Chapter VI: Introduction (4)

No critical operation is easier or more certain than the
separation of this work, down even to very small fragments,
from the context in which it is embedded. When this is done, and
the fragments pieced together, we have before us, almost in its
original integrity, an independent document, which is a _source_,
as well as the framework, of Genesis. We have seen (page xli)
that the opposite opinion is maintained by Klostermann and Orr,
who hold that Priestly-Code is merely a supplementing redactor
of, or ‘collaborator’ with, Jehovist. But two facts combine to
render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments
form a consecutive history, in which the _lacunæ_ are very few
and unimportant, and those which occur are easily explicable
as the result of the redactional process. The precise state
of the case is as follows: In the primæval history no _hiatus_
whatever can be detected. Dr. Orr’s assertion (_The Problem of
the Old Testament_, 348 f.) that Priestly-Code’s account of the
Flood _must_ have contained the episodes of the birds and the
sacrifice, because both are in the Babylonian version, will
be worth considering when he has made it probable either that
Priestly-Code had ever read the Babylonian story, or that, if
he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter
of fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we
shall see presently, Noah’s sacrifice is an incident which
Priestly-Code would certainly have suppressed if he had known
of it.――In the history of Abraham there is again no reason
to suspect any omission. Here is a literal translation of the
_disjecta membra_ of Priestly-Code’s epitome of the biography
of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse
transposed (19²⁹): 12⁴ᵇ “Now Abram was 75 years old when he went
out from Ḥarran. ⁵ And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his
brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had acquired,
and all the souls whom they had procured; and they went out to
go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.
13⁶ And the land could not bear them so that they might dwell
together, for their possessions were great, and they were not
able to dwell together. ¹¹ᵇ So they separated from one another:
¹²ᵃᵇ Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the
cities of the Oval. 19²⁹ And when God destroyed the cities
of the Oval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from
the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in
which Lot dwelt.――16¹ Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no
children. ³ So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her
maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and
gave her to Abram her husband for a wife to him. ¹⁵ And Hagar
bore to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom
Hagar bore to him Ishmael. ¹⁶ And Abram was 86 years old when
Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.――17¹ And when Abram was 99 years
old, _Yahwe_ appeared to Abram, and said to him,” etc. Here
follows the account of the covenant with Abraham, the change
of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of circumcision,
and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah (chapter
17).――The narrative is resumed in 21¹ᵇ “And _Yahwe_ did to
Sarah as he had spoken, ²ᵇ at the appointed time which God had
mentioned. ³ And Abraham called the name of his son who was born
to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. ⁴ And Abraham circumcised
Isaac his son when he was 8 days old, as God had commanded him.
⁵ And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born
to him.――23¹ And the life of Sarah was 127 years; ² and Sarah
died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.”
This introduces the story of the purchase of Machpelah as a
burying-place (chapter 23), and this brings us to――25⁷ “And
these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he
lived: 175 years; ⁸ and he expired. And Abraham died in a good
old age, an old man and full [of years], and was gathered to his
father’s kin. ⁹ And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the
cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the
Hittite, which is opposite Mamre: ¹⁰ the field which Abraham
bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and
Sarah his wife.――¹¹ And after the death of Abraham, God blessed
Isaac his son.” The reader can judge for himself whether
a narrative so continuous as this, every isolated sentence
of which has been detached from its context by unmistakable
criteria of the style of Priestly-Code, is likely to have been
produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an
older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19²⁹,
let him note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its
present position that verse is, considered as a supplement to
19¹⁻²⁸.――In the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there
are undoubtedly omissions which _we_ can only supply from
Jehovist; and if we were to judge from these parts alone, the
supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is. We
miss, _e.g._, accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob’s
arrival in Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel,
of the birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt,
his reconciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other
particulars. Even here, however, the theory is absolutely
negatived by the contradictions to Jehovist which will be
specified immediately. Dr. Orr’s argument on this point (_The
Problem of the Old Testament_, 343 ff.) really assumes that
the account of Jehovist is the _only_ way in which the gaps of
Priestly-Code could be filled up; but the examination of the
story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts
are fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome
of the history, similar to that of the history of Abraham, has
been abridged in the redaction, by the excision of a very few
sentences, in favour of the fuller narrative of Jehovist.――(2)
The second fact which makes Dr. Orr’s hypothesis untenable is
this, that in almost every instance where Priestly-Code expands
into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the
events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents.
The difference between Priestly-Code’s cosmogony and Yahwist’s
account of the Creation is such that it is ludicrous to speak
of the one as a supplement or a ‘framework’ to the other; and
the two Flood stories are hardly less irreconcilable (see page
148). In the life of Abraham, we have two parallel accounts
of the covenant with Abraham in chapter 15 (Jehovist) and 17
(Priestly-Code); and it is evident that the one supersedes and
excludes the other. Again, Priestly-Code’s reason for Jacob’s
journey to Mesopotamia (28¹⁻⁹) is quite inconsistent with
that given by Jehovist in chapter 27 (page 374 f.); and his
conception of Isaac’s blessing as a transmission of the blessing
originally bestowed on Abraham (28⁴) is far removed from
the idea which forms the motive of chapter 27. In Jehovist,
Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob’s return from
Mesopotamia (32³); in Priestly-Code he does not leave Canaan
till after the burial of Isaac (35⁶). Priestly-Code’s account
of the enmity between Joseph and his brethren is unfortunately
truncated, but enough is preserved to show that it differed
essentially from that of Jehovist (see page 444). It is
difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to
Yahwist and Elohist, but it certainly was not at Machpelah,
as in Priestly-Code (see page 538 f.). And so on. Everywhere
we see a tendency in Priestly-Code to suppress or minimise
discords in the patriarchal households. It is inconceivable
that a supplementer should thus contradict his original at
every turn, and at the same time leave it to tell its own story.
When we find that the passages of an opposite tenor to Jehovist
form parts of a practically complete narrative, we cannot
avoid the conclusion that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is an independent
document, which has been preserved almost entire in our
present Book of Genesis. The question then arises whether these
discrepancies spring from a divergent tradition followed by
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ or from a deliberate re-writing of the
history as told by Jehovist, under the influence of certain
theological ideals and principles, which we now proceed to
consider.

