a- Man. We dare not say tbat this is so:
nor is it easy to suppose tbat all tbe host of Stars were made to give us light
by nisrbt, when a single Moon would give more light than all the Stars,
or only to gladden our eyes with their glory and betuty, when few can ever
see the visible multitudes of the starry heavens, or know the awful wonders
which they even now reveal to us, while none can count the number of Suns
which make up the star-dust of a single nebula.

(xi) ' But this we know, that for millions of years the Earth was formed,
before Man was placed upon it. Hosts upon hosts of living creatures were
brought into being, and died, and passed away : their very kinds appear no
more on Earth. But there was no human eye to note their forms, or take
account of their 'doings. The forest-tree tossed its branches ; the meadow-
flowers bloomed ;" bright colours beamed on every side. The Lord God
'gave rain from heaven and fruitful seasons' for the multitudes of living
things, who then looked up to Him for food and blessing, as they do now.
Sweet scents were spread abroad on every side ; sweet sounds were heard.
And God was there, to see the works which He had made, and "behold ! they
were very good."

(xii,) ' Yet one'living soul — one child of Man, made in God's image — is
worth more in the eyes of a Spiritual Being, than all the Suns, however
grand and glorious, — than all mere systems of unreasoning, unconscious
matter. Our happy privilege as Christians is, to know and believe flu — to
be able to look up and say " our Father," to Him who made this mighty
whole, taking with us the words, which Christ Himself has taught us, and
believing that He, who has given us the powers which we have, for seeing
and feelinsr tbe Greatness and Goodness of His works, has meant us thus to
use them, and will bless us of a truth, while we devoutly " ponder these
things," and seek to "understand the loving-kindness of the Lord." Mean-
while, from each inmost recess of the great Temple of the Universe, into
which, while here on Earth, we are permitted to gaze, we may hear, if our
hearts are pure and humble, the same solemn utterance : —
' slaxd ix awe axd six xot ;

commexe with your owx heart, axd tx tore cha31ber, axd de still.

Offer the sacrifice- of righteousness,

Axd rri tour trust ix the Lord.'

X 2

APPENDIX.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

1. In the ' General Epistle of Jude,' v.14,15, we find the
following well-known reference to the 'Book of Enoch': —

' And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold,
the Lord cometh 'with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute judgment upon all,
and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which
they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners
have spoken against Him.'

It seems plain that the author of this Canonical Epistle
believed that the s Book of Enoch,' in which the above passage
occurs as Chap, ii, was actually written by ' Enoch, the seventh
from Adam,' or, at least, contained the record of his prophecies,
just as confidently as he and others of his time, e.g. St. Paul,
believed that the Pentateuch was either actually the work of
Moses, or, at all events, contained a true record of his doings.

It may be said, indeed, that the words are really Enoch's,
handed down by tradition from the years beyond the Flood, and
quoted by St. Jude from this tradition, and not from the ' Book
of Enoch.' But it is unnecessary to reply to such an extravagant
supposition, more especially, when we consider the influence,
which the e Book ' undeniably had upon the minds of other
writers of the New Testament, as will be seen presently.

2. Yet there is no doubt that the ' Book of Enoch ' is a
fiction ; and, according to Archbishop Laurence, Book of Enoch,
Prel. Diss, p.xiiv, it was composed with/m about fifty years
immediately preceding the birth of Christ: —

310 THE BOOK OF EXOCH.

It may, perhaps, be remarked as a singularity, that a hook, composed at less
than one hundred— perhaps, at less than fifty years— before St. Jude's Epistle was
written, should in so short a space of time have so far imposed upon the public, as
to be reputed by any the genuine production of the Patriarch Enoch.

And he adds in a note, —

The Epistle of St. Jude is generally supposed to have been -written about a.d.
70. If, then, we place the composition of the Book of Enoch in the eighth year of
Herod, that is, thirty years before Christ, its date will precede that of the Epistle
by an exact century.

Many excellent critics, however, maintain that the internal
evidence of the Epistle of Jude makes it nearly — if not quite —
certain, that it was not written till the middle of the Second
Century, at the earliest.

3. But the facts connected with the ' Book of Enoch ' are
of so great interest and importance, in relation to the present
controversy, as to the age and authorship of the Pentateuch,
that we must dwell more at length upon them,— more especially,
as they will, probably, not be familiarly known to many
readers. It will be observed that three points are at once deter-
mined by the manner in which this Book is quoted — as being
as authentic and authoritative as any other part of Holy
Scripture,— in this Canonical Epistle, which is recognised in
the Church of England as having been written by one of the
Apostles.

(i) It appears that a spurious book like this could, even in
so late and advanced an age, acquire among the Jews in a very
short time,— within, perhaps, fifty, or, at most, a hundred and
eighty years, — the reputation of a veritable authentic document,
really emanating from the antediluvian Patriarch, and either
written originally by his own hand, or, at least, handed down
by tradition from those who lived before the Deluge. In the
face of this fact, is there any reason to doubt that the Penta-
teuch also, though not written by Moses, may yet have been
received by the Jews, in the dark and troubled times of the
Captivity as being really and truly the work of the Great Law-

THE EOOK OF EXOCH. 311

giver, and have been implicitly believed to be such by those who
lived in yet later days ?

(ii) . It is plain that, if St. Jude was the writer of this Epistle,
even an Apostle could be mistaken in such a matter, and could
actually use, as a powerful argument, a quotation from the
prophecies of ( Enoch, the seventh from Adam.' Is there any
reason why the same, or any other Apostle, as St. Paul, should
not be equally in error in quoting words, as words of Moses,
which had never been written by him ?

