If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
THE USE OF NUMBERS IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND IN GENESIS
In considering the use of numbers by people who are not immersed in the scientific age we can look to two sources.
1) Anthropological studies among primitive tribes. These will give a far more likely answer to questions as to how the ancients saw numbers than guesswork.
2) Archaeological evidence, interpreting it partly in the light of anthropological studies.
Let us therefore look briefly at some of the anthropological evidence.
The Anthropological Evidence
Australia
D E Smith in “The History of Mathematics” informs us that when the number words of thirty selected Australian languages were examined, they were ‘mainly restricted to “one” and “two”, and in no case extended beyond “four”.’ He points out that, in general, everything beyond “two” is called “much” or “many”. This was not universally true of all Australian aborigines, for in one linguistic region tribes had number names reaching up to as much as “fifteen”, and even in some cases “twenty”, but they were the exception.
This is very significant as it demonstrates that in spite of the fact that a few groups could count in a very limited fashion, it did not ‘catch on’ with the remainder, who continued to ignore the use of numbers. (We might have expected the opposite).
Furthermore it seems reasonable to assume that there is a good probability that the restriction to “twenty” of even the ‘advanced’ aboriginal tribes was the result of the number of fingers and toes available. They did not use figures naturally, but laboriously. Clearly trading by number was much restricted, and the counting of animals or other objects very limited. Once even the ‘advanced’ men had reached the end of their fingers and toes the idea of number faded into obscurity, while for the majority it had never even begun!
So for the large majority of Australian aborigines numbers and number words had no meaning. Try to imagine such a world. It is almost inconceivable to us. How could they keep a record of animals owned, or objects possessed? How be aware of the size of their own tribes? Clearly it was not a problem to them. In tribal life numbers were of limited use.
The Bay of Bengal
These facts are borne out among the Andamans in the Bay of Bengal, where counting was accomplished by the use of fingers. In order to count they touched their noses with one finger after another, and once they had gone through their ten fingers they put their hands together, saying “all”, signifying they had reached what we would call “ten”. This was the limit of their numbering ability. What is even more interesting is that they did not have number words for even this primitive ‘counting’. They could simply ‘count’ silently by using fingers in strict order, the idea never being verbalised. Numbers were thus never used in conversation or in tribal stories.
South America
Menninger in “Number Words and Number Symbols” describes an example among the Abiponese Indians in South America. A missionary working among them discovered that they had no idea of number at all, and when he attempted to teach them he found them very resistant. Yet he noted how they were able to keep track of their dogs and livestock merely by the fact that they noted any gap in their total world picture. They did not consider that an awareness of numbering would have any advantages to them. In lifestyle they provide an interesting parallel to the semi-nomadic patriarchs.
Malaysia
Another interesting example comes from Malaysia where a Malaccan old man, when asked his age, proudly replied “I am three years old”. To the Malaccans age was counted by whether you were in childhood, of adult age or of mature years. Most died at “two” years old. It was a feat to reach “three”.
New Guinea
These examples can be paralleled repeatedly. When I mentioned these examples to my brother-in-law, who worked among head-hunting tribes in New Guinea, he commented that they also did not count beyond three, and this in the latter part of the twentieth century after contact with ‘civilised’ society.
These examples bring out the fact that, in general, those who have not been affected by the influence of educational systems do not use or comprehend numbers, and when confronted with them, have no wish to do so. It is something foreign to their way of thinking, in which they have no interest, and to which they have no wish to apply themselves.
The Ancient World
In the ancient world, therefore, we have good reason to assume that a similar state of affairs largely held good. The vast majority of people did not need to be able to count, and if our examples show us anything, would resist attempts to teach them. They would leave it to the ‘clever ones’, and interpret number words in a general, numerically vague, fashion..
Biblical Examples
Three Biblical examples spring to mind. When in, 1 Kings 17, Elijah meets the woman of Zarephath she says (v.13) that she will gather “two” sticks in order to bake a cake. What she means is “a few”. Had she intended to gather a lot she would have said “three”. (In ancient Egyptian the hieroglyph for “three” also originally meant “many” before it began to be used as a number symbol as well). She clearly had no use for number words except for generalisations.
