AT THE outset of this work I wish to state that I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Hence for me they are infallible. This conviction is not based upon a blind acceptance of traditions handed down from my foreparents without personal investigation; on the contrary, it is founded upon the unshakable facts of scientific investigation. From childhood I have always demanded the reason for the acceptance of any position. This attitude, being a dominant characteristic of my very make-up, has caused me to examine thoroughly a matter before accepting it.

We are living in an age which is permeated by the scientific spirit. Men are toiling in the laboratories of the world in an effort to explore the regions beyond our present knowledge. As a result many great and useful inventions have been made which have alleviated the sufferings of humanity and made living conditions more tolerable and pleasant than ever in the history of the world. The correct use of anything within the bounds of moderation proves a blessing. On the other hand, the abuse of that which normally is a boon to humanity is a positive curse.

What constitutes the scientific spirit? Several things: first of all, an open mind; secondly, readiness to gather all the facts whatever the cost; thirdly, an impartial examination of all evidence and data with a view of ascertaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and finally, courage to discard whatever is found to be untrue, to accept the newly discovered facts, and to act accordingly. To be otherwise minded is to be unscientific. A refusal to examine something because it is contrary to one's present views or allowing one's prejudices to overrule one's better judgment is proof of an unscientific mind.

Since the subject matter of this volume is doubtless new to many of my readers, both Jewish and Gentile, all that I am asking of them is an unbiased and careful study of the facts presented herein. The message is of vital importance to every student who wishes to understand the past, present, and future. There is no subject that is more fascinating than that of chronology.

Biblical chronology may be compared to a suspension bridge which is held aloft by two large pillars over which the supporting cables are hung. The weight of the structure is borne by these two columns. In the same manner our chronological data from the eternity of the past ("In the beginning") to the eternity of the future ("the ages of the ages") are suspended upon two mighty piers of Scripture, Genesis and Daniel. The other books furnishing chronological data constitute sections of the main portions of the bridge. If the pillars can be undermined in the minds of men by human reasoning, then, for those accepting such positions the entire superimposed structure collapses. On the other hand, if they are proved to be founded upon bedrock historical and scientific facts, our bridge remains intact regardless of the storms of criticism which blow against it.

No two portions of the Word of God have been assailed by the rationalistic (irrational) destructive critics more than these. Evidently Satan--the great adversary of man's soul--realizes the strategic place in the revelation of God occupied by these two books. In view of the attacks of unbelievers made upon them, it becomes necessary in a work of this nature to demonstrate beyond a peradventure the unassailable character of these records. It must be shown that these two piers rest upon the solid rock foundations of concrete, historical facts. Of course, it is to be understood that there are chronological data in most of the books of Scripture, but, since these two occupy unique places in the calculation of time, they may properly be considered as the piers of this great chronological bridge.

Prior to the World War little was known, comparatively speaking, concerning archaeology in certain portions of the ancient Biblical world. Since then faithful scientific explorers have been busily engaged in bringing to light the civilization of 5,000 years ago in the Tigris-Euphrates valley and also in that of the Nile. The result of the newly discovered knowledge is that practically most of the theories which were advanced by modern rationalistic scholars and held as "the assured results of scientific criticism" have been discredited. Those still advocating such antiquated positions are, in fact, the traditionalists and are far behind in the procession of the march of time. To be scientific one must accept any and all facts which can be demonstrated to be true. The discoveries, especially those in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that civilization of a very high order was hoary with age in the days of Abraham, who was a citizen of no mean city, Ur of the Chaldees. Centuries prior to his day, civilization had reached an amazingly high state.

P. J. Wiseman in New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis gives us a survey of the work that has been conducted during recent years in Mesopotamia. Following it is his summary of the situation:

"Most of these sites go back to the days of Genesis; in fact, it is with the earliest civilizations that archaeologists are now concerned. Their investigations have brought to light the culture and writing of men who lived 5000 years ago, even in pre-Flood days. These researches have revolutionized thought, for concerning the civilizations of this early period we previously knew next to nothing. It has done more, for it has painted in the background on a canvas which previously was almost blank. We now understand much concerning the environment of the Patriarchs and methods of writing prevalent in the times of Genesis. Before the excavations of the last few years this early period was considered legendary even by archaeologists, but almost beyond their highest hopes they have been able to dig and plan settlements which were previously in the realm of pre-history, but now, in the opinion of these able men, Sumerian civilization had reached its zenith centuries before Abraham.

