bible romances.—1.

by g. w. foote.

the book of genesis is generally thought, as professor huxley says, to contain the beginning and the end of sound science. the mythology of the jews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, and of the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. the masses of the people in every christian country are taught in their childhood that god created the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna, in five days; that he created man, "the bright consummate flower" of his work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. yet every student knows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejects it as absurd; and even the clergy themselves mostly disbelieve it why, then, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deem true instead of what they know to be false? the answer is very simple. because they feel that the doctrine of the fall is bound up with the genesaic account of creation, and that if the latter be discredited the former will not long be retained. the doctrine of the fall being the foundation of the scheme of atonement, the clergy will never admit the creation story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by external pressure. at any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity, since by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. what the recognised teachers of religion will not do, however, should not be left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. men of science, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are gradually but surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning the priesthoods of mystery and superstition. yet their influence on the masses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show the contradiction between their discoveries and what is preached from the pulpit. perhaps they are right. but it is also right that others should appeal to the people in the name not only of science, but also of scholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity of much that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable and infallible word of god.

the creation story, with which the book of genesis opens, is incoherent, discrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. it is also discordant with the plainest truths of science. let us examine it, after casting aside all prejudice and predilection.

if the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, man, was created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand years ago chaos reigned throughout nature. this, however, is clearly untrue. our earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions of years. geology proves also that million years have elapsed since organic existence first appeared on the earth's surface, and this world became the theatre of life and death. darwin speaks of the known history of the world as "of a length quite incomprehensible by us," yet even that he affirms "will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time" com-pared with the vast periods which biology will demand. the instructed members of the church have long recognised these-statements as substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them with scripture by assuming that the word which in the history of creation is rendered day really means a period, that is an elastic space of time which may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. but there are two fatal objections to this assumption. in the first place, the same word is rendered day in the fourth commandment, and if it means period in genesis it means period in exodus. in that case we are commanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each period must cover a geological epoch. how pleasant for those who happen to be born in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of the six! the lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play! in the second place, the account of each day's creation concludes with the refrain "and the evening and the morning were the first (or other) day." now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminous gradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like night and day, depend on the earth's revolving on its axis and presenting different portions of its surface to the sun. evening and morning clearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of genesis, whoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other interpretation of his words. it is sometimes argued, as for instance by dr. m'caul, that these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the evening and the morning not being dependent on their present causes. but this supposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, expressly "to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." the fifth and sixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length, and thus the chronological difficulties remain. all animal life was brought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the bible still allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for the world's fauna. geology and biology allow millions of years. here then science and the bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction.

the fact that the writer of genesis represents light as existing three days before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has frequently been noticed. one learned commentator supposed that god had infused a certain "luminosity" through the air, which was not exactly the same as the light of the sun. but light is not a thing; it is a phenomenon caused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. such explanations are but fanciful refuges of superstition. "god said let there be light and there was light," is not the language of science and history, but the language of poetry. as such it is sublime. we find a similar expression in the vedas of the hindoos: "he thought, i will create worlds, and they were there!" both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientific statement the physical astronomer knows how worlds are formed, as well as how their movements are determined; he knows also the causes of light; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accounts given in the creation stories of the hebrews and the hindoos.

science knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of six creative days; and it is quite certain that the order of creation given in genesis differs widely from the revelations of geology. for instance (and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish and fowl are said to have been created on the same day. let us, for the sake of argument, assume that day means period. the conclusion still is that fish and fowl were created together. starting from this conclusion, what should we expect to find in our geological researches? why, the fossil remains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. but we find nothing of the kind. marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during which all our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found until a later period. now the carboniferious period alone, according to sir william thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fish and fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated by inconceivable spaces of time. here again the bible and science fatally disagree.