The central theme and objective of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the institution of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the Tabernacle, erected, after its heavenly antitype, by Moses at Mount Sinai. For this event the whole previous history of mankind is a preparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last of four world-ages: from the Creation to the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine revelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name of God: El Shaddai to Abraham (17¹), and Yahwe to Moses (Exodus 6³). Each period, also, is marked by the institution of some permanent element of the theocratic constitution, the Levitical system being conceived as a pyramid rising in four stages: the Sabbath (2² ᶠᐧ); permission of the slaughter of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the blood (9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); circumcision (17); and, lastly, the fully developed Mosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial worship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars nor sacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history; and even the distinction between clean and unclean animals is supposed to be unknown at the time of the Flood. It is particularly noteworthy that the profane, as distinct from the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which even the Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back to the covenant with Noah.

Beneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling idea of a progressive unfolding of God’s will to men, we discover a theory of religion which, more than anything else, expresses the spirit of the Priestly school to which the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ belonged. The exclusive emphasis on the formal or _institutional_ aspect of religion, which is the natural proclivity of a sacerdotal caste, appears in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ in a very pronounced fashion. Religion is resolved into a series of positive enactments on the part of God, and observance of these on the part of man. The old cult-legends (page xii f.), which traced the origin of existing ritual usages to historic incidents in the lives of the fathers, are swept away; and every practice to which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand, such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of personal piety――the disposition of the heart towards God――his narrative hardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a theology at once more abstract and shallower than that of Yahwist or Elohist, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life (chapter 3. 6⁵ 8²¹ 18²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 45⁸ etc.), and succeeds in depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward fellowship with God (compare 22. 24¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 32⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 48¹⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with indifference to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating character and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are none the less characteristic of the type of mind that produced the colourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant ideas of the Priestly theology.

Another characteristic distinction between Jehovist and Priestly-Code is seen in the enhanced _transcendentalism_ of the latter’s conception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthropopathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception is Genesis 2² ᶠᐧ: compare Exodus 31¹⁷ᵇ); revelation takes the form of simple _speech_; angels, dreams, and visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not described; God is said to ‘appear’ to men, and to ‘go up from them’ (Genesis 17¹ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ 35⁹ᐧ ¹³ 48³, Exodus 6³), but the manner of His appearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at Sinai (Exodus 24¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²⁹ᵇ 40³⁴ ᶠᐧ). It is true that a similar inconcreteness often characterises the theophanies of Yahwist and Elohist, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided approximation to the abstract conceptions of Priestly-Code. But a comparison of the parallels chapter 17 with 15, or 35⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ with 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, makes it clear that Priestly-Code’s departure from the older tradition springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from the representation of Godhead.

It remains to consider, in the light of these facts,
Priestly-Code’s attitude to the traditional history of the
patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that he accepts the
main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But whether
he knew that tradition from other sources than Yahwist and
Elohist, is a question not so easily answered. For the primitive
period, _direct_ dependence on Yahwist is improbable, because
of the marked diversity in the accounts of the Creation and the
Flood: here Priestly-Code seems to have followed a tradition
closely akin to, but not identical with, that of Yahwist. In
the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose
that he had any other authorities than Yahwist and Elohist. The
general course of events is the same, and differences of detail
are all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code. But
the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history,
both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a meagre summary,
with little save a chronological significance, and that the
points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial
are (with one exception) precisely those which introduce a
new religious dispensation: viz. the Creation, the Flood, the
Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus. The single exception is the
purchase of Machpelah (chapter 23), an event which doubtless
owes its prominence to its connexion with the promise of the
land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest, a certain emphasis
naturally lies on outstanding events, like the origin of
the name Israel (35⁹ ᶠᐧ), or the settlement of Jacob’s family
in Egypt (47⁵⁻¹¹); and the author lingers with interest on
the transmission of the patriarchal blessing and promise
from Isaac to Jacob (28³ 35¹²), and from Jacob to his sons
(48³ ᶠᐧ). But these are practically all the incidents to which
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ attaches any sort of significance of
their own; and even these derive much of their importance from
their relation to the chronological scheme into which they are
fitted.――Hence to say that Priestly-Code’s epitome would be
‘unintelligible’ apart from Jehovist, is to confuse his point of
view with our own. It is perfectly true that from Priestly-Code
alone we should know very little of the characters of the
patriarchs, of the motives which governed their actions, or
of the connexion between one event and another. But these
are matters which Priestly-Code had no interest in making
‘intelligible.’ He is concerned solely with events, not with
causes or motives. The individual is sufficiently described when
we are told whose son he was, how long he lived, what children
he begot, and such like. He is but a link in the generations
that fill up the history; and even where he is the recipient of
a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends on
his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any
personal endowment or providential training.

