Chapter VII: Introduction (5)

The latter position is maintained by Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 187 ff.), who holds that the scheme of days is a
secondary addition to the framework as it came from the hand
of its Priestly author (Q). In the original cosmogony of Q a
division into seven days was recognised, but in a different form
from what now obtains; it was moreover not carried through in
detail, but merely indicated by the statement of 2² that God
finished His work on the seventh day. The key to the primary
arrangement he finds in the formula of approval, the absence
of which after the second work he explains by the consideration
that the separation of the upper waters from the lower and of
the lower from the dry land form really but one work, and were
so regarded by Q. Thus the seven works of creation were (1)
separation of light from darkness; (2) separation of waters
(⁶⁻¹⁰); (3) creation of plants; (4) luminaries; (5) fish
and fowl; (6) land animals; (7) man. The statement that God
finished His work on the seventh day Wellhausen considers to
be inconsistent with a six days’ creation, and also with the
view that the seventh was a day of rest; hence in chapter 2, he
deletes ²ᵇ and ³ᵇ, and reads simply: “and God finished His work
which He made on the seventh day, and God blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it.”――This theory has been subjected to a
searching criticism by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 487
ff.; compare also Dillmann 15), who rightly protests against
the subsuming of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea
under one rubric as a ‘separation of waters,’ and gets rid of
the difficulty presented by 2²ᵃ by reading _sixth_ instead of
_seventh_ (see on the verse). Budde urges further that the idea
of the Sabbath as a day on which work might be done is one not
likely to have been entertained in the circles from which the
Priestly Code emanated,¹ and also (on the ground of Exodus 20¹¹)
that the conception of a creation in six days followed by a
divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel long before
the age of that document.――It is to be observed that part of
Budde’s argument (which as a whole seems to me valid against
the specific form of the theory advanced by Wellhausen) only
pushes the real question a step further back; and Budde himself,
while denying that the seven days’ scheme is secondary to
Priestly-Code, agrees with Ewald, Dillmann, and many others
in thinking that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the
cosmogony in which that scheme did not exist.

¹ See Jerome’s polemical note, in _Quæstiones sive Traditiones
hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._

The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight
works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an
attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has
been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting
(Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other
way; for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained
in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had
some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the
originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of
two entirely dissimilar works under the third day; (b) the
separation of two closely related works on the second and third
days; (c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the
existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated
(thus far Dillmann 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the
fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These
objections are not all of equal weight; and explanations more
or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the
whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions: that
the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally
incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the
former during the Hebrew development of the cosmogony, that
this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of
the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later
than Priestly-Code, and in all probability long before his time.

_Source and Style._――As has been already hinted, the section
belongs to the Priestly Code (Priestly-Code). This is the
unanimous opinion of all critics who accept the documentary
analysis of the Hexateuch, and it is abundantly proved both by
characteristic words and phrases, and general features of style.
Expressions characteristic of Priestly-Code are (besides the
divine name אלהים): ברא (see on verse¹), זכר ונקבה ²⁷, חיתו ארץ [חית ה׳]
²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³⁰, לאכלה ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, מין ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵, מקוה ¹⁰, פרה ורבה ²²ᐧ ²⁸,
רָמַשׂ, רֶמֶשׂ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³⁰, שָׁרַץ, שֶׁרֶץ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹, and תולדות in
2⁴ᵃ.――Compare the lists in Dillmann, page 1; Gunkel, page 107,
and _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 208‒220; and for details see the
Commentary below.――Of even greater value as a criterion of
authorship is the unmistakable literary manner of the Priestly
historian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict
adherence to a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous
repetition of set phraseology, the aim at exact classification
and definition, and generally the subordination of the concrete
to the formal elements of composition: these are all features of
the ‘juristic’ style cultivated by this school of writers,――“it
is the same spirit that has shaped Genesis 1 and Genesis 5”
(Gunkel).――On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse
judgments have been pronounced. Gunkel, whose estimate is on
the whole disparaging, complains of a lack of poetic enthusiasm
and picturesqueness of conception, poorly compensated for by a
marked predilection for method and order. It is hardly fair to
judge a prose writer by the requirements of poetry; and even
a critic so little partial to Priestly-Code as Wellhausen is
impressed by “the majestic repose and sustained grandeur” of the
narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium (_Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 297). To deny to a writer capable
of producing this impression all sense of literary effect is
unreasonable; and it is perhaps near the truth to say that
though the style of Priestly-Code may, in technical descriptions
or enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an
extreme case in Numbers 7), he has found here a subject suited
to his genius, and one which he handles with consummate skill.
It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of
the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find in the
severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first
chapter of Genesis.

In speaking of the style of Priestly-Code it has to be borne
in mind that we are dealing with the literary tradition of a
school rather than with the idiosyncrasy of an individual. It
has, indeed, often been asserted that this particular passage
is obviously the composition ‘at one heat’ of a single writer;
but that is improbable. If the cosmogony rests ultimately on
a Babylonian model, it “must have passed through a long period
of naturalisation in Israel, and of gradual assimilation to
the spirit of Israel’s religion before it could have reached
its present form” (Driver, _Genesis_ 31). All, therefore, that
is necessarily implied in what has just been said is that the
_later stages_ of that process must have taken place under the
auspices of the school of Priestly-Code, and that its work has
entered very deeply into the substance of the composition.――Of
the earlier stages we can say little except that traces of them
remain in those elements which do not agree with the ruling
ideas of the last editors. Budde has sought to prove that the
story had passed through the school of Yahwist before being
adopted by that of Priestly-Code; that it was in fact the form
into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer called
Yahwist². Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as
would be supplied by allusions to Genesis 1 in other parts of
Yahwist²) there is none: it is an inference deduced mainly from
these premises: (1) that the creation story shows traces of
overworking which presuppose the existence of an older Hebrew
recension; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric
tradition Priestly-Code betrays his dependence on Yahwist²; and
(3) that Yahwist² in turn is markedly dependent on Babylonian
sources (see _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 463‒496, and the
summary on page 491 f.). Even if all these observations be
well founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a
demonstration of Budde’s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture
so long as we assume that little was written beyond what we have
direct or indirect evidence of (_ib._ 463¹); but when we realise
how little is known of the diffusion of literary activity in
ancient Israel, the presumption that Yahwist² was the particular
writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes very
slender indeed.