Language Changes and Develops
We must remember that when we look at ancient languages from a modern point of view, there have been considerable changes over the centuries. “Hebrew” did not commence as a sophisticated language and stay the same over two thousand years and more. It developed and grew from primitive beginnings, and the meanings of words changed over the ages. Canaanite examples from ancient Ugarit (canaanite was a very similar language to hebrew) have helped us to know long forgotten meanings of hebrew words, and have shown us that we were mistranslating because the ‘experts’ had assumed that the ‘modern’ meaning of the word must be the correct one. The same was true of number words. The Hebrew word for “a thousand” also means a “family”, “clan”, or “captain”. At what stage did the change take place when the word for “family” was also used for “a thousand”? When did the idea conveyed by “ten families” (or clans), and the number it conveyed, change to mean “ten thousand”? It may be that we are misrepresenting a large number of early Hebrew “numbers”.
Other Biblical Examples
The second example is found in 2 Kings 6.10. Here the king takes advantage of Elisha’s advice a number of times, and this is represented by “not once, not twice”, clearly the equivalent of “a number of times”.
The third example is even more interesting. The compilers of the books of Samuel and Kings drew on ancient records, which were maintained by the court ‘recorders’ from the time of David onwards, when the court of Israel first became sophisticated. Included in these records were details of the kings reigns. “So and so was so many years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for so many years”. This refrain comes again and again. But when they looked back to Saul they had a problem. He had not had a “recorder”. He was a primitive war-leader. So they took advantage of an ancient device. They knew that he had become king at an early age, and that he had died in his maturity, so they wrote “Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem” (1 Samuel 13.1 literally). Translators constantly had difficulty with this verse because they did not understand the meaning that Saul began to reign while still a youth, and only reigned to adulthood, not reaching old age. It is especially significant that the writers did not try to invent figures. (They were not as casual with the truth as modern men like to make out.)
The Conclusion We Can Draw
Thus it is clear that while numbers were handled quite skilfully in court circles, at least among the recorders, the majority of the people of Israel, like the primitives of modern times, were much more limited, and writings aimed at being used at their festivals would have this in mind. It is probable, for example, that the creation narrative and other covenant narratives, would be read out at one of their major festivals, as happened among other nations. As a “covenant people” something would need to be recited at the festivals which would remind them of their covenant relationship with God. Even by around the time of Jesus “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12.40) could mean part of today, tomorrow and part of the third day, - only two nights and two part days plus one full day being indicated. (Compare Luke 24.21; Mark 8.31; Luke 9.22; Matthew 12.40 for contrasts). This usage is witnessed to in literature outside the Bible. It seems remarkable to us, but it was in fact general usage.
How Then Did They Trade?
How then did people trade? The answer is that they used “tally sticks” or stones. They knew their requirements and indicated them, or checked that they had received the required quantity, by means of notches in wood or bones, or by assessing against a number of stones. A businessman would have a slave with him to carry the quantity of stones required. They did not need to calculate, as they knew in their heads the quantity (not numerated) that they required. Our modern examples have confirmed that this did not necessarily require the ability to use numbers.
Once they got beyond barter they made payment in gold and silver, which was weighed out on the merchants scales, taking place item by item. It is probable that the actual use of numbers was developed because once men began to live in a developed civilisation (e.g. the Sumerians, who probably first invented numbers, as they first invented writing) they had to control estates, pay taxes and trade more widely and to a larger extent. But it must be remembered they still did these things for many centuries without numbers. In the end it was just a staggering new invention, which took a long time to catch on away from Sumer.
In The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, Neugebauer describes the growth of numbers in ancient Sumer. (Kramer has ably demonstrated that ‘Sumer’ is possibly synonymous with ‘Shem’ in Genesis 10).
Sumerian Beginnings
He points out that the word used for “one” (as) is the same word as that for “man”, the word for “two” (min) is the same as that for “woman”, and the word for “three” is the same as that for “many”. This ties in with the Egyptian use of the hieroglyph for “many” for the number “three”. This appears to go back to a time when the use of ‘numbers’ was restricted to myself, my wife and the rest of the world. Only gradually did they come to have genuine numerical significance. This fits in well with the anthropological evidence.
