A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Genesis, with a new translation

Front matter

ttJSo.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

Introduction

The Commentary of Professor Murphy on Genesis has been in the hands of scholars for several years, and has won a high place in their regard. Indeed, there is reason to believe that no recent exposition of Genesis has been consulted with more frequency or profit by the clergy of England and America, than this — a circumstance which affords good evidence of its intrinsic worth, though not, perhaps, of its adaptation to the minds and culture of the people. To the latter point I would therefore call attention ; for this work will be found, I think, as well fitted to meet the wants of the English reader as it is to meet those of the Hebrew scholar. The two features which might be supposed to restrict its usefulness to persons acquainted with the Hebrew language, are these: it is founded on the Hebrew text, examined in the light of the best modern scholarship, and it introduces each paragraph with a list and explanation of the principal Hebrew words which are met for the first time in that paragraph.

Of these two features, the former is plainly a great excellence ; for it brings the reader, along with the expositor, into more intimate and living contact with the inspired record. Think of a man undertaking to expound the dialogues of Plato, with nothing but a good translation to guide him ! How often would he long to know, by a careful study of the original, whether the version of an obscure passage before him was the only natural one ! How often would he be in just a little doubt whether he had apprehended the exact shade of thought which the translator meant to express ! A doubt which might

iii j v INTRODUCTION.

be removed by a single glance at the words of Plato himself. And how often would the original set his mind upon inquiries, leading to a deeper view of the writer's aim and spirit ! The same may be said of Shakespeare. Who would think of expounding his plays by the help of a German translation, merely? If it were possible to ascertain in this way the leading thought of every line, how much of the flavor and aroma of the sentiment would nevertheless be lost ! And how much of the delight, enthusiasm, and confidence which a study of the very words of Shakespeare would inspire, must be wanting ! So too, at a great, if not an equal disadvantage must an interpreter of Genesis be placed, who is unacquainted with the Hebrew original. No man, indeed, can explain the Scriptures in the best manner possible, on the basis of a translation. The exposition must lack, to a degree, the freshness and life, the breadth and freedom, the richness and depth, which would distinguish an equally faithful commentary, founded on a good knowledge of the inspired text. And, other tilings being equal, the more thorough one's knowledge of that text, the more perfect his mastery of every idiom and allusion, by so much the more will his work excel in the 'qualities just named. But these are the very qualities which touch the reader's heart and make the study of God's Word a delight. These are the qualities which transport the reader into the past and the distant, causing him to live and move, to think and feel, with "holy men of old." They are the charm of a work for the people, making it attractive as well as instructive.

These qualities do not, however, belong to every commentary prepared by a good scholar. The benefit of great learning is often lost to the world for want of fit expression. What reader can pass from the pages of Delitzsch on the Psalms, to those of Perowne on the same book, without a sense of relief and delight, akin to that which he would feel in emerging from the depths of a tangled forest upon a fair and open lawn, "shaven by the scythe and levelled by the roller"? If the

INTRODUCTION. y

works of biblical students are to live, and mould the views of intelligent men, they must excel in form as well as in substance, in style as well as in thought. The friends of the Bible would do well to bear this in mind, and even take a lesson from some of its foes ; for the latter, whatever may be said of their knowledge and treatment of the orignal Word, are masters of their own language, and are careful to give their opinions the best utterance possible. This is an important reason why their writings are sought by men of average culture. Whatever is written is written well, the views advocated are put in the most favorable light, and if there be any weakness or obscurity of thought, it is at least relieved by beauty of style. Their care in this respect is worthy of praise, and devout scholars, who study the holy oracles with life-long zeal, should go and do likewise, sparing no effort to give their knowledge to others in a captivating form. A commentary is useless unless it is read, and a commentary is not read by the people unless it is couched in " acceptable words." A profound acquaintance with divine truth ought to fill the expositor's soul with the very life and light of that truth, so that these will radiate from his pen in forms of beauty and of power.

Now the Commentary of Professor Murphy on the book of Genesis excels in this respect. The style fitly expresses the thought, and the thought is rich, clear, and vigorous. It is a most readable work, and at the same time very instructive. Rarely does a Hebrew word appear in the expositon. In reading the Commentary, one feels that it must have been intended for the use of the people, even more than for scholars ; and I am quite certain that the people will delight to use it, when its fitness to meet their wants and increase their interest in the study of God's Word is known to them. It cannot fail of being, in the end, a popular commentary.

