Christian Reflections Pb

Available on alibris.com
( 4.6/5.0 ★ | 476 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780008203856&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780008203856
Christian Reflections Pb

ISBN: 9780008203856
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 3.7 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Cover may have light wear pages in very good
condition and binding is sturdy; may have other light shelf wear or
creases. May have notes or highlighting.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780008203856&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780008203856
 Christian Reflections Pb

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978000820385

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
Moses. Paul, in his Letter to the Romans (10, 5) quoting from
Leviticus, affirms that "Moses writes that the man who practices
righteousness which is based on the law ..." etc. John, in his Gospel
(5,46-47), makes Jesus say the following: "If you believed Moses,
you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe
his writings, how will you believe my words?" We have here an
example of editing, because the Greek word that corresponds to the
original (written in Greek) is episteuete, so that the Evangelist is
putting an affirmation into Jesus's mouth that is totally wrong: the
following demonstrates this. I am borrowing the elements of this
demonstration from Father de Vaux, Head of the Biblical School of
Jerusalem. He prefaced his French translation of Genesis in 1962
with a General Introduction to the Pentateuch which contained
valuable arguments. These ran contrary to the affirmations of the
Evangelists on the authorship of the work
 in question. Father de Vaux reminds us that the "Jewish
tradition which was followed by Christ and his Apostles" was
accepted up to the end of the Middle Ages. The only person to
contest this theory was Abenezra in the Twelfth century. It was in
the Sixteenth century that Calstadt noted that Moses could not have
written the account of his own death in Deuteronomy (34, 5-12).
The author then quotes other critics who refuse to ascribe to Moses
a part, at least, of the Pentateuch. It was above all the work of
Richard Simon, father of the Oratory, Critical History of the Old
Testament (Histoire critique du Vieux Testament) 1678, that
underlined the chronological difficulties, the repetitions, the
confusion of the stories and stylistic differences in the Pentateuch.
The book caused a scandal. R. Simon's line of argument was barely
followed in history books at the beginning of the Eighteenth century.
At this time, the references to antiquity very often proceeded from
what "Moses had written". One can easily imagine how difficult it
was to combat a legend strengthened by Jesus himself who, as we
have seen, supported it in the New Testament. It is to Jean Astruc,
Louis XV's doctor, that we owe the decisive argument. By publishing,
in 1753, his Conjectures on the original writings which it appears
Moses used to compose the Book of Genesis (Conjectures sur les
Memoires originaux dont il parait que Moyse s'est servi pour
composer le livre de la Genese), he placed the accent on the
plurality of sources. He was probably not the first to have noticed it,
but he did however have the courage to make public an observation
of prime importance: two texts, each denoted by the way in which
God was named either Yahweh or Elohim, were present side by side
in Genesis. The latter therefore contained two juxtaposed texts.
Eichorn (1780-1783) made the same discovery for the other four
books; then Ilgen (1798) noticed that one of the texts isolated by
Astruc, the one where God is named Elohim, was itself divided into
two. The Pentateuch literally fell apart. The Nineteenth century saw
an even more minute search into the sources. In 1854, four sources
were recognised. They were called the Yahvist version, the Elohist
version, Deuteronomy, and the Sacerdotal version. It was even
possible to date them: 1) The Yahvist version was placed in the
Ninth century B.C. (written in Judah) 2) The Elohist version was
probably a little more recent (written in Israel) 3) Deuteronomy was
from the Eighth century B.C. for some (E. Jacob) , and from the time
of Josiah for others (Father de Vaux) 4) The Sacerdotal version came
from the period of exile or after the exile: Sixth century B.C. It can
be seen that the arrangement of the text of the Pentateuch spans at
least three centuries. The problem is, however, even more complex.