Hints in Other Languages
In both ancient hebrew and ancient greek (to name but two) verbs had a singular, a dual and a plural. One of a thing was represented by the singular, two of a thing by the dual, and many things by the plural. To the ancient Egyptians the hieroglyph of a dash “-” meant one of a thing, two dashes one above the other “=” meant two of a thing and three dashes under each other meant “many”. This latter eventually came also to represent ‘three’.
This conclusion is further bolstered up by the fact that in many languages the words for “one”, “two” and “three” declined like adjectives, because they were seen as descriptive rather than quantitative. It was only when numbers extended beyond these that they ceased ‘declining’ them, because numbers were gradually becoming distinguished from adjectives. As we shall see, among the common people this process took some time.
A Further Look at Sumer
The use of “numbers” as adjectives comes out forcibly in the writings of Sumer. Over the thousand years before the time of Abraham the Sumerians, who were probably among the first to use numbers (certainly in recorded form), developed numeracy from small beginnings to an amazing extent. Numbers were developed for business purposes (c.3300 - 2000 BC), although utilised in the later stages for historical records.
But, of course, this was only the scholars and highly educated business men. The stories for common people were not affected. In literature for the common people, the myths and legends of ancient Sumer, only the numbers “three” and “seven” were ever used (apart from one stereoyped phrase which in fact emphasises the fact). Both these numbers were used constantly, and an analysis of the literature shows clearly that “three” signified a sense of “completeness” - three of a thing meant that there was all that there needed to be - looking back to the time when three was the totality beyond which men could not go numerically. “Seven” had come to mean especially completeness in what was divine.
For example seven gates were portrayed to Sheol (the world of the dead) because this demonstrated their absolute impregnability. There was no way back from the underworld! (Ininna - later Ishtar - was to be the exception that proved the rule, but this was in order to achieve good harvests. The fertility of the fields was supposed to arise from the death and subsequent coming back - a reviving, not a resurrection - from the dead of a god or goddess). When the common people heard that there were ‘seven’ they did not think of the number but of the quality of divine completeness.
Remember these stories were not just tales to be told for entertainment, they were recited and acted out at religious festivals for the purpose of producing certain effects in nature for the benefit of all. A ‘myth’ was strictly the spoken part of the drama, carried down century after century, not a vaguely remembered history of the past.
Creation and Flood Stories in Sumer
The Sumerians also saw ‘creation’ as taking place in “seven” days (not the six days and one of rest of Genesis) and the flood storms lasting for “seven” days, both signs of a divine period of time and of the completeness of the actions, again in accounts intended for public religious purposes. Genesis 1 probably had a similar purpose, although not necessarily in the same way. In this case it was to remind the people of God’s covenant with them in providing them with food and control over nature (1.28-30). It is probable that it too was first intended for recital at festivals, as a reminder of their Creator God and of His covenant with Adam. By taking part in the festival the people saw themselves as entering into the benefits of the covenant.
Historical Lists
This did not apply so emphatically with historical lists which had no such religious purpose. Thus, for example, in Sumerian literature (translated by Kramer) in a vivid narrative, there is the rare use of a different number in the counting of five piles of bones of the dead after a battle, but that was in a strictly historical account and was a kind of list. The purpose of piling up the bones was to assess the number who had died in battle. The method demonstrates that the ability to count is restricted. It is clear that the use of “three” and “seven” had become standard usage in “religious stories”, used in religious ceremonies, while numbers were developing, and the practise had not changed. They conveyed to the majority, who would be innumerate, the idea of completeness and divine certainty. Other numbers were a business tool and useful for recording lists, but they were still a mystery to the majority.
This use of “three” and “seven” can be witnessed to in large numbers of later accounts from other sources outside Sumer where the numbers “three” and “seven” continued to have special significance.
The Sumerian King Lists
Another interesting example of number usage was in the Sumerian king lists. In these were listed the kings “before the flood”. They are portrayed as having lived for large numbers of years. However, their ages are all in round numbers (on the sexagessimal system) varying in one case between 10,800 (60 x 60 x 3) years and 21,600 years (60 x 60 x 3 x 2), and it must be seen as questionable whether they were ever intended to be taken literally. They were rather a deliberate attempt to portray their mystical status, and possibly contained within them some remembrance of their unusual longevity. (It may even be that the number symbols used had a different meaning when the lists were first compiled).
