CRATES
ing
note
is
strangely
described
(in
Is
38"
EV)
as
'chattering,'
and
tliis
makes
the
translation
somewhat
doubtful.
E.
W.
G.
Masteeman.
CBATSS.
—
A
deputy
left
in
charge
of
the
citadel
at
Jerusalem
(Acra)
when
the
regular
governor,
Sostra-tus,
was
summoned
to
Antioch
by
Antiochus
Epiphanes,
in
consequence
of
a
dispute
with
the
high
priest
Mene-laus
(2
Mac
4").
Crates
was
'over
the
Cyprians':
probably
he
was
sent
to
Cyprus
shortly
afterwards,
when,
in
B.C.
168,
Antiochus
obtained
possession
of
the
island.
CREATIOIT.
—
One
of
the
most
convincing
proofs
of
the
composite
authorship
of
the
Pentateuch
has
always
been
found
in
the
existence
side
by
side
of
two
independ-ent
and
mutually
irreconcilable
accounts
of
the
creation
of
the
world.
The
first,
Gn
l'-2*»,
forms
the
introduc-tion
of
the
Priestly
Code
(P),
which
was
compiled,
as
is
now
generally
acknowledged,
in
the
5th
Cent.
B.C.
The
second,
Gn
2">''-,
opens
the
JahwistiC
document
(J),
whose
latest
portions
must
be
dated
at
least
a
century
and
a
half
earlier
than
the
compilation
of
P.
These
two
narratives,
while
expressing
the
same
fundamental
religious
ideas,
differ
profoundly
in
their
concrete
conceptions
of
the
process
of
creation.
The
account
of
-P-SJiKts
with
a
description
(v.^)
of
tbej)rimeval
chaos
—
a
dark
formless
watery
abyss,
out
of
which
the
world
of
light
and
order
was
to
be
evolved.
Whether
this
chaotic
matter
owed
its
origin
to
a
prior
creative
act
of
God
is
a
question
depending
on
a
delicate
point
of
grammatical
construction
which
cannot
be
adequately
explained
here;
but,
looking
to
the
analogy
of
the
Babylonian
Creation-story
(see
below)
,
it
seems
probable
that
the
chaos
is
conceived
as
pre-existent,
and
that
the
representation
of
the
chapter
falls
short
of
the
full
dogmatic
idea
of
creation
as
production
out
of
nothing,
—
an
idea
first
unambiguously
expressed
in_^2
Mac
7'i
.--The
w6rk
of
creation
then
proceeds
in
a
series
of
eight
Divine
fiats,
viz.:
(1)
Creation
of
light
and
separation
of
light
from
the
primeval
darkness,
vv.^-';
(2)
division
of
the
chaotic
waters
by
the
firmament,
w.'-S;
(3)
separa-tion
of
land
and
sea,
vv.'-
'»;
(4)
clothing
of
the
earth
with
vegetation,
vv."-";
(5)
formation
of
the
heavenly
bodies,
vv."-";
(6)
production
of
fishes
and
birds,
w."-^;
(7)
land
animals,
v."'-;
and
(8)
the
creation
of
man
in
the
image
of
God
with
dominion
over
the
creatures,
v.^"-.
The
most
remarkable
formal
feature
of
the
record
is
a
somewhat
artificial
but
carefully
planned
and
symmetrical
arrangement
of
the
eight
works
under
a
scheme
of
six
days.
The
creative
process
is
thus
divided
into
two
parallel
stages,
each
embracing
four
works
and
occupying
three
days,
the
last
day
in
each
division
having
two
works
assigned
to
it.
There
is
an
obviously
designed,
though
not
quite
complete,
correspondence
between
the
two
series:
(1)
light
||
(6)
luminaries;
(2)
waters
and
firmament
||
(6)
fishes
and
fowls;
(3)
dry
land
||
(7,
8)
terrestrial
animals;
(4)
trees
and
grasses,
and
(on
the
sixth
dsiy)
the
appointment
of
these
as
the
food
of
men
and
animals.
The
significance
of
the
six
days'
scheme
is
revealed
in
the
closing
verses
(21-s),
where
the
resting
of
the
Creator
on
the
seventh
day
is
regarded
as
the
antitype
and
sanction
of
the
Jewish
Sabbath-rest.
It
is
not
improbable
that
the
scheme
of
days
is
a
modification
of
the
original
cosmog-ony,
introduced
in
the
interest
of
the
Sabbath
law;
and
this
adaptation
may
account
for
some
anomalies
of
arrangement
which
seem
to
mar
the
consistency
of
the
scheme.
In^the-narratisa-ot
J-
(2'"'?),
-the-earth
as
originally
made
by
Jahweh
was
an
arid
lifeless
waste,
in
which
no
plant
could
grow
for
lack
of
moisture,
and
where
there
was
no
man
to
till
the
ground
(vv.'-
«).
