4. Science and the Bible:
The Day of God is the Creation of Seven Days. Scripture says that to the Lord one day is as 1,000 years, and a thousand years as one day. We reason also that adding more zeros does not change this truth, and millions and billions of years to Him is but a day. My understanding is that 1:1 takes in the billions of years of the history of the cosmos, that 1:2 covers the billions and millions of years in preparation to this present world as made suitable for man. Therefore, I am not troubled by science and modern understanding of cosmological and geological history in whatever way He has done it, and what ways we might interpret the evidence and details. At present we may sum up the scientific doctrine as the Seven Days of the Cosmos, the Creation Week of Science. It goes like this:
In the beginning, billions of years ago, the Big Bang, the Cosmic Explosion, created the Universe at a point of time and space of infinite energy and speed barely understood. All before this is unknown. (1:1) The cosmos at the point of origin in innumerable elements and fragments of the super atomic genesis expands at incredible speed and power, changing and cooling, slowing and solidifying, forming many systems of super-galaxies and systems within and without, and our own solar system with earth and other planets with their moons, and other space particles and debris which was in chaos and formlessness, without order and structure suitable for life, but ever changing over many millions of years to produce or evolve simple life forms and all that is a by-product and essential to its stability. This and many such things barely understood but quite fascinating and wondrous; leading to the Days or Periods of Eons and Ages from Hadean to Holocene. (1:2)
Day One: Post-Big-Bang, the Birth of the Universe. (10-20 Billion Years Ago, BYA)
Day Two: Post-Big-Bang, the Development of Galaxies of Stars and Planets, etc… (5-10, BYA)
Day Three: Precambrian Eon: Hadean (hades, hell, grave, death). (4-5, BYA)
Day Four: Precambrian Eon: Archean (archaic, ancient, azoic, prezoic). Consisting of 4 Eras:
Eoarchean, Paleoarchean, Mesoarchean, and Neoarchean. (2.5-4, BYA)
Day Five: Precambrian Eon: Proterozoic: 3 Zoic Eras: Paleo, Meso, Neo. (.5-2.5, BYA)
Day Six: Phanerozoic (Visible Life) Eon: 3 Eras: Paleo, Meso, Ceno (Recent, New). (500-0, MYA)
The Paleozoic: 7 Periods: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous Mississippian, Carboniferous Pennsylvanian, and Permian. (250-500 Million Years Ago, MYA)
The Mesozoic: 3 Periods: Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. (70-250, MYA)
The Cenozoic: 2 Periods: Tertiary and Quaternary. (70 MYA to Present)
Day Seven: Future?
The Ages or Times or Days of Geologic Life shows varieties of life forms in countless species, with life from the simplest to the most complex, small to great, and all kinds of intermediary forms. Science begins the evolutionary time-scale some 5 billion years ago shortly after the formation of the Earth in the Solar System in forming a solid crust, then the oceans and continents. They call this period Hadean, after the Greek Hades or Hell, single cell organisms and algae appear, with photosynthesis, emitting oxygen as by-product. Then invertebrates and vertebrates appear, then fishes, then plants and vegetation, then insects, fishes, and trees, mountains, and climate changes, reptiles, continents change, and mammals, then mountains, dinosaurs, and birds. At this time 65 million years ago the Earth becomes ruined in chaos from a super-giant asteroid impacting the Caribbean bringing death and destruction and extinction to most or all life forms. This followed by more severe climate changes. More climate and weather changes and the appearance of new life forms and the primates and diverse mammals, with earth flourishing with grass and vegetation and plant life. More mountains formed and the ice ages. And last of all appears humans and civilization and written history.
We see that the Creation Week of Science follows the pattern of the Creation Week of the Bible. The general stages of the six days are in fashion similar, the evolution of one is the design of the other, within the limits that are unknown, and details not understood. I cannot dismiss the evidence, and I try to understand the ways and work of God. It is certain that Scripture reveals God in His progression and production of the world.
I think it fitting to hear a well-respected man of Science, an Astronomer whose honest skepticism and fair presentation of facts I have always appreciated since the early 80’s. (Robert Jastrow,Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61), is an internationally known astronomer and authority on life in the Cosmos. He is the founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Geology (Geophysics) at Columbia University, Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. Writings include: Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers (Wiley, 1972); God and the Astronomers (Norton, 1978); The Enchanted Loom (Touchstone, 1983); Has been described by Paddy Chayevsky as “the greatest writer on science alive today.” Dr. Jastrow is widely known for his TV appearances on astronomy and space exploration. He has been hosted on more than 100 CBS Network-TV programs on space science. BBC-TV and ITN-TV brought him to London for coverage of the Apollo flights. He is the author of RED GIANTS AND WHITE DWARFS, a Book of the Month Club alternate that sold 400,000 copies in several editions and languages. Dr. Jastrow’s last book, UNTIL THE SUN DIES, was also a Book of the Month Club alternate and was widely acclaimed by reviewers.):
“God and the Astronomers: “Strange developments are going on in astronomy,” writes Dr. Robert Jastrow: “They are fascinating partly because of their theological implications, and partly because of the peculiar reactions of scientists.” The essence of the strange developments is that astronomers have proven the Universe was created in a fiery explosion twenty billion years ago. In the searing heat of the first moment, all the evidence was melted down and destroyed that science might have used to determine the cause of the great explosion. Dr. Jastrow writes, “This is the crux of the new story of Genesis.” According to Dr. Jastrow, scientist did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning. When the evidence began to accumulate, they were repelled by their own findings. Einstein wrote, “Such possibilities seem senseless,” and the great English astronomer Eddington declared, “The notion of a beginning is repugnant.” Dr. Jastrow comments, “There is a strong ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions. They come from the heart, whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why?” This book contains his answer. At the end he writes, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
“Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces. The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour. This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe. The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation. From a philosophical point of view, this finding has traumatic implications for science. Scientists have always felt more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed forever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of Cause and Effect; they believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. Einstein once said, “The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation.” If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred-the origin of the world-for which there is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen. This is a distressing result for scientists because, in the scientist’s view, given enough time and money, he must be able to find an explanation for the beginning of the Universe on his own terms-an explanation that fits into the framework of natural rather than supernatural forces. So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question. Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe’s existence. At that time, it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang. This is a very surprising conclusion. Nothing in the history of science leads us to believe there should be a fundamental limit to the results of scientific inquiry. Science has had extraordinary success in piecing together the elements of a story of cosmic evolution that adds many details to the first pages of Genesis. The scientist has traced the history of the Universe back in time from the appearance of man to the lower animals, then across the threshold of life to a time when the earth did not exist, and then back farther still to a time when stars and galaxies had not yet formed, and the heavens were dark. Now he goes farther back still, feeling he is close to success-the answer to the ultimate question of beginning-when suddenly the chain of cause and effect snaps. The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he cannot find the cause. Some say still that if the astronomer cannot find that cause today, he will find it tomorrow, and we will read about it in the New York Times when Walter Sullivan gets around to reporting on it. But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely. This is why it seems to me and to others that the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, “We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed.”