In 1941, A. Lods singled out three sources in the Yahvist version,
four in the Elohist version, six in Deuteronomy, nine in the
Sacerdotal version, "not including the additions spread out among
eight different authors" writes Father de Vaux. More recently, it has
been thought that
 "many of the constitutions or laws contained in the
Pentateuch had parallels outside the Bible going back much further
than the dates ascribed to the documents themselves" and that
"many of the stories of the Pentateuch presupposed a background
that was different from-and older than-the one from which these
documents were supposed to have come". This leads on to "an
interest in the formation of traditions". The problem then appears so
complicated that nobody knows where he is anymore. The
multiplicity of sources brings with it numerous disagreements and
repetitions. Father de Vaux gives examples of this overlapping of
traditions in the case of the Flood, the kidnapping of Joseph, his
adventures in Egypt, disagreement of names relating to the same
character, differing descriptions of important events. Thus the
Pentateuch is shown to be formed from various traditions brought
together more or less skillfully by its authors. The latter sometimes
juxtaposed their compilations and sometimes adapted the stories for
the sake of synthesis. They allowed improbabilities and
disagreements to appear in the texts, however, which have led
modern man to the objective study of the sources. As far as textual
criticism is concerned, the Pentateuch provides what is probably the
most obvious example of adaptations made by the hand of man.
These were made at different times in the history of the Jewish
people, taken from oral traditions and texts handed down from
preceding generations. It was begun in the Tenth or Ninth century
B.C. with the Yahvist tradition which took the story from its very
beginnings. The latter sketches Israel's own particular destiny to "fit
it back into God's Grand Design for humanity" (Father de Vaux). It
was concluded in the Sixth century B.C. with the Sacerdotal tradition
that is meticulous in its precise mention of dates and genealogies.
[10] Father de Vaux writes that "The few stories this tradition has of
its own bear witness to legal preoccupations: Sabbatical rest at the
completion of the Creation, the alliance with Noah, the alliance with
Abraham and the circumcision, the purchase of the Cave of Makpela
that gave the Patriarchs land in Canaan". We must bear in mind that
the Sacerdotal tradition dates from the time of the deportation to
Babylon and the return to Palestine starting in 538 B.C. There is
therefore a mixture of religious and purely political problems. For
Genesis alone, the division of the Book into three sources has been
firmly established: Father de Vaux in the commentary to his
translation lists for each source the passages in the present text of
Genesis that rely on them. On the evidence of these data it is
possible to pinpoint the contribution made by the various sources to
any one of the chapters. For example, in the case of the Creation,
the Flood and the period that goes from the Flood to Abraham,
occupying as it does the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we can see
alternating in the Biblical text a section of the Yahvist and a section
of the Sacerdotal texts. The Elohist text is not present in the first
eleven chapters. The overlapping of Yahvist and Sacerdotal
contributions is here quite clear. For the Creation and up to Noah
(first five chapter's), the arrangement is simple: a Yahvist passage
alternates with a Sacerdotal passage from beginning to end of the
narration. For the Flood and especially chapters 7 and 8 moreover,
the cutting of the text according to its source is narrowed down to
very short passages and even to a single sentence. In the space of
little more than a hundred lines of English text, the text changes
seventeen times. It is from this that the improbabilities and
 contradictions arise when we read the present-day text,
(see Table on page 15 for schematic distribution of sources) THE
HISTORICAL BOOKS In these books we enter into the history of the
Jewish people, from the time they came to the Promised Land
(which is most likely to have been at the end of the Thirteenth
century B.C.) to the deportation to Babylon in the Sixth century B.C.
Here stress is laid upon what one might call the 'national event'
which is presented as the fulfillment of Divine word. In the narration
however, historical accuracy has rather been brushed aside: a work
such as the Book of Joshua complies first and foremost with
theological intentions. With this in mind, E. Jacob underlines the
obvious contradiction between archaeology and the texts in the case
of the supposed destruction of Jericho and Ay. The Book of Judges is
centered on the defense of the chosen people against surrounding
enemies and on the support given to them by God. The Book was
adapted several times, as Father A. Lefevre notes with great
objectivity in his Preamble to the Crampon Bible, the various
prefaces in the text and the appendices bear witness to this. The
story of Ruth is attached to the narrations contained in Judges.
TABLE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE YAHVIST AND SACERDOTAL
TEXTS IN CHAPTERS 1 TO 11 in GENESIS) The first figure indicates
the chapter. The second figure in brackets indicates the number of
phrases, sometimes divided into two parts indicated by the letters a
and b. Letters: Y indicates Yahvist text S indicates Sacerdotal text
Example: The first line of the table indicates: from Chapter 1, phrase
1 to Chapter 2, phrase 4a, the text published in present day Bibles is
the Sacerdotal text.