(iii) On the other hand, if St. Jude was not the author of the
Epistle, it would follow that a book (that ascribed to St. Jude)
received in the Church as Canonical, could be regarded also as
Apostolical, under a mistaken opinion as to its authorship, and,
therefore, that the fact of other books (as the books of the Penta-
teuch) having been received as Canonical, and ascribed to a
certain author (as Moses), is no guarantee of their having been
really written by him.

4. The following extract from Kaiisch, Gen.p.\65, will give
the reader some idea of the nature and general contents of the
Book of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch insists, with the earnestness of the old Prophets, upon the
renewal and restoration of the pure Biblical faith ; it combats with equal energy
against the corruptions of Rabbinical interpretation and the inroads of Greek
philosophy, against superstition and paganism. The author deduces all his truths
from no other source but the written holy books, and rejects traditional exag-
gerations and embellishments. He gives enthusiastic descriptions of the world of
angels ; he delineates their respective rank and glory ; he introduces men into the
abode of these pure spirits, and elevates them to their light, and peace, and wisdom.
He furnishes the most elaborate and most detailed descriptions of the future life in
such completeness, that no later time has been able to enlarge them. He gives a
clear picture of the Sheol, its different divisions, and the preliminary judgment
there held, — of the hell (gehenna) where the wicked are doomed to receive their
punishment, — of the place where the fallen angels and contumacious powers of
nature are fettered. He describes in full outlines the resurrection of the dead, and
the Messianic judgment over the dead and living. But one of the most remarkable
features of the Book of Enoch is its very elaborate and clear description of the
person and the times of the Messiah. It does not only comprise the scattered allu-

312 THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

sions of the 0. T. in one grand picture of unspeakable bliss, unalloyed virtue, and
unlimited knowledge ; it represents the Messiah, not only as the King, but as the
Judo-e of the world, who has the decision over everything on earth and in heaven.
In the Messiah is the ' Son of Man, who possesses righteousness, since the God of
all spirits has elected him, and since he has conquered all by righteousness in
eternity.' But he is also the ' Son of God,' the Elected One, the Prince of
Bighteousness ; he is gifted with that wisdom, which knows all secret things ; the
Spirit in all its fulness is poured out on him ; his glory lasts to all eternity ; he
shares the throne of God's Majesty ; kings and princes will worship him, and will
invoke his mercy : he preexisted before all time ; ' before the sun and the signs
were made, and the stars of heaven were created, his name was already proclaimed
before the Lord of all spirits ' ; ' before the creation of the world he was elected ' ;
and although still unknown to the children of the world, he is already revealed to
the pious by prophecy, and is praised by the angels in heaven. Even the dogma
of the Trinity is implied in the book. It is formed by the Lord of the spirits,
the Elected One, and the Divine Power : they partake both of the name and of
the omnipotence of God.

5. Upon the latter point, the recognition of a Trinity in the

Book of Enoch, Archbp. Laurence writes as follows, Book of

Enoch, pAii: —

Neither is allusion thus only made to the Elect One or the Messiah, but also to
another Divine Person or Power, both of whom, under the joint denomination of
the Lords, are stated to have been ' over the water,' — that is, as I conceive, over the
fluid mass of unformed matter, — at the period of Creation. ' He (the Elect One),'
it is stated, ' shall call to every power of the heavens, to all the holy above, and to
the power of God.' The Cherubim, the Seraphim, and the Ophanim, all the angels
of power, and edl the a?igels of the Lords, — viz. of the Elect One, and of the Other Power,
■who was upon earth over the water on that day, — shall raise their united voice, &c.'
In this passage, an obvious reference, I conceive, occurs to the first verse of Genesis,
in which it is said, ' the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.' As,
therefore, the more full description of the Son of Man here given may be considered
as the Jewish comment of the day upon the vision of Daniel, so also, I apprehend,
must the last quoted allusion to the Book of Genesis be considered as a comment
of the same nature upon that account of Moses, which describes the commencement
of Creation. Here, then, we have not merely the declaration of a Plurality, but,
that of a precise and distinct Trinity, of persons, under the supreme appellation of
God, and Lords ; the Lords are denominated the Elect One, and the Other (divine)
Power, who is represented as engaged in the formation of the world on that day,
that is, on the day of Creation. And it should be added that upon [each of] these
a particular class of angels is mentioned as appropriately attendant.

And again he writes, p.lvi : —

Here there is nothing cabbalistical ; here there is no allegory ; but a plain and
clear, though slight, allusion to a doctrine, which, had it not formed a part of the

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 313

popular creed at the time, would scarcely have been intelligible. Three Lords are
enumerated, the Lord of spirits, the Lord the Elect One, and the Lord the Other
Power,— an enumeration which evidently implies the acknowledgment of three
distinct Persons, participating in the name and in the power of the Godhead.

G. In En. lxxi.18,19, we read as follows: —

' At that period the day is longer than the night, being twice as long as the
night, and becomes twelve parts ; but the night is shortened, and becomes six
parts.'

From this it would seem that, at the place where the author
lived, or, perhaps, where he supposes Enoch to have lived, the
longest day was twice as long as the night, i.e. was sixteen
hours long ; and from this it may be inferred that it was a
place in about 45° to 50° North Lat., and, consequently, very
far to the north of Palestine (31°-33i°). Archbishop Laurence
supposes that he may have been —

one of the tribes which Shalmaneser carried away, and ' placed in Halah and Habor
by the river Goshan, and in the cities of the Medes,' 2K.xvii.6, and who never re-
turned from captivity.

