(A.) Its General Principles.

(A.) Its General Principles.(1.) Its pure Monotheism; admittedly true.(2.) Its seven days need not be taken literally.(3.) Its gradual development; admittedly true.(B.) Its Detailed Order.(1.) The earliest state of the earth.(2.) Light.(3.) The Firmament.(4.) Dry Land.(5.) Vegetation.(6.) The Sun and Moon.(7.) Fishes and Birds.(8.) Land Animals.(9.) Man.(C.) Conclusion.The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been Divinely revealed.

(1.) Its pure Monotheism; admittedly true.

(2.) Its seven days need not be taken literally.

(3.) Its gradual development; admittedly true.

(B.) Its Detailed Order.

(1.) The earliest state of the earth.

(2.) Light.

(3.) The Firmament.

(4.) Dry Land.

(5.) Vegetation.

(6.) The Sun and Moon.

(7.) Fishes and Birds.

(8.) Land Animals.

(9.) Man.

(C.) Conclusion.

The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been Divinely revealed.

Having decided in the previous chapters on the Existence of God, and that it was credible that He might make a miraculous Revelation to man; we pass on now to theJewish Religion, which (as well as the Christian) actually claims to be such a Revelation.

And the first argument we have to consider in its favour is that afforded by the opening chapter of Genesis. It is urged that this account of the Creationmust have beenDivinely revealed, since it contains a substantially correct account of events which could not have been otherwise known at the time. What then we have to examine is, whether this narrative is nearer the truth, as we now know it from geology and other sciences, than could have been the case, if written by a man ignorant of these sciences. And the ancient narratives of Babylonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, show how far from the truth mere human conjecture on such a subject is likely to be.

While if we admit a revelation at all, there is nothing improbable in some account of the creation of the world having been revealed to man very early in his history, and being accurately preserved by the Jews, while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations. Indeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of worshipping the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could have been more suited for a first revelation than the statement in simple language that all these were created by one supreme God. We will now consider thegeneral principlesof the narrative, and then itsdetailed order.

The most important of these are its pure Monotheism, its seven days, and its gradual development, each of which we will notice in turn.

This alone renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar narratives. According to the writer, the whole universe, including sun, moon, and stars, was all due tooneGod. And this is obvious enoughnow, but it was not so when the narrative was written. For other ancient accounts are eitherPantheistic, and confuse God with the universe; orDualistic, and assume two eternal principles of good and evil; orPolytheistic, and make the universe the work of several gods. The Jewish writer, on the other hand, has kept clear of all these theories; and he is admittedly right and all the others wrong.

Next as to the seven days. Now it is generally assumed, doubtless from their being referred to in the Fourth Commandment, that the writer intended thesedaysto be ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but this is at least doubtful. For ordinary days depend on thesun, and would therefore have been impossible before the formation of the sun on thefourthday; as the writer himself implies, when he says that the division of time into days and years was due to the sun.

Then there is the difficulty as to theseventhday, when God rested from all His work. This, it will be remembered had no close, orevening, and it is implied that it has continued ever since. For if God only rested for twenty-four hours, and then set to work again it would not have been a rest fromallHis work. But in this case, the seventh day would represent a long period of time, and if so the other days would probably do the same. Moreover the writer, or compiler, of this very narrative, after describing the creation in six days, says it all occurred inoneday,[10]so he could scarcely have thought the days to be literal.

[10]Gen. 2. 4.

There are thus great difficulties from the narrative itself in taking the worddayin its ordinary sense; and it seems better to consider it (like so many terms in the Bible) as a human analogy applied to God. Then God'sdaysmust be understood in the same way as God'seyesor God'shands; and this removes all difficulties.

None of these terms are of course literally true, but they represent the truthto manin such a way that he can to some extent understand it. For example, the phrase that God gained the victoryby His own right handclearly means that He gained it not with the assistance of others, or with the help of weapons, but simply by His own unaided inherent strength. It was such a victory as mightin a manbe described as gained by his own right hand. And the same may be said of the passage,The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers, and many others which occur in the Bible. The terms hands, eyes, and ears, when applied to God, are thus human analogies, which must not be taken literally.

And in one passage at least the worddayis used in a similar sense; for we read "Hast thou eyes of flesh or seest thou as man seeth? Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's days?"[11]Here it will be noticeddaysandyearsare applied to God in precisely the same manner aseyesandseeing.