The General Position
Outside the use for recording business and historical information exact numbers were almost certainly seen as having little importance, and were undoubtedly a mystery to the majority of people. Such numbers as were used were rather used with an adjectival significance. They denoted quality, rather than quantity. Quantity was incidental. It is indeed questionable whether outside businessmen and scholars very many used numbers numerically at all. The few number words that were used, were used to denote an idea. We can compare this with when we say ‘I had a hundred (or a thousand) and one things to do’. It sounds exact, but it simply means ‘a lot’. Or when we say ‘I’ve got dozens of them’, multiples of twelve do not readily spring to mind. This was their natural way of interpreting number words.
The Magic of Numbers
The awe with which someone who could use numbers was looked on is brought out in the Egyptian funerary texts. In the ‘spell for a obtaining a ferryboat’ (to take someone across the river of death into the after world) we have the account of a deceased king who is seeking to persuade the ferryman to take him across. The ferryman objects on the grounds that the gods will question his right to carry across someone who could not “number his fingers” i.e. use his fingers for calculating. Clearly the art of calculating was looked on as giving men powers beyond the ordinary.
Fortunately for the king he was able to remember a rhyme enabling him, superficially, to “number” his ten fingers (the rhyme was to be remembered by all who wished to deceive the gods and cross the river of death securely, and was intended to be used as a spell) and he is allowed across as ‘a great magician’. Thus even a king would not necessarily be able to calculate with numbers and had to use a gimmick , thus portraying himself as having super-normal powers.
A further example is found in the Papyrus Rhind, dated about 1800BC, but from earlier sources. Its introductory statement reveals the awe in which number crunchers were held for it promised to give “directions for obtaining knowledge of all obscure things” and then goes on to deal with number problems.
Later Developments
It should perhaps be noted for completeness of the picture that the ‘Old Babylonians’ who followed the Sumerians, developed numbering into a mathematical art. They calculated pi exactly (the Egyptians found it approximately by measurement), and compiled large numbers of lists of equations, including tables using the so-called theorem of Pythagoras. They developed mathematics to a height not attained for another thousand years, but were hindered by not having thought of the zero. However, these advances took place after the time of Abraham (c.1900 BC).
The Oldest Known Record
Perhaps at this stage we could look at the development of numbers. It is, of course, to the Sumerians that we must look for the first example of numbers. The numbers one, two and three are found on the oldest clay tablet known, found near Kish and dating back to 3300BC, five hundred years before anything similar is found in Egypt. It is the first known example of ‘writing’, but contains only a few brief symbols and is so brief that it is untranslatable. It is possibly a business record, and probably an indication of the very limited nature of the symbols used for recording at that time. (Recent discoveries have now given us earlier examples).
Development
There are certainly numbers on a tablet found at Jemdet Nasr (near Kish) dating from 3100BC. It is far more detailed and includes numerical symbols for 15 and 40 in the form that was to become the regular pattern for centuries to come - circles made by digging the end of the stylus into the clay to denote tens, and half moons made by digging the end of the stylus in at an angle to denote units.. It appears to be a record of property.
From now on things develop rapidly. The standard forms of business document were clay tablets the size of a man’s hand, and by careful examination we can trace the growth of different number systems. This demonstrates that numbers developed along with the ability to record them. There was thus not an already established number system used in speech. This confirms that the use of numbers was still in a formative stage. Numbers had not developed in oral form before their use in recording.
As might be expected it was not an exact science. The different systems developed side by side so that we have examples of both decimal and sexagessimal systems, but interestingly enough it was the sexagessimal system (still used by us to measure seconds and minutes) that prevailed for later purposes.
Primitive Beginnings
Examination of Sumerian number names suggest how numbers developed. The first five numbers had names of their own, distinctive from each other e.g. one = as; two = min; three = es; four = limmu; five = ia.
Six, however, was a symbol representing ia-as, that is five plus one, while seven was i-min (ia-min) representing five plus two. This suggests that at one time five was the limit of counting (on the fingers, compare the use in Egypt of the hieroglyph of a hand for “five”), and six and seven were made possible by retaining them in the memory. We can compare with this our own number system where eleven = eleph en, that is “one over”, while twelve is two eleph, that is, two over. Once the number of fingers had come to an end, the memory was able to work to another two. That may be why thirteen became seen as unlucky.