5. Evolution and the Origins of Man:
1. The Smithsonian Institution on their website has a Human Family Tree chart exhibiting human evolution, from a chain of links backward or downward to a single unknown trunk as a common ancestor, extending beyond 6 million years ago (mya). The Tree branches upward with some unknown Families, then the earliest Ardipithecus group of four identifiable primates, some 4-6 mya. Next is the Australopithecus group, consisting of primate types, more advanced, 2-4 mya; then this follows the Paranthropus group of three types, 1.5 – 2.5 mya. The last large group at top is Homo group of 6 types before modern man, called Homo sapiens-sapiens from 2 mya to the present.
The general scheme is the same in almost all institutions of learning in the world of science. The past twenty years have seen some modifications of the hominid lineage, adding and dropping, classification changes, and especially dates adjusted. Encyclopedia Britannica, Scientific America, and so many others offer the same theory of human origins. I give the National Geographic Society construction of the fossil remains.
2. “The Human Origins Project, a joint initiative of the National Geographic Society and the Turkana Basin Institute, will utilize cutting-edge technology to become the largest and most informative multilingual resource available on the subject of human evolution. Over the past 35 years, the Koobi Fora region in northern Kenya’s Turkana Basin has yielded a wealth of fossil material that has revealed a great deal of information about human history and origins. Some 16,000 fossils, including 350 hominid specimens, have been collected from the basin. The findings help scientists understand hominid behavior like tool use, piece together basic hominid lineages, and understand hominid diversity. Based on past successes in the Turkana Basin, researchers are hopeful that the next five to ten years of fieldwork will yield important new finds. Paleontologists are frequently discovering new sites, and greater numbers of students and professionals are now devoted to this project. Additionally, advances in technology are making paleontological and archaeological research more efficient and accurate. Using new methods of analyzing oxygen and carbon isotopes in fossils, scientists are now able to study the diet of extinct herbivores and the environments in which they lived. Satellite technology has also improved collection techniques and advanced computers can analyze and store more complex sets of data.
Project Goals: The Human Origins Project is the most ambitious and comprehensive undertaking of its kind; and researchers has high hopes for its outcomes. Goals of the mission include creating a Web resource that contributes to our understanding of human origins; educating and inspiring the next generation of scientists; providing means of research for global and indigenous paleontologists, geologists, scientists, and students; creating a collaborative community and virtual meeting space for anyone interested in human origins; and presenting a prehistory of early humans. Scientists in the field and in the lab are working hard to ensure the vast potential of the Human Origins Project is realized.
What Genes and Fossils Tell Us: Scientists have long held that modern humans originated in Africa because that’s where they’ve found the oldest bones. Geneticists have come to the same conclusion by looking at Africa’s vast genetic diversity, which could only have arisen as DNA mutated over millennia. There’s less consensus about the routes our ancestors took in their journey out of Africa and around the planet. Early migrations stalled but left behind evidence such as a human skull from 92,000 years ago at Qafzeh, Israel. Those people may have taken a northern route through the Nile Valley into the Middle East. But other emigrants who left Africa tens of thousands of years later could also have taken a different route: across the southern end of the Red Sea. Scientists say these more recent wanderers gave rise to the 5.5 billion humans living outside Africa today. “I think the broad human prehistoric framework is in place,” says geneticist Peter Forster of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, England, “and we are now fitting in the details.”.
1. African Cradle: Most paleoanthropologists and geneticists agree that modern humans arose some 200,000 years ago in Africa. The earliest modern human fossils were found in Omo Kibish, Ethiopia. Sites in Israel hold the earliest evidence of modern humans outside Africa, but that group went no farther, dying out about 90,000 years ago.
2. Out of Africa: Genetic data show that a small group of modern humans left Africa for good 70,000 to 50,000 years ago and eventually replaced all earlier types of humans, such as Neanderthals. All non- Africans are the descendants of these travelers, who may have migrated around the top of the Red Sea or across its narrow southern opening.
3. The First Australians: Discoveries at two ancient sites—artifacts from Malakunanja and fossils from Lake Mungo—indicated that modern humans followed a coastal route along southern Asia and reached Australia nearly 50,000 years ago. Their descendants, Australian Aborigines, remained genetically isolated on that island continent until recently.
4. Early Europeans: Paleoanthropologists long thought that the peopling of Europe followed a route from North Africa through the Levant. But genetic data show that the DNA of today’s western Eurasians resembles that of people in India. It’s possible that an inland migration from Asia seeded Europe between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago.
5. Populating Asia: Around 40,000 years ago, humans pushed into Central Asia and arrived on the grassy steppes north of the Himalaya. At the same time, they traveled through Southeast Asia and China, eventually reaching Japan and Siberia. Genetic clues indicate that humans in northern Asia eventually migrated to the Americas.
6. Into the New World: Exactly when the first people arrived in the Americas is still hotly debated. Genetic evidence suggests it was between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago, when sea levels were low and land connected Siberia to Alaska. Ice sheets would have covered the interior of North America, forcing the new arrivals to travel down the west coast.
3. “. . . documents summarizing the hominid fossil record and hypothesized lines of human evolution from 5 million years ago to the present. Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term “hominid” refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla. According to The Tree of Life by Guillaume Lecointre and Hervי Le Guyader (Harvard University Press: 2006), the similarly named and easily confused categories of humans and near human apes, in order of increasing inclusiveness, are: Hominini: -modern humans and all previous human, australopithecine, paranthropine and ardipithecine ancestors. Homininae: – all of the above, plus chimpanzees (Panini), our closest living biological kin (a genetic kinship so close that some scientists have suggested their genus name should be changed from Pan to Homo). Hominidae: – all of the above, plus gorillas (Gorillinae). Hominoidae: – all of the above, plus orangutans (Pongidae). Hominoidea: – all of the above, plus gibbons (Hylobatoidae).”
6. Biblical Historical Criticism: Spinoza:
We read in Spinoza’s Tractate (Treatise) Theological-Political of 1670, he seeks freedom of speech. Cites 1st John 4:13: Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.”
He writes in the Preface: Without rules or fortune men are lead to superstition; they become insulted by others questioning them or they go begging and praying for any counsel from anyone. Superstition preys on the victims of greed and slanders Reason, and breeds fear. He attempts to expose false Religion with its countless misconceptions which seeks to enslave man. The causes that that led to the Treatise: are the mutual hatred of Christians for one another, Jews against Jews, Turks against Turks, and all against each other, and Heathen against each. The Religious intolerance and hypocrisy. The Churches commerce of God’s religion. The Pretense of admiration and belief in Holy Writ, but instead teaching philosophies of Plato and Aristotle guised in divine inspiration, mere formal faith and ignorance of the Bible itself, but adherents of its teachers. The hatred against human reason made him, he says he “determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down. With these precautions I constructed a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to inquire. . .”
“Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and easily to be grasped by all, and further, that they clothed their teaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons, which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on totally different footings. In order to set this forth categorically and exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which the Bible should be interpreted and show that all knowledge of spiritual questions should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of ordinary knowledge. Thence I pass on to indicate the false notions, which have arisen from the fact that the multitude—ever prone to superstition and caring more for the shreds of antiquity than for eternal truths—pays homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God. I show that the Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, but was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the Divine mind, namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it willingly, and with their whole heart.”
First, he gives his detail analysis and hermeneutical opinions of Prophecy, definition and distinction, of Moses superior to other prophets, of Christ superior to Moses, but all by mental process of mind or imagination. The ambiguity of “Spirit” or spirit allows for many senses. The Prophets use prophetic imagination and trances only to direct men to God and from evil. Divine Laws are the best in humanity and aligns with God’s dignity and nature as understood by reason. Ceremonial Laws are temporary and partial as attested by both Old and New Testaments. Miracles cannot be a violation of natural, which is absurdity, but may appear so, or so interpreted in ignorance, for edification. God’s providence is the course of nature. Scripture miracles are a matter of the systems of interpretation, which is limited and partial at the present. The various interpretations among Jews and Christians rival each other to the negation of the supernatural, which refutes, along with the teaching of Maimonides, and the traditions of Pharisees and Papists. After dealing with the prophetic books, he examines the Pentateuch, advocating that that Moses authorship is only in Deuteronomy, and that all the other books as well as the rest of the older historical books are of late authorship, and suggests that Ezra compiled them along with Deuteronomy which appears to be the first written and edited, and later still others added and edited. He continues his criticism of the rest of the books of the Old Testament, pointing out as he had earlier all the passages suggesting editorial hands, unknown authorship, dubious origins, partial revision and harmonization, as well as legends added to the corpus, along with a host of examples of scribal and textual variants, and peculiarities of Hebrew grammar. He declines to examine the New Testament as he has the Old but offers his version of apostolic inspiration and the letters and the Gospel accounts are not prophetic revelation but human illumination, and the same development formed its books. The Word of God is not limited to exact transmission of text in letters or books, but the Divine Word will always abide despite the fallibility of man and church. Reason and faith are not in conflict except in misunderstandings; faith and love are for good works, scripture is not completed except by theologians and philosophers. Reason and faith have each their independent domain which allows acceptance to Scripture authority, but not subservient to it or the other accommodated to it. Authority belongs to God and Nature as co-equal and co-extensive, and this applies to man’s state as in nature, and his subjection is not slavery, and it is applicable to the state and religion. . . “ Throughout Spinoza admits his novelty and speculation, his partial understanding, and his novel theories, and he denies that he has in any way said anything contrary to Scripture or to God.
7. Higher Criticism of the Old Testament: Documentary Theory: (I recently collected for Archive.org uploads the Works of Bishop Colenso and thought of selecting from his publications of the Pentateuch and Joshua examples of Old Testament higher criticism as they call it, since he was in many ways a father of this modern documentary theory. But after going through his volumes, it appears that others have perfected their craft better than he, even if with a more anti and critical spirit. Dillmann still seems to be a better example, though tedious reading, of the school that to this day, though greatly diluted, continues antagonistic to the historical veracity of the Bible, breeding little scholars, like serpents, speaking of what they know not.)
“”Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded” by Dr. August Dillmann, late Professor of Theology in Berlin Translated from the last German Edition by WM.R. Stevenson, B.D. Two Volumes, Published in 1897 by T&T Clark in Edinburgh. [Student and friend of Ewald and Baur, co-author with Knobel’s commentaries. He was an accomplished Ethiopic scholar influencing modern Ethiopic Biblical studies.] (“The name of August Dillmann (1823-1894) and the value of his work have long been familiar to English students of Old Testament Literature. A translator of his Commentary on Genesis has therefore only to speak of the editions of the original, and of any features of the translation which require remark. The edition (1892) from which the present translation is made is generally quoted as the sixth. It is, however, only the fourth from Dillmann’s own hand. His first edition was a revision of a commentary by August Knobel, which had already passed through two editions. What still remains of this original is indicated in the text by quotation marks, with or without mention of Knobel’s name. The present translation is in two volumes, for the whole of which the writer of the Preface is finally responsible; but the general form of the first volume and nearly all the additional matter in it (in square brackets) is due to another hand. This has occasioned a certain want of uniformity in minor matters (style, use of footnotes, spelling of proper names), and the retention of Dillmann’s “Jahve” for Yahweh or Jehovah, and of his symbols A, B, and C, which hoped that the lexical indexes may prove to be of special value, as facilitating study of the sources of Genesis, and of Dillmann’s contribution to that study. The spelling adopted in the case of proper names may also be referred to. It seems to the writer that there must be compromise, following Dillmann’s example, between traditional spelling and accurate transliteration. But though this may be acknowledged, there can be little hope meantime of general agreement in actual practice. The spellings adopted are therefore tentative, and even inconsistency may be pardoned. . . . . His views regarding the composition of the Hexateuch are contained in a most valuable treatise printed as an appendix to Num. Deut. u. Josh. might otherwise have been replaced by P, E, and J. Regarding the last point, it seems to the writer that the substitution ought still to be made by any future translator of Dillmann. In the author’s own preface he says that it was the need of maintaining uniformity with the other volumes of his Hexateuch commentary which compelled him to retain the symbols A, B, and C instead of those now customary (P, E, and J). . . . The chief external feature of the translation, as compared with the original, is the more readable form in which it appears. Contractions have largely been dispensed with, except in the case of the numerous references to periodicals, the use of footnotes has greatly relieved the text, and the division into paragraphs makes reference easier. These changes of form have in some cases made slight transpositions of the text advisable (e.g. vol. ii. p. 14, lines 4—7 occur further down in the German text). Where misprints, principally of figures, have been detected, they are in general silently corrected (but see, e.g., vol. ii. p. 13, note 1). Dillmann’s references are generally to the German translations of English and French works. In these cases, so far as possible, references to the originals have been added in square brackets, or have sometimes been directly substituted (frequently in the case of Robinson’s Palestine). All other additions by the translator are in square brackets. On p. 22 ff. and on pp. 36, 37 of vol. i. there are, however, square brackets which have been retained from the German edition.”)
From Preliminary Remarks and Chapters 1 and 2:
Genesis, like the rest of the Hexateuch, notwithstanding that in it a distinct literary plan is carried out, is not the uniform work of a single author, but is a combination of several works which at one time circulated independently. [Note: I was going to change the archaic usage of Roman numerals which was so popular for far too long, to the modern practice, but I figured it was best to let the scholarly practice stand as is, since it matches their intellectual conceit.]
