162 Mr Babbage on the Account of the Creation 



^thly, The Professor of Hebrew at the same universily has 

 proposed a new interpretation of those passages of the book of 

 Genesis which were hitherto supposed to be adverse to the now 

 admitted facts.* 



• I have much satisfaction, says Dr Buckland, in subjoining the following 

 note by my friend, E. B. Pusey, the Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford, as 

 it enables me to advance the very important sanction of Hebrew criticism in sup- 

 port of the interpretations, by which we may reconcile the apparent difficulties 

 arising from geological phenomena, with the literal interpretation of the first 

 chapter of Genesis ; — 



"Two opposite errors have, I think, been committed by critics, with re- 

 gard to the meaning of the word Lara, created ; the one, by those who assert- 

 ed that it must in itself signify 'created out of nothing;' the other, by those 

 who endeavoured, by aid of etymology, to shew that it must in itself signify 

 ' formation out of existing matter.' In fact, neither is the case ; nor am I 

 aware of any language in which there is a word signifying «ece«sar»/^ 'created 

 out of nothing;' as, of course, on the other hand, no word when used of the 

 agency of God would, in itself, imply the previous existence of matter. Thus 

 the English word create, by which bara is translated, expresses that the thing 

 created received its existence from God, without in itself conveying whether 

 God called that thmg into existence out of nothing, or no ; for our very ad- 

 dition of the words ' out of nothing^ shews that the word creation has not, 

 ill itself, that force ; nor indeed, when we speak of ourselves as creatures of 

 God's hand, do we at all mean that we were physically ^ormeA out of nothing. 

 In like manner, whether hara should be paraphrased by ' created out of no- 

 thing' (as far as we can comprehend these words), or, ' gave a new and dis- 

 tinct state of existence to a substance already existing,' must depend upon 

 the context, the circumstances, or what God has elsewhere revealed, not upon 

 the mere force of the word. This is plain from its use in Gen. i. 27, of the 

 creation of man, who, as we are instructed, chap. ii. 7, was formed out of pre- 

 viously existing mattei', the ' dust of the ground.' The word bara is indeed 

 so far stronger than asah, ' made,' in that bara can only be used with reference 

 to God, whereas asah may be apphed to man. The difference is exactly that 

 which exists in English between the words by which they are rendered 

 ' created,' and * made.' But this seems to me to belong rather to our mode 

 of conception than to the subject itself; for making, when spoken of with re- 

 ference to God, is equivalent to creatuig. The words, accordingly, bara, 

 created — asah, made — yatsar, formed, are used repeatedly by Isaiah, and are 

 also employed by Amos, as equivalent to each other. Bara and asah express 

 alike a formation of something new (de novo), something whose existence in 

 this new state originated in and depends entirely upon the will of its creator 

 or maker. Thus God speaks of himself as the creator, '■boree^ of the Jewish 

 people, e. g. Isaiah xliii. 1-15; and a new event is spoken of under the same 

 term as 'a creation,' Numb. xvi. 30. English version, 'If the Lord make a 

 new thing ;' in the margin, Heb. ' create a creature.' Again, the Psalmist 

 uses the same word, Ps. civ. 30, when describing the renovation of the face of 