We can see from this why the numbers three and seven were special. “Three” was originally the sum total of counting as we have seen, representing ‘everything’, as it still did to the large majority of people. “Seven” became the same once numbers had developed sufficiently. Once seven was reached there was nowhere else to go - at least for a time. It was a number of the gods. Anything beyond was a mystery. They had reached the furthest extent of knowledge.
Gradual Development
Numbers gradually developed as they were used for business records, such as lists, and, later, other transactions, the development taking place over hundreds of years.
Then at some stage someone had the idea that this new business method for noting down business records could be used to convey more complicated messages, and the writing of narrative came into being, which enabled the writing down of the scripts for the religious festivals and the recording of historical events.
The Sumerian Number System
Meanwhile numbering was developing further. Eight was issu, nine was ilimmu, (that is ia-lim i.e. five plus four), and ten was u. From ten to twenty u plus a numeral signified the number e.g. u as (ten plus one), u min (ten plus two); and so on. Twenty was nis, thirty was usu, (that is es-u i.e. three times ten), and forty was nin (ni-min i.e. two times twenty). Fifty was ninu (ni-min-u i.e. two times twenty plus ten). Finally sixty was reached which had its own name ges, and became the basis of the system that prevailed, although it was not the only system for a long time.
So even at the lower level it was not a decimal system, but a system based on fives, tens, twenties and sixties, an indication of gradual build up.
The next major stage was the sar which equalled three thousand six hundred (sixty times sixty), followed by the sar-u equalling thirty six thousand (ten times three thousand six hundred and the sar gal (the great sar) equalling two hundred and sixteen thousand (sixty times sixty times sixty). This development took place over a thousand years. It did not all happen at once.
There were symbols for units, represented by so many small half-moons, tens represented by small circles, and sixties symbolised by a larger half-moon, made with the end of a bigger stylus. A hundred was symbolised by a large circle. The system was thus a mixture of a system of tens, twenties and sixties, demonstrating the complexity of its development and the differing systems which were incorporated. As most people could not even read we can see why they began to impute magical powers to mathematicians.
Cuneiform
A further big step was made when wedge shaped writing (cuneiform) was developed, and symbols representing units and tens could be used to express all numbers, depending on placement. With all their wisdom, however, they never developed the zero, which proved something of a restriction and could sometimes lead to confusion as to what number was being represented.
Chinese Mathematics
Chinese mathematics was almost certainly borrowed from the Old Babylonians coming to them via the people of Susiana, who passed it on to the Bak tribes, who migrated to China. There seems little doubt that before the Sumerians numbering was unknown.
The background to the early chapters of Genesis was quite probably Sumer, for it was from that territory (Ur of the Chaldees from which Abraham came was a principal Sumerian city before it was assimilated by the Old Babylonians) that the patriarchal ancestors originally came (Genesis 11.28, 31). Thus they may well have been aware of some of the background I have described, at least as regards the ‘popular’ myths and lists. Whether Terah and Abram lived in Ur or were encamped on the outskirts we do not, of course, know, although there seems to be the suggestion of some sort of permanence.
Genesis 1
Genesis 1 is clearly distinctive when compared with the so called creation accounts of the other nations, for it had none of the mythical and extreme content of the myths of surrounding peoples. The original author would be aware of those religious accounts, and the accounts may well have affected the religious content of the ceremonies of his own people, but he was inspired to write an account of creation in which creation was a central theme, rather than a kind of spin off from the doubtful activities of numerous gods and goddesses, which was what other ‘creation’ stories were.
Whereas the accounts of other nations were filled with quarrelling, fighting gods, to him his God was the creator of all things, and had created the world for the benefit of man, making a covenant with man which included the responsibility to people the earth, and to observe one day in seven as a day of rest. Of other gods there is no hint. This idea was totally unique as far as we know, and so unlike the accounts of other nations as to make comparison irrelevant. (The cited comparisons with, for example, Enuma Elish, are in fact mainly with Genesis 2).
