7o6 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



of Ewald and Kuenen with regard to the 

 name of the Deity. He makes use in his 

 translation of the terms "Elohim" and 

 " Yahveh Elohim," because the words 

 " God " and " Lord God " do not translate 

 the Hebrew correctly, the plural form of 

 Elohim being lost in the English word 

 "God," which is a substitute for and not 

 a translation of the Hebrew term Elohim. 

 Another important deviation of Professor 

 Crete's translation from the King James 

 version lies in the fact that the word ha- 

 Adam is constantly translated " the man " 

 throughout, whereas the authorized version 

 from Genesis ii. 19 to the end of the crea- 

 tional history of the first man uses the prop- 

 er name "Adam," the Hebrew remaining 

 the same as before. The author shows that 

 the two chapters can not be considered as a 

 continuous narrative, the first account end- 

 ing at chapter ii. 3, and the second com- 

 mencing chapter ii. 4. The descrepancies 

 between the two accounts are very fully in- 

 dicated, and the different points of view 

 from which they were written explained. 



The author then gives a chapter on the 

 " Testimony of Archaeology," describing the 

 Assyrian tablets of the Genesis, and he lays 

 special stress on the occurrence of the deity 

 II in the Chaldean Pantheon, and shows its 

 equivalence to the Hebrew El-Eloah, with 

 its plural Elohim, and of the Arabic Allah. 

 The author concludes that the legends of 

 the creation having existed for a long time 

 as oral traditions, were committed to writ- 

 ing before the union of the kingdoms, or 

 before 2234 b. c, when Abraham, according 

 to Biblical chronology, was not yet born. 

 The date of Moses is about 1245 b. c, 

 that of Menephthah, the Pharaoh of the 

 Exodus. The Chaldean account is thus about 

 a thousand years older than the composition 

 of the Biblical legends. Interesting chap- 

 ters follow on the myths of the old world 

 which resemble those of Genesis. 



The author then proceeds to the " testi- 

 mony of facts." Here the descrepancies 

 between the two accounts in Genesis and the 

 discoveries of science are clearly pointed 

 out. In his " Conclusion " and " Philoso- 

 phy," the last two chapters of the book, the 

 author contends that the literal teaching of 

 the book of Genesis is hurtful to the minds 

 of children, and an impediment to the gen- 



eral progress of mankind. Unessential as 

 much of the scientific criticism, directed 

 against the ethical portions of Scripture, is 

 seen to be, such criticism must be appropri- 

 ate when directed against a portion which 

 deals almost exclusively with statements of 

 facts. A classification of the treatment of 

 religion by the Indo-European and Semitic 

 races is attempted by the author, in which 

 he shows that the leaning of the Indo-Euro- 

 pean religions is toward the intellectual side 

 of the mind in its treatment of external ob- 

 jects. On the other hand, the leaning of 

 the Semitic religions is toward the emotional 

 side in its treatment of human conduct and 

 family relations. The Gods of the two ac- 

 counts in Genesis, expressed by nouns plural 

 in form, mark a reminiscence of a preceding 

 plurality of deities, and are plainly not con- 

 sistent with monotheism. There has been, 

 on the one hand, a growth in the direction of 

 a recognition of a universal God, who at 

 one time was tribal and national ; and, on 

 the other hand, there has been a progress in 

 the direction of a recognition of one God, 

 the final cause of nature, who has absorbed 

 the minor deities into himself. 



With regard to the two accounts in Gene- 

 sis, the author concludes that we have to do 

 with an original myth which had undergone 

 many changes before it was cast into the two 

 shapes in which we find it in the Hebrew 

 Bible. Since that time, and when the latter 

 could no longer change, many differing con- 

 ceptions of the origin of things have found 

 their orthodoxy in a play upon the meaning 

 of the words and a distortion of their true 

 intent. A lax wording, a shorter and more 

 general statement, a monotheistic concep- 

 tion, give an elasticity to the story of Gene- 

 sis, and a certain adaptiveness to later dis- 

 coveries ; but, in its treatment of the heavens 

 and heavenly bodies in the little bit of the 

 earth on which its miracles are performed, 

 it is still akin to the notions of the Homeric 

 ages with regard to the universe. 



The book is characterized by directness 

 of argument, and the best material has been 

 diligently used. There can be no reason- 

 able objection to its temper and tone, and, 

 we think, its thorough fairness. Written 

 with the object of giving a good foundation 

 to those who have been led to reject the in- 

 spiration of Genesis, there is nothing in it 