 Chapter Phrase to Chapter Phrase Text 1 (1) 2 (4a) S 2 (4b)
4 (26) Y 5 (1) 5 (32) S 6 (1) 6 (8) Y 6 (9) 6 (22) S 7 (1) 7 (5) Y 7
(6) S 7 (7) 7 (10) Y adapted 7 (11) S 7 (12) Y 7 (13) 7 (16a) S 7
(16b) 7 (17) Y 7 (18) 7 (21) S 7 (22) 7 (23) Y 7 (24) 8 (2a) S 8 (2b)
(5) Y 8 (3) 8 (12) S 8 (6) 8 Y 8 (13a) S 8 (13b) (19) Y 8 (14) 8 (22)
S 8 (20) 8 (17) Y 9 (1) 9 (27) S 9 (18) 9 (7) Y 10 10 10 10 10 11 11
(19) (23) (30) (32) (9) (32) S Y S Y S Y S
 What simpler illustration can there be of the way men have
manipulated the Biblical Scriptures? The Book of Samuel and the two
Books of Kings are above all biographical collections concerning
Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon. Their historic worth is the
subject of debate. From this point of view E. Jacob finds numerous
errors in it, because there are sometimes two and even three
versions of the same event. The prophets Elias, Elisha and Isaiah
also figure here, mixing elements of history and legend. For other
commentators, such as Father A. Lefevre, "the historical value of
these books is fundamental." Chronicles I & II, the Book of Ezra and
the Book of Nehemiah have a single author, called 'the Chronicler',
writing in the Fourth century B.C. He resumes the whole history of
the Creation up to this period, although his genealogical tables only
go up to David. In actual fact, he is using above all the Book of
Samuel and the Book of Kings, "mechanically copying them out
without regard to the inconsistencies" (E. Jacob), but he
nevertheless adds precise facts that have been confirmed by
archaeology. In these works care is taken to adapt history to the
needs of theology. E. Jacob notes that the author "sometimes writes
history according to theology". "To explain the fact that King
Manasseh, who was a sacrilegious persecutor, had a long and
prosperous reign, he postulates a conversion of the King during a
stay in Assyria (Chronicles II, 33/1 1) although there is no mention
of this in any Biblical or nonBiblical source". The Book of Ezra and
the Book of Nehemiah have been severely criticised because they
are full of obscure points, and because the period they deal with
(the Fourth century B.C.) is itself not very well known, there being
few nonBiblical documents from it. The Books of Tobit, Judith and
Esther are classed among the Historical Books. In them very big
liberties are taken with history, proper names are changed,
characters and events are invented, all for the best of religious
reasons. They are in fact stories designed to serve a moral end,
pepll)ered with historical improbabilities and inaccuracies. The Books
of Maccabees are of quite a different order. They provide a version
of events that took place in the Second century B.C. which is as
exact a record of the history of this period as may be found. It is for
this reason that they constitute accounts of great value. The
collection of books under the heading 'historical' is therefore highly
disparate. History is treated in both a scientific and a whimsical
fashion. THE PROPHETIC BOOKS Under this heading we find the
preachings of various prophets who in the Old Testament have been
classed separately from the first great prophets such as Moses,
Samuel, Elias and Elisha, whose teachings are referred to in other
books.
 The prophetic books cover the period from the Eighth to
the Second century B.C. In the Eighth century B.C., there were the
books of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Michah. The first of these is
famous for his condemnation of social injustice, the second for his
religious corruption which leads him to bodily suffering (for being
forced to marry a sacred harlot of a pagan cult), like God suffering
for the degradation of His people but still granting them His love.
Isaiah is a figure of political history, he is consulted by kings and
dominates events; he is the prophet of grandeur. In addition to his
personal works, his oracles are published by his disciples right up
until the Third century B.C.: protests against iniquities, fear of God's
judgement, proclamations of liberation at the time of exile and later
on the return of the Jews to Palestine. It is certain that in the case
of the second and third Isaiah, the prophetic intention is paralleled
by political considerations that are as clear as daylight. The
preaching of Michah, a contemporary of Isaiah, follows the same
general ideas. In the Seventh century B.C., Zephaniah, Jeremiah,
Nahum and Habakkuk distinguished themselves by their preachings.
Jeremiah became a martyr. His oracles were collected by Baruch who
is also perhaps the author of Lamentations. The period of exile in
Babylon at the beginning of the Sixth century B.C. gave birth to
intense prophetic activity. Ezekiel figures importantly as the consoler
of his brothers, inspiring hope among them. His visions are famous.