That it is not a literary unity is already apparent after a more exact examination of the actual contents of the book. There are found in it all sorts of seemingly needless repetitions (e.g. xxi. la alongside of 16, or iv. 25 f. alongside of v. 1-6, or xlvii. 29 ff. alongside of xlix. 29 ff.); also, two or more accounts of the same thing, not merely such as might, with a stretch, be explained by supposing that the author actually assumed different occurrences or wished to indicate the wavering of tradition (e.g. the varying legends about the seizure of the patriarch’s wife, xii. 10 f., xx. 1 ft’., xxvi. 7 ff.; or about Hagar and Ishmael, xvi. 1 ff’., xxi. 12 fi’.; or the double covenant of God with Abram, chs. xv. and xvii.; the double blessing of Jacob by Isaac, xxvii. 1 ff. and xxviii. 1 ff.; the double promise of a son to Sarah, xvii. 17 and xviii. 10 ff.; the triple explanation of the name Isaac, xvii. 17, xviii. 12, xxi. 6; the double explanation of the names Edom, xxv. 25, 30, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, xxx. 16-18, 20, 23 f., or Mahanaim, xxxii. 3, 8; comp. also on Ishmael, xvi. 11 ff. and xxi. 17, on Peniel, xxxii. 31 and xxxiii. 10), but also such as mutually exclude one another, because the thing can have happened only once, or in one way (see, e.g. on the course of creation, chs. i. and ii.; on the number of the animals taken into the ark, and the duration of the Flood, ch. vi. f.; on the scattering of the peoples, chs. x. and xi. 1 ff., also x. 2 5; or on the origin of the names Beersheba, xxi. 31, xxvi. 33, Israel, xxxii. 29, xxxv. 10, Bethel, together with the consecration of the Bethel pillar, xxviii. 18 f., xxxv. 14 f.; or on the encounter with the Shechemites, chs. xxxiv. and xlviii. 22; or the treatment of Joseph by his brethren and the merchants who brought him to Egypt, xxxvii. 19-36). But other irreconcilable statements also are not wanting, e.g. about the reduction of the duration of man’s life to a hundred and twenty years (vi. 3 against ch. v. 11, etc.); or that Abraham, after the death of Sarah, still begat many sons (xxv. 1 ff. against xviii. 11 f., xvii. 17); that Esau on Jacob’s return from Mesopotamia was already settled in Seir (xxxii. 4 ff. against xxxvi. 6); that Rebecca’s nurse first comes with Jacob from Mesopotamia (xxxv. 8 against xxiv. 59); that all the sons of Jacob were born in Padan-Aram (xxxv. 26 against ver. 16 ff.); or the different names of the wives of Esau (xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9 against xxxvi. 2 f.); or about Joseph’s Egyptian master, xxxvii. 36, xxxix. 1—xl. 4, or the statement xlii. 27, xliii. 21, beside xliii. 35. Notices like iv. 14 f., 17, are, in the place where they now stand, enigmatical. In particular, the chronology which lies at the basis of the book does not fit in with all the parts of the narrative, e.g. that of the age of Sarah, xvii. 17, comp. xii. 4, does not agree with xii. 11, xx. 2 ff.; nor that of Ishmael, xvii. 24, xxi. 5, 8 with xxi. 15 ff.; nor that of the nearness of Isaac’s death, xxvii. 1f., 7, 10, 41 with xxxv. 28 and xxvi. 34; nor that of Rachel, xxxvii. 10 with xxxv. 19. Further, xxx. 25 ff. does not agree with xxxi . 38, 41 (see notes on ch. xxx. 25 ff.), nor the ages of Jacob’s sons given or presupposed in xxxii.-xxxvii., xxxix — xlv. with xlvi. 8-27 (see notes on ch. xxxv. 22 ff.). See also on ch. 1. 21. Indeed, narratives are even to be met with in which particular parts do not agree with the rest (e.g. xxxi. 48-50), or the conclusion with the beginning (xxiv. 62-67).
Such repetitions, disarrangements, contradictions, and chronological difficulties, are not explicable on the assumption that the book was composed as a unity; or are so only by help of most improbable suppositions constructed ad hoc. But further, the critical labour of scholars during a whole century has with certainty led to the recognition in the accounts of this book of different groups or strata, of which the several pieces are as closely related to each other, formally and materially, as they are distinguished from those of the other strata. More precisely there are three different writings, differentiated in respect of time and place of origin, contents, arrangement, aim, mode of representation and language, which have been discovered as lying at the basis of Genesis, and also as continued into the other books of the Hexateuch. The more precise proofs of this state of things are given in the Introductions to the exposition of the several sections. A summary of the results of these detailed investigations, together with a characterization of the individual writings and a discussion of their origin, will be found in the concluding treatise of this whole work, after the Book of Joshua. (Dillmann, Num. Deut. and Josh. p. 599 ff.) Here only thus much.
The writing designated by us A is that which was formerly called the writing of the Elohist because in it, down (Dillmann, Num. Deut. and Josh. p. 599 ff.) to the passage Ex. vi. 3, the divine name Jahve is avoided, and only Elohim, or on occasion El Shaddai, is used, or foundation-document—Grundschrift—because it forms the framework into which the other parts are laid, but recently for the most part the Priestly Writing (therefore designated P or PC, i.e. Priests’ Code, whereas the designation as Q, i.e. Quatuor, by Wellhausen,(So in Kautzsch-Socin, Die Genesis, 1891.) rests on the inapt assumption that the author reported four covenants).(See, on the contrary, Zeitschrift fur altt. Wissenschafi, xii. 1 and 20.) It is in the main a law writing; it seeks to lay down the laws, ordinances, institutions, and customs which prevail, or should prevail, among God’s people, and to explain their origin. It deals with the historical almost only in so far as that is useful or necessary for the understanding of the origin of these laws, etc. While therefore it gives indeed a sketch of the whole Preliminary and Primitive History from the Creation, it does so only to show how and wherefore, and by what stages and by means of what divine arrangements, the chosen people were gradually formed and taken out from the other and especially related peoples, and it enters into fuller descriptions only in connection with epoch-making occurrences (such as the Creation, Flood Covenant with Noah, Covenant with Abraham, Descent of the Patriarchs to Egypt), or with reference to occurrences on which laws are based (such as Gen. xvii. 23, xlviii. 3—8); for the rest, it narrates the facts, or the incidents held to be facts, only in a brief and dry (annalistic) style, partly in the form of genealogies (chs. v., xi. 10 ff., xxxv. 22 ff.) and statistical surveys (chs. x., xxv. 12 ff., xxxvi.), all the time, however, giving special attention to the working out of a fixed and orderly chronology. Its mode of statement is broad, circumstantial (because aiming at the utmost possible accuracy and definiteness), and juristically precise and formal; its language somewhat stiff and monotonous, confining itself within a rather limited circle of expressions, with many technical terms, by no means late Hebrew, but in many respects peculiar: just as the prophets, the gnomic poets, and the Psalmists, also formed their own peculiar speech. Its treatment of the material is pre-eminently of an erudite character, resting upon research, calculation, and reflection, and turning to account varied stores of knowledge, (E.g. chs. i., v., x. f., xxxvi., xlvi.; in matters of detail, e.g. chs. xxv. 16, xxxvi. 15.) but with a strong tendency to systematize and schematize. Its manner of speaking of God is austere and worthy, and makes no use even of the belief in angels, still less of that strongly anthropomorphic style of thinking and speaking, which came so near to being mythological, and which poets and popular speech delighted in. Without doubt its author belonged to the circle of the priests at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. A simple statement of the date of its composition cannot be given on account of the gradual remodeling and enlargement which it underwent (especially in Exod. Lev. and Num.) in exilic and post-exilic times. Yet the original writing undoubtedly dates back to the times of the kings of Israel. In Genesis, where it appears in its relatively purest form, chs. xvii. 6, 16, xxxv. 11, xxxvi 31 ff., and especially its description of the relations of the peoples in chs. x. and xxxvi., supply data for judging its date.