The _style_ of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ can be characterised without the reserves and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the difference between Yahwist and Elohist (page xlvii f.); there is no better illustration of the dictum _le style c’est l’homme_ than in this remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped terminology, its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its monotonous repetitions, and its general determination to leave no loophole for misinterpretation or misunderstanding. The jurist’s love of order and method appears in a great facility in the construction of schemes and schedules――genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc.――as well as in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a whole. It is necessary to read the whole work consecutively in order to realise the full effect of the laboured diffuseness, the dry lucidity and prosaic monotony of this characteristic product of the Priestly school of writers. On the other hand, the style is markedly deficient in the higher elements of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an impressive dignity (as in Genesis 1. 47⁷⁻¹¹), it is apt to degenerate into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set phrases and rigid formulæ (see Numbers 7). The power of picturesque description, or dramatic delineation of life and character, is absent: the writer’s imagination is of the mechanical type, which cannot realise an object without the help of exact quantitative specification or measurement. Even in chapter 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative in the Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the measured periodic movement of the action, and the recurrent use of standing expressions from the opening to the close. That such a style might become the property of a school we see from the case of Ezekiel, whose writings show strong affinities with Priestly-Code; but of all the Priestly documents, Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the one in which the literary bent of the school is best exemplified, and (it may be added) is seen to most advantage.

The following selection (from Driver, _An Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament_⁸, 131 ff.) of distinctive
expressions of Priestly-Code, occurring in Genesis, will give a
sufficient idea of the stylistic peculiarity of the book, and
also of its linguistic affinities with the later literature, but
especially with the Book of Ezekiel.

אלהים as the name of God, uniformly in Genesis, except 17¹
21¹ᵇ.――מין, ‘kind’: 1¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ (Leviticus 11,
Deuteronomy 14; only again Ezekiel 47¹⁰).――שָׁרַץ, ‘to swarm’:
1²⁰ᐧ ²¹ 7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷ +¹ (outside of Priestly-Code only Psalms
105³⁰, Ezekiel 47⁹).――שֶׁרֶץ, ‘swarming things’: 1²⁰ 7²¹ + (only in
Priestly-Code and Deuteronomy 14¹⁹).――פרה ורבה: 1²²ᐧ ²⁸ 8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷
17²⁰ 28³ 35¹¹ 47²⁷ 48⁴ (Exodus 1⁷, Leviticus 26⁹; elsewhere only
Jeremiah 3¹⁶ [inverted], 23³, Ezekiel 36¹¹).――לאכלה: 1²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ 6²¹
9³ + (elsewhere only in Ezekiel (10 times), and (as infinitive)
Jeremiah 12⁹).――תולדות: 10³² 25¹³ + (elsewhere 1 Chronicles
5⁷ 7²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ 8²⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 26³¹). The phrase [ו]אלה תולדות occurs in
Priestly-Code 10 times in Genesis (see page xxxiv), and in
Numbers 3¹; elsewhere only Ruth 4¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1²⁹.――גוע:
6¹⁷ 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²³ + (elsewhere poetical: Zechariah 13⁸,
Psalms 88¹⁶ 104²⁹, Lamentations 1¹⁹, and 8 times in Job).――עִמְּךָ,
אִתְּךָ, etc. (appended to enumerations): 6¹⁸ 7⁷ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 9⁸ 28⁴
46⁶ᐧ ⁷ +.――אחריכם, etc. (after ‘seed’): 9⁹ 17⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁹ 35¹²
48⁴ +.――עצם היום הזה: 7¹³ 17²³ᐧ ²⁶ +; only in Priestly-Code and
Ezekiel 2³ 24² 40¹ (Joshua 10²⁷ redactional).――יהם――למשפחותם:
8¹⁹ 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹ 36⁴⁰ + (very often in Priestly-Code: elsewhere
only Numbers 11¹⁰ [Jehovist], 1 Samuel 10²¹, 1 Chronicles 5⁷ 6⁴⁷ᐧ
⁴⁸).――ברית עולם: 9¹⁶ 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ +, only in Priestly-Code.――במאד מאד:
17²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰ + Exodus 1⁷; elsewhere only Ezekiel 9⁹ 16¹³.――רכוש: 12⁵
13⁶ 31¹⁸ 36⁷ 46⁶ +; elsewhere Genesis 14¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ 15¹⁴; and
15 times in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel.――רָכַשׁ: 12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶
+.――נפש (= ‘person’): 12⁵ 36⁶ 46¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ +; “much more
frequent in Priestly-Code than elsewhere.”――יכם――לדרתם: 17⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²
+ 36 times (only in Priestly-Code).――מגורים: 17⁸ 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹
+ Exodus 6⁴; elsewhere Ezekiel 20³⁸, Psalms 55¹⁶ 119⁵⁴, Job
18¹⁹ +.――אחזה: 17⁸ 23⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰ 36⁴³ 47¹¹ 48⁴ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +. Often in
Ezekiel (44²⁸ 45⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 46¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 48²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²); elsewhere Psalms
2⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸ 9² [= Nehemiah 11³], 2 Chronicles 11¹⁴ 31¹
+.――מקנה: 17¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ 23¹⁸ + (confined to Priestly-Code except
Jeremiah 32¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――עמים (= ‘father’s kin’): 17¹⁴ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷
35²⁹ 49³³ + (also Ezekiel 18¹⁸; elsewhere Judges 5¹⁴?, Hosea
10¹⁴ +).――תושב: 23⁴ + 10 times (also 1 Kings 17¹?, 1 Chronicles
29¹⁵, Psalms 39¹³).――קנון: 31¹⁸ [34²³] 36⁶ + (outside of
Priestly-Code, only Ezekiel 38¹² ᶠ; Proverbs 4⁷, Psalms 104²⁴
105²¹).