The Book of Obadiah deals with the misery of a conquered
Jerusalem. After the exile, which came to an end in 538 B.C.,
prophetic activity resumed with Haggai and Zechariah who urged the
reconstruction of the Temple. When it was completed, writings going
under the name of Malachi appeared. They contain various oracles
of a spiritual nature. One wonders why the Book of Jonah is included
in the prophetic books when the Old Testament does not give it any
real text to speak of. Jonah is a story from which one principle fact
emerges: the necessary submission to Divine Will. Daniel was
written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). According
to Christian commentators, it is a , disconcerting' Apocalypse from
an historical point of view. It is probably a work from the
Maccabaean period, Second century B.C. Its author wished to
maintain the faith of his countrymen, at the time of the 'abomination
of desolation', by convincing them that the moment of deliverance
was at hand. (E. Jacob) THE BOOKS OF POETRY AND WISDOM
These form collections of unquestionable literary unity. Foremost
among them are the Psalms, the greatest monument to Hebrew
poetry. A large number were composed by David and the others by
priests and levites. Their themes are praises, supplications and
meditations, and they served a liturgical function. The book of Job,
the book of wisdom and piety par excellence, probably dates from
400-500 B.C.
 The author of 'Lamentations' on the fall of Jerusalem at the
beginning of the Sixth century B.C. may well be Jeremiah. We must
once again mention the Song of Songs, allegorical chants mostly
about Divine love, the Book of Proverbs, a collection of the words of
Solomon and other wise men of the court, and Ecclesiastes or
Koheleth, where earthly happiness and wisdom are debated. We
have, therefore, a collection of works with highly disparate contents
written over at least seven centuries, using extremely varied sources
before being amalgamated inside a single work. How was this
collection able, over the centuries, to constitute an inseparable
whole and-with a few variations according to community-become the
book containing the Judeo-Christian Revelation? This book was
called in Greek the 'canon' because of the idea of intangibility it
conveys. The amalgam does not date from the Christian period, but
from Judaism itself, probably with a primary stage in the Seventh
century B.C. before later books were added to those already
accepted. It is to be noted however that the first five books, forming
the Torah or Pentateuch, have always been given pride of place.
Once the proclamations of the prophets (the prediction of a
chastisement commensurate with misdemeanour) had been fulfilled,
there was no difficulty in adding their texts to the books that had
already been admitted. The same was true for the assurances of
hope given by these prophets. By the Second century B.C., the
'Canon' of the prophets had been formed. Other books, e.g. Psalms,
on account of their liturgical function, were integrated along with
further writings, such as Lamentations, the Book of Wisdom and the
Book of Job. Christianity, which was initially Judeo-Christianity, has
been carefully studied-as we shall see later on-by modern authors,
such as Cardinal Danielou. Before it was transformed under Paul's
influence, Christianity accepted the heritage of the Old Testament
without difficulty. The authors of the Gospels adhered very strictly to
the latter, but whereas a 'purge' has been made of the Gospels by
ruling out the 'Apocrypha', the same selection has not been deemed
necessary for the Old Testament. Everything, or nearly everything,
has been accepted. Who would have dared dispute any aspects of
this disparate amalgam before the end of the Middle Ages-in the
West at least? The answer is nobody, or almost nobody. From the
end of the Middle Ages up to the beginning of modern times, one or
two critics began to appear; but, as we have already seen, the
Church Authorities have always succeeded in having their own way.
Nowadays, there is without doubt a genuine body of textual
criticism, but even if ecclesiastic specialists have devoted many of
their efforts to examining a multitude of detailed points, they have
preferred not to go too deeply into what they euphemistically call
difficulties'. They hardly seem disposed to study them in the light of
modern knowledge. They may well establish parallels with history-
principally when history and Biblical narration appear to be in
agreement-but so far they have not committed themselves to be a
frank and
 thorough comparison with scientific ideas. They realize that
this would lead people to contest notions about the truth of Judeo-
Christian Scriptures, which have so far remained undisputed. The
Old Testament and Science Findings Few of the subjects dealt within
the Old Testament, and likewise the Gospels, give rise to a
confrontation with the data of modern knowledge. When an
incompatibility does occur between the Biblical text and science,
however, it is on extremely important points. As we have already
seen in the preceding chapter, historical errors were found in the
Bible and we have quoted several of these pinpointed by Jewish and
Christian experts in exegesis. The latter have naturally had a
tendency to minimize the importance of such errors. They find it
quite natural for a sacred author to present historical fact in
accordance with theology and to write history to suit certain needs.