[11]Job 10. 4, 5.

Moreover similar terms occur all through the present narrative. Even the simple wordsGod saidcannot be taken literally, for there was no one to speak to. Theymust be meant in the sense that Godthought, or that Godwilled. And we have no more right to suppose the days to be literal days than to suppose that God literally spoke. What we are to suppose in the one case is that God—the Almighty One, for whom nothing is too hard—created all things in such a way as mightto manbe best represented by a simple word of command. And what we are to suppose in the other case, is that God—the Eternal One, to whom a thousand years are but as yesterday—created all things in such periods of time as mightto manbe best represented by six days. Vast as the universe was, man was to regard it as being to God no more than a week's work to himself. In short, the time of creation, however long in itself, was utterly insignificant in its relation to God; toHimeach stage was a mere day.

And this it may be added, is not a purely modern theory, made to reconcile the narrative with science; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born aboutB.C.20, who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of the days of Genesis being literal, or representing any definite periods of time.[12]

[12]Works of Philo Judæus, First book of Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Yonge's translation, 1854, vol. i., p. 52.

Next, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis, God did not create a perfect world all at once, but slowly built it up step by step. At first the earth was waste and void, and only after it had passed through several stages did it become fully inhabited. Moreover, at every step (with two exceptions, the firmament andman, noticed later on), God examined the work and pronounced itgood. He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excellence in each stage; though it was not till the close of the whole work that He was completely satisfied, and pronounced it allverygood.

And the narrative appears to be quite correct. For geology shows that the formation of the earth, with its various inhabitants, was agradualprocess, not accomplished all at once, but slowly step by step, through successive ages. And it also shows that these ages were of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as mere preparations for man's coming, but as having a beauty and excellence of their own, so that they well deserved to be calledgood. But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know all this?

And then as to the way in which this development was brought about. According to Genesis, each stage was due to what we may call aSpecial Divine force, represented by a word of command from God. And this also seems correct, for we cannot otherwise account for the first appearance of the various groups, such as plants, animals, and men. It is not disputed that these various stages may have been evolved from the previous ones,e.g., the living from the not-living, which the narrative itself suggests in the words,Let the earth put forth grass; and also at its close, when it speaks ofthe generationsof the heaven and of the earth; which implies some kind of organic descent, or evolution. Indeed the common expression that Godmade, is probably used in the sense ofevolved; since the same word is employed in ver.IIof fruit-treesmakingfruit (translatedbearingoryieldingfruit); yet we know they do notmakefruit suddenly out of nothing, but slowly produce it.

What is disputed is, that this evolution took place merely under the influence of natural development, and without the additional influence of a new Divine force. And considering that all attempts to effect a similar transitionnowhave failed completely, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some other and special Cause at workthen. Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could have been otherwise produced. Take, for instance, this very subject of the origin of life. As far as we know, the only natural mode in which life can begin is from a living parent, yet there was a time when there were no living parents on this earth. How, then, could it have originated, except by some process other than natural,i.e., supernatural? Or, again, to take another instance, when the firstfree being, whether animal or man, appeared on this planet, a force totally different from all natural forces was introduced, and one which could not have been derived from them alone.

And then there is another, and very interesting point, to notice. It is that according to Genesis, these steps were not all of equal importance. For while it describes most of them by the wordmade, which, as just said, seems to mean hereevolved; on three occasions, and only three, it uses the wordcreate. These refer to the origin of theuniverse, ofanimal life(fishes and birds), and ofman. And this is very significant, when we remember that these correspond to the beginning ofmatter,mind, andspirit; and are therefore (as said inChapter IV.) just the three places where something altogethernewwas introduced; which could not, as far as we can see, have been evolved from anything else. And this double method of producing, partly bycreating, and partly bymakingor evolving, is again referred to at the close of the narrative, where we read that God rested from all His work, which He hadcreated and made. So much for the generalprinciplesof the narrative, we pass on now to its detailedorder.

It will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing the earliest state of the earth, there are eight stages in its development; two of which occurred on the third, and two on the sixth, day. We have thus altogether nine subjects to examine.

