Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/110



of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on the other hand for deliberate omissions, intended to bring out sacred numbers in the occurrences of the several formulæ.

The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here: (a) The fiat (And God said, Let ) introduces (both in MT and G) each of the eight works of creation (vv.$28. 29$). (b) And it was so occurs literally 6 times in MT, but virtually 7 times: i.e. in connection with all the works except the sixth (vv$3. 6. 9. 11. 14. 20. 24. 26$); in G also in v.$[3]. 7. 9. 11. 15. 24. 30$. (c) The execution of the fiat (And God made —with variations) is likewise recorded 6 times in MT and 7 times in G (vv.$20$). (d) The sentence of divine approval (And God saw that it was good) is pronounced over each work except the second (in G there also), though in the last instance with a significant variation: see vv.$7. [9]. 12. 16. 21. 25. 27$. (e) The naming of the objects created (And God called ) is peculiar to the three acts of separation (vv.$4. [8]. 10. 12. 18. 21. 25. 31$). (f) And God blessed (3 times) is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath day (vv.$5. 8. 10$ 2$22. 28$). (g) The division into days is marked by the closing formula, And it was evening, etc., which, of course, occurs 6 times (vv.$3$), being omitted after the third and seventh works.

The occurrence of the before the execution of the fiat produces a redundancy which may be concealed but is not removed by substituting so for and in the translation (So God made, etc.). When we observe further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in G 5 out of 7) the execution is described as a work, that the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment is often far from complete, and finally that 2$5. 8. 13. 19. 23. 31$ seems a duplicate of 2$2a$, the question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to a literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as a series of fiats has been superimposed on another conception of it as a series of works. The observation does not carry us very far, since no analysis of sources can be founded on it; but it is perhaps a slight indication of what is otherwise probable, viz. that the cosmogony was not the free composition of a single mind, but reached its final form through the successive efforts of many writers (see below).

The Seven Days' Scheme.—The distribution of the eight works over six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen, Ewald, Schrader, We. Di. Bu. Gu. al.) a modification introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law, and at variance with the original intention of the cosmogony. Before entering on that question, it must be pointed out that,