We shall see further on, in the case of the Gospel according to
Matthew, the same liberties taken with reality and the same
commentaries aimed at making admissible as reality what is in
contradiction to it. A logical and objective mind cannot be content
with this procedure. From a logical angle, it is possible to single out
a large number of contradictions and improbabilities. The existence
of different sources that might have been used in the writing of a
description may be at the origin of two different presentations of the
same fact. This is not all; different adaptations, later additions to the
text itself, like the commentaries added a posteriori, then included in
the text later on when a new copy was made-these are perfectly
recognized by specialists in textual criticism and very frankly
underlined by some of them. In the case of the Pentateuch alone,
for example, Father de Vaux in the General Introduction preceding
his translation of Genesis (pages 13 and 14), has drawn attention to
numerous disagreements. We shall not quote them here since we
shall be quoting several of them later on in this study. The general
impression one gains is that one must not follow the text to the
letter. Here is a very typical example: In Genesis (6, 3), God decides
just before the Flood henceforth to limit man's lifespan to one
hundred and twenty years, "... his days shall be a hundred and
twenty years". Further on however, we note in Genesis (11, 10-32)
that the ten descendants of Noah had lifespans that range from 148
to 600 years (see table in this chapter showing Noah's descendants
down to Abraham). The contradiction between these two passages is
quite obvious. The explanation is elementary. The first passage
(Genesis 6, 3) is a Yahvist text, probably dating as we have already
seen from the Tenth century B.C. The second passage in Genesis
(11, 10-32) is a much more recent text (Sixth century B.C.) from the
Sacerdotal version. This version is at the origin of these genealogies,
which are as precise in their information on lifespans as they are
improbable when taken en masse.
 It is in Genesis that we find the most evident
incompatibilities with modern science. These concern three essential
points: 1) the Creation of the world and its stages; 2) the date of the
Creation of the world and the date of man's appearance on earth; 3)
the description of the Flood. THE CREATION OF THE WORLD As
Father de Vaux points out, Genesis "starts with two juxtaposed
descriptions of the Creation". When examining them from the point
of view of their compatibility with modern scientific data, we must
look at each one separately. First Description of the Creation The
first description occupies the first chapter and the very first verses of
the second chapter. It is a masterpiece of inaccuracy from a scientific
point of view. It must be examined one paragraph at a time. The
text reproduced here is from the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible. [1 1] Chapter 1, verses 1 & 2: "In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void,
and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God
was moving over the face of the waters." It is quite possible to admit
that before the Creation of the Earth, what was to become the
Universe as we know it was covered in darkness. To mention the
existence of water at this period is however quite simply pure
imagination. We shall see in the third part of this book how there is
every indication that at the initial stage of the formation of the
universe a gaseous mass existed. It is an error to place water in it.
Verses 3 to 5: "And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was
light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the
light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness
he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one
day." The light circulating in the Universe is the result of complex
reactions in the stars. We shall come back to them in the third part
of this work. At this stage in the Creation, however, according to the
Bible, the stars were not yet formed. The "lights' of the firmament
are not mentioned in Genesis until verse 14, when they were created
on the Fourth day, "to separate the day from the night", "to give
light upon earth"; all of which is accurate. It is illogical, however, to
mention the result (light) on the first day, when the cause of this
light was created three days later. The fact that the existence of
evening and morning is placed on the first day is moreover, purely
imaginary; the
 existence of evening and morning as elements of a single
day is only conceivable after the creation of the earth and its
rotation under the light of its own star, the Sun! -verses 6 to 8: "And
God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it separate the waters from the waters.' And God made the
firmament and separated the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it
was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was
evening and there was morning, a second day." The myth of the
waters is continued here with their separation into two layers by a
firmament that in the description of the Flood allows the waters
above to pass through and flow onto the earth. This image of the
division of the waters into two masses is scientifically unacceptable.
-verses 9 to 13: "And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens
be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.'