even if we admit that the fifth day of creation was a period, the chronology of the bible is still fatally at variance with fact with respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise and unmistakable. it gives us the age of adam at his death, and the ages of the other antediluvian patriarchs. from the flood the genealogies are carefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after which there is not much room for dispute. from the creation of adam to the birth of christ, the bible allows about four thousand years. the antiquity of the human race, therefore, according to scripture, is less than six thousand years. science, however, proves that this is but a fragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth. there was a civilisation in egypt thousands of years before the alleged creation of adam. the cushite civilisation was even more ancient archaeology shows us traces of man's presence, in a ruder state, long before that. the researches of mr. pengelly in kent's cavern prove that cave-men lived there more than two-hundred thousand years ago; while geological investigations in the valley of the somme have established the fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period. professor draper writes:—"so far as investigations have gone, they indisputably-refer the existence of man to a date remote from us by many hundreds of thousands of years. it must be borne in mind that these investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limited geographical space. no researches have yet been made in those regions which might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man. we are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years of patristic chronology. it is difficult to assign a shorter date for the last glaciation of europe than a quarter of a million of years, and human existence antedates that. the chronology of the bible is thus altogether obsolete."

the idea of a seven-days' creation was not confined to the jews: it was shared by the persians and etruscans. the division of the year into months and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. the ancient egyptians observed a ten-days' week, but the seven-days' week was well known to them. the naming of the days of the week after the seven planets was noted by dion cassius as originally an egyptian custom, which spread from egypt into the roman empire. the brahmins of india also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. this division of time was purely astronomical. the jews kept the feast of the new moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar and solar phenomena. we may be sure that the myth of a seven-days' creation followed and did not precede the regular observance of that period.

there is one feature of the hebrew story of creation which shows how anthropomorphic they were. the persians represent ormuzd as keeping high festival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all things in six. but the hebrews represent jehovah as resting on the seventh day, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhausted his energies. fancy omnipotence requiring rest to recruit its strength! the bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grossly anthropomorphic. it exhibits god as conversing with men, sharing their repasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. it represents him as visible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving moses a back view of his person. yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon as divine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned!

let us now examine the creation story internally. in the first place we find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the first chapter of genesis and the first three verses of the second, at which point the other commences. these two records belong to different periods of jewish history. the older one is the elohistic, so called because the creator is designated by the plural term elohim, which in our version is translated god. the more modern one is the jehovistic, in which elohim is combined with the singular term jehovah, translated in our-version the lord god. the elohistic and jehovistic accounts both relate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ. the former makes god create man in his own image; the latter does not even allude to this important circumstance. the former represents man as created male and female at the outset; the latter represents the male as created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. in the former god enjoins the primal pair to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth;" in the latter there is no such injunction, but on the contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed upon the woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to have borne any offspring until after the expulsion from the garden of eden. lastly, the elohistic record makes no mention of this paradise, in which, according to the jehovistic record, the drama of the fall was enacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdue and populate the world. such discrepancies are enough to stagger the blindest credulity.

we now proceed to examine the jehovistic account of creation in detail. we read that the lord god formed man of the dust of the ground, the hebrew word for which is adamah. the word adam means "be red," and adamah may be referred to the red soil of palestine. kalisch also observes that man may have been originally called adam on account of the red color of his skin. the chinese represent man as kneaded of yellow earth, and the red indians of red clay. the belief that man was formed of earth was not confined to the jews, but has been almost universal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies after death return to the earth and resolve into the elements. the lord god placed this forlorn first man in the garden of eden with the command to till it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." how adam trespassed and fell, and brought a curse upon himself and all his innocent posterity, we shall consider in another pamphlet. the story of the fall is infinitely curious and diverting, and must be treated separately.

adam's first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very marvellous. all the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the air were brought before him to be named, and "whatsover adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." this first zoological dictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call every animal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as ourselves. the fishes and insects were not included in this primitive nomenclature, so the loss of the dictionary does not concern them.

the lord made the animals pass before adam seemingly with the expectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. nothing, however, struck his fancy. if he had fallen in love with a female gorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in the world's history!

after this wonderful exploit "the lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon adam," who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good sound natural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. while in this state one of his ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, and which he discovered when he awoke. this curious surgical operation involves a dilemma. if adam was upright after it, he must have been lopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsided after. in either case the poor man was very scurvily treated.