Of quite another character, in respect of their origin and their aim, are the two other writings. Only in the account of the activity of Moses do they to some extent deal with laws; otherwise, they are properly books of legend or history, whose purpose was, in the form of a survey attractively written, to give contemporaries, for their entertainment and instruction, information regarding what was still known or told about the olden times. In contrast to the sober intellectuality of the Priestly Writing, they are books of lifelike directness and poetic beauty. One of them, B, which, because it likewise calls God not Jahve but Elohim, is by many styled the writing of the Elohist (and therefore now by most designated E), may be named The Book of Israel’s Legendary History. It derives its contents partly, indeed, from older written documents, but mainly from orally transmitted legends as they existed among the midland, northern, and eastern tribes (Israel in distinction from Judah), and it preserves unchanged in its narratives the manner, tone, and color of this living legendary lore of the people. In the details of its contents this writing is the richest (in Gen. we know, e.g., only from it the names Eliezer, Deborah, Potiphar), and it gives much quite peculiar information, and many short utterances of the very oldest stamp (e.g. xxi. 27 ff., xv. 2, xx. 16, xlviii. 22). It is therefore much to be regretted that it has not been preserved for us in a more complete form. Many local legends of particular districts (e.g. also xxxi. 51 ff., xxxiii. 19, xxxv. 8, 20) were conjoined in it, and it has a special fondness for pointing out the origin of the ancient sanctuaries of the midland and eastern parts, as well as (comp. Amos v. 5, viii. 14) those of the far southwest (xxi. 31, xxii. 2 in its original form, xxviii. 17 f., xxxii. 2, 31, xxxiii. 20, xxxv. 4, 7, xlvi. 1 f.); but this does not entitle us to call it a priestly writing. (Stade, Gesch. 582.) A subject to which B devotes special attention is the glory of Joseph (Ephraim-Manasseh); in it the old standing of Reuben shines more distinctly through (xxxvii. 21, 29, xlii. 22, 37); Bethel is represented as a sanctuary at which tithes are paid (xxviii. 22); Shechem is expressly pointed out as the possession of Joseph (xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22); and Joseph receives a special blessing from Jacob (xlviii. 15 f., 20). These facts alone leave no room for doubting (comp. also ch. 1. 25 with Josh. xxiv. 32) its origin in Israel (in the narrower sense). It is demonstrable as a documentary source of Genesis, certainly from ch. xx., and with high probability it is also the source of ch. xv. In support of the position that the narratives wrought up in ch. xiv, as well as those in iv. 17 ff., vi. 1-4, ix. 20, belonged originally to it, much may be advanced; especially in chs. iv. and vi. the close approach shown to the Phoenician theories of the development of the earliest races of man, which is most easily explained in the case of a North-Israelite document. An account of the Flood it certainly never contained. In matters of worship it still shows quite the older free manner of the Israelitish tribes with their many sanctuaries (also Masseboth, xxviii. 22, xxxiii. 20; comp. xxxi. 51 f.), but it condemns the teraphim and other idolatrous things (xxxv. 2 £f.; comp. Josh. xxiv.). It speaks much of revelations of angels, and revelations by dreams or visions, expressly calls Abraham a prophet (xx. 7), and likes to point out the gradual realization, in the dispensations of Divine Providence, of God’s plan unveiled beforehand by revelation. It belongs, doubtless, to the age when the prophetic order nourished among the midland tribes, i.e. to the ninth century. (See Dillmann, Num. Deut. Josh. p. 621.) It is no longer comprehensible as a product of the time after the destruction of the northern kingdom, or as late as the seventh century, (Lagarde, Nathrichten der k. Geselhchaft d. Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1889, p. 321 f.) nor is this hypothesis aided by the Egyptian names in xxxvii. 36, xli. 45 (see note on ch. xli. 45). Much of its contents are no longer extant in its original form, but only as wrought up in combination with C.
The third writing, C, usually called that of the Jahvist [Jehovist] (because from the beginning it makes use of the name Jahve, therefore now mostly designated J), for a long time also, though wrongly, called the Supplementary Document—Erganzungsschrift—as if it had been written with the intention of supplementing A, was, no less than the others, originally an independent document, and may be distinguished from A as a prophetical, and from B as a Judaic writing. That it proceeded not from Ephraim (De Wette-Schrader, Lehrb. d. Einl* § 205; Reuse, Gesch. d. AT. § 213; Kuenen, Onderzoek1 i. § 224 f.) but from Judah, is demonstrable with certainty, even within Genesis itself, from its assigning the district of Hebron as the residence of Abraham (xiii. 18, xviii. 1) and of Jacob (? xxxvii. 14), from the prominence which it gives to Judah in the history of Joseph (xxxvii. 26 ff., xliii. 3 ff., xliv. 16 ff., xlvi. 28), as well as from ch. xxxviii. This is not refuted by the fact that, like B, and probably following the lead of B, it purposely takes notice of the holy places of northern Israel (xii. 6-8, xxviii. 13-16) and of the Negeb (xxi. 33, xxvi. 23-25). See, further, introd. notes to ch. xlix. and observe xxxiii. 17 as well as xxxii. 8 against xxxii. 2 f., where in the mention of such places it shows only an antiquarian, not a religious interest. In the primeval histories there is an unquestionable relationship between it and A both in respect of arrangement and of contents (history of creation, the original state, the genealogy of Noah, the story of the Flood, the ethnographical table). Also, in the Abraham section and onward, it has some narratives in common with A (separation from Lot, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Dinah; also xlvii. 1-11, xlvii. 29 ff. with xlix. 29 ff.). But elsewhere in the history of the patriarchs, especially in that of Jacob and Joseph, it shows itself most closely related to B; so much so, that most of its narratives from ch. xxvii. onwards have their perfect parallels in B, and it is necessary to assume the dependence of the one upon the other.
