the production of land animals, 24. 25; and (8) the creation of man, 26-31. Finally, the Creator is represented as resting from His works on the seventh day; and this becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance of the weekly Sabbath rest (21-3).
Character of the Record.—It is evident even from this bare outline of its contents that the opening section of Genesis is not a scientific account of the actual process through which the universe originated. It is a world unknown to science whose origin is here described,—the world of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse of earth, surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a vault called the 'firmament,' above which again are the waters of a heavenly ocean from which the rain descends on the earth (see on vv.6-8).[1] That the writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, and that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actually came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt (Wellhausen, Prol.6 296). But the fundamental difference of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of
- ↑ The fact referred to above seems to me to impose an absolute veto on the attempt to harmonise the teaching of the chapter with scientific theory. It may be useful, however, to specify one or two outstanding difficulties of detail. (1) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that the definition of 'day' as 'geological period' is essential to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible. (2) The creation of sun and moon after the earth, after the alternation of day and night, and even after the appearance of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities. (3) Palæontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if it did not actually follow that of animal life, certainly did not precede it by an interval corresponding to two 'days.' (4) The order in which the various living forms are created, the manner in which they are grouped, and their whole development compressed into special periods, are all opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial discussion of these questions see Driver, Genesis, 19-26. It is there shown conclusively, not only that the modern attempts at reconciliation fail, but (what is more important) that the point at issue is not one of science, but simply of exegesis. The facts of science are not in dispute; the only question is whether the language of Genesis will bear the construction which the harmonising scientists find it necessary to put upon it.
