This record is embodied in the first chapter and first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis. The Hebrew was long believed to be an original, if not an inspired, language, but it is now well known to have been a derivative or root language, made up much like the English, and, like it, having the meanings of its words primarily determined by those of the root-stems from which they have been formed. The roots of these Hebrew words are to be found among the languages of many older peoples, and nearly all of them have now been traced to their immediate origin. Another source of error is in the so-called Masoretic pointing, which was not introduced for a thousand years after the time of Moses, and which has often changed the signification of the older words, and even the form of the words themselves; but by critical researches the roots and their combinations have been isolated, so that we are now able to possess a much mere accurate knowledge of the Mosaic record than was possible in former times, for, of course, no original copies have come down to us. It is not a reconstruction of the record which has been made, but a careful editing by means of the derivation and true signification of the words used, and by careful comparison among the most ancient versions accessible to modern research. The English version, while imperfect in its rendering of this ancient narrative, is not to be considered by any means a false translation, but it largely errs in failing to give the full radical meaning of the words employed in the original.
As an illustration of this indefiniteness of rendering in the ordinary English version let us consider the opening sentences of the narrative: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
In the “beginning” of what? Does it mean the beginning of our own solar system? or of all systems? or of all space? or of Jehovah (for He has not yet been mentioned or described)? or of the Aleim themselves,—that is, did the work begin as soon as the forces began? and did the latter originate spontaneously, or otherwise? What “God” is meant? Is it Jehovah, or Aleim, or some other God not yet mentioned or described? If we will take every name in the Bible which is translated God (and it may be any of these according to the English rendering), we will have legion. We shall even find that the same word which is translated “God” was applied by Jehovah on one occasion to Moses. “Created”? What is meant by this word? Was the creating a creation out of nothing? out of something pre-existing? or something coexisting elsewhere? Was the creation a direct or an indirect one? by the use of the forces of nature, or by overriding the forces of nature? Was it a physical creation by an inconceivable action of mere thought, or will? and if so, was this thought, or will, God himself, or one of his attributes or powers only? “The heaven”? What heaven? Was it that to which the virtuous are supposed to go after death? or was it some more physical heaven? Was the heaven the atmospheric heaven, the interplanetary heaven, the heaven of interstellar space, or that more extended heaven which lies beyond our knowledge? Was the heaven one of these which He created, or did He create all the different heavens of all the solar systems and nebulæ at the same time? “Without form”? Was the earth without any form at all? or merely without its present form? or without some particular form not mentioned? If the earth was a physical structure it must have had some form; what was it? “And void”? Was the earth void like a soap-bubble? or void like a ray of light? or a vacuum? If it was empty, what was it that was empty? How could the heaven and earth be void after they had been brought into existence? “Darkness was upon the face of the deep”? What deep? Was it the sea not yet created? or the earth, which is anything but a “deep”? was it the atmosphere? or all space? If the latter, did all other systems of space wait for their light on ours? or did we wait on theirs? are there no new systems now forming, and none to be formed hereafter? If all space is meant, where was its outside, or its face? and what occupied the intervening regions? was it a physical face or the face of a vacuum? Were these statements to be accepted by faith or reason? If the former, was it a faith which could only have come from the experience of after-ages? or was it based on the ipse dixit of Moses? What was the basis of faith when the record was first written? was it from generally accepted tradition or by revelation? Is the record anonymous or does it reveal the name of its author? If to be endorsed by knowledge and reason, why should not the narrative be strictly and accurately translated, even at the expense of conciseness and elegance of diction, in order that the exact force of every word shall be fully felt and recognized? If the record is from divine revelation, it is still more essential to know precisely what was revealed; otherwise we are no better than idolaters; we are worse, in fact, for we have changed and falsified the landmarks of religion, and bear false witness against God Himself. We must not interpret Genesis by records made long subsequently; it must speak for itself or not at all.
When construed in accordance with the exact definition of the words themselves quite a new and strange light is thrown upon the history of the events thus recorded. The great importance of a strict construction of the translation and fidelity to the original is emphasized by the fact that the same word was never used in this record to express a different sense in different parts, nor were two different words ever used in different places to express the same meaning. It is, therefore, necessary to give every word of the original its exact fulness and force. The basis of the following critical translation is to be found in “Mankind: their Origin and Destiny” (Longmans & Co., London, 1872), but a careful comparison has been made with other accepted authorities, and the root-meanings of the separate words have been carefully traced out, so that many necessary changes will be found to have been made in order to bring out the precise sense of the original. There is no actual literal, critical, etymological, and scientific rendering embraced in a single translation known to us, and which is complete in itself; but that which follows will be found, it is believed, to give every word its particular etymological shade of meaning, and to employ the same word in the same place, for the same purpose, and with the same signification as it was understood to have, in its original form, when first recorded. The specific root-meanings of the most important words used are further explained in detail in a separate section below.
The use of Aleim, “the powerful Forces,” in the plural, followed by the verb in the singular, is a Hebraism, and indicates the collective character of the forces as specially energized, sent forth, and directed by Jeove (Jeova or Jehovah is the Chaldaic form of the word, the original Hebrew being Jeove), who does not appear by name in this narrative, though, as we shall see, specially delegated power from some higher source is that characteristic which is most emphasized throughout the record. These forces are personified, as is usual in ancient records (and, indeed, in modern thought), but they are in reality the “powers of God.” The author of the work above referred to says, “The idea of Moses was that there was a Supreme God … and that He only acts by means of his agents called Aleim, the Gods, in the plural and indefinite number, or embassadors, or voices.” The ancient belief in the unity of all forces in one creative individuality is also most clearly shown in some of the oldest Vedaic hymns of India (see Max Müller, “The Veda”). “Self (Atman) is the Lord of all things, Self is the King of all things. As all the spokes of a wheel are contained in the nave and the circumference, all things are contained in this Self; all selves are contained in this Self. Brahman (Force) itself is but Self.”
Of the religion of the ancient Egyptians (see “Evolution and Christianity,” by J. F. York) it is said, “The chief theological characteristic of this first of all known civilized religions is the doctrine of the Divine Unity. As M. de Rougé says, ‘One idea predominates, that of a single and primeval God; everywhere and always it is one substance, self-existent, and an unapproachable God.’ ” The Egyptian cosmogony, as the fragments have come down to us (see Professor Arnold Guyot, “Creation”), is as follows:
1. The original gaseous form, and the darkness of matter.
2. The successive transformations.
3. Light, as the first step in this development.
4. The separation of the waters below from the waters above the expanse.