He adds, p.xlvii : —

Composed, therefore, in the assumed name and character of Enoch, and having
been brought into Judaea from a distant country, it could not have been well known
or quoted under any other title than that of the Book of Enoch ; and although the
generality must, from its incongruities, have deemed its contents apocryphal, yet
might there have been some who, deceived by its external evidence and pretensions,
ignorantly esteemed it to be the gemiine production of the patriarch himself, [as
plainly did the writer of Judel4,lo.]

7. It may be mentioned, as a fact of interest with reference
to our present discussion, that the numerous names of angels
which occur in this book, are in very many instances compounded
with ' Elohim ' or ' El,' as Urakabaramee?, Akibee£, Tamief,
Kamue/, Dane£, Azkee^, Asae/, Samsavee?, Ertae£, Ture/,
Yomyae^, En.vii.9, (names of the ' prefects ' of the ' two hundred
angels,' who took wives of the daughters of men, Gwi.1,2,) —
none apparently, with Jehovah.

8. Kalisch adds the following information (condensed from
Archbp. Laurence) as to the fortunes of the book, p.\66 : —

We may add, with regard to the history of this extraordinary book, that, when
it appeared, it was evidently received and read with eager interest; that it was

314 THE BOOK OF EXOCH.

soon translated into Greek, and from this language into the Ethiopian dialect,

that most of the Fathers of the Church, down to the time of Augustixe and
Jerome, used and quoted it ; that, however, from this period, it fell into almost
entire oblivion. . . . The MS., which Augustus 3Iai deposited in the library
of the Vatican, remained unnoticed. But the celebrated traveller, Jjuees Bruce,
brought, in 1773, three copies of the Ethiopian version to Europe ; and, since this
time, translations and valuable commentaries have been published. . . . This
remarkable apocryphal production, which, if we are not mistaken, will one day be
employed as a most important witness in the history of religious dogmas, deserves
the most easeful study; and it is accessible to the English reader in the editions
of Laurexce. whose interesting ' Preliminary Dissertation ' commands especial
attention.

9. It would appear — not only from its being quoted in the
epistle of St. Jude — but from the very many passages of the
N.T., which so strikingly resemble it in language and imagery,
that the Book of Enoch must have exerted considerable in-
fluence upon the minds of devout persons in the first age of
Christianity, and must have helped to fashion many of the ideas
which prevailed at that time, especially as regards the popular
conceptions about Hell, and the endless torment of the wicked.
We shall here produce, from the translation of Archbishop
Laurence, — which, though in some respects defective, is suffi-
ciently accurate for our present purpose, — a series of passages
out of the book itself, which closely correspond with many
familiar passages of the N.T. writers. They will be found
also to illustrate many notices in the first chapters of Genesis.

(i) En.ii, ' Behold, He comes with ten thousands of His saints to execute
judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for
everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against
Him.'

Camp. Jude, 14,15, 'Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints
to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of
all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard
[speeches], which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.'

(ii) En.vi.9, ' The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit
the earth.''

Coiitp. Matt.v.o, 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth': but
comp. also Ps.xxv.l3,xxxvii. 9,1 1.22. &c.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 315

(iii) En.ix.3, 'Then they said to their Lord the King: Thou art Lord of lords,
God of gods, King of kings. The throne of Thy glory is for ever and ever, and
for ever and ever is Thy name sanctified and glorified. Thou art blessed and
glorified. Thou hast made all things ; Thou possessest power over all things ; and
all things are open and manifest before Thee. Thou beholdest all things, and
nothing can be concealed frqm Thee.'

En.lxxxiii.2-4, 'Blessed art thou, 0 Lord, the King, great and powerful in Thy
greatness, Lord of all the creatures of heaven, King of kings, God of the whole
world, whose reign, whose kingdom, and whose majesty endure for ever and ever.
From generation to generation shall Thy dominion exist. All the heavens are
Thy throne for ever, and all the earth Thy footstool for ever and ever. For Thou
hast made them, and Thou reignest over all. No act whatever exceeds Thy power.
With Thee wisdom is unchangeable, nor from Thy throne and presence is it ever
averted. Thou knowest all things, seest and hearest them ; nor is anything
concealed from Thee.'

Co mp. Heb.iv. 13, 'Neither is there any creature, that is not manifest in His
sight : but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we
have to do.'

Kev.iv.ll, ' Thou art worthy, 0 Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power;
for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are, and were created.'

Rev. xv. 3, ' Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty ; just and
true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. Who shall not fear Thee, 0 Lord, and
glorify Thy Name ? for Thou only art holy ; for all nations shall come and worship
before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest.'

Kev.xvii.14, xix.16, 'King of kings and Lord of lords.'

(iv) En.x.15,16, ' To Michael, also, the Lord said, Go, and announce his crime to
Samyaza and to the others who are with him, who have been associated with
women. . . Bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to
the day of judgment and of consummation, until the judgment, which will last for
ever, be completed. Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the
fire in torments, and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever.'

En.xii.5, ' Then He said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go, tell the watchers
of heaven, who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy, everlasting station, who
have been polluted with women, and have done as the sons of men do, by taking
to themselves wives, and who have been greatly corrupted on the earth, that on
the earth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin.'

Comp. Jude 6, ' And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the
judgment of the Great Day.'