=1.= We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome question of syntax which affects the sense of every member of verse ¹. While all ancient versions and many moderns take the verse as a complete sentence, others (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause, subordinate either to verse ³ (Rashi, and so most) or verse ² (Ibn Ezra, apparently). On the latter view the verse will read: _In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth_: בְּרֵאשִׁית being in the construct state, followed by a clause as genitive (compare Isaiah 29¹, Hosea 1² etc.; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 130 _d_; Davidson § 25). In a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with verse ¹ it is necessary to leave the alternative open.――_In the beginning_] If the clause be subordinate the reference of ראשית is defined by what immediately follows, and no further question arises. But if it be an independent statement _beginning_ is used absolutely (as in John 1¹), and two interpretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts the creation (_ex nihilo_) of the primæval chaos described in verse ²; or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process narrated in the chapter. The former view has prevailed in Jewish and Christian theology, and is still supported by the weighty authority of Wellhausen. But (1) it is not in accordance with the usage of ראשית (see below); (2) it is not required by the word ‘create,’――a created chaos is perhaps a contradiction (Isaiah 45¹⁸ לֹא־תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ), and Wellhausen himself admits that it is a remarkable conception; and (3) it is excluded by the object of that verb: _the heavens and the earth_. For though that phrase is a Hebrew designation of the universe as a whole, it is only the _organised_ universe, not the chaotic material out of which it was formed, that can naturally be so designated. The appropriate name for chaos is ‘the earth’ (verse ²); the representation being a chaotic earth from which the heavens were afterwards made (⁶ ᶠᐧ). The verse therefore (if an independent sentence at all) must be taken as an introductory heading to the rest of the chapter.¹――_God created._] The verb בָּרָא contains the central idea of the passage. It is partly synonymous with עָשָׂה (compare verses ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ with ²⁵), but 2³ shows that it had a specific shade of meaning. The idea cannot be defined with precision, but the following points are to be noted: (a) The most important fact is that it is used exclusively of _divine_ activity――a restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in other languages (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 304). (b) The idea of _novelty_ (Isaiah 48⁶ ᶠᐧ 41²⁰ 65¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 31²¹) or _extraordinariness_ (Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ [Yahwist]) of result is frequently implied, and it is noteworthy that this is the case in the only two passages of certainly early date where the word occurs. (c) It is probable also that it contains the idea of _effortless_ production (such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition² (Psalms 33⁹). (d) It is obvious (from this chapter and many passages) that the sense stops short of _creatio ex nihilo_,――an idea first explicitly occurring in 2 Maccabees 7²⁸. At the same time the facts just stated, and the further circumstance that the word is always used with accusative of product and never of material, constitute a long advance towards the full theological doctrine, and make the word ‘create’ a suitable vehicle for it.

¹ The view that verse ¹ describes an earlier creation of heaven
and earth, which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned,
needs no refutation.

² The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their
word _banû_ (see philosophical note); but the association
seems accidental; and its significance is exaggerated by
Gunkel when he says “the idea of creation is that man may
form with his hands, the god brings to pass through his
word” (_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 23).
_Banû_ is quite synonymous with _ipisû_ (make), and is not
restricted to the divine activity.