Now according to Genesis, the earth was at firstwaste and voidand indarkness, and apparently surrounded bythe waters. And if we adopt the usual nebula theory, and refer this to the first period after it became a separate planet, and had cooled so as not to give out any light itself, these statements seem quite correct. For we know from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as any form of life was concerned, while it was probably surrounded by a dense mass of clouds and vapours sufficient to produce darkness. Genesis then starts from the right starting-point, but again we must ask, how did the writer know this?

The first step in the development of the earth was, we are told, the introduction oflight. That this is what Genesis means seems plain, for thelightmust refer to thedarknessof the previous verse, and that referred to theearth. As to whether light previously existed in other parts of the universe, Genesis says nothing, it is only concerned with this earth. And in the development of this earth,light(which in nature always includesheat) must obviously have come first. For on it depend the changes in temperature, which lead to the formation of winds, clouds, and rain; while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary for the life of plants and animals; so in placinglightas the first step, Genesis is certainly correct. Of course, thesourceof light at this early period was the remainder of the nebula from which our planet was thrown off. It was thus spread over an immense space, instead of being concentrated like that of our present sun; and probably only reached the earth through a partial clearing of the clouds just alluded to.

The next step was separating the watersabove(i.e., these dense clouds) from the watersbelowwhich are stated to be the seas (v. 9-10) and forming between them a firmament orexpanse(see margin), that is to say, theair. The idea that the writer thought this expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above (because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid) is scarcely tenable. For the firmament was calledheaven, and the upper waters, abovethisheaven, must mean the sources from which therainusually comes, since it is calledrain from heaven.[13]And these sources are easily seen to beclouds; and no one could have thought that asolidfirmament was between the clouds, and the seas.

[13]Deut. 11. 11.

Moreover this same wordheaven(though used in various senses) is translatedairlater on in this very narrative when it speaks of fowls of theair(verses 26-28, 30). And it also occurs in other passages, in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the air,e.g., 'any winged fowl that flieth in theheaven,' and 'the way of an eagle in theair,'[14]which is an additional reason for thinking that it means the air here.

[14]Deut. 4. 17; Prov. 30. 19.

And the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw that the firmament wasgood, is quite natural, if this means only the air,i.e., the space between the clouds and the seas; just as an artist, though he might examine his pictures to see that they weregood, would not examine the spaces between them. But it is difficult to account for, if it means asolidfirmament, which would seem to require God's approval like everything else.

On the other side, we have the expression about opening thewindowsof heaven when it rained at the time of the Flood,[15]which is sometimes thought to imply openings in a solid firmament. But it need not be taken literally, any more than that about thedoorsofthe sea;[16]especially as in another place theheavens dropping wateris explained as meaning that the clouds dropped it.[17]And since God promised that in future when acloudwas seen it should not cause anotherflood,[18]it is clear that the flood was thought to have come from the clouds, and not from any openings in a solid reservoir in the sky.

[15]Gen. 7. 11; 2 Kings 7. 2; Mal. 3. 10.

[16]Job 38. 8-11.

[17]Judges 5. 4 (R.V.).

[18]Gen. 9. 14.

There is also the passage about the sun and moon beingset in the firmament. But the writer cannot have meant they werefastenedto the firmament, since the moon keeps changing its position relatively to the sun, just as a rainbow often does in regard to the cloud in which it is also said to beset.[19]Of course their being in the firmament at all, is not correct if this means only the air. But the word may be used here in a wider sense, like the English wordheaven, to include both the air, and the space beyond. For we speak of the clouds of heaven, and the stars of heaven, and in neither case with any idea of their beingheaved up, which is said to be the literal meaning of the word. And in its primary sense, as we have shown, the firmament orexpansebetween the upper and lower waters (the clouds and the seas) must mean theair. And the order in which this is placed after light, and before plants and animals is obviously correct.

[19]Gen. 9. 13.

We now come to an important point, the appearance ofdry land. According to Genesis, there was not always dry land on the earth; the whole of it was originallycovered by the waters. And science shows that this was probably the case; the earth being at first surrounded by watery vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a kind of universal ocean. And then, when the surface became irregular, through its contracting and crumpling up, the water would collect in the hollows, forming seas, and dry land would appear elsewhere. But how was it possible for the writer of Genesis to know all this? There is nothing in the present aspect of nature to suggest that there was once a time when there was nodry land; and if it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the least, a very remarkable one.

