1879.] &\-i [Grote. 



And to this verse he drew special attention, subsequently,' as showing 

 that in the Elohistic Genesis the fowls were described as created out of 

 the waters ; whereas in the Jehovistic Genesis (2 : 19) it is said : 



Vayyitzer Yahveh Elohim min And out of the ground Yahveh 



ha-Adamah kol chayyath hassadaih Elohim (the Lord God) formed every 

 v'aitli kol of kashshamayim vayyab- beast of the field and every fowl of 

 hai el ha-adam, &c. the heaven (air) and brought (them) 



before the man (unto Adam), &c. 



The "literary criticism" with which the author follows these chapters 

 discusses the evident distinctness of the two narratives. 



" They differ in almost every particular, in the arrangement, in the 

 facts, in the name of the Deitv, in their object, and lastly, in the language 

 used. The different arrangements of the two accounts need hardly be 

 pointed out. 



"In the first account we have an orderly progression, a subdivision of 

 the whole drama into acts. After eacli act, occupying a day, the curtain 

 drops ; the work must have been done in the night, as the day begins with 

 the evening, although we are somewhat puzzled to understand how the 

 author could have imagined 'evening and morning' before the creation of 

 the sun. 



"The second account, on the other hand, beginning Ch. II, 4, has no 

 division of time at all, nor is there an orderly subdivision of events ; all 

 events are only told with reference to one central fact, the creation of 

 man. A comparison of the facts narrated in each shows the following 

 differences : 



"The first account begins with Chaos, as in the Greek Cosmogony, the 

 first differentiation being between light and darkness on the first day. 

 The second day brings about the division between heaven and earth. On 

 the third, land appears. 



"The second account opens with the earth as a dry arid plain without 

 vegetation and animal life. 



" In the first account the earth is made to produce the herbs bearing 

 seed and the trees bearing fruit with seed, independently of rain and human 

 interference. 



"In the second account the herb of the field does not grow until it has 

 rained and man has tilled the ground, though we are not told whence he 

 obtained the seed to plant, nor how the uncultivated plants originated. 

 Man, however, appears first on the ground, while in the first account he 

 is the last object of creation. In this act itself a variety of divergencies 

 may be noted. 



" In the first account man is made in the image of Elohim, in the second 

 no mention is made of his "god-likeness," on the contrary we find that it 

 was cjuite against the will of the Deity that he should become so. And after 

 he had become so by the advice of the serpent and the curiosity of Eve, he 



l'ROC. AMTi-.K. IMIILOS. SOC. XVIII. 104. 20. PRINTED NOV. 5, 1879. 