"It is important to remember that these archaeologists are by no means engaged in an attempt to find evidences which agree with the Bible. I know from personal contact and repeated discussions, that this is far from being their aim; they sift their evidence in a most critical spirit and if there is any bias it was in favor of the critical standpoint rather than that of the Bible. Yet in the words of more than one, they express the truth of the matter when they affirm that they have been compelled by the evidences they have unearthed to believe that Genesis in this or that respect is accurate. It has been my privilege to be present with these excavators when some of these finds have been unearthed, and on the spot to listen to their statements regarding the things mentioned in the earliest chapters of the Bible. I have been impressed with the tremendous change which has taken place in recent years among archaeologists in their outlook on these early Biblical records. Nothing is more noticeable or more remarked in Iraq than the assurance with which archaeologists speak of events recorded in Genesis."

In a short chapter following this quotation he gives us a resume of the amazingly high state to which civilization had attained in those early years. In the next chapter he presents an interesting discussion on writing in those early centuries and begins with these words:

"One of the most remarkable facts which has emerged from the archaeological research is that the art of writing began in the earliest historical times known to man.

"It is now generally admitted that history first dawned in the land known as Babylonia, and that the civilization there is older than that of Egypt; yet, however far the excavator in Babylonia digs down into the past, he finds written records to illuminate his discoveries. Until recent times it was the general tendency to insist on the late appearance of writing, now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and the present tendency is to thrust back the period for which written records are claimed to dates before 3500 B.C. Egyptologists have discovered documents written on papyrus which they claim may be dated as early as 3000 B.C."

From all indications the first writing took the form of pictures and gradually developed into the cuneiform script, as is seen on the oldest tablets which have been discovered. "A conservative estimate is that the pictographic forms of writing which have been found may be dated from 3300 to 2800 B.C.; thereafter cuneiform writing came into view."

Ordinary cuneiform writing came into vogue at an early date. At present it is estimated that at least a quarter of a million of clay tablets are stored away in the museums of the world. This type of writing was so very common that Friedrich Delitzsch wrote:

"In truth, when we find among the letters which have survived from those ancient times in great abundance, the letter of a woman to her husband on his travels, wherein after telling him that the little ones are well, she asks advice on some trivial matter; or the missive of a son to his father, in which he informs him that so-and-so has mortally offended him, that he would thrash the knave, but would like to ask his father's advice first; or another letter in which a son urges his father to send at last the long-promised money, offering the insolent inducement that then he will pray for his father again--all this points to a well organized system of communication by letter and of postal arrangements."

According to Delaporte, writing was prevalent at an early age.

"Schools existed where lessons were given in reading, and in tracing on clay the elements of the script's signs. That of Nippur, was, in the first millennium, the most famous for the antiquity of the texts preserved in its archives. A number of tablets from the century of Hammurabi, as well as models and copies, illustrate the methods of instruction--first reading and writing simple signs with a study of their various phonetic values; then the pupils' initiation into the use consecutively of groups of signs and ideograms, and then of current formula. He was next given instruction in grammar in the guise of paradigms--declensions and conjugations. Finally, he finished his education with mathematics."

One of my professors in the University of Chicago, the late Dr. Luckenbill, in his preface to Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia states: "This writing material was cheap, which may account in part for the fact that the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians seemed unwilling to transact even the smallest items of business without recourse to a written document." Sir Leonard Woolley in the introduction to his volume Abraham, says: "We have, it is true, found thousands of inscribed tablets, and the greater number of them date from about the time of Abraham, but we have excavated the merest fraction of the city's area, and within that area the tablets which survive are not the hundredth part of what were written there during the quarter of a century or so that Abraham may have passed at Ur. The chances that there should have been tablets bearing the name of Abraham, that any one of them should have been preserved, and finally that this one should have happened to be within the limits of our narrow field were indeed infinitesimal."

In Egypt writing was in vogue in the earliest time. One of the earliest papyrus manuscripts now in existence dates back to a time approximately 3000 B.C.E. Of course the inscriptions on the walls of the earliest temples and tombs go back to the early centuries of the country's history.

In the present state of our knowledge we know that writing goes back as far as human history takes us. Of one of the kings of the Tigris-Euphrates valley it was said that he delighted to read the accounts of the happenings before the Flood. In the light of the discoveries of recent years no informed person will question for a moment the existence of writing even from the very dawn of history.