We next come to vegetation; and it is placed in exactly its right position. For it requires four things:soil,air,water, andlightincluding heat; and these were the four things which then existed. The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of three groups,grass,herbs, andfruit-trees; and it seems to imply that they appeared at the same time. But since its general plan is that of a series of events, the other view, that they appeared successively, is at least tenable.

There is, however, this difficulty. None of these groups were complete before the following periods. Some plants, for instance (including both herbs and fruit-trees), appeared long after the commencement of fishes and birds, and similarly some fishes and birds after the commencement of land-animals. But the difficulty is due to the fact that the classesoverlapto a large extent. And the order given in Genesis is nearerthe truth than any other would be. Had the writer, for example, placed them plants, animals, birds, fishes; he would have been quite wrong. As it is, by placing them plants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as he can be, if classes which really overlap have to be arranged in a consecutive narrative.

We next come to the formation (that is themaking, or evolving) of the sun and moon. The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said that they were made on the fourth day, and they are not alluded to in the opening command. Now, this alleged formation of the sunafterthat of light is certainly the most striking point in the narrative, and was long thought to be a difficulty. But science has now shown that it is correct. However strange we may think it, light did undoubtedly exist long before the sun. In other words, the original nebula of our solar system was luminous, and lighted the earth, long before it contracted into a body with a definite outline, and producing such an intense and concentrated light, as could be called a sun. And since the earth would cool much quicker than the large nebula from which it was thrown off, vegetation might commence here before the nebula had become a sun, though this latter point is doubtful.

Two objections have now to be noticed. The first refers to themoon, which must have been thrown off from the earth long before the dry land and vegetation appeared; and being so small, would have consolidated sooner. But when considered only aslights, as they are in the narrative, it is quite correct to placethe moon with the sun; since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, and must obviously have commenced at the same time. The other objection is, that according to Genesis, the earth seems to be the centre of everything, and even the sun exists solely for the sake of lighting the earth. But (as before pointed out) the narrative is only concerned with this earth; and while we know that sunlight is of use to the inhabitants of our planet, we do not know that it serves any other useful purpose.

These, however, are but minor matters; the important point, as before said, is that Genesis places the formation of the sunafterthat of light. This must have appeared when it was written, and for thousands of years afterwards, an obvious absurdity, since everyone could see that the sun was the source of light. We now know that it is correct. But how could the writer have known it, unless it had been divinely revealed?

We next come to fishes and birds, which formed the commencement of animal life, and thus involved the beginning ofmindin some form; so Genesis (as before said) appropriately uses the wordcreatein regard to them. It is not clear whether the narrative means that they appeared at the same time, or successively, though here, as in other cases, the latter is the more probable. And science entirely agrees in thus placing fishes before birds and both of these after plants. This latter point indeed must be obvious to every naturalist, since the food of all animals is derived, either directly or indirectly, from the vegetable world.

And Genesis is equally correct in emphasising the great abundance ofmarinelife at this period—the waters were toswarm with swarms of living creatures(R.V. Margin), and also in specially alluding to the greatsea-monsters(wrongly translatedwhalesin A.V.), since these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time. The Hebrew word is said to meanelongatedor stretched-out creatures, and as several of them were over 50 feet long, no more suitable term can be imagined. But again we must ask how did the writer know that such creatures were ever plentiful enough, or important enough, to deserve this special mention?

What are calledinvertebrateanimals, such as insects, and shell-fish, do not seem to be included in the narrative. But it never claims to describe everything that was created; and its extreme brevity, combined with the insignificance of these creatures, may well account for their being omitted.

We next come to land animals, which we are told the earth was tobring forth. As however it is said in the next verse that Godmade(or evolved) these creatures, this need not mean that they were produced directly from the earth, as in the case of plants. And the position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and before man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as kangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals as a whole undoubtedly succeeded them. Three classes are mentioned,beasts of the earth,cattle, andcreeping things, probably small animals, since another Hebrew word is used forthem, later on, which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice.[20]

[20]Gen. 7. 21; Lev. 11. 29.

Last of all we come to the creation of man. Four points have to be noticed here. The first refers to thetimeof man's appearance, which everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the Tertiary or most recent group of strata; so Genesis is quite correct in placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing; for its chronology only leads back to the creation ofAdamin chapter 2, and not to that of thehuman race(male and female) in chapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men before Adam[21]and this was in consequence maintained by some writers long before geology was thought of.[22]We need not therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Adam and Eve, as to which the present writer has never seen a satisfactory explanation.