And, indeed, it is C that borrowed from B. This may be proved from the general consideration that just in the circle of legends about Jacob and Joseph, which must originally have been developed in Israel not in Judah, the relationship is most complete. It is established further by a comparison of the several parallel passages, which almost always shows, on the side of B more realistic detail, on that of C more scene painting, set speeches, and wealth of ideas, if there be left aside such isolated cases as those in which B has the more definite statements (e.g. xv. 2 against 3, xxxvii. 36 against xxxix. 1) and C the more general (e.g. xxvi. 1, 8, Philistines; xxxvii. 25 Ishmaelites, against 28 Midianites). Unquestionably this writer worked with the written material of B lying before him; and this fact often betrays itself even at points where no parallel narrative has survived from B (e.g. Gen. xii. 6-9, ch. xxvi.), especially in turns of expression (e.g. xxvi. 32, xxx. 35, 38, 41, etc.). The opposite view, (Wellhausen, Stade, Budde, Kuenen, Onderzoek, – 226 ff.) that C is older than B, cannot be proved in Genesis from a detailed comparison of the parallel accounts of the two narrators; (NDt. Jos. 630 f.; Kittel, Gesch. der Hebr. i. 69 ff. s NTH. Jos. 630 f) it can only be in some measure established by appeal to the fact that C, especially in the history of Moses and Joshua, has in many cases more ancient accounts than B. But, in truth, this is rather to be explained from the fact (NDt. Jos. 630 f.) that he has there followed older and better sources. For, of course, B is not his only source. Narratives like xii. 10 ff., xvi. 1 ff. (alongside of xxi. 9-21), xxv. 29 ff. etc., show that he has drawn much of his material, quite independently of B, either from current legend or from written documents lying before him; and this apart from the many passages which he and A have peculiar to themselves. On the whole, one may safely say that he represents the legendary history as it was told in Judah, or from the Judaic point of view. But yet more important peculiarities are discovered, if one looks to the contents and form of his narratives. For in the same measure in which, in respect of realistic contents, he falls short of B, he surpasses him (and much more so A) in thoughtful apprehension, vivid lively description, smooth, and, at the same time, charming and interesting delineation and artistic rounding off of his narratives. Many of his passages that we still have complete (e.g. ch. ii. f., xi. 1-9, xviii. f., xxiv., xliii. f.) are masterpieces of the art of narration, with which only a few passages from B, like ch. xxii., can be compared. Not less distinguished, however, are they by the fullness of fine instructive thoughts, and of weighty, ethieoreligious truths which the author had the skill to breathe into his legendary histories, or rather to elicit from them, without taking away anything of their poetic character and the childlike simplicity of expression, which adhered to them as they came from the lips of the people. Especially of all three narrators does he show the deepest knowledge of the nature, origin, and growth of sin in mankind; of the counter action of God against it; of His plan of salvation (iii. 15 f., v. 29, viii. 21 f., ix. 26 f., xii. 2 f., xviii. 19); of the calling and training of the divinely chosen instruments to faith, obedience, and virtuous conduct; of the destination of Israel to be a blessing to the nations. So, it is already in Genesis, where he represents the patriarchs as essentially types and patterns. In the course of the work these more profound ideas come out yet more distinctly and make themselves strongly felt also in the polemic against the idolatrous and disobedient character of the people of Israel.1(In opposition to the judgment passed on him by Stade, Geseh. 547.) The ideas and knowledge by which the author is influenced are those of the prophets; and as we may therefore call himself in a certain sense a prophetic narrator, so we may also from this conjecture his era to be the time of the activity of the great prophets; which conjecture is then abundantly confirmed by many other indications. No particularly high antiquity need be demanded for him, neither because of the naive way in which he speaks of God, (Ch. ii. f. (see p. 97), vi. 6, vii. 16, viii. 21, xi. 5 f., xviii 1 ff., 17-21.)—for that does not uniformly characterize all his passages and is therefore conditioned rather by the subject and the source, —nor even because of the “unrestrainedness” with which from the beginning of things onward he makes use of the name Jahve, (Ch. ii. f. contrasted with Ex. vi. 3 ff. from A and Ex. iii. 13 ff. from B.) and makes mention of, or presupposes, even in the earliest times, sacrifice (iv. 3 f.), altar (viii. 20 f.), the distinction of clean and unclean (vii. 2 ff.), and the oracle of Jahve (xxv. 22 f.); for the passages quoted in the notes on ch. iv. 26 plainly show that, in his case also, there is already implied and carried out a theory of the origin of the service of the true God.
In language, too, as well as in his whole style of narrative, C stands much closer to B than to A; and although between them also all sorts of finer distinctions are to be found, yet it is often very difficult or impossible to make a complete separation between them, where their narratives have been worked into each other by later editors, and material criteria are wanting. The assumption that B as well as C, before they came into their present connection with one another, passed through several editions, (Kuenen, Ondarzoek, * 242 ff.) might be in itself possible, but with reference at least to B in Genesis (and in the other books) is not supported by any satisfactory proofs. In C we no doubt meet with heterogeneous sections, (See on chs. iv., vi. 1-4, xi. 1-9.) which might recommend that hypothesis, but only in the primitive history, not in the further course of the work; (See especially notes on xii. 10 ft’., and notes on xviii. 17 ff.) and since, for the rest, throughout all these passages the marks of C, in respect of form and language, are uniformly present, another explanation of that phenomenon is to be preferred. (See on chs. iv., vi. 1-4, xi. 1-9.) Under C, therefore, in what follows we shall include the whole of the sections of this document, without raising the question of its sources or prior stages.
If one inquires as to the manner in which Genesis has been worked up out of the three original documents, it may be said generally that A’s writing, with its continuous chronology and its sharply-marked division of sections, forms the framework or outline into which the accounts of the others are introduced; but also that in the choice and combination of the material, Cs range of ideas was the standard, and that his prophetic conceptions of sin and grace, of the saving purpose of God, of the divine training of the patriarchs to be ancestors of the people of God, are repeatedly made still more conspicuous by express remarks;2 and, generally, that attention is directed for the most part to that which seemed most serviceable for the religious discipline and instruction, as well as for the moral and national culture, of the people. In the preliminary remarks to the explanation of the several sections, a description is given of the way in which on these lines the work took shape in respect of connection and general plan. We anticipate that much which did not serve the purpose held in view was set aside or abbreviated: passages like iv. 17—24, vi. 1-4, xxx. 32-42, mere excerpts from fuller accounts, had perhaps been already shortened by 0 himself; but, e.g., the isolated mention of Isaiah (xi. 29), of the consanguinity of Abraham and Sarah (xx. 12), of the vow of the tenth (ch. xxviii. 22) without mention of fulfillment in ch. xxxv. 7, or the information given in xlviii. 22, plainly point to omissions in the compilation. On examination we find that up to ch. xi. 26 the accounts of A are doubtless given completely; that, on the other hand, the beginning of his history of Abraham which stood before……
If one inquires as to the manner in which Genesis has been worked up out of the three original documents, it may be said generally that A’s writing, with its continuous chronology and its sharply-marked division of sections, forms the framework or outline into which the accounts of the others are introduced; but also that in the choice and combination of the material, Cs range of ideas was the standard, and that his prophetic conceptions of sin and grace, of the saving purpose of God, of the divine training of the patriarchs to be ancestors of the people of God, are repeatedly made still more conspicuous by express remarks; (Especially chs. xv. 6 f., 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 36-5.) and, generally, that attention is directed for the most part to that which seemed most serviceable for the religious discipline and instruction, as well as for the moral and national culture, of the people. In the preliminary remarks to the explanation of the several sections, a description is given of the way in which on these lines the work took shape in respect of connection and general plan. We anticipate that much which did not serve the purpose held in view was set aside or abbreviated: passages like iv. 17—24, vi. 1-4, xxx. 32-42, mere excerpts from fuller accounts, had perhaps been already shortened by 0 himself; but, e.g., the isolated mention of Isaiah (xi. 29), of the consanguinity of Abraham and Sarah (xx. 12), of the vow of the tenth (ch. xxviii. 22) without mention of fulfillment in ch. xxxv. 7, or the information given in xlviii. 22, plainly point to omissions in the compilation. On examination we find that up to ch. xi. 26 the accounts of A are doubtless given completely; that, on the other hand, the beginning of his history of Abraham which stood before ch. xii., the revelation of God to Isaac (see xxxv. 12), the residence of Jacob in Padan-Aram, and the whole of the history of Joseph before the removal of Jacob into Egypt, are left out, perhaps because in part they were too little in accord with the narratives of the other documents used. Vice versa, the sections of C are abbreviated. In the primitive histories (Chs. ii. 5 f., iv. 25 f., in the story of the Flood, in the ethnographical table; elsewhere xvi. 15 f., xxi. 2 ff., xxv. 7 ff., xxxii. 4, xxxv. 28 f.) and in the undernoted passages, the abbreviation is in favor of A, elsewhere in the patriarchal histories mostly only in favor of B. From the source B itself, apart from the history of Joseph (which, it seems, was one of the most beautiful parts of the work), relatively fewer passages are communicated word for word (from ch. xx. onward); usually they are expanded by notices from C, or what was remarkable in them has been incorporated into the sections of C.