* * * * *

=1.=――ראשית] The form is probably contracted from רְאֵשִׁית (compare
שְׁאֵרִית), and therefore not derived directly from רֹאשׁ. It signifies
primarily the _first_ (or _best_) part of a thing: Genesis 10¹⁰
(‘nucleus’), 49³ (‘first product’), Deuteronomy 33²¹, Amos 6⁶
etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc., see
Gray’s note, _Numbers_ 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into
a temporal sense, as the _first stage_ of a process or series of
events: Hosea 9¹⁰ (‘in its first stage’), Deuteronomy 11¹² (of
the year), Job 8⁷ 40¹⁹ (a man’s life), Isaiah 46¹⁰ (starting
point of a series), etc. Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 386) has said that Deuteronomy 11¹² is the earliest
instance of the temporal sense; but the distinction between
‘first part’ and ‘temporal beginning’ is so impalpable that not
much importance can be attached to the remark. It is of more
consequence to observe that at no period of the language does
the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given,
viz. the first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated
or clearly implied. That being so, the prevalent determinate
construction becomes intelligible. That in its ceremonial
sense the word should be used absolutely was to be expected (so
Leviticus 2¹² [Numbers 18¹²] Nehemiah 12⁴⁴: with these may be
taken also Deuteronomy 33²¹). In its temporal applications it
is always defined by genitive or suffix except in Isaiah. 46¹⁰,
where the antithesis to אחרית inevitably suggests the intervening
series of which ר׳ is the initial phase. It is therefore doubtful
if בָּר׳ could be used of an absolute beginning detached from
its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like בָּראשנה or בַּתּחלה (see
Isaiah 1²⁶, Genesis 13³).――This brings us to the question of
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) verse ¹ an
independent sentence (_all_ versions and the great majority of
commentaries, including Calvin, Delitzsch, Tuch, Wellhausen,
Driver). _In sense_ this construction (taking the verse as
superscription) is entirely free from objection: it yields an
easy syntax, and a simple and majestic opening. The absence
of the article tells against it, but is by no means decisive.
At most it is a matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek
transliterations Βαρησηθ (Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ
supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Fragmenta_), and Βαρησεθ (Lagarde, _Ankündigung
einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_
5), alongside of Βρησιθ, may show that in ancient times the
first word was sometimes read בָּר׳. Even the Massoretic pointing
does not necessarily imply that the word was meant as construct;
ר׳ is never found with articles, and Delitzsch has well pointed
out that the stereotyped use or omission of articles with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which
eludes our analysis (_e.g._ מִקֶּדֶם, מֵרֹאשׁ, בָּרִאשֹׁנָה: compare König
_Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_
§ 294 g). The construction seems to me, however, opposed to
the essentially _relative_ idea of ר׳,――its express reference to
_that of which_ it is the beginning (see above). (b) verse ¹
protasis: verse ² parenthesis: verse ³ apodosis;――_When God
began to create ...――now the earth was ...――God said, Let
there be light._ So Rashi, Ewald, Dillmann,¹ Holzinger, Gunkel,
al.――practically all who reject (a). Although first appearing
explicitly in Rashi († 1105), it has been argued that this
represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in
under the influence of LXX from a desire to exclude the idea
of an eternal chaos preceding the creation.² But the fact that
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ agrees with LXX militates against that opinion.
The one objection to (b) is the ‘verzweifelt geschmacklose
Construction’ (Wellhausen) which it involves. It is replied
(Gunkel, al.) that such openings may have been a traditional
feature of creation stories, being found in several Babylonian
accounts, as well as in Genesis 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁶. In any case a lengthy
parenthesis is quite admissible in good prose style (see 1
Samuel 3²ᵃ{β}⁻³, with Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the
Books of Samuel_, _ad loc._), and may be safely assumed here
if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for adopting it. The
clause as genitive is perfectly regular, though it would be
easy to substitute infinitive בְּרֹא (mentioned but not recommended
by Rashi). (c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more
consideration than it has received, is to take verse ¹ as
protasis and verse ² as apodosis, ‘_When God began to create the
heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc._’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra?
but see Cheyne, in _Hebräica_ ii. 50). So far as sense goes
the sequence is eminently satisfactory; the ויאמר of verse ³ is
more natural as a continuation of verse ² than of verse ¹. The
question is whether the _form_ of verse ² permits its being
construed as apodosis. The order of words (subject before
predicate) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumstantial
clause (Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in
Hebrew_ § 157; Davidson § 138 (_c_)); but there is no
absolute rule against an apodosis assuming this form after a
time-determination (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the
Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78). Close parallels (for it is hard to
see that the ויהי makes any essential difference) are Genesis 7¹⁰
(Yahwist), 22¹ (Elohist), or (with imperfect), Leviticus 7¹⁶ᵇ
(Priestly-Code). The construction is not appreciably harsher
than in the analogous case of 2⁵, where it has been freely
adopted.――ברא] enters fully into Old Testament usage only on the
eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious passages
(Amos 4¹³, Isaiah 4⁵, Jeremiah 31²¹), its first emergence in
prophecy is in Ezekiel (3 times); it is specially characteristic
of II Isaiah (20 times), in Priestly-Code 10 times, and in other
late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic use rests on
Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ (Yahwist), Deuteronomy 4³². There
is no reason to doubt that it belongs to the early language;
what can be fairly said is that at the Exile the thought of the
divine creation of the world became prominent in the prophetic
theology, and that for this reason the term which expressed it
technically obtained a currency it had not previously enjoyed.
The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as the
root of a Piel meaning ‘cut,’ hence ‘form by cutting,’ ‘carve,’
‘fashion,’ (Aramaic _baraʸ_, Phœnician ברא [_Corpus Inscriptionum
Semiticarum_, i. 347⁴]: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._; Lane,
_A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament_ 197 b;
Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 244
[with ?]); but the evidence of the connexion is very slight. The
only place where בֵּרֵא could mean ‘carve’ is Ezekiel 21²⁴ ᵇⁱˢ; and
there the text is almost certainly corrupt (see Cornill, Toy,
Kraetschmar, _ad loc._). Elsewhere it means ‘cut down’ (Ezekiel
23⁴⁷) or ‘clear ground by hewing down trees’ (Joshua 17¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸
[Yahwist])――a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make
(Dillmann, Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387). The Aramaic _bara’a_ (used chiefly
of creation of animate beings) is possibly borrowed from
Hebrew. Native philologists connect it, very unnaturally, with
_bari’a_, ‘be free’; so that ‘create’ means to _liberate_ (from
the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178 b, c): Dillmann’s view is similar.
Barth (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 58) has proposed to
identify ברא (through mutation of liquids) with the Assyrian verb
for ‘create,’ _banū_; but rejects the opinion that the latter is
the common Semitic בנה ‘build’ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 498¹), with which ברא alternates in Sabæan (Müller
in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
xxxvii. 413, 415).

¹ Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of
a redactional operation. Originally the place of verse ¹ was
occupied by 2⁴ᵃ in its correct form: אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בְּבָרְאָם אלהים.
When this was transposed it was necessary to frame a new
introduction, and in the hands of the editor it assumed the
form of verse ¹ (similarly, Stade _Biblische Theologie des
Alten Testaments_ i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely
accepted view of the original position of 2⁴ᵃ (see on the
verse), and Dillmann’s intricate hypothesis would seem to me
an additional argument against it.