it has been maintained that god provided adam with another rib in place of the one extracted. but this is a mere conjecture. besides, if the lord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, without cutting poor adam open and making a pre mortem examination of his inside.

the divine operator's purpose was a good one, whatever we may think of his means. he had discovered, what omniscience would have foreknown, that it was not good for man to be alone, and had resolved to make him a help-meet. adam's "spare rib" was the raw material of which his wife was manufactured. the greenlanders believed that the first woman was fashioned out of the man's thumb. the woman was brought to adam, who said—"this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." not a word did he say about "soul of my soul." perhaps he suspected she had none, and with some truth, if we go no further than our english version. when the lord god made man, he "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul," but apparently no such operation was performed on eve. indeed, it is very difficult to prove from the bible that woman has a soul at all. women should reflect on this. they should also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not included in the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weight afterwards. let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapels in which this story is taught would soon be emptied. the majority of those who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of those who don't, go there for the sake of those who do.

when adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. "therefore," said he, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." in his desire to give the institution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this story perpetrated a gross anachronism. adam had no parents, nor any experience of marriage. unless, therefore, we credit him with superhuman prescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way.

eve's name, no less than adam's, betrays the mythological character of the story. it means the "mother of all," and was evidently applied to her by the jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationship to the human race.

while god was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make two human couples, instead of one? the arrangement he adopted involved the propagation of the human species through incest adam and eve's sons must have had children by their sisters. if two couples had been created, their families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then have sprang from the incestuous intercourse of the very first generation. surely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime against which civilised consciences revolt with unspeakable disgust.

adam and eve were placed by god in the garden of eden. "eden," says kalisch, "comprised that tract of land where the euphrates and tigris separate; from that spot the 'garden in eden' cannot be distant. let it suffice that we know its general position." its exact position can never be ascertained. what a pity it is that noah did not occupy some of his leisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark, in writing a typography of the antediluvian world! the greeks placed paradise in the islands of the blessed, beyond the pillars of hercules in the western main. the swede, rudbeck, asserts that paradise was in scandinavia; some russian writers supposed it to have been in siberia; and the german writers, hasse and schulz, on the coast of prussia. eastern traditions place it in ceylon, and regard the mountain of rahoun as the spot where adam was buried. some old christian writers hazarded the theory that paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the other side of the ocean which they conceived to encircle it, and that noah was conveyed to our planet by the deluge. kalisch gives a long list of ancient and modern authorities on the subject, who differ widely from each other as to the actual position of eden, their only point of agreement being that it was somewhere.

the creation story of the bible cannot be considered as anything but a hebrew myth. scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposing that moses wrote it. doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, it is very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literary form beyond the babylonish captivity. men of science without exception disbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but also with regard to the human race. in his famous article on "the method and results of ethnology," professor huxley made this declaration:—"there are those who represent the most numerous, respectable, and would-be orthodox of the public, and who may be called 'adamites,' pure and simple. they believe that adam was made out of earth somewhere in asia, about six thousand years ago; that eve was modelled from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the summit of mount ararat after an universal deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become converted into negroes, australians, mongolians, etc., within that time. five-sixths of the public are taught this adamitic monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe it. i do not; and i am not acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who does." the clergy, then, who go on teaching this old creation story as true, are either unduly instructed or dishonest, ignorant or fraudulent, blind guides or base deceivers. it is not for us to determine to which class any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, as assuredly it will, decide that for himself. but ignorant or dishonest, we affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the creation story as a record of actual facts, or as anything but a hebrew myth.

the origin of the human race is far different from that recorded in genesis. man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life. the rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior to the present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior to the lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. their physical and mental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; and the general opinion of biologists is that they were descended from the old world branch of the great simian family. there is, indeed, no absolute proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, as the fossil links between primitive man and his simian progenitor, if they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continent over which roll the waters of the south pacific ocean. but as the line of natural development can be carried back so far without break, there is no reason why it should not be carried farther. the evolution theory is now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of them suppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. at any rate, the bible account of creation is thoroughly exploded, and when that is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of the only theory of man's origin which is consistent with the facts of his history, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure.