|
Chapter 5 - The Colophon
It is often said that the only reasonable way to read the
Bible is to read it in the same way as we do an ordinary book. Presumably
what is meant by t his is that any book should be read in the light of
the times and circumstances in which it was written, and there can be
no question as to the wisdom of this advice. But in the case of the oldestpieces
of writing, this has scarcely been possible until the last century when
excavation and decipherment of ancient writing has enabled scholars to
become acquainted with the literary methods prevailing in the Tigris and
Euphrates districts in early times. Consequently it has only been possible
in more recent times to compare the literary construction of this Genesis
narrative with other ancient methods of writing. But it cannot be regarded
as other than serious that notwithstanding archaeological discoveries
many still read this creation record, not as ancient, but as though it
had been written in relatively modern times. This mistake has been made
notwithstanding the very obvious fact that the narratvie itself is constructed
in a most antique manner by use of a framework of repeated phrases. However,
almost every scholar in modern times has recognised that Genesis 2:1-4
is a colophon or appendix to the first narrative of creation. We do not
know who wrote the colophon as we now have it; whether part was copied
from the anient tablet or whether, when compiling Genesis, Moses or some
early writer added it. Until the time of Alexander the Great, indeed as long as
documents continued to be written in Babylonia and Assyria, they were
generally written on stone or clay tablets, and the colophon, with its
important literary information, was added in a very distinctive manner.
Illustrations of these colophons may be seen on the frontispiece. The
first is of a clay tablet with the usual colophon now in the author’s
possession. The second is of the Fourth Tablet in the Babylonian ‘creation’
series. There can now be now reasonable doubt whatever that any account
of creation read by Abraham in Babylonia, would in the usual way be written
on tablets dimilar to these. The colophon often contains the following
information: When we turn to the colophon to the creation tablets (Gen
2:1-4) this is what we find: We will look at these literary aids in the order mentioned
above. The second piece of lterary information referred to, is
that ancient colophons often include the date when tablets were written.
The date in the Genesis colophon is written in this way, “when they
were created in the day that the Lord God did the earth and heavens”.
This verse has perplexed commentators of every school of th ought. All
seem to suggest that it implies a contradiction of the six days, by stating
that creation only occupied one day. The date does not refer to this time
when the world was created but, as it states, to the day when the histories
or the records were finished. Those acquanated with the method of ‘dating’
tablets in early days will readily recognise this phrase “in the
day the Lord God did the earth and heavens” as the date of the Genesis
creation tablets. Both the Babylonians, Egyptions and Assyrians gave the
year a name by identifying it with some important happening in that year.
There is a sense in which we have done something similar, but we date
from the greatest of all events, the birth of our Lord. Here are some
ancient instances of ‘dating’ taken from ancient tablets: Although almost every commentator has recognised the phrase
“in the day . . .” as a date, they have wrongly assumed that
it is the date the world was created. Long ago Dillman translated the
phrase by the words “at the time of . . .” As that great Hebraist,
Dr. Ginsburg, pointed out, the word ‘day’ as used in the first
chapter of Gensis “is the simple noun, whereas in chapter 2:4 it
is a compound of ‘day’ with the preposition ‘in’ which
according to the genius of the Hebrew language makes it an adverb, so
it must be translated ‘when’ or ‘at the time’”. In regard to the fourth piece of information given on the
colophon, we know that when more than one tablet was necessary in order
to record a narrative, it was a cu stom to state on the last of the series
of tablets that the narrative was finished and sometimes to indicate on
the earlier tablets of the same series that the narrative was ‘not
finished’. A significant instance of this appears on tablet No. 93016
in the British collection. This tablet is the fourth in the celebrated
series of six Babylonian creation tablets, and the colophon reads, “am
sumati duppu 4 kam-ma e-nu-ma elis la gamir”, that is, “tablet
4 of ‘when on high’ (that is the title given to the series of
tablets) not fisnished”. Unfortunately the colophon of the sixth
tablet of the same creation series is badly damaged. The only words which
remain legible are ‘sixth tablet of ‘when on high’ . .