² See Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer
Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums_
344, 439, 444. The _Mechilta_ (on Exodus 12⁴⁰: Winter and
Wünsche’s German translation, page 48) gives verse ¹ as one
of thirteen instances of things ‘written for King Ptolemy’;
and Geiger infers that the change was deliberately made for
the reason mentioned. The reading alleged by _Mechilta_ is
אלהים ברא בראשית, which gives the _sense_ but not the _order_ of
LXX. The other variations given are only partly verified by
our texts of LXX; see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ 2² 11⁷ 18¹² 49⁶.

* * * * *

=2. Description of Chaos.=――It is perhaps impossible to unite the features of the description in a single picture, but the constitutive elements of the notion of chaos appear to be Confusion (תהו ובהו), Darkness, and Water (תהום, מים). The weird effect of the language is very impressive. On the syntax, see above.――_waste and void_] The exact meaning of this alliterative phrase――_Tōhû wā-Bōhû_――is difficult to make out. The words are nouns; the connotation of תהו ranges from the concrete ‘desert’ to the abstract ‘nonentity’; while בהו possibly means ‘emptiness’ (_v.i._). The exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the latter aspect, and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty space (Gunkel). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah’s vision of Chaos-come-again (4²³⁻²⁶), which is simply that of a darkened and devastated earth, from which life and order have fled. The idea here is probably similar, with this difference, that the distinction of land and sea is effaced, and the earth, which is the subject of the sentence, must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in which the elements of the future land and sea were commingled.――_Darkness_ (an almost invariable feature of ancient conceptions of chaos) _was upon the face of the Deep_] The _Deep_ (תְּהוֹם) is the subterranean ocean on which the earth rests (Genesis 7¹¹ 8² 49²⁵, Amos 7⁴ etc.); which, therefore, before the earth was formed, lay bare and open to the superincumbent darkness. In the Babylonian Creation-myth the primal chaos is personified under the name _Ti’āmat_. The Hebrew narrative is free from mythological associations, and it is doubtful if even a trace of personification lingers in the name תהום. In Babylonian, _ti’āmatu_ or _tāmtu_ is a generic term for ‘ocean’; and it is conceivable that this literal sense may be the origin of the Hebrew conception of the Deep (see page 47).――_The Spirit of God was brooding_] not, as has sometimes been supposed, a _wind_ sent from God to dry up the waters (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and a few moderns), but the divine Spirit, figured as a bird brooding over its nest, and perhaps symbolising an immanent principle of life and order in the as yet undeveloped chaos. Compare Milton, _Paradise Lost_, i. 19 ff., vii. 233 ff. It is remarkable, however, if this be the idea, that no further effect is given to it in the sequel. (1) The idea of the Spirit as formative principle of the kosmos, while _in the line_ of the Old Testament doctrine that he is the source of life (Psalms 33⁶ 104²⁹ ᶠᐧ), yet goes much beyond the ordinary representation, and occurs only here (possibly Isaiah 40¹³). (2) The image conveyed by the word _brooding_ (מְרַחֶפֶת) is generally considered to rest on the widespread cosmogonic speculation of the world-egg (so even Delitzsch and Dillmann), in which the organised world was as it were hatched from the fluid chaos. If so, we have here a fragment of mythology not vitally connected with the main idea of the narrative, but introduced for the sake of its religious suggestiveness. In the source from which this myth was borrowed the brooding power might be a bird-like deity¹ (Gunkel), or an abstract principle like the Greek Ἔρως, the Phœnician Πόθος, etc.: for this the Hebrew writer, true to his monotheistic faith, substitutes the Spirit of God, and thereby transforms a “crude material representation ... into a beautiful and suggestive figure” (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 5).

¹ In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is
often represented as a bird hovering over the waters
(Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ vi. 241).

The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that
of empty space (Hesiod, Aristotle, Lucretius, etc.) and the
‘rudis indigestaque moles’ of Ovid (_Metamorphoses _ i. 7).
The Babylonian representation embraces the elements of darkness
and water, and there is no doubt that this is the central idea
of the Genesis narrative. It is singular, however, that of the
three clauses of verse ² only the second (which includes the two
elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent
description (for on any view the ‘waters’ of the third must
be identical with the _Tĕhôm_ of the second). It is possible,
therefore, that the verse combines ideas drawn from diverse
sources which are not capable of complete synthesis. Only
on this supposition would it be possible to accept Gunkel’s
interpretation of the first clause as a description of empty
space. In that case _the earth_ is probably not inclusive
of, but contrasted with, _Tĕhôm_: it denotes the space _now_
occupied by the earth, which being empty leaves nothing but the
deep and the darkness.

* * * * *

=2.= תהו ובהו] LXX ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος; Aquila κένωμα καὶ
οὐθέν; Symmachus ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον; Theodotion κενὸν (or
οὐθὲν) καὶ οὐθὲν; Vulgate _inanis et vacua_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
צדיא וריקניא (‘desolate and empty’); Peshiṭtå (‡ 2 Syriac words).
The fragmentary Jerome Targum has a double translation: “And the
earth was תהיא ובהיא, and (compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ) _desolate_ from
the sons of men, and _empty_ of work.” תהו occurs along with בהו
in Jeremiah 4²³, Isaiah 34¹¹; תהו alone in 17 passages besides.
The meaning varies between two extremes: (a) a (trackless)
_desert_ (Job 12²⁴ [= Psalms 107⁴⁰] 6¹⁸, Deuteronomy 32¹⁰), and
(b) _unsubstantiality_ (שאין לו ממש, Abraham Ibn Ezra) or ‘nonentity,’
a sense all but peculiar to II Isaiah (also 1 Samuel 12²¹,
and _perhaps_ Isaiah 29²¹), but very frequent there. The primary
idea is uncertain. It is perhaps easier on the whole to suppose
that the abstract sense of ‘formlessness,’ or the like, gave
rise to a poetic name for desert, than that the concrete
‘desert’ passed over into the abstract ‘formlessness’; but we
have no assurance that either represents the actual development
of the idea. It seems not improbable that the Old Testament
usage is entirely based on the traditional description of the
primæval chaos, and that the word had no definite connotation
in Hebrew, but was used to express any conception naturally
associated with the idea of chaos――‘formlessness,’ ‘confusion,’
‘unreality,’ etc.――בהו] (never found apart from תהו) may be
connected with _bahiya_ = ‘be empty’; though Aramaic is hardly
a safe guide in the case of a word with a long history behind
it. The identification with Βααυ, the mother of the first man
in Phœnician mythology (see page 49 f.), is probable.――תהום] is
undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Babylonian _Ti’āmat_:
a connexion with Aramaic _Tihāmat_, the Red Sea littoral
province (Hoffmann in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320 b, c;
Jensen, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 560). In early
Hebrew the word is rare, and always (with possible exception
of Exodus 15⁵ᐧ ⁸) denotes the subterranean ocean, which is the
source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed (Genesis
49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³, Amos 7⁴, and so Deuteronomy 8⁷, Genesis
7¹¹ 8² (Priestly-Code); compare Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 195), and
is a remnant of the primal chaos (Genesis 1², Psalms 104⁶,
Proverbs 8²⁷). In later writings it is used of the sea (plural,
seas), and even of torrents of water (Psalms 42⁸); but, the
passages being poetic, there is probably always to be detected
a reference to the world-ocean, either as source of springs,
or as specialised in earthly oceans (see Ezekiel 26¹⁹). Though
the word is almost confined to poetry (except Genesis 1²
7¹¹ 8², Deuteronomy 8⁷, Amos 7⁴), the only clear cases of
personification are Genesis 49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³ (_Tĕhôm_ that
coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the article (except
with plural in Psalms 106⁹, Isaiah 63¹³) proves that it is a
proper name, but _not_ that it is a personification (compare
the case of שְׁאוֹל). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that תהום,
unlike most Hebrew names of fluids, is feminine, becoming
occasionally masculine only in later times when its primary
sense had been forgotten (compare Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 62): this might be
due to an original female personification.――מרחפת] Greek Versions
and Vulgate express merely the idea of motion (ἐπεφέρετο,
ἐπιφερόμενον, _ferebatur_); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ מנשבא (‘blow’ or
‘breathe’); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Jerome (_Quæstiones sive
Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_): “incubabat sive confovebat in
similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis.” It is impossible
to say whether ‘brood’ or ‘hover’ is the exact image here, or
in Deuteronomy 32¹¹,――the only other place where the Piel occurs
(the Qal in Jeremiah 23⁹ may be a separate root). The Syriac
verb has great latitude of meaning; it describes, _e.g._, the
action of Elisha in laying himself on the body of the dead
child (2 Kings 4³⁴); and is used of angels _hovering_ over the
dying Virgin. It is also applied to a waving of the hands (or of
fans) in certain ecclesiastical functions, etc. (see Payne Smith,
_Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3886).

* * * * *

=3‒5. First work: Creation of light.=――_[And] God said_] On the connexion, see above, pages 13 ff.; and on the significance of the _fiat_, page 7.――_Let there be light_] The thought of light as the first creation, naturally suggested by the phenomenon of the dawn, appears in several cosmogonies; but is not expressed in any known form of the Babylonian legend. There the creator, being the sun-god, is in a manner identified with the primal element of the kosmos; and the antithesis of light and darkness is dramatised as a conflict between the god and the Chaos monster. In Persian cosmogony also, light, as the sphere in which Mazda dwells, is uncreated and eternal (Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_ ii. 295 f.). In Isaiah 45⁷ both light and darkness are creations of Yahwe, but that is certainly not the idea here. Compare Milton’s _Paradise Lost_, iii. 1 ff.:

“Hail, holy Light! offspring of heaven first-born;
Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam,” etc.

* * * * *

=3.= ויהי אור corresponds to the ויהי כן of subsequent acts.

* * * * *

=4.= _saw that the light was good_] The formula of approval does not extend to the darkness, nor even to the coexistence of light and darkness, but is restricted to the light. “Good” expresses the contrast of God’s work to the chaos of which darkness is an element. Gunkel goes too far in suggesting that the expression covers a ‘strong anthropomorphism’ (the possibility of failure, happily overcome). But he rightly calls attention to the bright view of the world implied in the series of approving verdicts, as opposed to the pessimistic estimate which became common in later Judaism.――_And God divided, etc._]. To us these words merely suggest alternation in time; but Hebrew conceives of a _spatial_ distinction of light and darkness, each in its own ‘place’ or abode (Job 38¹⁹ ᶠᐧ). Even the separate days and nights of the year seem thought of as having independent and continuous existence (Job 3⁶).

The Hebrew mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the
existence of light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and
moon _rule_ the day and night, but light and darkness exist
independently of them. It is a mistake, however, to compare
this with the scientific hypothesis of a cosmical light diffused
through the nebula from which the solar system was evolved.
It is not merely light and darkness, but day and night, and
even the alternation of evening and morning (verse ⁵), that
are represented as existing before the creation of the sun.

* * * * *

=4.= האור כי טוב ] with attracted object: see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 117 _h_; Davidson § 146.