¹ As on page xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further
examples are found in the rest of the Pentateuch. It should
be expressly said, however, that the + frequently covers
a considerable number of cases; and that a _selection_ of
phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent
the strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in
the more exhaustive lists of Driver (_l.c._) or the _Oxford
Hexateuch_ (volume i. pages 208‒221).

In the choice of synonymous expressions, Priestly-Code exhibits
an exclusive preference for הוליד in the sense of ‘beget’ over ילד
(in the genealogies of Yahwist), and for the form אני of the 1st
person pronoun (אנכי only in Genesis 23⁴).

Geographical designations peculiar to Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ are:
_Kiryath-’Arba‛_ (for Hebron) 23² 35²⁷ +; _Machpelah_, 23⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹
25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +; _Paddan-Aram_, 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶
46¹⁵ +.――To these may be added ארץ כנען, 11³¹ 12⁵ 13¹² 16³ 17⁸
23²ᐧ ¹⁹ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁶ 37¹ +; the expression is found in
Jehovist only in the Joseph-section (chapters 42, 44, 45, 47).
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ has כנען without ארץ only in בנות כנען (28¹ 36²).

In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list
is by no means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the
linguistic and stylistic distinction between Priestly-Code and
Jehovist (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in criticism.

The _date_ of the composition of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ lies between the promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.C.), and the post-Exilic reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It is later than Deuteronomy, because it assumes without question the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in Deuteronomy is only held up as an ideal to be realised by a radical reform of established usage. A nearer determination of date depends on questions of the internal analysis of Priestly-Code which are too complex to be entered on here. That the Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the division between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer of Deuteronomy, and of which we find the origin and justification in Ezekiel 44⁶⁻¹⁶, is presupposed as already established (Numbers 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, however, that that distinction belongs to a stratum of the legislation not included in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ; in which case Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ might very well be earlier than Ezekiel, or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern us here. For the understanding of Genesis, it is enough to know that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, both in its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later than Yahwist and Elohist.

The view that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ was written before the Exile
(in the end of the 7th century) is advocated by Procksch (_l.c._
319 ff.), who reduces this part of Priestly-Code to narrower
limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an
essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit,
embracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the
Law of Holiness (Priestly-Codeʰ), and recognising the priestly
status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Deuteronomy
(Numbers 17¹⁶⁻²⁴ and Priestly-Codeʰ in its original form). If
that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the
document is older than Ezekiel. It is admitted both by Kuenen
and Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 116) that
the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later
strata of Priestly-Code as compared with Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ,
but that it is not recognised in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is not
clear. As to _pre-Exilic_ origin, the positive arguments
advanced by Procksch are not very cogent; and it is doubtful
whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than
the _possibility_ of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact
which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Procksch:
viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in chapter 10 bears
internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable
time before the 5th century B.C. (page 191 below); but that may
be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ made use of pre-existing documents in the
preparation of his work.

The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pentateuch is the amalgamation of Priestly-Code with the older documents,――in Genesis the amalgamation of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with Jehovist. That this process has left traces in the present text is quite certain _a priori_; though it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of this kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (compare 6⁷ 7⁷ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ 10²⁴ 27⁴⁶ etc.). The aim of the redactor was, in general, to preserve the _ipsissima verba_ of his sources as far as was consistent with the production of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every fragment of Priestly-Code that could possibly be retained. It is not improbable that this rule was uniformly observed by him, and that the slight _lacunæ_ which occur in Priestly-Code after chapter 25 are due to the activity of later scribes in smoothing away redundancies and unevennesses from the narrative. That such changes might take place after the completion of the Pentateuch we see from 47⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, where LXX has preserved a text in which the dovetailing of sources is much more obvious than in Massoretic Text.――If the lawbook read by Ezra before the congregation as the basis of the covenant (Nehemiah 8¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was the entire Pentateuch (excepting late additions),¹ the redaction must have been effected before 444 B.C., and in all probability the redactor was Ezra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems to the present writer more probable) Ezra’s lawbook was only the Priestly Code, or part of it (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ + Priestly-Codeʰ),² then the final redaction is brought down to a later period, the _terminus ad quem_ being the borrowing of the Jewish Pentateuch by the Samaritan community. That event is usually assigned, though on somewhat precarious grounds, to Nehemiah’s second term of office in Judæa (_circa_ 432 B.C.).

¹ So Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kittel al.

² So Cornill, Holzinger al.