2Pet.ii.4, ' God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell,
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.'

[Thus the • fall of the angels,' alluded to in Jude 6 and 2Pet.ii.4, was not, it would
seem, previous to the creation of man.]

316 THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

Eev.xiv.4, ' These are they, which were not defiled with women, &c.'
Eev.xx.2 ' And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil

and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, &c.'

Kev.xx.10, 'And the devil, that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire

and brimstone, . . . and shall be tormented, day and night, for ever.'

(v) En.xiv. 17-24, 'Attentively I surveyed it, and saw that it contained an exalted
throne. . . and there was the voice of the cherubim. From underneath this mighty
throne rivers of flaming fire issued ; to look upon it was impossible. One great in
glory sat upon it, whose robe was brighter than the sun, and whiter than snow.
No angel was capable of penetrating to view the Face of Him, the Glorious and
the Effulgent; nor could any mortal behold Him. A fire was flaming around
Him. . . so that not one of those who surrounded Him was capable of
approaching Him, among the (myriads of myriads) ten thousand times ten
thousand who were before Him. . . Yet did not the sanctified, who were near
Him, depart from Him, either by night or by day.'

En.xxxix.12, ' There my eyes beheld all who, without sleeping, stand before Him
and bless Him, saying, Blessed be Thou, and Blessed be the Name of God for ever
and for ever ! '

Comp. Eev.iv.2, 'Behold a throne was set in heaven, and One sat on the throne,
and He that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone.'

Eev.iv.8, 'And they rest not day and night, saying, Holy! Holy! Holy ! '

Eev.v.ll, ' And 1 beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the
throne. . . and the number of them was ton thousand times ten thousand
and thousands of thousands.'

Eev.vii.lo, 'Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day
and night in His temple.'

(vi) En.xxiv.9-1 1, ' And that tree of an agreeable smell, not one of a carnal odour
. . . there shall be no power to touch until the period of the great judgment. When
all shall be punished and consumed for ever, this shall be bestowed on the righteous
and humble. The fruit of this tree shall be given to the elect. For life shall be
planted towards the north in the holy place, towards the habitation of the
everlasting King. Then shall they greatly rejoice and exult in the Holy One.
The sweet odour shall enter into their bones ; and they shall live a long life on the
earth, as thy forefathers have lived, neither in their days shall sorrow, distress,
trouble, and punishment afflict them. And I blessed the Lord of Glory, the
everlasting King, because He has prepared this tree for the saints, formed it, and
declared that He would give it to them.'

Comp. The 'tree of life,' G.ii.9, iii.22, 'Lord of glory,' James ii.l.

Eev.ii.7, 'To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is
in the midst of the paradise of God.'

Eev.xxii.2, 'In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was
there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yieldfd her fruit
every month ; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.'

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 31 7

Rev.xxii.14, 'Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life.'

(vii) En.xxxi.2-5. ' From thence I passed on above the summits of those mountains
to some, distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was
advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the
garden of righteousness. . . The tree of knowledge also was there, of which if any
one eats, he becomes endowed with great wisdom. . . . Then holy Raphael, an
angel wiio was with me, said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which thy ancient
father and thy aged mother ate, who were before thee ; and who, obtaining knowledge,
their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from
the garden.'

Comp. the ' tree of knowledge of good and evil,' G.ii.iii.

(viii) En.xxxviii.2, ' Where will the habitation of sinners be, and where the place
of rest for those who have rejected the Lord of spirits ? It would have been better
for them, if they had never been born.'

Comp. 3Iatt.xxvi.24, ' It had been good for that man, if he had not been born.'

(ix) En.xl.l, ' After this I beheld thousands of thousands, and ten thousand times
ten thousand, and an infinite number of people, standing before the Lord of spirits.'

Comp. Rev.v.ll, 'And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round
about the tin-one, . . . and the number of them was ten thousand times ten
thousand, and thousands of thousands.'

Rev. vii. 9, ' After this I beheld, and lo ! a great multitude, which no man could
number, of all nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues, stood before the
throne.'

(x) En.xlv.3-5, ' In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and
shall choose their conditions and countless habitations, [comp. the ' many mansions,'
St. John xiv.2,] — while their spirits within them shall be strengthened, when they
behold my Elect One, — for those who have fled for protection to my holy and
glorious Name. In that day I will cause my Elect One to dwell in the miOst of
them. I will change the face of the heaven : I will bless it and illuminate it for
ever. I will also change the face of the earth : I will bless it, and cause those whom
I have elected to dwell upon it.

Coin)'. Maft.xxv.31-33, 'When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all
the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory, and
before Him shall be gathered all nations, &c.'

2Pet.iii.13, 'Nevertheless, we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.'

Rev.xxi.l, 'And I saw a new heaven, and a new earth; for the first heavm and
the first earth were parsed away.'

(xi) En.xlvi.1-2, 'Then beheld I the Ancient of Days, whoseheadwas like white
wool, and with Him another, whose countenance resembled that of Man. His
countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I enquired

318 THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

of one of the angels who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing
concerning this Son of Man, who he was, whence he was, and why he accompanied
the Ancient of Days. He answered and said unto me : This is the Son of Man, to
whom righteousness belongs, with whom righteousness has dwelt, and who will
reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed ; for the Lord of spirits has
chosen him, and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in ever-
lasting uprightness.'

Camp. Dan.vii.13, 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of
Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they
brought him near before Him.'

Rev.i.14, 'His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow.'
Col.ii.3, ' In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.'