* * * * *

=5.= _And God called, etc._] The name――that by which the thing is summoned into the field of thought――belongs to the full existence of the thing itself. So in the first line of the Babylonian account, “the heaven was not yet named” means that it did not yet exist.――_And it became evening, etc._] Simple as the words are, the sentence presents some difficulty, which is not removed by the supposition that the writer follows the Jewish custom of reckoning the day from sunset to sunset (Tuch, Gunkel, Bennett, etc.). The Jewish day may have begun at sunset, but it did not end at sunrise; and it is impossible to take the words as meaning that the evening and morning _formed_ the first (second, etc.) day. Moreover, there could be no evening before the day on which light was created. The sentence must refer to the _close_ of the first day with the first evening and the night that followed, leading the mind forward to the advent of a new day, and a new display of creative power (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). One must not overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.

The interpretation of יום as _æon_, a favourite resource of
harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain
sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usage (not
even Psalms 90⁴). It is true that the conception of successive
creative periods, extending over vast spaces of time, is found
in other cosmogonies (Delitzsch 55); but it springs in part
from views of the world which are foreign to the Old Testament.
To introduce that idea here not only destroys the analogy on
which the sanction of the sabbath rests, but misconceives the
character of the Priestly Code. If the writer had had æons in
his mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating
how many millenniums each embraced.

* * * * *

=5.= יום in popular parlance denotes the period between dawn and
dark, and is so used in ⁵ᵃ. When it became necessary to deal
with the 24-hours’ day, it was most natural to connect the night
with the _preceding_ period of light, reckoning, _i.e._, from
sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevailing usage of Old
Testament (יום ולילה). In post-exilic times we find traces of the
reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase לילה ויום (νυχθήμερον),
Isaiah 27³ 34¹⁰, Esther 4¹⁶. Priestly-Code regularly employs the
form ‘day and night’; and if Leviticus 23³² can be cited as a
case of the later reckoning, Exodus 12¹⁸ is as clearly in favour
of the older (see Marti, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1036; König,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lx.
605 ff.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the
less natural method in this passage.――קָ֫רָא] _Mil‛el_, to avoid
concurrence of two accented syllables.――♦לַ֫יְלָה] (also _Mil‛el_)
a reduplicated form (לַיְלַי; compare Aramaic ליליא): see Nöldeke,
_Mandäische Grammatik_ § 109; Prätorius, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 218; König ii. § 52 c.――יום
אחד] ‘a first day,’ or perhaps better ‘one day.’ On אהד as ordinal,
see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 98 _a_, 134 _p_; Davidson § 38, _R._ 1;
but compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387.

♦ “לַיְ֫לָה” replaced with “לַ֫יְלָה”

* * * * *

=6‒8. Second work: The firmament.=――The second fiat calls into existence a _firmament_, whose function is to divide the primæval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theatre of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Psalms 104¹³, Amos 9⁶) supported by “pillars” (Job 26¹¹), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Job 37¹⁸). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Genesis 7¹¹ 8², 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Psalms 78²³). The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and earth is widely diffused; it is perhaps embodied in our word ‘heaven’ (from _heave?_) and Old English ‘lift.’ A graphic illustration of it is found in Egyptian pictures, where the god Shu is seen holding aloft, with outstretched arms, the dark star-spangled figure of the heaven-goddess, while the earth-god lies prostrate beneath (see Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 7).¹ But the special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully intelligible apart from the Babylonian creation-myth, and the climatic phenomena on which it is based (see below, page 46).

¹ Compare also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, _Anthropologie
der Naturvölker_ vi. 245 ff.; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 45 ff.

Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been
propounded (Winckler, _Himmels- und Weltbild der Babylonier_,
25 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 164,
174) which identifies it with the Babylonian _šupuk šamē_, and
explains both of the Zodiac. The view seems based on the highly
artificial Babylonian theory of a point-for-point correspondence
between heaven and earth, according to which the Zodiac
represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly
heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But
whatever be the truth about _šupuk šamē_, such a restriction
of the meaning of רקיע is inadmissible in Hebrew. In Psalms
19², Daniel 12³ it might be possible; but even there it is
unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is absolutely
excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the
firmament is _named_ heaven, and birds (whose flight is not
restricted to 10° on either side of the ecliptic) are said to
fly ‘in front of the firmament.’

* * * * *

=6.= רָקִיעַ] (LXX στερέωμα, Vulgate _firmamentum_) a word found
only in Ezekiel, Priestly-Code, Psalms 19² 150¹, Daniel 12³. The
absence of article shows that it is a _descriptive_ term, though
the only parallels to such a use would be Ezekiel 1²² ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ
10¹ (compare Phœnician מרקע = ‘dish’ [_Blechschale_]: _Corpus
Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i. 90¹; see Lidzbarski 370, 421).
The idea is _solidity_, not thinness or extension: the sense
‘beat thin’ belongs to the Piel (Exodus 39³ etc.); and this
noun is formed from the Qal, which means either (intransitive)
to ‘stamp with the foot’ (Ezekiel 6¹¹), or (transitive), ‘stamp
firm,’ ‘consolidate’ (Isaiah 42⁵ etc.). It is curious that the
verb is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven,
except Job 37¹⁸.――ויחי מבדיל] on participle expressing permanence,
see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_
§ 135, 5.――בֵּין־לְ: König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der
hebräischen Sprache_ § 319 n.――וַיַּבְדֵּל] LXX supplies as subject
ὁ θεός.――=7.= ויהי כן] transposed in LXX to end of verse ⁶, its
normal position,――if indeed it be not a gloss in both places
(Wellhausen).――=8.= LXX also inserts here the formula of
approval: on its omission in Hebrew, see above, pages 8, 9.

