Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 16.djvu/736

706 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 Grote'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 creational history of the first man uses the proper 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 ending at chapter ii. 3, and the second commencing chapter ii. 4. The descrepanciesdiscrepancies [sic] between the two accounts are very fully indicated, and the different points of view from which they were written explained.

The author then gives a-chapter on the "Testimony of Archæology," describing the Assyrian tablets of the Genesis, and he lays special stress on the occurrence of the deity Il 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 writing before the union of the kingdoms, or before 2234 when Abraham, according to Biblical chronology, was not yet born. The date of Moses is about 1245 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 chapters follow on the myths of the old world which resemble those of Genesis.

The author then proceeds to the "testimony of facts." Here the descrepanciesdiscrepancies [sic] between the two accounts in Genesis and the discoveries of science are clearly pointed out. In his "Conclusion" and "Philosophy," 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 general 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 appropriate 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-European religions is toward the intellectual side of the mind in its treatment of external objects. 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 accounts in Genesis, expressed by nouns plural in form, mark a reminiscence of a preceding plurality of deities, and are plainly not consistent 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 Genesis, 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 conceptions 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 conception, give an elasticity to the story of Genesis, and a certain adaptiveness to later discoveries; 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 reasonable 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 inspiration of Genesis, there is nothing in it