[21]Gen. 4. 13-17, 26; 6. 2-4.

[22]E.g., Peyreyrius,A.D.1655, quoted in the Speaker's Commentary.

Secondly, the creation of man is represented as of an altogetherhigher order, than any of the previous ones, since God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal" or anything of that kind, but 'Let us make man.' And this also is quite correct, for man, as we know (Chapter IV.) has afree will, which makes him a personal being, and therefore far above everything else on this planet.

And when we consider the vast possibilities, involved in the creation of such a being,—able to act right orwrong, and therefore able, if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent miseries,—it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should have been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different from all the others.

And it explains why no such expression asafter its kind, which is so frequently used of plants and animals, is ever applied to man; for he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man isunique, a separate personal being, distinct from all else in the world, and not (like a tree for instance) merely one example of a certain way in which molecules may be grouped.

It also explains why man (unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said to have been createdgood. For goodness in a free being must include moral goodness, orrighteousness; and, as explained inChapter VI., man could not have beencreatedrighteous. He might have been createdperfect, like a machine, orinnocent, like a child, but to berighteousrequires his own co-operation, his freely choosing to act right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he was made in a condition perfectly suited for theexerciseof his free choice; but this seems included in God's final approval of the whole creation that it was allvery good.

Thirdly we are told that man (and man alone) was createdin the image of God. And once more the narrative is quite correct; for that which distinguishes man from the rest of creation is hisfree will, to which we have just alluded. And that which distinguishes God's action from all natural forces is also Hisfreedom,(Chapter I.). So it is perfectly true to say that man was createdin the image of God, since the special attribute which separates him from all else on this planet is precisely the attribute of God Himself.

And here we may notice in passing, that though God intended man to be both in His image andlikeness; He only created him in Hisimage(vv. 26, 27). And the reason is probably that while image means resemblance innature(possessing free will, etc.), likeness means resemblance incharacter[23](always acting right). Therefore, of course, though God wished man to be both in His image and likeness, He could only create him in Hisimage; the other point, that oflikenessin character, depending (as just said) on the free will of the man himself.

[23]The Hebrew word appears to be sometimes used in this sense.E.g., Ps. 58. 4; Isa. 13. 4. In one brief reference in Gen. 5. 1-2, when speaking of Adam,likenessis used where we should have expectedimage; though even here it is not said that man wascreatedin God's likeness, but merely that he was somade.

The fourth, and last point is that though the writer assigns to man this unique position, he does not give him, as we might have expected, adayto himself, butconnects him with land animals, as both appearing on the sixth day. And this also seems correct, for in spite of his immense superiority, man, in his physical nature, is closely connected with animals. Therefore the writer appropriately uses both words,madeandcreated, in regard to him. The former shows that in one respect (as to his body) he was evolved like the rest of nature; the latter, that in another respect (as to his spirit) he was essentially distinct.

We have now discussed the narrative at some length, and (omitting details) it shows three great periods of life. Each of these has a leading characteristic; that of the third day being vegetation; that of the fifth day fishes and birds, special mention being made of great sea-monsters; and that of the sixth day land animals, and at its close man. And though these groupsoverlapto a large extent, yet speaking broadly, the three periods in Geology have much the same characteristics. The Primary is distinguished by its vegetation (e.g., the coal beds); the Secondary by its saurians, or great sea-monsters; and the Tertiary by its land animals, and at its close (now often called the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the two is, to say the least, remarkable.

And the theory of Evolution which like geology, was unknown when the narrative was written, also supports it, as has been admitted by some of its leading exponents. Thus Romanes once said, and as if the fact was undisputed, 'The order in which the flora and fauna are said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon the earth corresponds with that which the theory of Evolution requires, and the evidence of geology proves.'[24]We decide, then, that the order of creation, as given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in all cases probably, correct.

[24]Nature, 11th August, 1881.

And this is plainly of the utmost importance, for the points of agreement between Genesis and science are far too many, and far too unlikely to be due toaccident. They are far too many; for the chance against eight events being put down in their correct order by guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they are far too unlikely; for what could have induced an ignorant man to say that light came before the sun, or that the earth once existed without any dry land?

