Abbildungen der Seite
[ocr errors]

act. In the prior narrative, the effect of the first creative work is a waste chaos, out of which the present world with all its arrangements and creatures emerges in a certain number of days, by gradual and successive acts of creation. But at the commencement of the second narrative, the present world is supposed to be brought forth at once. Instead of various creative acts, a single one, in one day, educes all, for it is said, " in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” etc. The phrase the earth and the heavens denotes the earth without organised creatures in it. The introduction to the present history of creation, ii. 4–6, describes more particularly the state of the earth after the first creative act, shewing the sense attached by the writer to the expression “the earth and the heavens." In the first place he describes it negatively, by speaking of what it was not yet. Plants and herbs did not yet exist. They are first referred to because they were the first products of the earth. But they did not exist as yet, because two necessary conditions were wanting-rain and man's culture. Rain had not fallen; and man was still uncreated. The want of rain is supplied in part by a mist which watered the face of the ground. The absence of these two conditions forms the point of transition between the state of the earth negatively described, and the successive development of the creative processes. From the negative the writer passes to the positive, or in other words, to the proper history of the method in which the earth became what it was intended to be. But instead

. of commencing with the fulfilment of the conditions necessary to the appearance of plants and herbs; instead of rain and its effect, vegetable productions, man's creation must be introduced. And not only so, his history also must be given up to the time when he sinned and the ground was cursed for his sake, because rain does not seem to have fallen in Paradise, and human labour followed the introduction of sin. Thus the history begins with man's creation. There are two successive stages in the origination of the first human pair, one of freshness and innocence newly springing from the Creator's hand; the other, of evil and imperfection in consequence of disobedience. Man's creation is described as a putting together of the component elements of his nature. Body and soul- the one of the earth, the other breathed into the body by the Spirit of God-make up the compound man, as introductory to the description of the curse which separated the two. The nowly-formed man is put into a garden full of trees of fruit-trees to serve as his sustenance. They were the first vegetable production of the earth. But as there was still no rain, God is said to have made those trees. For the preservation of the garden-trees two things are mentioned as existing—a stream to water the garden; a man to keep it, not in the

way of labour but pleasure. The beasts of the field and the fowls of the air are then created for the sake of man, and brought to him to receive names. Afterwards the woman, who is not taken from the earth, but from man's body, to shew dependence and mutual attachment, is brought to him. With the fall, woman loses her original position. Instead of being man's companion, she is doomed to be in some sense his servant.

From this survey it will be seen how very different are the two narratives of creation. The second centres in the first human pair. Man is the prominent creature in it, around whom all others are grouped, and in subordination to whom they are specified. It is emphatically the history of man's creation; though it is also a history of creation in general. But in the first account man is lost in the graduated series of creative acts. And it consists of large outlines, unlike the second. In some points the two are inconsistent; for whereas in the first chapter the man and woman are represented as created together, after the lower animals; in the second, the man is created first, then the beasts, and lastly the woman. In the first man is made in the image of God; in the second, likeness to the Deity comes to him subsequently by knowing good and evil. It is impossible to adopt the interpretation which regards the two as one harmonious narrative, since they are inconsistent in one particular at least. Kurtz asserts” that the same writer recapitulates certain creative acts, merely arranging them according to association of ideas, as an introduction to the narrative of the Fall. But surely the first account of creation is given as complete, needing no supplement or complement. Several particulars in the second chapter did not require repetition as introductory to the history of man's fall. No reason is offered by the critic why the historian should follow the succession of ideas, instead of the order of time, as in the first chapter; so that the argument or reply is invalid. The writer groups certain facts. That is admitted. But in grouping them he does not wholly disregard time and sequence. While he groups he shews an order of creation different in some respects from that of the Elohist, and even contradictory in one point. The reasoning of Kurtz and Keil is illogical in its apologetic tone, because it makes the association introduced by the writer into his narrative cover and exculpate inconsistency. It is the voucher for every unchronological sequence which may be required. To say with Kalisch that the "writer's end is the history of man's fall; the serpent occasions, the wife shares it; it is therefore necessary to introduce the creation of the animals, and of woman, "amounts to nothing; because the way in which the animals are introduced after man had been created, “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam," etc. (verse 19), is averse to that. Had the sacred writer stated that the Lord God had previously formed every beast of the field, etc., the case argued would have been plausible; but as the words stand they imply nothing else than that both beasts and fowls were formed after the man.

1 See Iupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis, p. 104 et seqq. ? Einheit des Pentat., p. 42, et seqq., and Einheit der Genesis, p. 1, et seqq.

To mention the fowls was not at all necessary, previously to the fall. We explain the compound name Jehovah-Elohim in the second narrative not by the fact that the writer wished to shew the identity of Jehovah in this section with Elohim of the preceding one; but by supposing that the full name was the only one suited to Paradise in the writer's view. After the loss of Paradise Jehovah alone is employed. Boehmer's hypothesis that Elohim was added to Jehovah by the redactor is less probable.?

It is only necessary to study the two accounts to perceive how essentially different the development of the order of nature and the origin of man are in both. The first is contained in palpable outlines, presenting objects in regular gradations, but somewhat detached. The second adheres to one fundamental idea, around which all is grouped in proper relations. The latter shews an advanced reflectiveness foreign to the other. It contains the reasons and conditions of things, which in the first we look for in vain.

