CHAPTER III

THE STORY OF PARADISE

In

WE come now to the consideration of the second section in the Early Narratives of Genesis which seems to offer itself for separate treatment. these two chapters (ii. 4'-iii. 24) the narrative falls naturally into two divisions, of which the first (chap. ii. 4'-25) is occupied with a description of the creation of man, his first dwelling-place, and the formation of the vegetable and animal world; the second (chap. iii.) narrates the account of the Temptation, the Fall, and the Judgment consequent upon it.

I shall do little more than touch upon some of the more important points to be noticed in the literary structure, origin, and religious teaching of this important narrative.

(a) Structure.—Many a reader has been surprised to notice that a description of the Creation occurs in the second chapter, when the successive stages of the Creation have already formed the theme of the

previous passage. According to the explanation that has generally been given, the double narrative is intended to furnish an account of the same events regarded from different points of view. And, undoubtedly, in the first chapter, the Creation is described in its relation to the Physical Universe, the formation of man marking the concluding feature of the whole; whereas, in the second chapter, it is described in its relation primarily to Man, each portion of the universe being called into existence in order to contribute to the benefit of the human race. No one would contest the existence of this difference of view in the two descriptions, nor the possibility of the same writer describing the same events in different ways. But the divergence of view is not sufficient to account for the absence in chap. ii. 4-25 of any reference to the Days of Creation, nor for the statements which differ so widely from the contents of chap. i., as in ii. 5-7, where we read that when man was made neither plant nor herb yet existed; and in ii. 8, 9, 19, where it appears that the vegetable and animal world owed its origin to the purpose of satisfying the needs of man; and in ii. 21-23, where we find that the formation of woman as a helpmeet for man was an act of Divine favour in recognition of his inability to find true companionship in the brute creation. Now, it may fairly be said, we certainly do not expect that a writer, who is going a second time over the same

D

facts for the purpose of describing them from a different standpoint, will refrain from any hint of his change of purpose, will give no sign that he is conscious of going over the same ground, and will make no allusion to his first narrative. This, however, is what we find on a comparison of Gen. ii. 4'-25 with Gen. i. 1-ii. 4a.

Moreover, as Hebrew scholars have pointed out, the peculiarity of a double narrative, emanating, on the traditional view, from a single writer, strangely coincides with a change in the style and diction. For, although the change in the use of the Divine Name, from "Elohim" to "Jehovah Elohim," has been accounted for (but with insufficient reason) on the ground of a change in the general attitude of thought, the alteration both in the literary style of the narrative and in the choice of words and phrases has been conclusively demonstrated.

Modern criticism has removed the difficulty. Scholars have proved-and men of all schools now recognise that this section (ii. 4-iii. 24) is not homogeneous with chap. i.-ii. 4". The compiler of Genesis has here incorporated material from another source, to which the name of "Jehovist " has been commonly given by critics. The first portion of Genesis, as has before been mentioned, belongs to the "Priestly" group of writings; the second section is derived from the Prophetic group.

1 See page 2.

The style of the former is formal and methodical; the style of the latter is varied, full of incident, and replete with descriptive details and personal allusions.1

The compiler of Genesis selects from two recognised Hebrew traditions parallel extracts descriptive of the work of Creation. He places them side by side, so that we are able to compare their different characteristics. This plan of selecting from different sources he pursues in other portions of the history, and we shall have occasion to observe a noteworthy example in the double account of the Deluge, where he has pieced together extracts from the two main sources of the Israelite narratives.

The fact that the compiler makes no attempt rigorously to harmonise them illustrates his method of work. He had no desire to obliterate the characteristic features of the writings out of which he constructed his continuous narrative. His sole object was to furnish his countrymen with an authoritative narrative, which should preserve the traditions of his race at the same time that it was the means of embodying the essential teaching of the Religion of Jehovah.

(b) Origin. It is not perhaps to be wondered at, that an inquiry into the origin and growth of the Paradise narrative should be involved in much obscurity. It is certainly strange that no reference is made to it in the writings of the earlier Hebrew

1 The reader may refer to Driver's Introduction, or to an article by Rev. H. F. Woods in the Expository Times of February 1891.

prophets. The garden of Eden is alluded to by the prophets of the Captivity, e.g. Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 9, Isa. li. 3. A mention of it occurs in the Book of Joel (ii. 3), but the age of that work is much disputed, and no conclusive evidence as to pre-exilic usage could be drawn from it. The Book of Proverbs, in the occasional mention of the "tree of life," very possibly contains allusions to our narrative. But any other early reference to it is so meagre, and, at the best, so doubtful, that we are compelled to infer, either that the Israelite narrative was hardly known before the Exile, or that the form in which it has come down to us was not generally known, or, at least, was not in early times recognised as a portion of sacred tradition.

The former of these alternatives has been somewhat hastily adopted by some eminent scholars. The narrative of the Fall, they have asserted, received its literary form after the Captivity; the narrative itself was derived from Babylon. With this conclusion I find myself quite unable to agree. For, apart from the consideration mentioned in the previous paper, that the captive Jews were little likely, and the pious members of the community least of all, to enrich the sacred traditions of the chosen people from the legends of their captors, it appears to me to be defective in two other ways. (1) Criticism has fairly established, that this section belongs to the Jehovistic group of writings; large portions of this