evening or commencement of the first day of the
Mosaic narrative.*
The second verse may describe the condition
of the earth on the evening of this first day; (for in
the Jewish mode of computation used by Moses,
* I have much satisfaction in subjoining the following note
by my friend, the Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford, as
it enables me to advance the very important sanction of Hebrew
criticism, in support of the interpretations, by which we mayrecon-
cile the apparent difficulties arising from geological phenomena,
with the literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.—
“ Two opposite errors have, I think, been committed by critics,
with regard to the meaning of the word bara, created; the one,
by those who asserted that it must in itself signify “ created out
of n o t h i n g t h e other, by those who endeavoured, by aid of
etymology, to show that it must in itself signify “ formation out
of existing matter.” In fact, neither is the case; nor am I aware
of any language in which there is a word signifying necessarily
“ created out of n o t h i n g a s of course, on the other hand, no
word when used of the agency of God would, in itself, imply the
previous existence of matter. Thus the English word, create, by
which bara is translated, expresses that the thing created received
its existence from God, without in itself conveying whether God
called that thing into existence out o f nothing, or n o ; for our
very addition of the words “ out of nothing,” shows that the word
creation has not, in itself, that force: nor indeed, when we speak
of ourselves as creatures of God’s hand, do we at all mean that
we were physically formed out of nothing. In like manner,
whether bara should be paraphrased by “ created out of nothing”
(as far as we can comprehend these words), or, “ gave a new
and distinct state of existence to a substance already existing,”
must depend upon the context, the circumstances, or what God
has elsewhere revealed, not upon the mere force of the word.
This is plain, from its use in Gen. i. 27, of the creation of man,
who, as we are instructed, chap. ii. 7, was formed out of previously
existing matter, the ‘ dust of the ground.’ The word bara
each day is reckoned from the beginning of one
evening to the beginning of another evening).
This first evening may be considered as the termination
of the indefinite time which followed
the primeval creation announced in the first
is indeed so far stronger than asah, “ made,” in that bara can
only be used with reference to God, whereas asah may be applied
to man. The difference is exactly that which exists in English
between the words by which they are rendered, “ created ” and
“ made.” But this seems to me to belong rather to our mode of
conception than to the subject itself; for making, when spoken
of with reference to God, is equivalent to creating.
The words accordingly, bara, created— asah, made— yatsar,
formed, are used repeatedly by Isaiah, and are also employed by
Amos, as equivalent to each other. Bara and asah express alike
a formation'of something new(de novo), something whose existence
in this new state originated in, and depends entirely upon
the will of its creator or maker. Thus God speaks of Himself as
the Creator “ boree" of the Jewish people, e. g. Isaiah xliii.
1,15; and a new event is spoken of under the same term as “ a
creation,” Numb. xvi. 30, English version, “ If the Lord make a
new t h i n g i n the margin, Heb. “ create a creature.” Again,
the Psalmist uses the same word, Ps. civ. 30, when describing
the renovation of the face of the earth through the successive
generations of living creatures, “ Thou sendest forth thy spirit,
they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.”
The question is popularly treated by Beausobre, Hist, de Mani-
cheisme, tom. ii. lib. 5, c. 4 ; or, in a better spirit, by Petavius
Dogm. Theol. tom. iii. de opificio sex dierum, lib. 1, c. 1, § 8.
After having continually re-read and studied this account, I
can come to no other result than that the words “ created” and
|“ made” are synonymous, (although the former is to us the
; stronger of the two), and that, because they are so constantly in-
terchanged; as, Gen. i. ver. 21, “ God created great whalesver.
25, “ God made the beast of the e a r t h v e r . 26, “ Let us make
man ver. 27, <! So God created man.” At the same time it is