The Colophon
The subscript “this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created” appears to be a colophon (a title placed either at the top or bottom of a clay or stone table to indicate content), which puts it right into the times of which we are speaking. Later on , through their Egyptian connections, papyrus was available. If it was so, then the fact of its being recorded in writing shows the importance placed on it. In those days only treaties and covenants, and the historical circumstances in which the treaty or covenant was made, were considered important enough to be put in down in writing, especially when they had to be carried about.
Is This Primitive Science?
The author is not trying to explain creation from a scientific point of view. He is not expounding a primitive ‘scientific account’. He is demonstrating that all the things they had which were essential to their lives were provided by their Creator God. Unlike the Babylonian priest he does not seek to build up a world picture.
While the accounts of other nations were overlaid with struggles between gods, and even the use of the god’s body for the making of the world, the author of Genesis 1 shows an all-powerful Creator who has only to speak and His will is done. While in the other accounts creation is almost incidental to the battle between the gods, in his account it is central. His people can be sure that they worship the Creator, Who has provided for their good.
Yet he does depict a process. It is significant that there are only three acts of ‘creation’, the creation of the primeval stuff, of conscious life and of man himself. Otherwise what is, is “brought forth” from something else, through whatever method God chose. He makes no attempt , however, to define this, except to say that it was at His word. He considers any more detail unimportant. This distinction justifies us in seeing the word ‘create’ as meaning creation out of nothing.
The Creation Account
The Creator first provides design out of formlessness. Without Him all is waste and empty. If this has connections with other accounts it is because men were aware in general that things tended to unruliness and chaos unless they were controlled. The natural reading of the narrative and the close connection in the hebrew of ‘earth’ in both verses (ha aretz we ha aretz) excludes the idea that the second verse is describing what the earth ‘became’. He is specifically describing how it was when God first created it.
Then the Creator is depicted as bringing the sea under control so that man can have somewhere to live, and follows this by providing what is necessary, light for man’s activities, trees and vegetation for man’s sustenance, animals as in some sense companions to man. Man is to rule over them all. But in all this there is no sense that anything apart from the animals and man is other than inanimate and under His control.
He also provides for the times and seasons, and days and years, by establishing the sun and moon to control night and day, so that man can have confidence in the stability of life. We are not told when they were made, only when they began their work. (Hebrew verb tenses are not strict in usage. The same word could mean “made” or “had made”. Chronology was not considered as particularly important). Sun and moon are shown to be inanimate, and the stars almost dismissed as an afterthought. This is in complete contrast with neighbouring accounts where sun, moon and stars are all gods and goddesses, and the important part of the narrative. To suggest that Genesis 1 is somehow merely a copy of these is puerile.
Then finally he creates man and woman to be in some way like himself. It is not right to press the word ‘image’. The author has a limited number of words available. He is trying to show that man is distinct from all else. He has that “something extra”, a spiritual quality, which brings him into communication with God. Thus the work is done and it is seen to be very good.
The account is in poetic form, the form of Hebrew parallelism, easy to remember and grand in its simplicity. It was almost certainly intended to be recited at religious feasts in honour of God, and as a covenant renewal. As has been said, it is so distinctive that any attempt to liken it to other accounts can be discounted, although there are possibly elements which show it has its background in Near Eastern thought forms.
Two Sets of Three
It is interesting to note that the story divides into two sections of three. First, after the creation of matter we have the bringing into being of light, the forming of the atmosphere and sea, and then the forming of dry land and vegetation and trees. This is followed by the establishing of the inanimate controllers of light for man, the creation of all living things, of fish and birds to utilise the atmosphere and sea, and the bringing forth of animals and creation of man who require the trees and vegetation.
When it was put into writing we cannot say, but that it was early is suggested by the colophon which has been integrated into the final narrative, and would hardly have been inserted by a later editor, which parallels colophons elsewhere in Genesis. Furthermore it is in covenant form, building up to vv.28-30. This is exactly the kind of covenant which would have been put into writing as a physical evidence of the people’s link with God. It may well be that the author considered he had had a theophany, a ‘revelation’ of God, and would therefore have committed it to writing immediately as a seal of the importance of the covenant. This was a general practise for covenants of such importance.
