A Manual of the Antiquity of Man

by J. P. MacLean

No book has caused so much controversy as the Bible. It has been made to answer for the folly of both its friends and foes. The fierce assaults made by the sceptic have been the legitimate result of the preposterous claims made by its ignorant but too zealous friends. The Bible makes no such claims for itself as have often been made for it. Its meaning has been perverted, sentences distorted, and words changed in order to suit the caprice of its advocates. If it were a living, speaking existence, it would certainly beg to be delivered from its friends. It has been made to conflict with the investigations of science, and those engaged in interpreting the laws of nature have been branded as infidels, although they may have devout and reverent spirits. The Bible is not and makes no pretensions of being a book of science. It is designed to be a book of religion, and a history of the ancient Jews, and its references to scientific questions are only incidental. If the references to science, or the account of Creation be radically wrong, its teachings on questions of morals and religion would not be thereby invalidated. The Christian, or the Jew, has nothing to fear from the results of scientific investigation. But there is a duty devolving on him, and that is to leave his fanciful interpretations and come to the true meaning of the Scriptures, and there learn how the words were understood by those to whom they were originally addressed. The meaning of words, as used in the nineteenth century, is not to be connected with their signification as used in the past. There is a great distance that divides the present from the times of the Hebrews, and their language and thoughts from the English language and modern thought. The ancient Hebrews were not given to scientific pursuits, and could have been but comparatively little advanced in civilization.

It is not the design here to enter upon an investigation of the points raised between the Scriptures and science, but to confine the inquiry to such questions as the previous chapters have demanded.

Creation.—The first and second chapters of Genesis not only teach that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, but also the order of succession is given. It is not stated that the world was created out of nothing. The word "bara," translated "created," has a variety of meanings. According to Gesenius it means to cut, to cut out, to carve, to form, to create, to produce, to beget, to bring forth, to feed, to eat, to grow fat, to fashion, to make.[121] The idea presented seems to be this: The author asserts that heaven and earth owe their origin to God. Then he goes back and explains the successive stages of creation. At the commencement of the work the earth was formless and void, or in a nebulous condition, and from this preëxisting mass the worlds were evolved. When this mass was created, if ever, the author of Genesis does not state.

Six periods, or "days," are given for the formation of the earth. The use of the words "evening and morning" naturally leads to the conclusion that the days were each twenty-four hours in length. But doubt is thrown over this conclusion by the use of the word day in the second chapter and fourth verse, where the whole creative week is called a day. The word translated "day" also means time, but it is to be generally taken in the sense of the civil day—from sun up to sun down. Hugh Miller held to the opinion that the creation was represented to Moses in a vision. The periods passed before his mind in succession and had the appearance of days. The evening was the closing of one and the morning was the beginning of another period of time.[122] If a description of the different orders of life had been given, it would have been beyond the comprehension of that primitive people. It was not the design to teach geology. The people were not prepared for such scientific knowledge. But the simple statement that God is the author of all things, could be and was understood by the Israelites.

On the sixth day man appears; but there are two records, and in them he is presented in different ways and for different purposes. In the first account man is made in the image of God, and to him is given dominion over the living things, and he is commanded to subdue the earth. The second account states that there was no man to till the ground, and the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. The second account cannot be, as has been assumed, a repetition of the first. The two accounts are radically different. One account makes man to have dominion over the beasts, birds, and fishes; the other, to till or cultivate the soil. This agrees with archæo-geology. Men were hunters many ages before they were agriculturists. The one account has man made in the image of God, the other, a living soul. The "image of God" and "living soul" may be the same, but why the change? There may be a cause for it. If the theory of the vision be the true one, then Moses saw man in two capacities, differing one from the other. Man may be in the "image of God," and yet in a low, savage condition—subsisting on the chase. Man may be awakened from that condition, the "image of God" may assert its majesty, and make man a religious, worshipful being.[123] That there were two classes the record implies. Cain goes out into the Land of Nod, where his wife conceives, and he builds a city. Where did Cain get his wife, and why did he build a city? No account is given of the birth of his wife, but the natural inference is he obtained her in the Land of Nod.[124] It has been contended that Cain married his sister. If this be true it would certainly have been mentioned. It is too important a matter to have escaped notice. If he married his sister he was guilty of a heinous crime. If it was right then, it is right now. The city he built must have been more than an encampment, or a small fortification. (The word translated "city" bears this meaning also.) It would have been of no moment. It must have been a place of some consequence, and designed for more persons than Cain, his wife, and son. Taking all the circumstances together, including Cain's dread "of every one that findeth me shall slay me," it would seem that the object of this city was to provide for individuals of the pre-Adamic family dwelling on the east of Eden, and possibly to ingratiate himself into their favor.

Then, again, in the sixth chapter, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." This was followed by great wickedness, in consequence of which the world was destroyed by a flood. Who were the "sons of God," and who the "daughters of men"? Why not the daughters of God? The "sons of God" must have been the lineal descendants of Adam, and the "daughters of men" the offspring of the pre-Adamic race. The mongrel race produced were monsters,[125] and their minds were bent continually on doing evil. These sons of Adam must have retrograded, or else they would not have sought wives from among a lower people. By the laws of nature their offspring was lower than either of the races, from the fact that to the brutish natures of the pre-Adamic type would be added the natural wisdom of the Adamic, thus producing cunning and craft in their wickedness.[126] If stringent moral laws had been enforced upon them the result would have been reversed.

Chronology.—The chronology given in the margins of the Bible is a mere invention, and has worked much mischief. There is nothing to warrant it, and no excuse can be made for it. The Bible gives no definite chronology for those early times. That no dependence can be placed in these chronologies is shown from the discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts.[127] The Septuagint dates the Flood eight hundred years farther back than the common Bible. "A margin of variation amounting to eight centuries between two versions of the same document, is a variation so enormous that it seems to cast complete doubt on the whole system of interpretation on which such computations of time are based."[128]

The Deluge.—Allowing the date of the Deluge to have been 3149 B. C. instead of 2349 B. C., still there is not sufficient time to repopulate the earth, and form those mighty empires recorded in ancient history. The Duke of Argyle has very justly remarked that, "The founding of a monarchy is not the beginning of a race. The people among whom such monarchies arose must have grown and gathered during many generations." The peopling of Egypt is not the only difficulty. "The existence, in the days of Abraham, of such an organized government as that of Chedorlaomer shows that two thousand years B. C. there nourished in Elam, beyond Mesopotamia, a nation which even now would be ranked among 'the Great Powers.'"[129] Then the characteristic features of the Negro, one of the most strongly marked among the varieties of man, were as greatly marked 2000 B. C. as at present.

These statements lead to the conclusion that the Flood was not universal. Most nations have a tradition of a flood, but "the monuments of the two most ancient civilizations of which we have any knowledge—the Egyptian and Chinese—contain no account of, or allusion to, Noah's Deluge."[130] Many of these traditions doubtless refer to some local flood. The passages of Scripture seem to teach the universality of the Deluge, but the same expressions which convey the idea of universality, are sometimes used in a limited sense, and refer only to the Holy Land, and to bordering regions. The question is one of doubt whether or not the sacred historian means the Noachian Deluge to have been universal, or only a local cataclysm.

Monarchies.—The Scriptures do not state that Nimrod was the first monarch, but "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh." Nor is the statement made that he founded these cities. He was a mighty hunter, and these cities were the beginning of his kingdom.