Since Genesis is the first book of the Torah (Pentateuch), it is well for us to take a general glance at it before investigating it in detail. The Torah as a revelation from God is accepted, with more or less confidence, by four religious faiths: Moslem, Samaritan, Jewish and Christian. But there are differences of opinion in each of these groups, unless it be that of the Samaritans, who are so very small in number and clannish in character that there is unanimity of opinion. In regard to the Moslems, let me say that, since this work is not primarily intended for them, I shall say nothing.

The great Jewish nation falls normally into four divisions: the karaite, the orthodox, the conservative, and the reformed. The position held by the karaite and the orthodox Jews is practically the same; namely, that the Torah is an infallibly inspired revelation of God. As to the conservative element, there is quite a scope of opinion, ranging from the extreme orthodox position to that of the reformed. This latter group, however, rejecting the absolute inspiration of the Mosaic writings, hold to the modernistic position; namely, that the Torah, as we now have it, is a composite document, the result of editing and combining certain original works of uninspired men. In other words, we have not the revelation of God to man but, on the contrary, the discoveries which men have made in their search for God.

I wish to concede in the very start that I consider all of these groups as honest and conscientious, living up to the light that each has, but let us remember that honesty and sincerity, though indispensable, are no substitutes for correctness and truth.

Many scientific men whose conclusions give positive proof of superficial thinking and of passing on only what others before them have said, assail, from time to time, the historical character of the first chapters of Genesis. All too frequently scholars whose training has been in a given field forsake their realm, enter that of the theologian, and make pronouncements on Biblical questions about which they know little or nothing. Prudence, however, would dictate to them, that they should know their places and confine their remarks to things with which they are familiar. For instance, the specialist in biology who has devoted his entire time and thought to some one phase of his chosen subject is not in a position to pass judgment upon some difficult theological question on which sincere Biblical scholars are not agreed. As a concrete example of a man's leaving his field, entering that of another, becoming a professorial parrot, and voicing the unbelief and unproven hypotheses of rationalistic critics, I well remember some lectures by my English professor in the university who glibly presented to the students the Wellhausen hypothesis of the literary composition of the Old Testament. Being familiar with the theory and even the popular phraseology of its exponents, I instantly recognized that there was no original thinking or knowledge of the facts discussed, but simply a dishing out to unsuspecting and immature minds the long exploded theories of the radical Biblical critics.

If one wishes to discourse upon things outside his chosen realm, he should at least investigate the findings of masters in that particular field and present the material as coming from them. When there is a difference of opinion on some vital question, the inquiring student will consult the pronouncements of the scholars on both sides of the controversy, try to weigh all the evidence, and arrive at his own conclusion. Caution and wisdom dictate such a policy. Since, however, history teaches that scientific men are constantly forced by new discoveries of facts to repudiate former positions to which they have held tenaciously, it would be best for all to hold themselves by a modest reserve while seeking for additional light. With these facts before us as a warning, let us address ourselves to the subject in hand.

The proper method of procedure in this case is first to analyze the problem; secondly, to make a thorough examination of all relevant material and to evaluate scientifically all the data; and, finally, to demonstrate the fallacy of the popularly held and dominant theory regarding the literary composition of Genesis. With this outline in mind we shall approach our task.

What does one see when he conscientiously examines the book of Genesis? Among the many things which force themselves upon his attention, there are five which demand an answer, a straight forward explanation devoid of special pleading in favor of a given theory, or of an effort to force upon the facts a meaning which is foreign to the context. In other words, the interpretation advanced must accept and evaluate all the data, must allow the facts to speak for themselves in a natural and normal manner, and must not contradict any known evidence. Guided by these principles, we shall notice, as briefly as possible, these five items and attempt to set forth their true significance.

One will look in vain in an attempt to find the name of Moses in Genesis. In contrast with this literary phenomenon, we are impressed with the numerous occurrences of it in the rest of the Torah (Pentateuch). In the first chapter of Exodus we have a brief statement of the cause which led up to the persecution of the Hebrews in Egypt and the bondage itself. According to the second chapter Moses was born into this hostile environment. Providentially he was reared at the court of Pharaoh. At the age of forty he fled from Egypt, going to Midian where he remained until he was eighty. In chapter 3 are recorded his call and commission by the God of Israel. From this point onward we see that his name occurs constantly. Throughout the remaining books of the Torah we read that the Lord spoke to him. In Exodus 17:14 we see that God commanded him, saying, "Write this for a memorial in a book and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua," etc. Of course, Moses did as he was commanded. In Exodus 24:4 we learn that "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah." Again he is commanded to write: "And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words" (Ex. 34:27). Throughout the rest of the books of the Torah we read of the Lord's speaking to him and of his writing what God commanded. But in the book of Genesis not one word is said about God's speaking to him or of his writing any of its contents. This fact is significant and demands an explanation. It stands to reason that, if he sustained the same relation to the revelation in Genesis that he did to the other four books, he would have spoken of it as he did in regard to them. If not, why not?