Moreover, the general principles of the narrative, especially its pure Monotheism and its gradual development, are very strongly in its favour. And so are some individual points, such as the idea of creation, in its strict sense, being limited to matter, mind, and spirit. While our admiration for it is still further increased by its extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed, has such a mass of information been condensed into as few lines; and seldom has such a difficult subject been treated so accurately yet in such simple and popular language.

Now what conclusion can be drawn from all this? There seem to be only two alternatives: either the writer, whoever he was, knew as much about science as we do, or else the knowledge was revealed to him by God. And if we admit a revelation at all, the latter certainly seems the less improbable. And this, it may be added, was the opinion of the great geologist Dana, who said (after carefully considering the subject) that the coincidences between the narrative, and the history of the earth as derived from nature, were such as to imply its Divine origin.[25]We therefore conclude that this account of the creation wasDivinely revealed.

[25]Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1885, p. 224.

Importance of the Pentateuch, as the only record of the origin of the Jewish Religion.(A.) Its Egyptian References.These are very strongly in favour of its early date;(1.) In the history of Joseph.(2.) In the history of Moses.(3.) In the laws and addresses.(B.) Its Laws.These are also in favour of its early date:(1.) The subjects dealt with.(2.) Their connection with the history.(3.) Their wording.(C.) The Theory of a Late-Date.There are four chief arguments in favour of this, but they are not at all convincing:(1.) The language of the Pentateuch.(2.) Its composite character.(3.) Its laws being unknown in later times.(4.) The finding of Deuteronomy.(D.) Conclusion.The Pentateuch was probably written, as it claims to be, by Moses; and we must therefore admit the miracles of the Exodus.

Importance of the Pentateuch, as the only record of the origin of the Jewish Religion.

(A.) Its Egyptian References.

These are very strongly in favour of its early date;

(1.) In the history of Joseph.

(2.) In the history of Moses.

(3.) In the laws and addresses.

(B.) Its Laws.

These are also in favour of its early date:

(1.) The subjects dealt with.

(2.) Their connection with the history.

(3.) Their wording.

(C.) The Theory of a Late-Date.

There are four chief arguments in favour of this, but they are not at all convincing:

(1.) The language of the Pentateuch.

(2.) Its composite character.

(3.) Its laws being unknown in later times.

(4.) The finding of Deuteronomy.

(D.) Conclusion.

The Pentateuch was probably written, as it claims to be, by Moses; and we must therefore admit the miracles of the Exodus.

We pass on now to theoriginof the Jewish Religion—that is to say, the events connected with the Exodus from Egypt. And as the only account we have ofthese is contained in thePentateuch, we must examine this book carefully. Is it a trustworthy, and, on the whole, accurate account of the events which it records? And this depends chiefly on itsdate. Is it acontemporarydocument, written by, or in the time of, Moses? And modern discoveries have at least shown that it may be so. For Egypt was then in such a civilised state, that it is practically certain that Moses, and the other leaders of Israel, could have written had they chosen. And as they somehow or other brought the people out of Egypt, it is extremely probable that they would have recorded it. But did they, and do we possess this record in the Pentateuch?

This is the question we have to decide; and we will first consider theEgyptian referencesin the Pentateuch, and then itsLaws, both of which are very strongly in favour of an early date. Then we will see what can be said for the opposite theory, or that of alate-date; and lastly, theconclusionto be drawn from admitting its genuineness.

Now a considerable part of the Pentateuch deals with Egyptian matters, and it appears to be written with correct details throughout. This would of course be only natural in a contemporary writer living in Egypt, but would be most unlikely for a late writer in Canaan. The question is therefore of great importance in deciding on the date of the book; so we will first consider theseEgyptian references(as they are called) in the history of Joseph, then in that of Moses, and then in the laws and addresses. They cannot of course beproperly appreciated without some knowledge of ancient Egypt, but they are far too important to be omitted. It is disappointing to have to add that the evidence is almost entirely indirect, but up to the present no reference to either Joseph, or Moses, has been found on the Egyptian monuments, and none to the Israelites themselves that are at all conclusive.