And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that
were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was
good. And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants
yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed,
each according to its kind upon the earth.' And it was so. The earth
brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own
kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening
and there was morning, a third day." The fact that continents
emerged at the period in the earth's history, when it was still
covered with water, is quite acceptable scientifically. What is totally
untenable is that a highly organized vegetable kingdom with
reproduction by seed could have appeared before the existence of
the sun (in Genesis it does not appear until the fourth day), and
likewise the establishment of alternating nights and days. -verses 14
to 19: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmaments of the
heavens to separate the day from night; and let them be for signs
and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the
firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.' And it was
so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon
earth, to rule over, the day and over the night, and to separate the
light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there
was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." Here the Biblical
author's description is acceptable. The only criticism one could level
at this passage is the position it occupies in the description as a
whole. Earth and Moon emanated, as we know, from their original
star, the Sun. To place the creation of the Sun and Moon after the
creation of the Earth is contrary to the most firmly established ideas
on the formation of the elements of the Solar System. -verses 20 to
30: "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living
creatures, and let birds
 fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.'
So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature
that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds,
and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was
good. And God blessed them saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill
the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' And there
was evening and there was morning, a fifth day." This passage
contains assertions which are unacceptable. According to Genesis,
the animal kingdom began with the appearance of creatures of the
sea and winged birds. The Biblical description informs us that it was
not until the next day-as we shall see in the following verses-that the
earth itself was populated by animals. It is certain that the origins of
life came from the sea, but this question will not be dealt with until
the third part of this book. From the sea, the earth was colonized, as
it were, by the animal kingdom. It is from animals living on the
surface of the earth, and in particular from one species of reptile
which lived in the Second era, that it is thought the birds originated.
Numerous biological characteristics common to both species make
this deduction possible. The beasts of the earth are not however
mentioned until the sixth day in Genesis; after the appearance of the
birds. This order of appearance, beasts of the earth after birds, is
not therefore acceptable. -verses 24 to 3 1 : "And God said, "Let the
earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and
creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.'
And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to
their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything
that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good." "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness; and let them have dominion (sic) over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth".
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them." "And God blessed
them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon
the earth.' And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant
yielding seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree
with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every
beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I
have given every green plant for food." And it was so. And God saw
everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." This is the
description of the culmination of the Creation. The author lists all the
living creatures not mentioned before and describes the various
kinds of food for man and beast.
 As we have seen, the error was to place the appearance of
beasts of the earth after that of the birds. Man's appearance is
however correctly situated after the other species of living things.
The description of the Creation finishes in the first three verses of
Chapter 2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all
the host (sic) of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work
which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his
work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and
hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had
done in creation; These are the generations of the heavens and the
earth when they were created." This description of the seventh day
calls for some comment. Firstly the meaning of certain words. The
text is taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible
mentioned above. The word 'host' signifies here, in all probability,
the multitude of beings created. As for the expression 'he rested', it
is a manner of translating the Hebrew word 'shabbath', from which
the Jewish day for rest is derived, hence the expression in English
'sabbath'. It is quite clear that the 'rest' that God is said to have
taken after his six days' work is a legend. There is nevertheless an
explanation for this. We must bear in mind that the description of
the creation examined here is taken from the so-called Sacerdotal
version, written by priests and scribes who were the spiritual
successors of Ezekiel, the prophet of the exile to Babylon writing in
the Sixth century B.C. We have already seen how the priests took
the Yahvist and Elohist versions of Genesis and remodelled them
after their own fashion in accordance with their own preoccupations.
Father de Vaux has written that the 'legalist' character of these
writings was very essential. An outline of this has already been given
above. Whereas the Yahvist text of the Creation, written several
centuries before the Sacerdotal text, makes no mention of God's
sabbath, taken after the fatigue of a week's labor, the authors of the
Sacerdotal text bring it into their description. They divide the latter
into separate days, with the very precise indication of the days of
the week. They build it around the sabbatic day of rest which they
have to justify to the faithful by pointing out that God was the first
to respect it. Subsequent to this practical necessity, the description
that follows has an apparently logical religious order, but in fact
scientific data permit us to qualify the latter as being of a whimsical
nature. The idea that successive phases of the Creation, as seen by
the Sacerdotal authors in their desire to incite people to religious
observation, could have been compressed into the space of one
week is one that cannot be defended from a scientific point of view.