Again, in the narrative of the Flood (vi.-ix.) two connected parallel accounts may be traced—a more copious and a briefereach possessing characteristic peculiarities of view and expression. Take the pieces (Elohistic) vi. 9–22; vii. 6, 11, 13-24 (except vii. 10, 12, 166, 17, 22, 23) ; viii. 1-19 (except parts of 2, 3, 4 and 6-12); ix. 1-17; and the Jehovistic pieces, vi. 5-8; vii. 1-5, 10, 12, 166, 17, 22, 23; viii. 6-12, 20-22. Compare them together, and the following phenomena appear. The one account is distinguished by an universality of representation. It sets forth not merely men but beasts; and not only the latter, but the earth itself as corrupt before God. In consequence of this universal corruption, the punishment is that all living creatures shall be destroyed together with the earth. The other narrative presents things in a more limited aspect, with reference to their nature and actual conditions, yet intensively. Hence while corruption is only human, it is total and deep, extending to all the thoughts of the heart from youth upward. In contrast with the punishment depicted in the other narrative, the wrath of God is so intense as to amount to repentance that he had created man and a resolution to destroy him. In the one history, not merely Noah himself but some of all creatures are saved ; two of every kind. But in the other, all kinds of creatures are not included in the deliverance; only cattle and birds, seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean. Thus the two accounts clash, in that pairs of all animals were to be preserved, according to the Elohist; but seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean, according to the other. The plain statement cannot be evaded by the arbitrary assumption of two commands given to Noah at different times; the first when he was ordered to build the ark, the other when it was finished; pairs generally being mentioned in the former, but more specifically seven pairs of clean animals in the latter. The narrative contradicts this, because in connexion with the supposed later command it is expressly said, “Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark,” etc. (vii. 8, 9, compare also verse 15). The language here used forbids the interpretation that they entered the ark by pairs, whatever their numbers, because it runs thus: “Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, ..... two and two went into the ark;not" clean beasts, and beasts not clean, and fowls,

1 Commentary on Genesis, p. 113. ? Liber Genesis Pentateuchichus, ex recognitione Eduardi Bochmer, 8vo., 1860.

' .... went into the ark two and two." The language of the seventh chapter in relation to this point is explained by that of the sixth (19, 20), where the number of pairs is confessedly stated. In the former account, the restoration appears in the form of a blessing upon and covenant with all the creatures, as well as with the earth. The animals are commanded to breed abundantly : man is blessed and enjoined to be fruitful, with dominion over the creatures ; he is assured not only of their subjection to him, but of his farther right over them for food. In order to the preservation of human life, life is required of the beast or man that sheds it. Finally, a covenant, with its token, is established between God and all animals, even with the earth itself. In the latter, the restoration of Noah is marked by a sacrifice of the clean animals saved from the flood, whose sweet savour Jehovah smelled, and by which he was propitiated; so that he resolved to curse the ground no more for man's sake, but to establish the order of nature for ever. Thus a later, more developed, subjective religion appears in the Jehovist.

In describing the progress of the flood and the proceedings of Noah in relation to it, as also in the notation of times, there

is a diversity in the two narratives. The one has a regular gradation and exactness of description in strong contrast with the summary method of the other. Thus the former represents the ark as built after a divine pattern. Two sources contributed to the formation of the flood-earth and heaven. It gives the

height of the waters ; the month and day are stated several times, as well as Noah's age, when he entered into the ark. Lastly, the saved Noah comes forth. But the second (Jehovist) account does nothing more than touch upon the main points, deviating from several particulars in the first. The flood is caused by forty days' and forty nights' rain. Periods of time are designated by two numbers alone-seven, and forty. The flood is announced seven days before its commencement, and marked by the forty days' and forty nights' continuance of the rain; whereas in the prior narrative 150 days are represented as the time of the flood's rising before it began to abate.

The word prevailed (172971) applied to the waters during the 150 days (verse 24) cannot consist with the hypothesis that while the rain lasted for forty days, the waters still prevailed during 110 after the cessation of the rain; so that there was no perceptible subsidence of them to Noah. No such imperceptible subsidence is ever alluded to. All that is stated is in viii. 3 (second part), the abatement of the waters at the end of the 150 days. The verb 9797) in vii. 24, is explained by its like use in vii. 18, where :1972 (and were increased) is joined with it as if for the purpose of shewing that it is inconsistent with the subsidence of the waters. It is incorrect to assert that a different term from 1997?), viz., 1971, is used to express the rise or increase of the waters; because the latter is appended to the former in the 18th verse, which is Elohistic. The use of both together in this verse determines the sense of the one in the 24th ; and therefore precludes the idea of imperceptible subsidence. Besides, it is utterly improbable that so many as 110 days' subsidence followed 40 days' rain. The proportion is unnatural.

Such are the two parallel accounts of the flood, each complete in itself, and independently written. The earlier and more comprehensive is the Elohist one. The later shews another stage of religious development. It will be noticed that they disagree even to contradiction in some particulars, such as the food's continuance, the animals taken into the ark, etc. Critics have tried in vain to harmonise them. Strange as it may appear, we have seen an attempt to shew from parts of tho two flood-narratives that there is nothing but one and the same historical account. It has been alleged that Genesis vii. 1-5, instead of being Jehovistic as compared with

« ZurückWeiter »