The
ideg,
of
man's
superiority
to
the
other
creatures
is
here
expressed
by
placing
his
creation,
not
at
the
end
as
in
P,
but
at
the
beginning
(v.');
followed
by
the
planting
of
the
garden
in
which
he
was
to
dwell
and
from
whose
CREATION
trees
he
was
to
derive
his
food
(vv.*-
»■
''-")
;
the
forming
of
beasts
and
birds
to
relieve
his
solitude
and
awake
his
craving
for
a
nobler
companionship
(vv."-^");
and
lastly
of
the
woman,
in
whom
he
recognizes
a
part
of
himself
and
a
helpmeet
for
him
(vv.^i-'s).
The
express
reference
to
the
welfare
of
man
in
each
act
of
creation
makes
it
doubtful
whether
a
systematic
account
of
the
origin
of
things
was
contemplated
by
the
writer,
or
whether
the
passage
is
not
rather
to
be
regarded
as
a
poetic
clothing
of
ideas
generated
by
reflexion
on
funda-mental
facts
of
human
life
and
society.
It
is
probable,
however,
that
it
contains
fragments
of
a
fuller
cosmogony
which
has
been
abridged
and
utilized
as
a
prologue
to
the
story
of
Paradise
and
the
Fall.
On
either
view,
the
divergence
from
the
account
of
P
is
so
obvious
as
to
preclude
the
attempt
to
harmonize
the
two,
or
to
treat
the
second
as
merely
supplementary
to
the
first.
Much
ingenuity
has
been
expended
in
the
effort
to
bring
the
Biblical
record
of
creation
into
accord
with
the
facts
disclosed
by
the
modern
sciences
of
Geology
and
Astronomy.
Naturally
such
constructions
confine
their
operations
to
the
systematic
and
semi-scientific
account
of
Gn
1;
for
it
has
probably
never
occurred
to
any
one
to
vindicate
the
scientific
accuracy
of
the
more
imaginative
narrative
of
J.
But
even
if
we
were
to
admit
the
unique
claim
of
the
first
chapter
to
be
a
revealed
cosmogony,
the
difficulty
of
harmonizing
it
with
the
teachings
of
science
is
seen
to
be
insurmountable
as
soon
as
the
real
nature
of
the
problem
to
be
solved
is
fairly
apprehended.
It
is
not
sufficient
to
emphasize
the
general
idea
of
gradation
and
upward
progress
as
common
to
science
and
Scripture,
or
to
point
to
isolated
coincidences,
such
as
the
creation
of
fishes
before
mammals,
or
the
late
appearance
of
man
on
the
earth:
the
narrative
must
be
taken
as
a
whole,
and
it
must
be
shown
that
there
is
a
genuine
parallelism
between
the
order
of
days
and
works
in
Gn
1
and
the
stages
of
development
recognized
by
science
as
those
through
which
the
universe
has
reached
its
present
form.
This
has
never
been
done;
and
after
making
every
allowance
for
the
imperfection
of
the
geological
record,
and
the
general
insecurity
of
scientific
hypothesis
as
distin-guished
from
ascertained
tact,
enough
is
known
to
make
it
certain
that
the
required
correspondence
can
never
be
made
out.
Thus
the
formation
of
the
sun
and
moon
after
the
earth,
after
the
alternation
of
day
and
night,
and
even
after
the
emergence
of
plant-life,
is
a
scientific
impossibility.
Again,
the
rough
popular
classifications
of
Genesis
(plants,
aquatic
animals,
birds,
land
animals,
etc.)
are,
for
scientific
purposes,
hopelessly
inadequate;
and
the
idea
that
these
groups
originated
as
wholes,
and
in
the
order
here
specified,
is
entirely
contrary
to
the
'testimony
of
the
rocks.'
But,
indeed,
the
whole
conception
of
the
universe
on
which
the
cosmogony
of
Genesis
rests
opposes
a
fatal
barrier
to
any
valid
reconciliation
with
scientific
theory.
The
world
whose
origin
is
here
described
is
a
solid
expanse
of
earth,
surrounded
by
and
resting
on
a
world-ocean,
and
surmounted
by
a
rigid
vault
called
the
firmament,
above
which
the
waters
of
a
heavenly
ocean
are
spread.
Such
a
world
is
unknown
to
science;
and
the
manner
in
which
such
a
world
was
conceived
to
have
come
into
being
cannot
truly
represent
the
process
by
which
the
very
different
world
of
science
and
fact
has
been
evolved.
This
fact
alone
would
amply
justify
the
emphatic
verdict
of
Professor
Driver:
'Read
without
prejudice
or
bias,
the
narrative
of
Gn
1
creates
an
impression
at
variance
with
the
facts
revealed
by
science:
the
efforts
at
reconcilia-tion
...
are
but
different
modes
of
obliterating
its
characteristic
features,
and
of
reading
into
it
a
view
which
it
does
not
express'
(Westm.
Com.
'
Genesis,'
p.
26).
To
form
a
correct
estimate
of
the
character
and
religious
value
of
the
first
chapter
of
Genesis,
it
has
to
be
borne
in
mind
that
speculative
theories
of
the
origin
of
the
universe
were
an
important
element
of
all
the