The Oral Background
The account would have had a background. The people the author was connected with would already have had oral accounts of creation to be utilised in festivals, and these would have been of long standing. Had his account been in too much contrast it would probably not have been accepted (although if it was accompanied by a theophany this could have had some effect). This might suggest that the general pattern he used was already contained in the accounts passed down through the previous centuries, for long periods by word of mouth.
It is as certain as it can be that the Sumerians or their neighbours invented and developed writing between c.3300 BC and 2000 BC, as a result of the need for commercial records, and we have no grounds for assuming that any of the early patriarchs prior to the flood could read or write. This also applies to numbering (we will look at certain questions that might arise shortly). Thus these earlier accounts of creation would have established a pattern without a specific numerical content.
They may, of course, already have contained the idea of evening and morning resulting in a ‘day’. They lived their lives reckoning rest and working periods from sunset to sunset, and what more natural than to divide God’s activities in the same way? (The Hebrews reckoned their days in this way). Unlike us they would not have a rigid view of a ‘day’. To them a ‘day’ was the period between sunset and sunset, however long, and in view of the fact that we can speak of long periods of light in the Arctic as an ‘Arctic day’, it is even more likely that they would accept a day of God as being of different size to their own. They did not have a fixation with exactness. In the words of the psalmist, “a day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as but a day”. Associating something with God (or the gods) was an ancient way of stressing its greatness or size. Compare how Nimrod was “a mighty hunter (or warrior) before the Lord” meaning that even God saw him as a great hunter, while towering mountains are called “mountains of God”.
What Sort of Days Were They?
It is quite clear that whoever introduced the idea of ‘days’ into the narrative would be aware that days as we know them could not occur until days and nights had been established on God’s fourth day, for he makes this point specifically. Strict ideas of time are a nicety of the scientific age. Thus the days of judgment to come could elsewhere be described as ‘the day of the Lord’, and while to us that is a mere metaphor, we have no real reason to read back our grammatical distinctions to the ancients. They saw it as beginning on a certain day and continuing on, and had no difficulty in applying the term ‘day’ to the period.
Compare how the Genesis author can himself say, “this is the history of the heavens in the day (not days) that they were created”, suggesting he is seeing ‘day’ as ‘time period’. It must be remembered that a language as ancient as his would have a restriction on how many ‘time’ words it had. This was long before the times when their tribal language became affected by ‘scholars’. (It is ironical that clinging strictly to scientific definitions has caused so many of the problems caused by science to those who reject scientific theories).
The Pattern of Seven
Once the pattern of seven was discerned in the ancient accounts by someone with a knowledge of Near Eastern thought forms, it would be the obvious thing to do to stress the pattern as a way of depicting divine perfection and completion. This is the idea behind the framework. He is not speculating how long God took, but indicating that He took the perfect time for His perfect work. This is certainly the impression that the number seven would have on listeners. It is, of course, possible that it was he who impressed the pattern of seven on the creation account. Either way its lesson was the same.
The Sabbath
The Sabbath was established as a week by week reminder of the Creator God and His covenant, and the fact that it is on the ‘seventh’ day speaks volumes to the author. It is God’s perfect plan to seal His complete and perfect work. It is probable that it had come down through the ages, and in its paralleling with the days of creation he sees, through inspiration, the purpose of God. There is nothing ‘unscientific’ about the narrative, unless we call diaries ‘unscientific’ when they tell us the time the sun ‘rises’, when we all know it does not. Like the diaries it is not dealing with scientific questions.
The Plain of Eden
When God established the place for man to live in it was well-watered, and we are told that the river which watered the plain divided into four (Genesis 2.10) and spread out like the tentacles of an octopus. The idea behind the description seems to be that it is seen as watering the then known world. The blessing of abundant water looks back to God’s provision for man while he was yet free from rebellion, and He has not fully withdrawn that blessing. The fact that the Nile is not included would seem to demonstrate an early date of authorship at a time when Egypt was unknown to the author.