Today we are perfectly aware that the formation of the Universe and
the Earth took place in stages that lasted for very long periods. (In
the third part of the present work, we shall examine this question
when we come to look at the Qur'anic data concerning the
Creation). Even if the description came to a close on the evening of
the sixth day, without mentioning the seventh day, the 'sabbath'
when God is said to have rested, and even if, as in the Qur'anic
description, we were permitted to think that they were in fact
undefined periods rather than actual days, the Sacerdotal description
would
 still not be any more acceptable. The succession of
episodes it contains is an absolute contradiction with elementary
scientific knowledge. It may be seen therefore that the Sacerdotal
description of the Creation stands out as an imaginative and
ingenious fabrication. Its purpose was quite different from that of
making the truth known. Second Description The second description
of the Creation in Genesis follows immediately upon the first without
comment or transitional passage. It does not provoke the same
objections. We must remember that this description is roughly three
centuries older and is very short. It allows more space to the
creation of man and earthly paradise than to the creation of the
Earth and Heavens. It mentions this very briefly (Chapter2, 4b-7):
"In the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, when
no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had
yet sprung up-for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a flood went up
from earth and watered the whole face of the ground-then Yahweh
God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." This is
the Yahvist text that appears in the text of present day Bibles. The
Sacerdotal text was added to it later on, but one may ask if it was
originally so brief. Nobody is in a position to say whether the Yahvist
text has not, in the course of time, been pared down. We do not
know if the few lines we possess represent all that the oldest Biblical
text of the Creation had to say. The Yahvist description does not
mention the actual formation of the Earth or the Heavens. It makes
it clear that when God created man, there was no vegetation on
Earth (it had not yet rained), even though the waters of the Earth
had covered its surface. The sequel to the text confirms this: God
planted a garden at the same time as man was created. The
vegetable kingdom therefore appears on Earth at the same time as
man. This is scientifically inaccurate; man did not appear on Earth
until a long time after vegetation had been growing on it. We do not
know how many hundreds of millions of years separate the two
events. This is the only criticism that one can level at the Yahvist
text. The fact that it does not place the creation of man in time in
relation to the formation of the world and the earth, unlike the
Sacerdotal text, which places them in the same week, frees it from
the serious objections raised against the latter. THE DATE OF THE
WORLDS CREATION AND THE DATE OF MANS APPEARANCE ON
EARTH.
 The Jewish calendar, which follows the data contained in
the Old Testament, places the dates of the above very precisely. The
second half of the Christian year 1975 corresponds to the beginning
of the 5, 736th year of the creation of the world. The creation of
man followed several days later, so that he has the same numerical
age, counted in years, as in the Jewish calendar. There is probably a
correction to be made on account of the fact that time was originally
calculated in lunar years, while the calendar used in the West is
based on solar years. This correction would have to be made if one
wanted to be absolutely exact, but as it represents only 3%, it is of
very little consequence. To simplify our calculations, it is easier to
disregard it. What matters here is the order of magnitude. It is
therefore of little importance if, over a thousand years, our
calculations are thirty years out. We are nearer the truth in following
this Hebraic estimate of the creation of the world if we say that it
happened roughly thirty- seven centuries before Christ. What does
modern science tell us? It would be difficult to reply to the question
concerning the formation of the Universe. All we can provide figures
for is the era in time when the solar system was formed. It is
possible to arrive at a reasonable approximation of this. The time
between it and the present is estimated at four and a half billion
years. We can therefore measure the margin separating the firmly
established reality we know today and the data taken from the Old
Testament. We shall expand on this in the third part of the present
work. These facts emerge from a close scrutiny of the Biblical text.
Genesis provides very precise information on the time that elapsed
between Adam and Abraham. For the period from the time of
Abraham to the beginnings of Christianity, the information provided
is insufficient. It must be supported by other sources. 1. From Adam
to Abraham Genesis provides extremely precise genealogical data in
Chapters 4, 5, 11,21 and 25. They concern all of Abraham's
ancestors in direct line back to Adam. They give the length of time
each person lived, the father's age at the birth of the son and thus
make it easily possible to ascertain the dates of birth and death of
each ancestor in relation to the creation of Adam, as the table
indicates. All the data used in this table come from the Sacerdotal
text of Genesis, the only Biblical text that provides information of
this kind. It may be deduced, according to the Bible, that Abraham
was born 1,948 years after Adam.
