233 
I quite agree with the wording of Professor Challis’s passage on the sub- 
ject : — 
“ It is remarkable that in Gen. i., where after each creation it is said that 
‘ God saw that it was good,’ the word for ‘ good ’ in the Septuagint is >ca\6v, 
which, as applied to material substances, can only mean ‘ beautiful.’ ” 
There are several passages in the book of Genesis alone, where this word 
rcaXav is used as the translation of the Hebrew word 31B and is. applied 
to material substances, and yet there is no one of them in which it would 
be translated “ beautiful.” In Gen. ii. 9 you have it used with reference to 
food, and again in iii. 6. So again in xv. 15, where it stands “ in a good 
old age” ; and in xxv. 8 and xxx. 20, “ God has endowed me with a good 
dowry.” Other instances are to be found in xli. 35, and in xlix. 15, having 
seen the rest that it was good.” I think, therefore, that the facts scarcely 
bear out the assertion that the word ku\ov as applied to material substances 
must mean beautiful. In the 45th paragraph of the paper Professor Challis 
says : — 
“ On the fifth day God commanded the waters to bring forth fish and 
fowl.” 
In the Hebrew the two clauses are co-ordinate, and the Hebrew does not 
represent the fishes as produced from the water ; the English version is 
faulty. There is no necessity for making the second clause subordinate. The 
fact is, that the relative pronoun in Hebrew is often omitted, and therefore 
the rendering of the English version, and of the Septuagint, and of the Vulgate, 
is not contrary to Hebrew, but it is quite unnecessary -it is unnecessary ia 
raising any argument as to the Mosaic account of creation. As to the use 
of the" word kntfkpcro, referred to in the 39th paragraph of the paper, we 
may decide that matter without going to the Hebrew at all. The word is 
used of moral agents elsewhere. You have it in the Second Book of Mac- 
cabees, xii. 35. I do not quite see the point of saying that the word applies 
only to a material substance. Then we come to a point concerning which I 
feel the greatest anxiety— that is as to the meaning of the phrase translated 
in the Septuagint irvtvpa 0£ov. I have seen it stated that because the 
Hebrew expression^ had not got the article it must mean the wind, but I 
never before saw it stated that because the Septuagint had not got the article 
it must mean the wind. In the genitive relation in the Hebrew the article 
is not admissible. You cannot put it in in that construction, and the Septuagint 
generally follows the Hebrew in these matters. I think it is unnecessary 
to have any argument upon the absence of the article, but here again I would 
rather rely on the custom of the Septuagint. Anybody can test the matter. 
The expression is one which occurs often, and it is translated sometimes 
Trvevpa Oeov without the article, in other passages irvevpa Ouor, and some- 
times 7 rvtvpa Kvpiov ; but in all the passages the article is omitted. I will 
mention a few passages where the phrase occurs In Gen. xli. 38 ; m 