It is possible therefore that this represented north, south, east and west, or possibly we should say, behind, before and left and right. It is stressed that this division took place ‘outside the fruitful plain’. The only other mention of ‘four’ in the book of Genesis is when ‘four kings’ meet in battle ‘with five’ (14.9). In the latter case it appears to arise from the historical facts, but it is quite possible that the author selected the four most prominent leaders deliberately. It is possible that there is again the suggestion of ‘the world outside’, and that four foreign kings are depicted for that reason. Later the number four does come to be applied to the nations of the world outside Israel (e.g. the four beasts in Daniel).
Cain and Lamech
The next use of numbers in Genesis, is when Cain is promised protection by God. Anyone who kills him will suffer “sevenfold” (Genesis 4.15). No one can doubt that this is not intended to be taken literally. It means that the punishment will be divinely complete. When Lamech claims similar protection from God he intensifies it by making it “seventy and sevenfold” (4.24). Notice that in extending the number, the idea of seven is retained, no other number would have done.
It may now be asked, does this not show that numbers were known to Cain? The answer in fact is, not necessarily. The words we have are in the hebrew, but the original account comes from a time long before hebrew was invented. The use of sevenfold and seventy and sevenfold could be an interpretive translation of some word which powerfully stressed the certainty of vengeance. It is significant that the translator sees number words as adjectives which best depict this emphasis, but it is not necessary to assume number words underlying the original.
So here ‘seven’ depicts the certainty of divine action, the vengeance will be divinely complete. It is interesting, in contrast with the later use of numbers, that the intensifying of seven is by adding seventy and not by multiplying (seventy times seven). This indicates a very early date for the translation.
The Ages of the Patriarchs
The next use of numbers is in Genesis 5 where the ages of the early patriarchs are given. Like similar lists elsewhere (compare Sumerian lists) the patriarchs before the flood number ten. This is surely an imposed pattern, possibly almost looked on as a necessity for such a list. A complete list was not considered to be a necessity, even if it could have been compiled.
We know without any doubt that the Egyptians, for example, certainly compiled king lists leaving out generations quite happily. In view of the parallels with the same pattern elsewhere, we must see the idea of ten as indicating something specific, even if we are not sure what it is. (It probably indicates the complete line. We would insist on a complete list. We like mathematical accuracy. They saw it as more important that the names should number ten. They looked at things differently. (We can compare how in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew “begat” does not mean that the person named was next in line, only that he was ‘descended’ in some way. Matthew is seeking to maintain a pattern of 14 generations - doing this ‘artificially’ by including the name Jechonias at the end of one list and at the beginning of another - possibly because fourteen is twice seven, or possibly in view of the fact that the letters of David have a value of fourteen in the Hebrew number system of his time).
The ages given are interesting. Like the Sumerian lists we have the clear emphasis on longevity. However, it is doubtful if the ages are to be taken literally. Let us tabulate them.
| Patriarchs | Begets at | Remainder | Dies at |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adam | 130 | 800 | 930 |
| Seth | 105 | 807 | 912 |
| Enos | 90 | 815 | 905 |
| Cainan | 70 | 840 | 910 |
| Mahaleel | 65 | 830 | 895 |
| Jared | 162 | 800 | 962 |
| Enoch | 65 | 300 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 187 | 782 | 969 |
| Lamech | 182 | 595 | 777 |
| Noah | 500 | 450 | 950 |
There were a hundred years from the birth of Noah’s sons to the Flood.
The Ages of the Later Patriarchs
We can compare these with ages in the remainder of Genesis.
| Isaac is born when Abraham is one hundred | |
| Abraham dies at one hundred and seventy five | |
| The promise of Isaac comes when he is ninety nine, but this is | |
| clearly due to being one year before the birth at 100 | |
| Abraham is eighty six when Hagar bears Ishmael, but this is due to being ten years after the seventy five at which he left Haran, plus one for birth | |
| Sara dies at one hundred and twenty seven | |
| Ishmael dies at one hundred and thirty seven | |
| Isaac marries at forty and has his first child at sixty | |
| Isaac dies at one hundred and eighty | |
| Esau marries at forty | |
| Jacob meets Pharaoh when one hundred and thirty | |
| Jacob is seventeen years in Egypt | |
| Jacob dies at one hundred and forty seven | |
| Joseph is seventeen when sold into captivity | |
| Joseph is thirty when released from prison | |
| Joseph dies at one hundred and ten |