 ABRAHAM'S GENEALOGY Name Adam Seth Enosch Kenan
Mahalaleel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem Arpachshad
Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah Abraham date length date
of death of birth of after creation after life of Adam creation of Adam
930 930 130 912 1042 235 905 1140 325 910 1235 395 895 1290
460 962 1422 622 365 987 687 969 1656 874 111 1651 1056 950
2006 1556 600 2156 1658 438 2096 1693 433 2122 1723 464 2187
1757 239 1996 1787 239 2026 1819 230 2049 1849 148 1997 1878
205 2083 1948 175 2123 2. From Abraham to The Beginnings Of
Christianity The Bible does not provide any numerical information on
this period that might lead to such precise estimates as those found
in Genesis on Abraham's ancestors. We must look to other sources
to estimate the time separating Abraham from Jesus. At present,
allowing for a slight margin of error, the time of Abraham is situated
at roughly eighteen centuries before Jesus. Combined with
information in Genesis on the interval separating Abraham and
Adam, this would place Adam at roughly thirty-eight centuries before
Jesus. This estimate is undeniably wrong: the origins of this
inaccuracy arise from the mistakes in the Bible on the Adam-
Abraham period. The Jewish tradition still founds its calendar on this.
Nowadays, we can challenge the traditional defenders of Biblical
truth with the incompatibility between the whimsical estimates of
Jewish priests living in the Sixth century B.C. and modern data. For
centuries, the events of antiquity relating to Jesus were situated in
time according to information based on these estimates. Before
modern times, editions of the Bible frequently provided the reader
with a preamble explaining the historical sequence of events that
had come to pass between the creation of the world and the time
when the books were edited. The figures vary slightly according to
the time. For example, the Clementine Vulgate, 1621, gave this
 information, although it did place Abraham a little earlier
and the Creation at roughly the 40th century B.C. Walton's polyglot
Bible, produced in the 17th century, in addition to Biblical texts in
several languages, gave the reader tables similar to the one shown
here for Abraham's ancestors. Almost all the estimates coincide with
the figures given here. With the arrival of modern times, editors
were no longer able to maintain such whimsical chronologies without
going against scientific discovery that placed the Creation at a much
earlier date. They were content to abolish these tables and
preambles, but they avoided warning the reader that the Biblical
texts on which these chronologies were based had become obsolete
and could no longer be considered to express the truth. They
preferred to draw a modest veil over them, and invent set-phrases of
cunning dialectics that would make acceptable the text as it had
formerly been, without any subtractions from it. This is why the
genealogies contained in the Sacerdotal text of the Bible are still
honoured, even though in the Twentieth century one cannot
reasonably continue to count time on the basis of such fiction.
Modern scientific data do not allow us to establish the date of man's
appearance on earth beyond a certain limit. We may be certain that
man, with the capacity for action and intelligent thought that
distinguishes him from beings that appear to be anatomically similar
to him, existed on Earth after a certain estimable date. Nobody
however can say at what exact date he appeared. What we can say
today is that remains have been found of a humanity capable of
human thought and action whose age may be calculated in tens of
thousands of years. This approximate dating refers to the prehistoric
human species, the most recently discovered being the Cro-Magnon
Man. There have of course been many other discoveries all over the
world of remains that appear to be human. These relate to less
highly evolved species, and their age could be somewhere in the
hundreds of thousands of years. But were they genuine men?
Whatever the answer may be, scientific data are sufficiently precise
concerning the prehistoric species like the Cro-Magnon Man, to be
able to place them much further back than the epoch in which
Genesis places the first men. There is therefore an obvious
incompatibility between what we can derive from the numerical data
in Genesis about the date of man's appearance on Earth and the
firmly established facts of modern scientific knowledge. THE FLOOD
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are devoted to the description of the Flood. In
actual fact, there are two descriptions; they have not been placed
side by side, but are distributed all the way through. Passages are
interwoven to give the appearance of a coherent succession of
varying episodes. In these three chapters there are, in reality,
blatant contradictions; here again the explanation lies in the
existence of two quite distinct sources: the Yahvist and Sacerdotal
versions. It has been shown earlier that they formed a disparate
amalgam; each original text has been broken down into paragraphs
or phrases, elements of one source alternating with