The article which we published on this subject recently, from the pen of Professor Grubbs, was conclusive, I think, on the points which he discussed. But [66] it is impossible to exhaust such a, theme in a single newspaper article, and I propose to look again at it from a somewhat different point of view.

      Our readers are aware that the analytical theory of the origin of Genesis assumes that the account of creation, beginning at the first verse of chapter 1, and closing with the first clause of chapter 2, verse 4, is complete in itself, and was written in its present form by a priestly writer about the time of the Babylonian captivity, while the account, beginning with the second clause of chapter 2, verse 4, is a separate and conflicting account, written by a different author at an earlier period, perhaps before the captivity. Both, of course, were written many hundreds of years after Moses. Our present task is to inquire whether the narratives in these two chapters are two independent and conflicting accounts of creation, or one harmonious account, the latter chapter being intended to supply details which had been omitted in the first.

      The account in the first chapter of the six days' work is so familiar that I will not go over it. That in the second chapter is less familiar; so let us see what it is. It begins thus: "In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven, no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Here our attention is fixed on the moment when there was as yet no vegetation on the earth, yet there was dry ground which was watered by mist, though it had not yet rained. The next statement is this: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of [67] life; and man became a living soul." That is, the formation of man, including the material of his body and the source of his life, is mentioned next after the statement respecting the absence of vegetation and rain. The next statement is: "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the eye, and good for food; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden." Now, if this account was the only one in our possession, we would suppose that this last statement is the account of the creation of vegetation on the earth. True, the statement is confined to a single spot, the garden in which the man had been placed, and it says nothing about vegetation outside of the garden; but this would not prevent the conclusion just mentioned, and we would have to concede what the critics say, that this account represents man as being created first, and vegetation afterward.

      After a description of the river which watered the garden, and all account of man's privilege and duty there, the next statement connected with creation is this: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof." It is clear that, on the supposition we are following, this would be regarded as the account of the first formation of beasts and birds, and we would consequently suppose that they also were formed after man. Then follows the account of the [68] formation of a woman; and thus, she would seem to have been formed last of all, with the creation of vegetation and of beasts and birds between the man and her. If, then, as the analytical critics affirm, this second chapter is an independent account of creation, written by an author who knew nothing of that given in the first chapter, the contradiction between the two is obvious. But it has not come down to us as a separate document. Whatever may have been its origin, it has come to us through the hands of the writer of the Book of Genesis, and in passing through his hands, the two documents, if there were two, have been combined, and in our study of them it is our duty to ascertain, if we can, what he meant to teach by the combination which lie has made of them. It is said by the critics, that he put them together without attempting to reconcile their contradictions, and with full knowledge that these contradictions existed. If he did, he was a most singular kind of a writer, thus to put together contradictory stories, which he knew were contradictory, without offering a word of explanation. Such a piece of work on the part of an intelligent and serious author, who wrote to be believed, has not its parallel, I venture to affirm, in all literature, and if we find it in this author, we shall be compelled, with the rationalists, to give him a very low grade as a writer, and to wholly mistrust him as a historian. I think that this must be our conclusion, if so be that the alleged contradictions between the two accounts really exist. Let us see how that is.

      As the writer of Genesis, be he Moses, or a priest of the captivity, or a redactor of a still later period, certainly put these two accounts together in his book, he must certainly have written down the latter with some reference to the former, and it is cruel injustice to him [69] to assume that he contradicts in the second chapter what he has written in the first, if, on any fair and reasonable hypothesis, both accounts can be understood to be true. Let us see if they can. First, then, if the account of the third day's work in the first chapter is true, the first statement of the second chapter agrees with it perfectly; for, just before the creation of vegetation, on the third day, the dry ground had appeared, and it may have been true, as stated in the second chapter, that no rain had fallen, but that a mist went up over the face of the earth and watered the ground. It was also certainly true that there was not yet a man to till the ground. Secondly, if the first chapter is true, it may, at the same time, be true that God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life; for the first chapter, though it says that God made man, says nothing about the process by which he made either his body or his soul. Thirdly, a man who had already written the account of the third day's work in the first chapter, stating that on that day God caused the earth to bring forth all manner of vegetation, and who then gives the account of his causing to grow all the trees in the garden of Eden, must of necessity be understood in the last as referring to that garden alone, and not to vegetation in general. So there is no contradiction in the statement of the planting of that garden after the creation of man. Fourth, when the writer who had already said that God created the beasts and the fowls before he did man, says, in connection with man's naming the animals, what he had not said expressly before, that God formed them from the dust of the ground, he can only mean to supplement his former statement, not to contradict it. Fifthly, when the writer who has already said that God made a male and female in making man, proceeds later [70] to tell the process by which he formed the female, he again supplements this preceding account, and in doing so he adopts a method of narration which is common among authors of every age and country. This, then, is the true state of the case in regard to this narrative of creation, whatever may be true as to the documentary origin of the book in which it is found; and it is equally true whether the book was written by Moses or by an unknown redactor of an unknown age. I hold that common fairness to a stranger, if the author is a stranger, demands that we shall so conclude; for whoever he was he was not a fool. And if lie was Moses, then certainly we must deal with him fairly by supposing that he knew what he was about, and that he intended to compose a consistent narrative. Finally, I may say with all confidence, that no man ever could have suspected that there was a contradiction between these two chapters, until he first conceived or adopted the theory that we have here two accounts from different authors, neither of whom had seen the account of the other. The thought of a contradiction, therefore, is an afterthought, not demanding the theory, but begotten by it. It is a bastard, and it ought to be excluded from the congregation, as saith the law.

[SEBC 66-71]