Of far greater interest and significance than the date or manner of this final redaction, is the fact that it was called for by the religious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism. Nothing else would have brought about the combination of elements so discordant as the naïve legendary narratives of Jehovist and the systematised history of the Priestly Code. We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly theology is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or that, if the tendencies represented by the Code had prevailed, the stories which are to us the most precious and edifying parts of the Book of Genesis would have found no place in an authoritative record of God’s revelation of Himself to the fathers. But this is not the only instance in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged more wisely than the learning of the schools. We know that deeper influences than the legalism and institutionalism of Priestly-Code’s manifesto――necessary as these were in their place――were at work in the post-Exilic community: the individualism of Jeremiah, the universalism of the second Isaiah, the devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists, and the daring reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may surely add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the abstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find its nutriment in the immortal stories through which God spoke to the heart then, as He speaks to ours to-day.

COMMENTARY.

THE PRIMÆVAL HISTORY.

CHAPTERS I‒XI.

It has been shown in the Introduction (page xxxiii) that the
most obvious division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly
equal parts, of which the first (chapters 1‒11) deals with the
Creation of the world, and the history of primitive mankind
prior to the call of Abraham. These chapters are composed of
excerpts from two of the main sources of the Pentateuch, the
Priestly Code, and the Yahwistic document. Attempts have been
made from time to time (_e.g._ by Schrader, Dillmann, and
more recently Winckler) to trace the hand of the Elohist in
chapters 1‒11; but the closest examination has failed to produce
any substantial evidence that Elohist is represented in the
Primitive History at all. By the great majority of critics the
non-Priestly traditions in this part of Genesis are assigned to
the Yahwistic cycle: that is to say, they are held to have been
collected and arranged by the school of rhapsodists to whose
literary activity we owe the document known as Yahwist.

To the Priests’ Code, whose constituents can here be isolated
with great certainty and precision, belong: 1. The Cosmogony
(1¹‒2⁴ᵃ); 2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5); 3.
An account of the Flood (6⁹‒9²⁹*); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*);
5. The Genealogies of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶), and Terah (11²⁷⁻³²*),
ending with Abraham. There is no reason to suppose either that
the original Priestly-Code contained more than this, or, on
the other hand, that Priestly-Code was written to supplement
the older tradition, and to be read along with it. It is in
accordance with the purpose and tendency of the document
that the only events recorded in detail――the Creation and the
Flood――are those which inaugurate two successive World-ages
or Dispensations, and are associated with the origin of two
fundamental observances of Judaism――the Sabbath (2³), and the
sanctity of the blood (9⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).

* The asterisk denotes that the passages so marked are
interspersed with extracts from another source. The detailed
analysis will be found in the commentary on the various
sections.

In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome
is the rich variety of life and incident which characterises
the Yahwistic sections, viz.: 1. The Creation and Fall of Man
(2⁴ᵇ‒3²⁴); 2. Cain and Abel (4¹⁻¹⁶); 3. The Genealogy of Cain
(4¹⁷⁻²⁴); 4. A fragmentary Sethite Genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...);
5. The marriages with divine beings (6¹⁻⁴); 6. An account of
the Flood (6⁵‒8²²*); 7. Noah’s Curse and Blessing (9²⁰⁻²⁷);
8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (11¹⁻⁹);
10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Teraḥ (11²⁸⁻³⁰). Here we
have a whole gallery of varied and graphic pictures, each
complete in itself and essentially independent of the rest,
arranged in a loosely chronological order, and with perhaps a
certain unity of conception, in so far as they illustrate the
increasing wickedness that accompanied the progress of mankind
in civilisation. Even the genealogies are not (like those of
Priestly-Code) bare lists of names and figures, but preserve
incidental notices of new social or religious developments
associated with particular personages (4¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁶ 5²⁹),
besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology from which
the names have been drawn (4¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ).

_Composition of Yahwist._――That a narrative composed of so
many separate and originally independent legends should present
discrepancies and discontinuities is not surprising, and is
certainly by itself no proof of literary diversity. At the same
time there are many indications that Yahwist is a composite work,
based on older collections of Hebrew traditions, whose outlines
can still be dimly traced. (1) The existence of two parallel
genealogies (Cainite and Sethite) at once suggests a conflate
tradition. The impression is raised almost to certainty when we
find that both are derived from a common original (page 138 f.).
(2) The Cainite genealogy is incompatible with the Deluge
tradition. The shepherds, musicians, and smiths, whose origin is
traced to the last three members of the genealogy, are obviously
not those of a bygone race which perished in the Flood, but
those known to the author and his contemporaries (page 115 f.).
(3) Similarly, the Table of Nations and the story of the
Confusion of Tongues imply mutually exclusive explanations of
the diversities of language and nationality: in one case the
division proceeds slowly and naturally on genealogical lines, in
the other it takes place by a sudden interposition of almighty
power. (4) There is evidence that the story of the Fall was
transmitted in two recensions (page 52 f.). If Gunkel be right,
the same is true of Yahwist’s Table of Peoples, and of the
account of the Dispersion; but there the analysis is less
convincing. (5) In 4²⁶ we read that Enosh introduced the worship
of Yahwe. The analogy of Exodus 6² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code) affords
a certain presumption that the author of such a statement will
have avoided the name יהוה up to this point; and as a matter
of fact אֱלֹהִים occurs immediately before in verse ²⁵. It is true
that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage
except 3¹⁻⁵, where other explanations might be thought of. But
throughout chapters 2 and 3 we find the very unusual compound
name יהוה אלהים, and it is a plausible conjecture that one recension
of the Paradise story was distinguished by the use of Elohim,
and that Yahwe was inserted by a harmonising Yahwistic editor
(so Budde, Gunkel, al.: see page 53).