Wherever it was at all practicable, or seemed requisite, the very words of the sources have been reproduced in the compilation, and it is just to the many pieces of narrative retained unchanged that we are indebted for a more accurate knowledge of the character of these sources. But a simple placing of their sections alongside of one another 2 (As we have ch. ii. f. alongside of ch. i., ch. xxvii. alongside of xxvi. 34 f., and xxviii. 1-9, xlviii. 3-7 alongside of xlviii. 9-22.) was not always possible and would not always have served the end in view. Facts, such as the birth or death of a man, even if they were narrated in all the sources, could only be told in the words of one of these. But even where the original narratives agreed only in the main while divergent in details, simple juxtaposition of the documents would have involved many repetitions. In such cases the documents used have been worked into one another, the one most suitable for the end in view being made the foundation, and what was peculiar in one or both of the others being inserted in it in the place best suited. (Chs. vii. f., x., xvi., xxv., xxvii.-xxviii., xxxix.-l.) But, naturally, it was not always possible that the several passages, culled from two or three writings, should without more ado allow of being placed alongside of one another, or fitted into each other. Either the most contradictory statements occurring in one or other must be omitted, (E.g. ch. xxi. 17ff., the etymology of the name Ishmael; ch. xxxii. 8, that of Mahanaim; ch. xxxiii. 10, that of Peniel; a proper name, ch. xxxi. 25.) or parts manifestly separate must be stitched together by little interspersed additions or remarks, and what was still in contradiction harmonized. Many such joinings and other artificial devices are quite perceptible. (E.g. in chs. iv. 25, x. 24, xxi. 14, xxvi . la, 15, 18, xxxv. 9, xxxvii. 56, 86, xxxix. 1, 20, xliii. 14, xlvi. 1.)
Among these artificial devices for the purpose of producing a readable whole, are to be classed, e.g., the employment before ch. xvii. of the names Abram and Sarai throughout all the sections or of the double name Jahve Elohim throughout ch. ii. f., or the change of Elohim into Jahve, xvii. 1, xxi. 1. An expedient often employed for the same purpose was the transposition of whole passages, (As chs. xi. 1-9, xii. 10-20, xxv. 5f., 116, xxv. 21 ff., xlvii. 12 ft) or of shorter statements, (As chs. ii. 4a, xxxi. 45-50, xxxvii. 26, etc) which then again made all sorts of short additions by the compiler necessary. (As chs. i. 1, ix. 18, xiii. 1, 3f., xxiv. 62.) In other passages the statements of the documents used are epitomized in a free manner, (E.g. chs. vii. 7-9, 22, xv. 7 f., xxxi. 45 ff., xxxvi., xlvi. 8-27.) and here and there detached sentences are added by way of bringing about a harmony. (E.g. chs. xxi. 34, xxxv. 5, xxvii. 46, xlvi. 12-20) Explanatory glosses also were occasionally inserted, (E.g. chs.xx. 18, xxxi. 47, xxxv. 6, or inch. xiv. where many such are found. (Chs. xv. 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 3b-5.) , perhaps also iv. 15a.) some of them, perhaps, first from a later hand. Besides, all sorts of smaller insertions are found which are not derived from the sources but were made only during or even after the redaction, partly in order to provide standard points of view for the conception of the subject, (Chs. xv. 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 3b-5.) partly in order to bring about harmony with statements occurring elsewhere, (Chs. xxv. 186, xxxv. 22a, perhaps also iv. 15a.) and partly in order to introduce detached notices, or new aspects of the legend not noted in the chief sources. (Chs. x. 9, xxxii. 33; perhaps ii. 10-14, and in x. 14 ; xi. 286, 316, xxxvii. 2*; further, chs. xv. 7, xxii. 2, 14, xv. 19-21, xxxiv. 136, 27-29, xlv. 19 f., 21* xlvi. 5*.)
That finally, notwithstanding all these methods, all kinds of incompatibilities and contradictions, especially in chronological matters, have still been left standing in the work thus originated, is not surprising. But they are for the most part discernible only upon a more careful examination, and could, in contrast to the importance of the contents of the inserted sections, be regarded as of secondary importance. Though in itself quite conceivable, it seems unnecessary to assume that during or after the redaction entirely new passages also, which had nothing corresponding to them in the three sources, were inserted; (See on Gen. xiv.) but certainly passages like chs. xiv. and xv. belong to those which have been most freely recast.
Finally, the further question still arises, as to whether the three documents ABC have been wrought up by one or by several redactors (R). Formerly, (Hupfeld and others.) the former hypothesis was the prevalent one. Recently, it has been contested by all who hold A to be the latest document in the Hexateuch and post-exilic, and it is maintained rather that B and C, after each of them separately had passed through several enlarged editions, were at length combined, and that at a later period by yet another hand they were joined to D (Deuteronomy), before a final redactor, R, wrought A into this composite work. (E.g. Bleek-Wellhausen, EM. in das AT* 118; Kayser, Kuenen, Budde.) This view of the process is at bottom only an inference from the opinion held regarding the age of A, and its validity can therefore be tested only in connection with the discussion of the origin of the documentary sources of the Hexateuch. (See Dillmann, Num. Deut. Josh. 675 ff.) Only this much may here be said, that if not D, then certainly if (who incorporated Deut. into the Pentateuch), knew A and made use of his writing. But even apart from this particular representation of the process, there would still remain the possibility that B and C were first of all worked together, and that only subsequently was A combined with BC.