* * * * *

=9, 10. Third work: Dry land and sea.=――The shoreless lower ocean, which remained at the close of the second day, is now replaced by land and sea in their present configuration. The expressions used: _gathered together ... appear_――seem to imply that the earth already existed as a solid mass covered with water, as in Psalms 104⁵ᐧ ⁶; but Dillmann thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a muddy mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally suggested by verse ². Henceforth the only remains of the original chaos are the subterranean waters (commonly called _Tĕhôm_, but in Psalms 24² ‘sea’ and ‘streams’), and the circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Job 26¹⁰, Psalms 139⁹, Proverbs 8²⁷), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.

Wellhausen’s argument, that verses ⁶⁻¹⁰ are the account of a
single work (above, page 9 f.), is partly anticipated by Abraham
Ibn Ezra, who points out that what is here described is no true
creation, but only a manifestation of what was before hidden and
a gathering of what was dispersed. On the ground that earth and
heaven were made on one day (2⁴), he is driven to take ויאמר as
pluperfect, and assign verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ to the second day. Some such
idea may have dictated the omission of the formula of approval
at the close of the second day’s work.

* * * * *

=9.= יִקָּווּ] in this sense, only Jeremiah 3¹⁷. For מָקוֹם read with LXX
מִקְוֶה = ‘gathering-place,’ as in verse ¹⁰. Nestle (_Marginalien
und Materialien_, 3) needlessly suggests for the latter
מִקְרֶה, and for יקוו, יִקָּרוּ.――מִתַּחַת] not ‘from under’ but simply
‘under’ (see verse ¹⁰); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _c_².――וְתֵרָאֶה]
jussive unapocopated, as often near the principal pause;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _a_.――At the end of the verse LXX adds:
καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς
αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά: _i.e._ וַיִּקָּווּ הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מִקְוֵיהֶם וַתֵּרָא הַיַּבָּשָׁה.
The addition is adopted by Ball, and the plural αὐτῶν proves at
least that it rests on a Hebrew original, ὕδωρ being singular
in Greek (Wellhausen).――=10.= יַמִּים] the plural (compare Genesis
49¹³, Deuteronomy 33¹⁹, Psalms 46³ ᶠᐧ [where it is construed
as singular] 24² etc.) is mostly poetic and late prose; it is
probably not numerical, but plural of extension like מַיִם, שָׁמַיִם,
and therefore to be rendered as singular.

* * * * *

=11‒13. Fourth work: Creation of plants.=――The appearing of the earth is followed on the same day, not inappropriately, by the origination of vegetable life. The earth itself is conceived as endowed with productive power――a recognition of the principle of development not to be explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual renewal (Dillmann); see to the contrary verse ¹² compared with verse ²⁴.――=11.= _Let the earth produce verdure_] דֶּשֶׁא means ‘fresh young herbage,’ and appears _here_ to include all plants in the earliest stages of their growth; hence the classification of flora is not _three_fold――grass, herbs, trees (Dillmann, Driver, al.)――but _two_fold, the generic דשא including the two kinds עֵשֶׂב and עֵץ (Delitzsch, Gunkel, Holzinger, etc.). The distinction is based on the methods of reproduction; the one kind producing seed merely, the other fruit which contains the seed.――The verse continues (amending with the help of LXX): _grass producing seed after its kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which_ (_i.e._ the fruit) _is its_ (the tree’s) _seed after its_ (the tree’s) _kind_.――_after its kind_] _v.i._――_upon the earth_] comes in very awkwardly; it is difficult to find any suitable point of attachment except with the principal verb, which, however, is too remote.

* * * * *

=11.= תַּֽדְשֵׁא דֶּשֶׁא] literally ‘vegetate vegetation,’ the noun being
accusative cognate with the verb.――תַּֽ׳ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; on the
pointing with _Metheg_ (Baer-Delitzsch page 74) see König i.
§ 42, 7. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) must have read תוצא as verse
¹².――דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב] LXX (βοτάνην χόρτου) and Vulgate treat the words as
in annexion, contrary to the accents and the usage of the terms.
It is impossible to define them with scientific precision; and
the twofold classification given above――herb and tree――is more
or less precarious. It recurs, however, in Exodus 9²⁵ 10¹²ᐧ ¹⁵
(all Yahwist), and the reasons for rejecting the other are,
first, the absence of וְ before עשב; and, second, the syntactic
consideration that דשא as cognate accusative may be presumed to
define completely the action of the verb.――דשׁא denotes especially
fresh juicy herbage¹ (Proverbs 27²⁵) and those grasses which
never to appearance get beyond that stage. עשב, on the other
hand (unlike דּ׳), is used of human food, and therefore includes
cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Psalms 104¹⁴).――עץ]
read וִעֵץ with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, and 3 Hebrew MSS (Ball).――למינו, למינהו] On
form of suffix see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _d_. LXX in verse ¹¹
inserts the word after זרע (rendering strangely κατὰ γένος καὶ
καθ’ ὁμοιότητα,――and so verse ¹²), and later in the verse (κατὰ
γένος εἰς ὁμοιότητα) transposes as indicated in the translation
above.――מין] a characteristic word of Priestly-Code, found
elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 14¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (from Leviticus
11), and (dubiously) Ezekiel 47¹⁰,――everywhere with suffix. The
etymology is uncertain. If connected with תְּמוּנָה (form, likeness),
the meaning would be ‘form’ (Latin, _species_); but in usage
it seems to mean simply ‘kind,’ the singular suffix here
being distributive: “according to its several kinds.” In
Syriac the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe. For
another view, see Friedrich Delitzsch, _Prolegomena eines
neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_
143 f.――=12.= ותוצא] One is tempted to substitute the rare ותדשא
as in verse ¹¹ (so Ball).――After עץ LXX adds פרי: Ball deletes the
פרי in verse ¹¹.

¹ In Aramaic this sense is said to belong to _‛ušb_, but Hebrew
עשׂב has no such restriction.

