Nov. 1, 1385.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE 



29 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 



WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE IDEAS OF MEN IN OLD 

 TIMES ABOUT THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS.* 



Bt Richard A. Proctoe. 



Dr. Payne Smith's Commentary on the 

 Book of Genesis, regarded as a contribu- 

 tion either to religious literature or to 

 Exegesis (to use a somewhat aifected tech- 

 nicality) I propose to say little here. It 

 presents, as does his introduction to the 

 Pentateuch, that singular mixture of pro- 

 found learning in regard to details of ancient historj' and 

 literature, with childlike and bland acceptance of the literal 

 meaning of passages which would be absurd if not allego- 

 rical, which characterises so many of these works. One 

 cmnothelp liking the naive simplicity of the teaching, or 

 feeling that for babes and sucklings it must really be very 

 nice and may even be very nourishing (however unfit for 

 grown folk). "When we read that " the demeanour of 

 Adam is extraordinary,'' that " Eve was more quiet and 

 observant," that "Adam had little sense of respon- 

 sibility" (rather hard onus by the way), but "the 

 woman's answer was far nobler," while "the serpent 

 stood there without excuse " and therefore " was con- 

 demned to crawl" though probably it had not "even 

 originally, been erect and beautiful," nor probably had 

 " Adam tamed serpents and had them in his household," 

 as some fondly imagine — one wonders for what sort of 

 children (five, ten, or twelve years old, or what ?) the 

 kindly doctor's commentary is really written. Then 

 again, though this is going back a page or two, " they 

 heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden"; 

 "reallj-," says Dr. Smith, "this is in admirable keeping 

 with the whole narrative ; and Jehovah appears here as 

 the owner of the Paradise, and as faJiiiKj in it His daily 

 exercise; for" — the qualitj- of this reason is exquisite: 

 for the verb is in the reflective conjugation, and means 

 'walking for pleasure.'" (The Infinite taking a con- 

 stitutional !) This, though it corresponds well with 

 the rather puerile quality of the scientific excursions 

 of the reverend author, sounds oddly in company with 

 the really sound and instructive remarks on linguistic, 

 historical, and exegetical matters. One is reminded of 

 the curious combination of learning and simplicity in 

 the old Greek and Latin school-books, — where profound 

 knowledge of linguistic details is found in company with 

 utterly childlike innocence of the ways and wants of 

 young learners. 



Only on one point need we be at all severe with a book 

 of this bland character. Dr. Smith makes the remark, 

 utterly erroneous, though no doubt he imagines it true, 

 that " the unwise disputes between science and theology 

 almost always arise from scientific men crying aloud that 

 some new theory just hatched is a disproof of the super- 

 natural, and " — this is right enough no doubt — " from 

 theologians debating each new theory on the ground of 

 Scriptural exposition." I venture to saj' that not a single 

 (Zi'.sj)!(/e between science and theology has ever arisen from 

 scientific men proclaiming anything in regard to the 

 bearing of new theories, or even of established truths, on 

 belief in the supernatural. The theologians may safely be 

 defied to cite a solitary example of that which Dr. Smith 



* T/ie First Book of Moses called Genesis, with Commentary by 

 Dr. R. Payne Smith, Dean of Canterbury, an Introduction to the 

 Pentateuch by the same writer, and a General Introduction to the 

 Old Testament by Dr. E. H. Plumptre, Dean of Wells ; Edited by 

 Dr. EUiott, Bishop of Gloucester. (Casgells i; Co., London.) 



describes as occurring almost always in such cases. 

 Invariably, I believe, (almost always, I am certain,) the 

 man of science with a new discovery, or a new theory, or 

 a new truth, has had no thought or care about its bearing 

 on the supernatural ; he has never cried aloud, or thought 

 of crying aloud, abotit anything of the sort ; but, w hen 

 he has indicated his discovery, or theory, or new truth, 

 some watchful theologian has been ever read)- to proclaim, 

 " Oh, we can not admit this, it is inconsistent with what 

 we have been teaching " — and later when a truth has been 

 established " Oh, that is no new truth, it has been impli- 

 citly involved in our teaching from the beginning," — 

 forgetting later still that they had started the dispute. 



It would seem as though, having had so often to follow 

 this not very dignified course, the weaker theologians had 

 rather lost temper, and like the losing player in a well- 

 known storj- had been moved to kick the tirst they came 

 across. The kicked in that story was attending, like 

 the student of science, to his own business — tying his 

 shoes, in fact ; but, when he urged this, the angry loser 

 said, not quite truthfully, " You're always tying your 

 shoes in my way." 



I propose, however, to consider the book before me 

 from the scientific standpoint, — and therefore say no more 

 about its qualities as a religious treatise, except to remark 

 that the tone of the general introduction, from the pen 

 of mj- much-esteemed teacher in divinity in old King's 

 College days. Dean Plumptre of Wells, is in my judg- 

 ment admirable. His remarks on the mechanical theory 

 of inspiration are excellent ; and his opinion is un- 

 doubtedly just that were sitch a theory accepted we must 

 accept along with it the necessity of an infallible inter- 

 preter of an infallible book, — a circumstance which gives 

 to the Roman Church its essentially logical standing- 

 ground. On the other hand, what has been called the 

 cUnamical theory of inspiration is open to no such 

 objection. This theory undoubtedly adds immensely to 

 the value of these ancient records regarded with reference 

 to the light they throw on the history, science, literature 

 and religious ideas of ancient times. 



As a matter of fact the older books of the Bible, and 

 even some of the later, ought to be of great interest to all 

 men, outside of the religious value we may assign, or 

 decline to assign, according to our lights, to these works. 

 To one who accepts the doctrine of absolute verbal in- 

 s])iration, it should manifestly be a matter of interest to 

 inquire what has been said, under such favourable con- 

 ditions, about scientific as well as about other subjects. 

 To the man who regards the Old Testament as a revela- 

 tion in the same sense only in which we call it a testa- 

 ment, — viz., in so far as it bears witness of God's will and 

 purposes towards man, — it must be interesting to note 

 what views were held on outside subjects by writers 

 selected to communicate God's plans to their fellow-men. 

 And to those who, like many of the most learned Jews of 

 the present day, regard the ancient Hebrew Scriptures only 

 as presenting an exposition of the views of the ablest and 

 wisest men of the ages in which its various books were 

 composed, it is necessarily a matter of interest to inquire 

 what the Hebrews knew, or thought they knew, about 

 scientific matters. 



For my own part, I view with interest all that relates 

 to science in ancient writings, Assyrian, Egyptian, 

 Hebrew, or Indian. I can not only see no reason why 

 the passages relating to scientific matters in the Bible 

 should not be studied in precisely the same way that we 

 should study similar passages in Homer or Hesiod or 

 Herodotus, but I find something of absurdity in the idea 

 that because, as many hold, such passages must be pre- 