(xii) En.xlvii.1,2, ' In that day the prayer of thelioly and the righteous, and the
blood of the righteous, shall asceud from the earth into the presence of the Lord of
spirits. In that day shall the holy ones assemble, who dwell above the heavens
and with united voice petition, supplicate, praise, laud, and bless the name of the
Lord of spirits, on account of the blood of the righteous which has been shed ; that
the prayer of the righteous may not be intermitted before the Lord of spirits, that
for them He would execute judgment, and that His patience may not endure for
ever.'

Comp. Eev.vi.9,10. 'I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the
word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud
voice, saying, How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge
our blood on them that dwell on the earth ? '

(xiii)En.xlvii.3, 'At that time I beheld the Ancient of Days, while He sat upon
the throne of His glory, while the book of the living was opened in His presence, and
while all the powers which were above the heavens stood around and before Him.'

En.1.1-5, ' In those days shall the earth deliver up from her womb, and hell
deliver up from hers, that which it has received, and destruction shall restore that
which it owes. He shall select the righteous and holy from among them ; for the
day of their salvation has approached. And in those days shall the Elect One sit
upon his throue, while every secret of intellectual wisdom shall proceed from his
mouth ; for the Lord of spirits has gifted and glorified him . . . And all the
righteous shall become angels in heaven ; their countenance shall be bright with
joy, for in those days shall the Elect One be exalted. The earth shall rejoice, the
righteous shall inhabit it, and the elect possess it.'

Com/p. Puv.xx. 11-13, ' And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it
. . . and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were
opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their
works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them.'

Luke xxi.28, ' Your redemption draweth nigh.'

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 319

Bom.xiii.ll, 'Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.'
Matt.xiii.43, ' Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of
their Father.'

(xiv) En.xlvii.4, ' Then were the hearts of the s?ints full of joy, because the
consummation of righteousness was arrived, the supplication of the saints heard,
and the blood of the righteous appreciated by the Lord of spirits.'

Comp. Eev.xviii.20, 'Eejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and
prophets, for God hath avenged you on her.'

Bev.xix.1,2, 'I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia!
Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God ! For true
and righteous are His judgments ; for He . . . hath avenged the blood of His
servants at her hand.'

(xv) En.xlviii.1-7, ' In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness.which never
failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the thirsty drank, and
were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the
holy. In that hour was this Son of Man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his
Name in the presence of the Ancient of Days. Before the sun and the signs were
created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the
presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy,
to lean upon without falling ; and he shall be the light of nations. He shall be the
hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All who dwell on earth shall fall down
and worship before him, shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name
of the Lord of spirits. Therefore the Ehct and the Concealed One existed in His
presence, before the world was created and for ever. In His presence he existed,
and has revealed to the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of
spirits ; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and
rejected this world of iniquity, [comp. Gal.i.4, ' this present evil world,' Uohn ii. 15,
'love not the world,'] and have detested all its works and ways, in the name of
the Lord of spirits. For in His Name shall they be preserved, and His Will shall be
their life.'

Comp. Eev.vii.17, 'He shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.'
Eev.xxi.6, 'I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of
life freely.'

Eev.xxii.l, 'And he showed me a pure river of water of life.'
Eev.xxii.17, 'And let him, that is athirst, come, and, whosoever will, let him
take the water of life freely.'

(xvi)En.liii.l-6. ' Then I looked and turned myself to another part of the earth.
where I beheld a deep valley burning with fire . . . And there my eyea beheld the
instruments which they were making, — fetters of iron without weight. Then I
enquired of the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, saying, For whom are these
fetters and instruments prepared ? He replied, These are prepared for the host of
Azazeel, that they may be delivered over and adjudged to the lowest condemnation,
and that their angels may be overwhelmed with hurled stones, as the Lord of

320 THE BOOK OF ENOCH,

spirits has commanded. Michael and Gabriel, Eaphael and Phanuel, shall be
strengthened in that day, and shall then cast them into a furnace of blazing fire,
that the Lord of spirits may be avenged of them for their crimes ; because they
became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwell upon earth.'

En.lxvi.5-8. ' I beheld that valley in which there was a great perturbation, and
where the waters were troubled. . . . There arose a strong smell of sulphur, which
became mixed with the waters ; and the valley of the angels, who had been guilty
of seduction, burned underneath its soil. Through that valley also rivers of fire
were flowing, to which those angels shall be condemned, who seduced the inhabi-
tants of the earth.'

Comp. Matt.xiii.42, 'And shall cast them into a furnace of fire.'

Matt.xxv.41, ' Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
Devil and his angels.'

Eev.xix.20, ' These both were cast alive into a lake of fire, burning with brim-
stone.'

Bev.xx.1-3, ' And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand ; and he laid hold on the dragon,
that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, . . . and cast him into the
bottomless pit, . . . that he should deceive the nations no more.'

Eev.xx.10, 'And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
and brimstone.'

(xvii) En.lviii.7,8, 'In that day shall be distributed two monsters, a female monster,
whose name is Leviathan, dwelling in the depths of the sea, above the springs of
waters, and a male whose name is Behemoth, which possesses the invisible
wilderness. His name was Dendayen, in the east of the garden [? in the garden
eastward], where the elect and the righteous will dwell ; where he received it from
my ancestor, who was man, — from Adam the first of men, whom the Lord of spirits
made.'

Comp. the 'beast rising out of the sea,' and ' another beast coming out of the
earth,' Eev.xiii.1,11.