If one will but casually read Genesis, he will be impressed with the fact that different names for God appear in various sections. For instance, in chapter one אֱלֹהִים is the name given to the Almighty. It occurs thirty-four times. In striking contrast with this fact is the further one that in chapters 2-4 we have the appellation יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, with the single exception of the conversation between Eve and Satan (Gen. 3:2-5). In this instance, both of them used אֱלֹהִים, the form seen in chapter 1. The situation is different in the third natural division. Here this compound name does not occur. A glance at 5:1-6:8 shows that the writer employed both terms separately. In one verse he used one, and in another, the other. The same situation is found in the next section (6:9b-9:29). In this division אֱלֹהִים is used in the majority of instances, though יְהוָה occurs several times. In the fifth section (10:1b-11:9) יְהוָה alone is used. But in the next division (11:10b-26) no name for the Deity occurs, since this portion deals only with the genealogy of Terah. In the seventh section (11:27b-25:18) both names occur. But in 17:1 we learn a new name for the Divine Being, which is אֵל שַׁדָּי. A situation similar to that which we have observed also appears here.

Why these different names? And why this peculiar combination of the divine appellation? What is the meaning of each? These and other important questions arise, which demand an answer. They cannot be dismissed by the thoughtful student.

A cursory survey of Genesis reveals the fact that there are different styles appearing in certain sections of this most interesting and important book. For instance, if one will only read the first chapter and then peruse the second, third, and fourth, he will see immediately the style in the first chapter differs greatly from that in chapters 2-4. What is true of these two portions is also true of other sections. This fact must not be ignored but must be fairly met and an answer, which is faithful to all the facts, must be given. Why these different styles? There evidently is a reason.

In Genesis 1 we have a majestic account of the creation of the universe, a brief statement of the catastrophe which wrecked the earth, the six days of reconstruction during which the Lord repaired, to a certain extent, the damage done and remodelled it to make it habitable for man and beast, and the creation of man by a direct act of God. In the second chapter we have a duplicate record especially of the creation of man, which is much fuller and more explicit than the first account. As noted in the last section, this second narrative is written in a style different from that of the former. No one who will face the facts can deny the truthfulness of these assertions.

A second duplication, which has been noted by scholars and which is given more in detail than the first (Gen. 6:1-8) and with additional material, is found in chapter 6:9-22. Another one is in 11:27, which is simply a repetition of verse 26. There are other examples¹ which must be acknowledged.

Upon a close investigation of the literary and linguistic data of the book, one soon discovers that, figuratively speaking, it was laid down in successive deposits. What is meant by this statement is that there are evidences of different racial and social as well as religious contacts. It is admitted by Assyrio-Babylonian experts that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are permeated with Babylonian concepts and words. To be more specific, it is evident that the writers of this section of the Word of God lived in that environment and spoke in terms of that civilization. This position is disputed, I must admit, by certain Egyptologists. Nevertheless, when all the facts are known, the evidence seems to be in favor of a Babylonian background for this portion of the Word.

When one reads chapters 12-36, he passes into a different world of ideas and civilization. Here one does not meet with the Babylonian influence which is so very apparent in the first section, but rather with a Palestinian culture. The customs, habits and civilization of the time of the events recorded in this section are reflected therein. A vividness of the Palestinian background is apparent throughout this section. The only scientific conclusion to which one can come is that it was written by those who lived in that part of the world.

In passing out of this section into the third and last one into which the book naturally divides, one enters an Egyptian atmosphere. Everything in the last fourteen chapters, except chapter 38 which deals with Palestine, reflects the culture and the civilization of the Valley of the Nile. This position has been proved conclusively by Egyptologists. Concerning this fact there can be no question.

At the same time scholars have detected a touch of Egyptian influences in all three sections of the book. Upon what hypothesis can these unusual phenomena be accounted? Obviously there is a reason for it. On this point experts are not agreed, but we shall see to what conclusion the evidence points when we come to that phase of the discussion.

B. A Scientific Analysis Of The Data
And The Logical Explanation Of The Facts