To what precise extent these phenomena are due to documentary
differences is a question that requires to be handled with the
utmost caution and discrimination. It is conceivable that a
single author should have compiled a narrative from a number
of detached legends which he reported just as he found them,
regardless of their internal consistency. Nevertheless, there
seems sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that (as
Wellhausen has said) we have to do not merely with _aggregates_
but with _sequences_; although to unravel perfectly the various
strands of narrative may be a task for ever beyond the resources
of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the
principal theories.――(a) Wellhausen (_Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
9‒14) seems to have been the first to perceive that 4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ is a
late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4¹⁶⁻²⁴ and on chapters
2, 3; that originally chapters 2‒4 existed not only without
4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ, but also without 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ and 5²⁹; and that chapters 2. 3.
4¹⁶⁻²⁴ 11¹⁻⁹ form a connexion to which the story of the Flood
is entirely foreign and irrelevant.――(b) The analysis was
pushed many steps further by Budde (_Biblische Urgeschichte_,
passim), who, after a most exhaustive and elaborate examination,
arrived at the following theory: the primary document (Yahwist¹)
consisted of 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁹ᐧ ¹⁶⁻²⁵ 3¹⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ 6³ 3²³ 4¹ᐧ ²ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹⁷⁻²⁴
6¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁴ 10⁹ 11¹⁻⁹ 9²⁰⁻²⁷. This was recast by Yahwist²
(substituting אלהים for יהוה down to 4²⁶), whose narrative
contained a Cosmogony (but no Paradise story), the Sethite
genealogy, the Flood-legend, the Table of Nations, and a
seven-membered Shemite genealogy. These two recensions were then
amalgamated by Yahwist³, who inserted dislocated passages of
Yahwist¹ in the connexion of Yahwist², and added 4¹⁻⁵ 5²⁹ etc.
Yahwist² attained the dignity of a standard official document,
and is the authority followed by Priestly-Code at a later time.
The astonishing acumen and thoroughness which characterise
Budde’s work have had a great influence on critical opinion,
yet his ingenious transpositions and reconstructions of the
text seem too subtle and arbitrary to satisfy any but a slavish
disciple. One feels that he has worked on too narrow a basis by
confining his attention to successive overworkings of the same
literary tradition, and not making sufficient allowance for the
simultaneous existence of relatively independent forms.――(c)
Stade (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xiv. 274 ff. [= _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_
244‒251]) distinguishes three main strata: (1) chapters 2. 3.
11¹⁻⁹; (2) 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²² 9²⁰⁻²⁷ 10⁹? 6¹ᐧ ²?; (3) the Flood-legend,
added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a
Sethite genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...) and inserted the story
of Cain and Abel, and the Song of Lamech (4²³ ᶠᐧ).――(d) Gunkel
(_Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_² 1 ff.) proceeds on somewhat
different lines from his predecessors. He refuses in principle
to admit incongruity as a criterion of source, and relies on
certain verses which bear the character of connecting links
between different sections. The most important is 5²⁹ (belonging
to the Sethite genealogy), where we read: “This (Noah) shall
comfort us from our labour and from the toil of our hands on
account of the ground which Yahwe has cursed.” Here there is an
unmistakable reference backward to 3¹⁷, and forward to 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.
Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming the core of a
document where יהוה was not used till 4²⁶, and hence called
Yahwistᵉ, consisting of: one recension of the Paradise story;
the (complete) Sethite genealogy; and Noah’s discovery of
wine. From this sequence are excluded obviously: the second
recension of the Paradise story; the Cainite genealogy; and (as
Gunkel thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah appears in quite a
different character: these belong to a second document (Yahwistʲ).
Again, 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ form a connecting link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations; but Gunkel distinguishes two Yahwistic strata
in the Table of Nations and assigns one to each of his documents:
similarly with the section on the Tower of Babel. The legend of
Cain and Abel is regarded (with Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.)
as an editorial expansion.

In this commentary the analysis of Gunkel is adopted in the
main; but with the following reservations: (1) The account of
the Flood cannot be naturally assigned to Yahwistʲ, because of
its admitted incompatibility with the assumption of the Cainite
genealogy (see above). Gunkel, indeed, refuses to take such
inconsistencies into account; but in that case there is no
reason for giving the Flood to Yahwistʲ rather than to Yahwistᵉ.
There is no presumption whatever that only two documents are
in evidence; and the chapters in question show peculiarities
of language which justify the assumption of a separate source
(Stade), say Yahwistᵈ. (2) With the Flood passage goes the
Yahwistic Table of Peoples (9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ). The arguments for two
Yahwists in chapter 10 are hardly decisive; and Yahwistᵉ at
all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethnographic
survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel’s analysis of 11¹⁻⁹
appears on the whole to be sound; but even so there is no ground
for identifying the two components with Yahwistᵉ and Yahwistʲ
respectively. On the contrary, the tone of both recensions has
a striking affinity with that of Yahwistʲ: note especially (with
Wellhausen) the close resemblance in form and substance between
11⁶ and 3²². Thus:

Yahwistʲ = 3²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁴ 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ 6¹⁻⁴ 11¹⁻⁹;
Yahwistᵉ = 22⁴ᵇ‒3¹⁹*ᐧ ²³ 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ... 9²⁰⁻²⁷;
Yahwistᵈ = 6⁵‒8²²* 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ 10*;
Yahwistʳ = 4¹⁻¹⁶*.