Comp. also 'the great whore that sitteth upon many waters,' and 'the beast
that carried her,' Eev.xvii.1,7, in 'the wilderness,' v. 3.

(xviii) En.lx.13-16, 'He shall call to every power of the heavens, to all the
holy above, and to the power of God. The Cherubim, the Seraphim, and the
Ophanim, all the angels of Power, and all the angels of the Lords, — namely, of the
Elect One, and of the Other Power, who was upon earth over the water on that day, —
shall raise their united voice, shall bless, glorify, praise, and exalt with the spirit
of faith, with the spirit of wisdom and patience, with the spirit of mercy, with the
spirit of judgment and peace, and with the spirit of benevolence, [comp. 'the seven
spirits which are before His throne,' Eev.i.4,iii.l,iv.5,v.6,] all shall say with united
voice, Blessed is He, and the name of the Lord of spirits shall be blessed for ever
and ever: all, (who sleep not) sleeping not, shall bless it in heaven above.
All the holy in heaven shall bless it, all the elect who dwell in the garden of life ;
and every spirit of light, who is capable of blessing, glorifying, exalting an i

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 321

praising, thy holy name, and every mortal man, more than the powers of heaven,
shall glorify and praise thy name for ever and ever. For great is the mercy of the
Lord of spirits ; long-suffering is He, and all His works, all His power, great as
are the things which He has done, has He revealed to the saints and to the elect in
the name of the Lord of spirits.'

Comp. Rev. v. 13, ' And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and
under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,
Blessing, and honour, arid glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.'

Rev.xix.5, 'And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye
His servants, and ye that fear Him, both small and great.'

(xix) En.lxi.4-9, ' The word of his mouth shall destroy all the sinners and all the
ungodly, who shall perish at his presence . . . Trouble shall come upon them, as
upon a woman in travail, whose labour is severe, when her child comes to the
mouth of the womb, and she finds it difficult to bring forth. One portion of them
shall look upon another : they shall be astonished, and shall abase their countenance ;
and trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold this Son of Woman sitting
upon the throne of his glory.'

Comp. 2Thess.i.9, ' Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.'

lThess.v.3, ' Then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a
woman with child, and they shall not escape.'

2Thess.ii.8, 'That Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His
mouth.'

Matt,xix.28, ' In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne
of His glory.'

Matt.xxv.31, 'When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, then shall He sit
upon the throne of His glory.'

Rev .i. 16, 'Out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword.'

Rev.ii.16, 'I will fight against them with the sword out of my mouth.'

Rev.xix.15, 'Out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite
the nations.'

Rev.xix.21, ' And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon
the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of His mouth.'

(xx) En.lxi.12-17,' All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule over
the earth, shall fall down on their faces before Him, and shall worship Him. They
shall fix their hopes on this Son of Man, shall pray to him, and petition for mercy.
Then shall the Lord of spirits hasten to expel them from His presence. Their
faces shall be full of confusion, and their faces shall darkness cover. The an;
shall take them to punishment, that vengeance may be inflicted on those who have
oppressed His children and His elect . . . But the saints and the elect shall bo
safe in that day . . . The Lord of spirits shall remain over them : and with thia
Son of Man shall they dwell, eat, lie down, and rise up, for ever and ever.'
VOL. II. Y

322 THE BOOK OP ENOCH.

Comp. Eev.vii.15, ' He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.'

Eev.vi.15, 'And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and
the chief captains, and the mighty men, . . . hid themselves in the dens and rocks
of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from
the face of Him that sitteth upon the Throne.'

Bev.xix.18, ' That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and
the flesh of mighty men, &c.'

Eev.xxi.3, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with
them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be
their God.'

(xxi) En.lxx.1-13, ' I beheld the sons of the holy angels, treading on flaming fire,
whose garments androbes were white, and whose countenances were transparent as
crystal . . . Then I fell on my face before the Lord of spirits. And Michael, one
of the archangels, took me by my right hand, raised me up, and brought me out to
where was every secret of mercy and secret of righteousness . . . There I beheld,
in the midst of that light, a building raised with stones of ice [? crystal]. . . . The
Seraphim, the Cherubim, and the Ophanim, surrounded it ; these are those who
never sleep, but watch the throne of His glory. And I beheld angels innumerable,
thousands of thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand, who surrounded that
habitation. Michael, Eaphael, and Gabriel went out of that habitation, and holy
angels innumerable. With them was the Ancient of Days, whose head was white
as wool, and pure, and His robe was indescribable. Then I fell upon my face,
while all my flesh was dissolved, and my spirit became changed.'

Comp. Eev.iv.8,v.ll.i.l4,17.

(xxii) En.lxxxii.4,5, ' I was tying down in the house of my grandfather Malalel,
when I yaw in a vision heaven purifying and snatched away ; and, falling to the
earth, I saw likewise the earth absorbed by a great abyss.'

En.xcii.17, ' The former heaven shall depart and pass away, a new heaven shall
appear.'

Comp. 2Pet.iii.10, 'The heavens shall pass away,' ' the earth also shall be burned
up.'

Eev.xxi.l, ' I saw a new heaven and a new earth ; for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away.'

(xxiii) En.lxxxv.2, 'And, behold, a single star fell from heaven.'

En.lxxxvii.1-3. ' Then I looked at that one of the four white men, who came forth
first. He seized the first star, which fell down from heaven. And, binding it hand
and foot, he cast it into a valley, a valley narrow, deep, stupendous, and gloomy.'