To begin with, there are three cases where it is sometimes said that the writer seemsnotto have been a contemporary, since Egyptian customs are there explained, as if unknown to the reader. These are their eating at different tables from the Hebrews, their dislike of shepherds, and their habit of embalming.[26]But the inference from the first two is extremely doubtful; though that from the third is rather in favour of a late date. There is not, however, a single word here (or anywhere else) which isincorrectfor Egypt, or which shows that the writer himself was unaware of its customs.

[26]Gen. 43. 32; 46. 34; 50. 3.

On the other hand, there is abundant evidence in favour of a contemporary date. The Pharaoh is generally thought to be Apepi II., who belonged to aforeigndynasty of Shepherd Kings, probably Asiatic tribes like the Israelites themselves. And this will explain the evident surprise felt by the writer that one of his chief officers should be anEgyptian, which seems so puzzling to the ordinary reader.[27]It will also account for Joseph and his brethren being so well received, and for their telling him so candidly that they wereshepherds, though they knew that shepherds were hated by the Egyptians. Had the Pharaoh himself been an Egyptian, this was hardly the way to secure his favour.

[27]Gen. 39. 1.

We will now consider a single chapter in detail, and select Gen. 41; nearly every incident in which shows a knowledge of ancient Egypt:

Ver. 1. To begin with, the wordsPharaohandthe river(i.e., the Nile), though they are the proper Egyptian names, seem to have been adopted in Hebrew, and occur all through the Old Testament; so they afford no indication of date.2-4. Thedreams, however, are peculiarly Egyptian. Cattle along the river bank, and feeding on thereed-grass(an Egyptian word for an Egyptian plant), was a common sight in that country, but must have been almost unknown in Canaan. And their coming upout of the riverwas specially suitable, as they represented the years of plenty and famine, which in Egypt depend entirely on the rise of the Nile.5-7. In the same way wheat withseveral earsis known to have been produced in Egypt; but is nowhere mentioned as grown in Canaan.8. Moreover, we know that the Pharaohs attached great importance to dreams, and used to consult theirmagiciansandwise menwhen in doubt; both these classes being often mentioned—and mentioned together—on the monuments.9-12. We also know that there were officials corresponding to thechief butlerand thechief baker. And a reference has even been found to the curious custom of the former giving the Kingfresh grape-juice, squeezed into a cup (Gen. 40. 11), which is not likely to have been known to anyone out of Egypt.13. And hanging the chief baker evidently means, from Gen. 40. 19, hanging up the dead body, after he had beenbeheaded; which latter was an Egyptian, and not a Jewish, punishment.14. Next we are told, that when Joseph was hurriedly sent for by Pharaoh, he yet stopped toshave. And this was only natural, as the upper class of Egyptians always shaved; but it would scarcely have occurred to anyone in Canaan, as the Israelites always wore beards.[28][28]2 Sam. 10. 5.35. So again the custom of laying up corn in storehouses, to provide against the frequent famines, and for taxation, was thoroughly Egyptian, the Superintendent of the Granaries being a well-known official. But as far as we know nothing of the kind existed in Canaan.39. We then come to the promotion of Joseph; and several instances are known of foreigners, and even slaves, being promoted to high offices in Egypt.40. And the monuments show that it was the regular Egyptian custom to have a Superintendent, who shouldbe over the house.42. Joseph is then given Pharaoh'ssignet ring, the use of which, at this early period, has been fully confirmed by the inscriptions. And he also receivesfine linen(an Egyptian word being used for this) and agold chain about his neck. This latter was a peculiarly Egyptian decoration, being calledreceiving gold, and is continually alluded to on the monuments. And a specimen may be seen in the Cairo Museum, which happens to date from about the time of Joseph.43-44. And the apparently insignificant detail that Joseph rodein a chariot(implying horses) is also interesting, since, as far as we know, horses had only recently been introduced into Egypt by the Shepherd Kings. And had they been mentioned earlier—as, for instance, among the presents given to Abraham[29]—it would have been incorrect. And the expressionAbrech, translatedBow the knee, is probably an Egyptian word (Margin R.V.).[29]Gen. 12. 16.45. We also know that when foreigners rose to great importance in Egypt they were often given a newname. And Joseph's new name, Zaphenathpaneah,(probably meaning Head of the College of Magicians, a title he had just earned[30]) as well as Asenath, and Potiphera, are all genuine Egyptian names; though (with the exception of Asenath) they have not at present been found as early as the time of Joseph.[30]H. E. Naville, Professor of Egyptology, at the University of Geneva, 'Archæology of the Old Testament,' 1913, p. 80.49. Lastly, the usual Egyptian custom (as shown by the monuments) of having a scribe tocountthe quantity of corn as it is stored, is incidentally implied in the statement that on this occasion, owing to its great abundance, Joseph hadto leave off numbering it.