What may be inferred from Genesis itself as to this question is the following. It is admitted that in the redaction not only was BC enlarged or enriched by additions from A, but also that C was mutilated in favor of A (e.g. chs. i.-xi.), as, conversely, A in favor of C (chs. xii.—l.). This is very well explained if R looked upon the whole three documents as merely private writings. On the other hand, the depreciation and mutilation of BC would be in the highest degree strange, if it were already an integral part of a work become almost sacred, which included in itself also the publicly acknowledged Deuteronomy and had now been read for more than a century. An explanation might be attempted by such an assertion as that it is a matter of the introduction of a stricter chronology, or the insertion of additions regarded as in other respects important. It would be remarkable enough, on such a supposition, that just these latest incorporations often contain the most ancient representations of things; (See on i. 2, 5, 7, 29 f., vii. 11, x. 2-5, 22 f.) it would be quite indiscoverable for what purpose disconnected fragments or repetitions which added nothing to the narrative (As xiii. 6, 116, 12, xix. 29, xxi. 16, xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18, xxxv. 6.) had been introduced from A, or why, in relating facts like the birth (xvi. 15, xxi. 2 f.) or death (xlix. 33) of a man, which surely BC had also mentioned, the words of BC should be replaced by words of A, or why from the quite new document A there should be inserted, by way of revision, such contradictions as stand in xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9, contrasted with xxxvi. 2 f. When, further, it is urged that C and B are combined in a way altogether different from that in which they are united with A, and that consequently this was done by another hand and at an earlier time, (Wellhausen, JBDTh. xxi. 425. [See p. 25.]) this proof also cannot be regarded as sufficient. The pieces of C and B are indeed much more frequently fused into one single piece; yet not because another hand worked them together, but because C stood fundamentally in the closest relationship with B (§ 3), and in many of its narratives the differences were concerned with mere trifles, where it was sufficient to reproduce one of the two, and to add from the other only a few words or sentences. (As, e.g., chs. xxvii., xxix., xli. f.) But neither is it true that this has been always possible with C and B, 2 (For, e.g., xxvi. 25-33 from C stands alongside of xxi. 22-32 from B, or xxx. 31-43 from C alongside of xxxi. 7-13 from B, just as from G chs. ii. f. or xv. stand alongside of chs. i. or xvii. from A.) nor are there wanting between C and A, where the similarity of contents admits of it, mixed passages fused together like a mosaic. (E.g. Gen. vi. 9-ix. 17, or xxi. 1-7, or ch. xxxiv.; others in Ex.) It is just the thorough similarity in the method of combining C with B and C with A, which is equally seen in Ex., etc., that speaks strongly in favor of the idea that the same hand effected both combinations. Further, there are sections of A, like chs. xxxvi. or xlvi. 8—27, which are quite evidently not worked into a text of Bcb, but rather corrected according to BC (comp. also xlviii. 5); just as in xlix. 33, in the midst of the text of A, a fragment of C appears. Moreover, even in such passages as certainly do not belong to A (like xiv. 11 f., xvi.-xxi.), and in the harmonistic junction of B and C (xliii. 14), or in the redaction of the C sections (xxvi. 1), the redactor R often writes the language of A, just as in the incorporating of A he uses the language of C (xxvii. 46), quite apart from cases like chs. vi. 7, xiii. 3, xv. 14 f., where in redactional additions to sections of C or BC (which, however, are occasioned by the incorporation of A sections into Genesis) we find the language of A. Accordingly it seems, if one takes Genesis into consideration by itself, that a simultaneous working together of the three documents is not excluded but rather recommended, and hence in what follows we speak only for brevity’s sake of B.
On the other hand, it must be admitted as a possibility that, not indeed the insertion of whole large passages like chs. xiv., xxxiv., but that certain of the supplements, adjustments, glosses, and other alterations, were first introduced by later hands. In regard to several passages it is almost certain that the text, at a later period (in part only after the time of the LXX.), was altered, (E.g. iv. 18, xxi. 14, 16, xxxi. 45, xlvii. 5-7, also partly the numbers in ch. v. 11.) or corrupted, (E.g. iv. 8, x. 5, xxiv. 22, 29 f., xxx. 32, xxxviii., xli. 456, 48, 56, xlvii. 21, xlix. 26.) or glossed. (Ch. xlv. 23; perhaps also elsewhere in chs. xxxix.-xlv. and xlvii. 12-26. by Lange, 1874; vol. iii. Deut., by F. W. J. Schroder, 1866; vol. iv. Josua, by Fay, 1870 [Eng. trans., i. Gen., ii. Ex. and Lev., iii. Num. and Deut., iv. Josh. Jud. and Ruth]; Ed. Keuss, La bible, traduction nouvelle, etc., Paris, 1875 ff. (pt. iii. L’histoire sainte et la loi, Pentat. et Jos. 1879, 2 vols.); F. C. Cook, The Holy Bible with an explanatory and critical Commentary (also called The Speaker’s Commentary), in 6 vols. [on 0. T.] Lond. 1871-1876 (for present purpose, vols. i. 1, 2, ii.); D. Steel and J. W. Lindsay, Comm. on the Old Test., New York, 1891 (vol. ii. Lev. Num. Deut).) The critical proof does not reach down to the most minute particulars, e.g. as to whether, in ch. xxx. 18, already R, or only a later hand, wrote sifhati for amati. In passages like chs. xxvi. 3-5, xlv. 20* are seen traces even of the hand of P*.”
(We have taken pains to look at the critics’ criticisms, not only what is cited but many thousands of pages with their thousands of instances of objections to the full or divine inspiration of the Bible. If the Biblical textual critics are correct we have a human Bible without the Divine authorship at work, for Scripture, says the Lord Jesus, cannot be broken, that not a dot or letter of the law shall disappear, that His words last forever. If Moses did not receive from God the words and teachings that are recorded in his five books, then we are done with a Holy Bible, we would have only a common book, a vulgar scripture, and all that is witnessed of God from Moses to Malachi and the New Testament is made void, Christ rejected and shamed, and we are still in our sins and sorry state. I do not deny the peculiarities that they point out, nor do we need to fear all the human elements that come along with the divine word. Like nature the Bible is not just spirit and life, not only sense and symbols, but like the soul is clothed in a body suited to its order and use, a divine vessel. As with the universe, we have in human progress of sciences, as formerly with philosophies, and before them religion and theology, come to understand books and writings in a way to uncover many secrets and dispel superstition and fictions. I have had to examine myself and my beliefs repeatedly and now before my departure I set my own seal and witness that God is true if all else are lies. We have not spared our own search and research, investigating the investigators. In Genesis One we have God and cosmology, in chapter Two we have the Lord God and anthropology, we cannot here reflect on psychology properly without searching out the origins of fallen human nature which has changed the relations and condition of man. We move on to chapter three still dealing with the Generations of the Heavens and Earth in regards to man from Adam to Noah.)