* * * * *

=14‒19. Fifth work: The heavenly luminaries.=――On the parallelism with the first day’s work see above, page 8 f. The verses describe only the creation of sun and moon; the clause _and the stars_ in verse ¹⁶ appears to be an addition (_v.i._). The whole conception is as unscientific (in the modern sense) as it could be――(a) in its geocentric standpoint, (b) in making the distinction of day and night prior to the sun, (c) in putting the creation of the vegetable world before that of the heavenly bodies. Its religious significance, however, is very great, inasmuch as it marks the advance of Hebrew thought from the heathen notion of the stars to a pure monotheism. To the ancient world, and the Babylonians in particular, the heavenly bodies were animated beings, and the more conspicuous of them were associated or identified with the gods. The idea of them as an animated host occurs in Hebrew poetry (Judges 5²⁰, Isaiah 40²⁶, Job 38⁷ etc.); but here it is entirely eliminated, the heavenly bodies being reduced to mere _luminaries_, i.e. either embodiments of light or perhaps simply ‘lamps’ (_v.i._). It is possible, as Gunkel thinks, that a remnant of the old astrology lurks in the word _dominion_; but whereas in Babylonia the stars ruled over human affairs in general, their influence here is restricted to that which obviously depends on them, viz. the alternation of day and night, the festivals, etc. Compare Job 38³³, Psalms 136⁷⁻⁹ (Jeremiah 31³⁵). It is noteworthy that this is the only work of creation of which the purpose is elaborately specified.――_luminaries_ (מְא[וֹ]רֹת)] _i.e._ bearers or embodiments of light. The word is used most frequently of the sevenfold light of the tabernacle (Exodus 25⁶ etc.); and to speak of it as expressing a markedly prosaic view of the subject (Gunkel) is misleading.――_in the firmament, etc._] moving in prescribed paths on its lower surface. This, however, does not justify the interpretation of רקיע as the Zodiac (above, page 22).――_to separate between the day, etc._]. Day and night are independent entities; but they are now put under the _rule_ of the heavenly bodies, as their respective spheres of influence (Psalms 121⁶).――_for signs and for seasons, etc._] מוֹעֲדִים (seasons) appears never (certainly not in Priestly-Code) to be used of the natural seasons of the year (Hosea 2¹¹, Jeremiah 8⁷ are figurative), but always of a time conventionally agreed upon (see Exodus 9⁵), or fixed by some circumstance. The commonest application is to the _sacred seasons_ of the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the moon (compare Psalms 104¹⁹). If the natural seasons are excluded, this seems the only possible sense here; and Priestly-Code’s predilection for matters of cultus makes the explanation plausible.――אֹתֹת (signs) is more difficult, and none of the explanations given is entirely satisfactory (_v.i._).――=16.= _for dominion over the day ... night_] in the sense explained above; and so verse ¹⁸.――_and the stars_] Since the writer seems to avoid on principle the everyday names of the objects, and to describe them by their nature and the functions they serve, the clause is probably a gloss (but _v.i._). On the other hand, it would be too bold an expedient to supply an express naming of the planets after the analogy of the first three works (Tuch).

The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies
is confused, and suggests overworking (Holzinger). The clauses
which most excite suspicion are the two beginning with והיו (the
difficult ¹⁴ᵇ and ¹⁵ᵃ{α});――note in particular the awkward
repetition of למארות וגו׳. The functions are stated with perfect
clearness in ¹⁶⁻¹⁸: (a) to give light upon the earth, (b) to
rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from darkness. I
am disposed to think that ¹⁴ᵇ was introduced as an exposition
of the idea of the verb משׁל, and that ¹⁵ᵃ{α} was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to
the insertions of LXX (_v.i._), which may be borrowed from verse
¹⁷ ᶠᐧ.

* * * * *

=14.= יהי מארת] (∥ יהי אור in verse ³). On the breach of concord, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _o_; Davidson § 113 _b_.――מאור] a late
word, is used of heavenly bodies in Ezekiel 32⁸, Psalms 74¹⁶;
it never means ‘lamp’ exactly, but is often applied collectively
to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle; once it is used
of the eyes (Proverbs 15³⁰), and once of the divine countenance
(Psalms 90⁸).――ברקיע הש׳] the genitive is not partitive but
explicative: Davidson § 24 (_a_).――LXX inserts at this point:
εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἄρχειν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς,
καί.――לאתת] In Jeremiah 10² אתות השמים are astrological portents
such as the heathen fear, and that is commonly taken as the
meaning here, though it is not quite easy to believe the writer
would have said the sun and moon were _made_ for this purpose.¹
If we take אֹת in its ordinary sense of ‘token’ or ‘indication,’
we might suppose it defined by the words which follow. Tuch
obtains a connexion by making the double ו = _both ... and_
(“as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and years”):
others by a _hendiadys_ (“signs _of_ seasons”). It would be less
violent to render the first ו _und zwar_ (_videlicet_): “as signs,
_and that_ for seasons,” etc.; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._ וְ
1. b, where some of the examples come, at any rate, very near the
sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the same sense by reading
לְמוֹ׳ simply (_Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, 1870, 380).――=16.= ואת הכ׳] Driver
(_Hebrew_ ii. 33) renders “and the lesser light, as also the
stars, to rule,” etc. The construction is not abnormal; but
would the writer have said that the stars rule the night?――=18.=
וּֽלְהַבדיל] On the comparative sheva see König i. § 10, 6 e.

¹ The prophetic passages cited by Driver (_The Book of Genesis
with Introduction and Notes_ 10¹) all contemplate a reversal
of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as
illustrations of its normal functions.

* * * * *