Comp. Bev.viii.10, 'There fell a great star from heaven.'

Eev.ix.l, 'I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth.'

(xxiv) En. xciii.6-xciv.6, ' Woe to those who build up iniquity and oppression, and
who lay the foundation of fraud ! fur suddenly shall they be subverted, and never

know peace.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 393

' Wo to those who build up their houses with crime ! for from the very founda-
tions shall their houses be demolished . . .

' "Wo to you who are rich ! for in your riches have ye trusted, but from your riches
you shall be removed, because you have not remombered the most High in the days
of your prosperity.

' You have committed blasphemy and iniquity, and are destined to the day of tin-
effusion of blood, to the day of darkness, and to the day of the great judgment . .

' Wo to you, who recompense your neighbour with evil ! for you shall be
recompensed according to your works.

'Wo to you, ye false witnesses, you who aggravate iniquity! for you shall
suddenly perish.

' Wo to you, ye sinners ! for ye reject the righteous.'

En. civ.1,2, 'I swear to you, ye righteous, that in heaven the angels record your
goodness before the glory of the Mighty One. Wait with patient hope ; for
formerly you have been disgraced with evil and with affliction ; but now shall you
shine like the luminaries of heaven. . . Your cries have cried for judgment ; and
it has appeared to you ; for an account of all your suffering shall be required from
the princes, and from everyone who has assisted your plunderers. Wait with
patient hope, nor relinquish your confidence ; for great joy shall be yours, like that
of the angels in heaven.'

Comp. Luke vi.24-26, James v.1-8.

10. These are only a few instances of the influence, which
this remarkable book seems to have exercised upon the minds
of devout men in the first age of Christianity. In the language
attributed to our Lord Himself, — in that of St. Paul, especially
in his early epistles, — in that of St. James, St. Peter, and
St. Jude, — we can distinctly trace an intimate acquaintance with
it, and recognise its forms of expression. But, above all, this
is true of St. John in the Revelation, where, it is plain, very
much of the imagery has been directly adopted from that of
the book of Enoch. And, though the apostolic authorship of
some of the above writings may be doubted, yet the fact remains
as before, that the writers of these Scriptures, whoever they were,
appear to have been well-acquainted with this book, and more
or less imbued with its teaching.

1 1 . And, certainly, some of the language above quoted must
be admitted to be very grand and impressive ; — especially if we
consider that the version, from which we have quoted, is a recent

Y 2

324 THE. BOOK OF ENOCH.

translation of a translation, and has to recommend it, neither the
prestige of early association, nor the flavour of antiquity, which
modify insensibly our judgment of the translation with which it
is compared. We cannot wonder at the effect which it seems to
have produced upon the minds of readers in that age, and in
still later days, — more especially when it was actually believed
to be the authentic record of the prophecies of ' Enoch the
seventh from Adam,' who, therefore, must have been supposed to
have originated, and not imitated, the imagery of the book of
Daniel, and that remarkable expression, * the Ancient of Days.'
Nevertheless, mixed up with all these noble utterances, is a
great mass of matter of the most fantastic and fabulous
character, which has probably prevented the book being handed
down to us, stamped with the high authority, which it had in
those first centuries of Christian teaching:.
12. Archbishop Laurence says, j>.lvi: —

Upon the whole, then, if this singular book be censured, as abounding in some
parts with fable and fiction, still should we recollect that fable and fiction may
occasionally prove both amusing and instructive, and can then only be deemed
injurious, when pressed into the service of vice and infidelity. Nor should we
forget that much — perhaps, most — of what we censure was founded upon a national
tradition, the antiquity of which alone, independent of other considerations, had
rendered it respectable. That the author was uninspired, will scarcely now be
questioned. But, although his production was apocryphal, it ought not therefore
to be stigmatised, as necessarily replete with error. Although it be on that account
incapable of becoming a rule of faith, it may nevertheless contain much moral as
well as religious truth, and may be justly regarded as a correct standard of the
doctrine of the times in which it was composed. Ron omnia esse conccdcnda
antiquitati, ' that not everything is to be allowed to antiquity,' is, it is true, a
maxim founded upon reason and experience. But, in perusing the present relic of a
remote age and country, should the reader discover much to condemn, still, unless he
be too fastidious, he will find more to approve ; if he sometimes frown, he may
oftener smile ; nor seldom will he be disposed to admire the vivid imagination of a
writer, who transports him far beyond the flaming boundaries of the world, —

extra
Processit longe flammantia mania mundi,
'Past the world's flaming walls has far advanced,'—
displaying to him every secret of Creation, — the splendours of heaven, and the
terrors of hell, — the mansions of departed souls, — and the myriads of the celestial

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 325

hosts, the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim, which surround the blazing throne,
and magnify the Holy Name of the great Lord of Spirits, the Almighty Father of
men and of angels.

Gfrorer also writes, Jahrhundert des Hells, 25.105,109 : —

I salute our Enoch as in a certain sense a fore-announcer of the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, — not as if he had a perception of the truth, for his Messias is,
as in the case of other Jews, enveloped in a cloud of ambition and false hopes ; —
but he is still an evidence to show with what kind of feeling, and with what
glowing earnestness, twenty or thirty years before Christ, the Anointed of the
Lord was expected. . . . There is no better source, from which may be derived a
knowledge of the state of the Jewish form of faith before, and in the days of,
Jesus Christ.