Such constructions, it need hardly be added, are in the highest
degree precarious and uncertain; and can only be regarded as
tentative explanations of problems for which it is probable that
no final solution will be found.

I. 1‒II. 3.
_Creation of the World in Six Days:
Institution of the Sabbath._

A short Introduction describing the primæval chaos (1¹ᐧ ²) is followed by an account of the creation of the world in six days, by a series of eight divine fiats, viz.: (1) the creation of light, and the separation of light from darkness, ³⁻⁵; (2) the division of the chaotic waters into two masses, one above and the other below the ‘firmament,’ ⁶⁻⁸; (3) the separation of land and sea through the collecting of the lower waters into “one place,” ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰; (4) the clothing of the earth with its mantle of vegetation, ¹¹⁻¹³; (5) the formation of the heavenly bodies, ¹⁴⁻¹⁹; (6) the peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, ²⁰⁻²³; (7) the production of land animals, ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵; and (8) the creation of man, ²⁶⁻³¹. Finally, the Creator is represented as resting from His works on the seventh day; and this becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance of the weekly Sabbath rest (2¹⁻³).

_Character of the Record._――It is evident even from this bare outline of its contents that the opening section of Genesis is not a scientific account of the actual process through which the universe originated. It is a world unknown to science whose origin is here described,――the world of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse of earth, surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a vault called the ‘firmament,’ above which again are the waters of a heavenly ocean from which the rain descends on the earth (see on verses ⁶⁻⁸).¹ That the writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, and that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actually came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt (Wellhausen, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 296). But the fundamental difference of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of physical fact which can be brought into line with the results of modern science. The key to its interpretation must be found elsewhere.

¹ The fact referred to above seems to me to impose an absolute
veto on the attempt to harmonise the teaching of the chapter
with scientific theory. It may be useful, however, to
specify one or two outstanding difficulties of detail.
(1) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that the
definition of ‘day’ as ‘geological period’ is essential
to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible. (2)
The creation of sun and moon _after_ the earth, after the
alternation of day and night, and even after the appearance
of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities. (3)
Palæontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if
it did not actually follow that of animal life, certainly
did not _precede_ it by an interval corresponding to two
‘days.’ (4) The order in which the various living forms are
created, the manner in which they are grouped, and their
whole development compressed into special periods, are all
opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial
discussion of these questions see Driver, _Genesis_, 19‒26.
It is there shown conclusively, not only that the modern
attempts at reconciliation fail, but (what is more important)
that the point at issue is not one of science, but simply
of _exegesis_. The facts of science are not in dispute; the
only question is whether the language of Genesis will bear
the construction which the harmonising scientists find it
necessary to put upon it.

In order to understand the true character of the narrative, we must compare it with the _cosmogonies_ which form an integral part of all the higher religions of antiquity. The demand for some rational theory of the origin of the world as known or conceived is one that emerges at a very early stage of culture; and the efforts of the human mind in this direction are observed to follow certain common lines of thought, which point to the existence of a cosmological tradition exerting a widespread influence over ancient speculation on the structure of the universe. There is ample evidence, as will be shown later (below, page 45 ff.), that the Hebrew thinkers were influenced by such a tradition; and in this fact we find a clue to the inner meaning of the narrative before us. The tradition was plastic, and therefore capable of being moulded in accordance with the genius of a particular religion; at the same time, being a tradition, it retained a residuum of unassimilated material derived from the common stock of cosmological speculation current in the East. What happened in the case of the biblical cosmogony is this: that during a long development within the sphere of Hebrew religion it was gradually stripped of its cruder mythological elements, and transformed into a vehicle for the spiritual ideas which were the peculiar heritage of Israel. It is to the depth and purity of these ideas that the narrative mainly owes that character of sobriety and sublimity which has led many to regard it as the primitive revealed cosmogony, of which all others are grotesque and fantastic variations (Dillmann, page 10).

The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, therefore, in the fact that in it the monotheistic principle of the Old Testament has obtained classical expression. The great idea of God, first proclaimed in all its breadth and fulness by the second Isaiah during the Exile, is here embodied in a detailed account of the genesis of the universe, which lays hold of the imagination as no abstract statement of the principle could ever do. The central doctrine is that the world is _created_,――that it originates in the will of God, a personal Being transcending the universe and existing independently of it. The pagan notion of a Theogony――a generation of the gods from the elementary world-matter――is entirely banished. It is, indeed, doubtful if the representation goes so far as a _creatio ex nihilo_, or whether a pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on verse ¹); it is certain at least that the _kosmos_, the ordered world with which alone man has to do, is wholly the product of divine intelligence and volition. The spirituality of the First Cause of all things, and His absolute sovereignty over the material He employs, are further emphasised in the idea of the _word_ of God――the effortless expression of His thought and purpose――as the agency through which each successive effect is produced; and also in the recurrent refrain which affirms that the original creation in each of its parts was ‘good,’ and as a whole ‘very good’ (verse ³¹), _i.e._ that it perfectly reflected the divine thought which called it into existence. The traces of mythology and anthropomorphism which occur in the body of the narrative belong to the traditional material on which the author operated, and do not affect his own theological standpoint, which is defined by the doctrines just enumerated. When to these we add the doctrine of man, as made in the likeness of God, and marked out as the crown and goal of creation, we have a body of religious truth which distinguishes the cosmogony of Genesis from all similar compositions, and entitles it to rank among the most important documents of revealed religion.

