One of the most clear-headed thinkers and most perspicuous writers among the English school of advanced critics is Prof. Herbert Edward Ryle, of Cambridge [97] University. In his book on "The Early Narratives of Genesis," he takes about the same position that Professor Harper set forth more than a year ago in his Chicago lectures; but he handled the subject with much more care, and with fewer absurdities. I call attention now, however, to a passage which he himself admits to be paradoxical, but which expresses a thought that has echoed and re-echoed among this class of critics:

      Paradoxical as it may sound, faith would, I believe, be more genuinely staggered by any perfectly exact agreement in Genesis with the wonderful discoveries of modern science than it ever has been, or is ever likely to be, by the familiar contradictions with science that are to be expected in a literature so ancient, and are to be found in this chapter (Gen. 1) according to any literal interpretation.

      The thought here expressed amounts about to this--that faith, though it has been staggered by the contradictions of science found in this chapter, would have been much more staggered if the contradictions had been avoided and the truth had been told. Well might he say that this sounds paradoxical. It is not only paradoxical, but it is in the highest degree absurd. It is the same as to say that faith is staggered by finding certain passages in the Scripture false to facts, but it would be still more staggered by finding the same passages true to facts. But so reason all of those critics, who, not being willing with their German masters to deny absolutely the divine element in the Bible, try to trim between this position and that of orthodox believers. Contradictions and errors of history, which they affect to find in vast numbers in the sacred record, make the book all the more credible and precious in their estimation. This is so inconsistent with rational thought that I do not believe it. I believe that in so saying they are practicing [98] self-deception; and that if they would analyze their feelings as minutely as they try to analyze the Pentateuch, they would find they are saying what they try to feel, and not what they really do feel.

      While speaking of Professor Ryle's book, I may mention another passage which stands in striking contrast with one corresponding to it in Professor Harper's lectures. The latter says of the style of the first chapter of Genesis, that it is "systematic;" "chronological and statistical;" "minute, precise, scientific;" "rigid, stereotyped;" "verbose and repetitious;" "generic and not particular." What an array of epithets to describe the style of one short chapter! Now listen to the thoroughly trained and sober-minded English scholar:

      The matchless introduction to the whole history (1:1-2:4) is taken in all probability from the priestly writings, having been either composed by the priestly narrator, or extracted by him and edited from the ancient traditions of which the priestly guild were the recognized keepers. Evidence of this is obtained from characteristic words and phrases, and from the smooth, orderly and somewhat redundant style (pp. 2, 3).

      The contrast is obvious enough. The reader may account for it as he will.

[SEBC 97-99]