2-4. Thedreams, however, are peculiarly Egyptian. Cattle along the river bank, and feeding on thereed-grass(an Egyptian word for an Egyptian plant), was a common sight in that country, but must have been almost unknown in Canaan. And their coming upout of the riverwas specially suitable, as they represented the years of plenty and famine, which in Egypt depend entirely on the rise of the Nile.

5-7. In the same way wheat withseveral earsis known to have been produced in Egypt; but is nowhere mentioned as grown in Canaan.

8. Moreover, we know that the Pharaohs attached great importance to dreams, and used to consult theirmagiciansandwise menwhen in doubt; both these classes being often mentioned—and mentioned together—on the monuments.

9-12. We also know that there were officials corresponding to thechief butlerand thechief baker. And a reference has even been found to the curious custom of the former giving the Kingfresh grape-juice, squeezed into a cup (Gen. 40. 11), which is not likely to have been known to anyone out of Egypt.

13. And hanging the chief baker evidently means, from Gen. 40. 19, hanging up the dead body, after he had beenbeheaded; which latter was an Egyptian, and not a Jewish, punishment.

14. Next we are told, that when Joseph was hurriedly sent for by Pharaoh, he yet stopped toshave. And this was only natural, as the upper class of Egyptians always shaved; but it would scarcely have occurred to anyone in Canaan, as the Israelites always wore beards.[28]

[28]2 Sam. 10. 5.

35. So again the custom of laying up corn in storehouses, to provide against the frequent famines, and for taxation, was thoroughly Egyptian, the Superintendent of the Granaries being a well-known official. But as far as we know nothing of the kind existed in Canaan.

39. We then come to the promotion of Joseph; and several instances are known of foreigners, and even slaves, being promoted to high offices in Egypt.

40. And the monuments show that it was the regular Egyptian custom to have a Superintendent, who shouldbe over the house.

42. Joseph is then given Pharaoh'ssignet ring, the use of which, at this early period, has been fully confirmed by the inscriptions. And he also receivesfine linen(an Egyptian word being used for this) and agold chain about his neck. This latter was a peculiarly Egyptian decoration, being calledreceiving gold, and is continually alluded to on the monuments. And a specimen may be seen in the Cairo Museum, which happens to date from about the time of Joseph.

43-44. And the apparently insignificant detail that Joseph rodein a chariot(implying horses) is also interesting, since, as far as we know, horses had only recently been introduced into Egypt by the Shepherd Kings. And had they been mentioned earlier—as, for instance, among the presents given to Abraham[29]—it would have been incorrect. And the expressionAbrech, translatedBow the knee, is probably an Egyptian word (Margin R.V.).

[29]Gen. 12. 16.

45. We also know that when foreigners rose to great importance in Egypt they were often given a newname. And Joseph's new name, Zaphenathpaneah,(probably meaning Head of the College of Magicians, a title he had just earned[30]) as well as Asenath, and Potiphera, are all genuine Egyptian names; though (with the exception of Asenath) they have not at present been found as early as the time of Joseph.

[30]H. E. Naville, Professor of Egyptology, at the University of Geneva, 'Archæology of the Old Testament,' 1913, p. 80.

49. Lastly, the usual Egyptian custom (as shown by the monuments) of having a scribe tocountthe quantity of corn as it is stored, is incidentally implied in the statement that on this occasion, owing to its great abundance, Joseph hadto leave off numbering it.

Thus everything in this chapter,and the same may be said of many others, is perfectly correct for Egypt; though much of it would be incorrect for Canaan, and is not likely to have been known to anyone living there. Yet the writer not only knows it, buttakes for granted that his readers know it too, as he never explains anything. So the narrative is not likely to have been written after the time of Moses, when the Israelites left Egypt. And this, it may be added, is the opinion of many who have made a special study of ancient Egypt. Thus Prof. Naville declares 'I do not hesitate to say that he (Moses) was the only author who could have written the history of Joseph, such as we have it.'[31]

Back to Index Next