13. But especially it deserves notice that almost all the
language of the New Testament, in which the judgment of the
last day is described, — the eschatology, as it is called, of the N.T.,
— appears to have been directly derived from the language of the
Book of Enoch, as will be seen from the passages quoted above,
(iv), (xiii), (xvi), (xix), (xx). The 'everlasting chains,' in
which the fallen angels are ' kept under darkness, unto the
judgment of the great day,' — the 'everlasting fire prepared for
the devil and his angels,' — the ' Son of Man sitting upon the
throne of his glory,' choosing for the righteous their ' countless
habitations,' and destroying the wicked with the word of his
mouth, — the ' book of life opened ' before the judge, — earth, hell,
and the grave, ' giving up their dead,' — the joy of the righteous,
the shame and confusion of the wicked, who are led off by the
angels to punishment, — the ' new heaven ' and the ' new earth,'
old things having passed away, — the ' furnace of fire,' and the
' lake of fire,' — all these appear in the Book of Enoch, and
the last, the i lake of fire,' is, manifestly (xvi), a figure intro-
duced with distinct reference to the Dead Sea ; and, accordingly,
in the same connection, we find ' the angels, which left not their
first estate,' coupled with ' Sodom and Gfomorrha and the cities
about them,' Jude 7, which are spoken of as 'going after
strange flesh,' like those angels, and being ' set for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' Nay, those awful

326 THE BOOK OP ENOCH.

Avoids spoken of Judas, e It had been good for that man if he
had never been born,' find their counterpart also in the language
of this book.

14. This fact is of great importance. For it shows that these
were popular expressions, which were in common use in the
mouths of devout men of that time, and must, therefore, be
interpreted according to their general spirit, and not be pressed
too far in their literal meaning. To the Jews of those days,
acquainted with the Book of Enoch, these images would be
quite familiar, like those which speak of the ' stars falling,' the
1 Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory,'
or those again, which were evidently current in the popular
talk, about 'Abraham's bosom,' the 'torments of hell,' and the
'great gulf fixed.'

15. It is possible that the Book of Enoch, as it now exists,
may contain some Christian interpolations of a later date, as we
know to be the case with another famous apocryphal book, the
* Sibylline Oracles.' But, however this may be, the Epistle of
Jude seems plainly to recognise some portions, at least, of the
Book of Enoch, as already existing, and as authentic and
authoritative. Hence, even should any critics propose to place
the composition of the ivhole ' Book ' at a later date than
that assigned to it by Archbp. Laurence and Gfrorer,* the age
of the Epistle would have to be depressed with it, to a time far
later than that of the Apostles, — to a time, when the real origin
of the ' Book ' had been forgotten, and its contents could be
confidently quoted, as the veritable words of the antediluvian
Patriarch. And, generally, the occurrence of such expressions,

* Mr. VVestcott says on this point, Smith's Diet, of the Bible,i.p.547 '■ 'Notwith-
standing the arguments of Hilgexfeld and Jost, the whole book appears to be
distinctly of Jewish origin. Some inconsiderable interpolations may have been
made in successive translations, and large fragments of a much earlier date were
undoubtedly incorporated into the work. But, as a whole, it may be regarded as
riliing an important phase of Jewish opinion, short!!/ before the coming if
Christ.'

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 327

as we have quoted above, common to the Book of Enoch and to
so many of the apostolical writings, shews plainly the forms of
thought and language, which were prevalent among the Jews
in the first age of Christianity.

16. We must remember, therefore, from what sources such
expressions as these were drawn, and not suppose that .they are
meant to convey to us accurate information about the details
of the invisible world. The substantial truth, which underlies
these figures, is the fact, — the belief in which is deep-seated, by
the gift of God, in our nature, — of the everlasting distinction
between right and wrong, and of a Perfect Justice, presiding
over the universe of moral being, which, as it is not always
manifested clearly in this life, we believe with undoubting con-
fidence, will be revealed assuredly hereafter. Truths, such as
these, which underlie the figures of the N.T., are not less true,
nor is their authority less binding, because we are able to trace
their historical growth, just as the excellence of the Lord's Prayer
is not diminished, because we know that it is made up of
petitions, which were current already among the Jews.* Eather,
this very growth among men, of the recognition of a great
Eternal Truth, gives us the comforting assurance of the Presence
of a Living God in History, — not only advancing continually the
intellectual development of mankind, but — enlightening and
inspiring, with ever increasing Light and Life, the hearts of
His children.

* On this point Gfeobee writes, vol.i, Part ii, p. 149 : 'I have, as it is seen,
developed out of the books of the Jews the principles, according to which the ' Lord's
Prayer ' is composed. Not only is its character Jewish, but so also are the separate
clauses, which occur in different Jewish prayers, (see Lightfoot, Schottgex,
Wetsteln on Matt.vi.9, Witsius.) It may be that it was a prayer already in
before the time of Jesus: probably, however, it was then first put together out of
earlier prayers. Though, generally, the portions of it agree verbally with already
existing Jewish prayers, yet I have nowhere found the whole among Jewish wri
though they have, however, many similar prayers.'

LONDON
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.

NEW-STREET SQUARE

to

to

ID

A •

03 >

O H
•"3

«H "£

o cd

*•*

P, o

w ,&

g *d CD

«: fl fl

•H CD

E
ci

H

•H O

.£ CD

* £ CO" rH

« O += rH

-H »"3 CJ CC

a cc o

dO 4^

0) TO <D -H

a> eh o

o

o

EH
O

<D CD

•H O

(POO

University off Toronto

Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED

m

MMm

;V\.,y'fi