.” Had we access to the original text of this colophon or had this
one been in a more decipherable state it would prabably have read “sixth
tablet of ‘when on high’ finished”, just as final tablets
of other series do. An example of this may be seen in Dr. Langdon’s
Sumurian and Babylonian Psalms where he reproduces a series of liturgical
tablets. These are often composed in a set of six tablets. The last tablet
of one series reads, “Tablet six of . . . which is finished”,
indicating that the series was finished or completed at the end of the
sixth tablet. Yet it has been assumed that the reference to ‘fininshed’
is to the acts or processes of creation (1). What was finished on the
sixth day was the revelation and recording of the acts of creation long
past. And I suggest that the reason why the Babylonians and Assyrians
clung so tenaciously throughout the centuries of their history to this
paraticular number of tablets, six, on which the record of their creation
stories, was that it was orignally written on six tablets. If we look at the opening words of the colophon attacted
to the Genesis narrative we read “and were finished the ‘heaven
and the earth’” (the title given to the series). The verb finished
occupies the first position in the Hebrew. So the Genesis text uses the
word in a manner similar to the literary custom which prevailed in ancient
times, thus indicating that the sixth tablet concluded the series of tablets
on which the account of the creation of ‘the heaven and the earth’
had been recorded as old books ended with ‘finis’. An additional indication that we are dealing with a series
of tablets may be seen by the use immediately afterwards of the Hebrew
word sabh, translated host. We often read of the ‘host of heaven’
but never of the host of the ‘heaven and earth’, or of the ‘host
of earth’; nor is the word ever used of plant or animal life or of
the other created things mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. This
is significant; it cannot be therefore, as is so often supposed, a summary
of the creation of all things, for life and man are not mentioned. The
Hebrew word translated ‘host’ conveys the idea of an orderly
muster or arrangement, or orderly collection of things. First suggested
‘joined together for service’ as a meaning but the root meaning
appears to be ‘to set in order’. Translators have usually given
the hword the meainingn of ‘contain’ or contents’, assuming
that all the orderly or arranged contents of the heaven and earth are
referred tol But as Dr. S. R. Driver points out that to use it in this
sense of the heaven anda earth is to give it an exceptional meaning. The
meaning of the Greek words used in the Septuagint translation is, ‘to
order, arrange, set an army in array’, ‘to marshal’. Jastrow in his Hebrew Talmudic Dictionary gives the primary
sense 'to join', 'to follow'. The sense of the Hebrew and Greek words
is therefore to join or 'arrange in order', it is appropriate to an ordered
arrangement or series of tablets one to six. The meaning of this verse
is therefore, "And were finished (indicating the finish of a series
of tablets) 'the heavens and the earth' (the title given to the six tablets)
and all their arranged order ". What God had 'made' or 'done' in
the six days, the context will help us to understand better still. The
Authorised Version reads, "on the seventh day God ended His work
which He had made", or as Professor Driver translates it, "His
business which He had done". About this word 'work' Driver says,
"It is the word used regularly for 'work' or 'business' forbidden
on the Sabbath". It does not in any sense imply creation; it refers
to ordinary daily transactions. It is significant that the word translated
‘work' in Exodus xx. 10 is from precisely the same root as the word
'made' in Genesis ii. 4. Thus, what had been made or done was an orderly
collection or arrangement, a finished series of tablets numbered one to
six. That which had been finished was the concluding tablet of the series
of tablets, entitled "the heavens and the earth". It certainly
was not that on some particular seventh day or seventh period God had
finished the universe. The Hebrew word 'rested' is the same as that translated
'ceased' in reference to the discontinuance of the manna (Joshua v. 12)
when the food of Canaan became available. At the end of verse 3 is the phrase "which God created
and made"; this also seems to have perplexed every commentator. The
Hebrew construction makes it very difficult to translate into English.
It is a 'lamed of reference'; the stating of a motive in order to define
more exactly. Dr. Driver translates it "in doing which God had created,
i.e. which He had creatively done". In revealing the narrative of
creation, He had instructed man who had been made in His own image and
likeness. He had made man acquainted with His purposes, given him knowledge
and made known His acts and mind concerning the creation of the heavens
and the earth. The Septuagint Version (the oldest translation of the Old
Testament from which so many of the O.T. quotations are incorporated into
the N.T.) reads (hebrew), etc., "which at first God made this the
written account (or book) of the genesis (or origin) of the heavens and
the earth". The failure to recognise that we are here dealing with a
history or account of creation as the Septuagint plainly Puts it, written
in accordance with ancient literary usages has made this colophon more
than difficult for commentators to explain. For instance, Professor Skinner
wrote that this "half verse is in the last degree perplexing".
But the perplexity vanishes in the light of the literary methods in use
in early times and now there is no need of this perplexity as to the 'descendants'
of the heavens and the earth. Given its proper sig-nificance of 'histories'
or "written account of the heavens and the earth" its meaning
is plain. Not one word has been used in this translation which has
not the support of the great Hebrew scholars. There are, of course, indications in both Old and New Testaments
of a revelation made in the beginning. In such creation passages as that
of Isaiah x1 we read, "Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath
it not been told you from the beginning? (lit. from the first), have ye
not understood from the foundation of the earth? " (verse 21). And
Hebrews iv. 4 says, "For He spake in a certain place of the seventh
day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all His works".
Bishop Wescott's comment on this verse is, "The subject is simply
'God' and not Scripture". In his Greek Testament, Alford says, "He
(God, not Moses, nor the writings) hath spoken". The words are emphatic:
God spake; this implies a direct revelation. Weymouth translates it thus,
"For as we know, when speaking of the seventh day, He used the words".
There can be no question that the reference in this verse is to Genesis
ii. 3 and not to the Fourth Commandment. It implies that God Himself is
the narrator of the account of creation on the first page of the Bible,
and says it is a record of what God said to them (Gen. i. 28). A review of the evidence given in this colophon of the creation
narrative (Gen. ii. 1-4) takes us back to the older view of a primeval
revelation. The explanation given in this chapter enables us to understand
why it is that the narrative is so sublime in its elevated simplicity,
so concise yet expressive in its language, so pregnant in meaning yet
uncontaminated by human speculation. It stands as God intended it should,
as the first page of Scripture, as the basis of belief in God the Creator
and as the original and primitive revelation from God to man. |