_The Framework._――The most noteworthy literary feature of the
record is the use of a set of stereotyped formulæ, by which the
separate acts of creation are reduced as far as possible to a
common expression. The structure of this ‘framework’ (as it may
be called) is less uniform than might be expected, and is much
more regular in LXX than in Massoretic Text. It is impossible to
decide how far the irregularities are due to the original writer,
and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the possibility
of accident, we have to allow on the one hand for the natural
tendency of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on
the other hand for deliberate omissions, intended to bring out
Sacred numbers in the occurrences of the several formulæ.¹

¹ A familiar instance is the ‘ten sayings’ of _Pirḳê ’Abôth_,
5, 1: בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם, where the number 10 is arrived at
by adding to the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of ויאמר
in Massoretic Text (verses²⁸ᐧ ²⁹).

The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here:
(a) The fiat (_And God said, Let_ ...) introduces (both in
Massoretic Text and LXX) each of the eight works of creation
(verses³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁶). (b) _And it was so_ occurs
literally 6 times in Massoretic Text, but virtually 7 times:
_i.e._ in connection with all the works except the sixth
(verses⁽³⁾ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰); in LXX also in verse ²⁰. (c)
The execution of the fiat (_And God made_ ...――with variations)
is likewise recorded 6 times in Massoretic Text and 7 times
in LXX (verses⁷ᐧ ⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷). (d) The sentence of
divine approval (_And God saw that it was good_) is pronounced
over each work except the second (in LXX there also), though
in the last instance with a significant variation: see
verses⁴ᐧ ⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. (e) The naming of the objects
created (_And God called_ ...) is peculiar to the three acts of
separation (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰). (f) _And God blessed_ ... (3 times)
is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath day
(verses²²ᐧ ²⁸ 2³). (g) The division into days is marked by the
closing formula, _And it was evening, etc._, which, of course,
occurs 6 times (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ³¹), being omitted after the
third and seventh works.

The occurrence of the ויהו כן _before_ the execution of the fiat
produces a redundancy which may be concealed but is not removed
by substituting _so_ for _and_ in the translation (_So God made_,
etc.). When we observe further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in
LXX 5 out of 7) the execution is described as a _work_, that
the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment is often far
from complete, and finally that 2²ᵃ seems a duplicate of 2¹, the
question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to
a literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as
a series of _fiats_ has been superimposed on another conception
of it as a series of _works_. The observation does not carry us
very far, since no analysis of sources can be founded on it; but
it is perhaps a slight indication of what is otherwise probable,
viz. that the cosmogony was not the free composition of a single
mind, but reached its final form through the successive efforts
of many writers (see below).¹

¹ See, now, Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_
i. 349 and Schwally in _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._,
ix. 159‒175, which have appeared since the above paragraph
was written. Both writers point out the twofold conception
of the creation which runs through the chapter; and Schwally
makes out a strong case for the composition of the passage
from two distinct recensions of the cosmogony.

_The Seven Days’ Scheme._――The distribution of the eight
works over six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen,
Ewald, Schrader, Wellhausen, Dillmann, Budde, Gunkel, al.) a
modification introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law, and
at variance with the original intention of the cosmogony. Before
entering on that question, it must be pointed out that the
adjustment of days to works proceeds upon a clear principle, and
results in a symmetrical arrangement. Its effect is to divide
the creative process into two stages, each embracing four works
and occupying three days, the last day of each series having two
works assigned to it. There is, moreover, a remarkable, though
not perfect, parallelism between the two great divisions. Thus
the _first_ day is marked by the creation of light, and the
_fourth_ by the creation of the heavenly bodies, which are
expressly designated ‘light-bearers’; on the _second_ day the
waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the
space between heaven and earth is formed, and so the _fifth_
day witnesses the peopling of these regions with their living
denizens (fishes and fowls); on the _third_ day the dry land
emerges, and on the _sixth_ terrestrial animals and man are
created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work of
the _third_ day (trees and grasses) corresponds to the last
appointment of the _sixth_ day, by which these products are
assigned as the food of men and animals. Broadly speaking,
therefore, we may say that “the first three days are days of
preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment” (Driver
_Genesis_ 2). Now whether this arrangement belongs to the
original conception of the cosmogony, or at what stage it was
introduced, are questions very difficult to answer. Nothing at
all resembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents;
for the division into seven tablets of the _Enuma eliš_ series
has no relation to the seven days of the biblical account.¹ If
therefore a Babylonian origin is assumed, it seems reasonable to
hold that the scheme of days is a Hebrew addition; and in that
case it is hard to believe that it can have been introduced
without a primary reference to the distinctively Israelitish
institution of the weekly Sabbath. It then only remains to
inquire whether we can go behind the present seven days’ scheme,
and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier arrangement
which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a
form different from what we now find.

¹ See below, page 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian
and Etruscan analogies; see page 50.