For I may now add, that the few lines before each paragraph devoted to the explanation of the leading Hebrew words, are by no means necessary to the completeness of the work. The y { INTRODUCTION.

analysis, the translation, and the interpretation of the text, section by section, are a perfect whole, without the lines referred to, and I am therefore satisfied that the English student will be neither annoyed nor confused by them. For they stand by themselves, and can be passed over, with no real loss to the common reader, while yet their presence may be convenient to the Hebrew scholar.

In directing special attention to the style of this work, it has been my object to commend it to the masses of the people, who are in danger of turning away from its interesting and instructive pages, because they contain a small number of foreign words. To do this would be a serious mistake, for I am convinced by a fresh perusal of the work that it has rare qualities adapting it to the people. There is scarcely a heavy or obscure sentence in the whole book. It bears one along from page to page with ever-growing delight, and if, now and then, the interpreter's view of a difficult passage may be called in question, it will never be found unworthy of close examination. Such a work on the first book of the Bible will be eagerly sought, when it is sufficiently known, and the use of it by Sabbath-school teachers and their pupils will be of inestimable advantage to them both.

ALVAH HOVEY.

Newton Centre, Nov. 12, 1872.

Preface

TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

In introducing to the American public Dr. Murphy's Commentary on Genesis, I would commend it as a timely antidote to much of the negative and destructive criticism upon the Pentateuch which has so largely obtained in Germany, and of late in England also, rather than as a complete solution of the many and vexed questions in language, in science, and in history which pertain to the so-called " Books of Moses." The merits of Dr. Murphy's work are a nice critical analysis of the text, a candid consideration of all alleged difficulties, a common-sense view of the principles of interpretation, and a philosophical clearness and comprehensiveness in the statement of inference or of doctrine. It consists of an exact literal translation of such passages as contain either verbal or grammatical difficulties, and of a critical and exegetical commentary, based upon the grammatical construction of the text, and framed in view of the best lights of modern criticism and science. Thus, in the narratives of the creation and the deluge, our author unfolds step by step the literal meaning of the sacred writer, and evolves from the Hebrew a sense which well accords with the facts of astronomical and geological science. The philological considerations that, in describing the creation, the sacred writer " presents each change as it would appear to au ordinary spectator standing on the earth," that he notes " only obvious results," and " touches merely the heads of things," are the key to a method of interpretation which leaves the

IV PKEFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

largest freedom to scientific inquiry. The author's use of the term " day," though too much restricted by literalism in his comment upon verse 5 of chapter i., finds all reasonable expansion in the principle laid down under verse 12, that " there is a due proportion between the action and the time of the action, the creation to be developed and the time of the development."

In treating of the deluge, Dr. Murphy shows that all the requirements of the Hebrew text are met by the supposition of a flood which covered the portion of the earth's surface then known to man ; and that " the sobriety and historical veracity of the narrative are strikingly exhibited in the moderate height to which the waters are said to have risen above the ancient hills." It is doubtful, however, whether it would relieve the difficulties pertaining to the account of the creation, were we there to limit the earth to " so much of the surface of our globe as was known by observation " in the time of Moses. This notion was pressed to an extreme by Dr. Pye Smith, in the supposition of a partial chaos in the region of the land of Eden. I do not understand Dr. Murphy, however, to limit the term " earth," in Gen. i. 2, any further than by insisting that " the desolation and disorder are limited in their range to the land, and do not extend to the skies." He lays down a true principle of interpretation when he says, further, that " along with the sky and its conspicuous objects, the land then known to the primeval man formed the sum total of the observable universe. These two terms — the heavens and the earth — have not even yet arrived at their full complement of meaning; and it was not the object or the effect of divine revelation to anticipate science on these points."

It is enough for the purpose of silencing scientific, or rather wwscientific cavils against the inspiration of Genesis, that we show there is no real contradiction, but a substantial agreement, between the Mosaic cosmogony and the established truths of physical science. Professor Dana has shown conclusively,

Preface To The American Edition. V

in the closing chapter of his " Manual of Geology," that u the order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially " with that which is deduced from the observations of science upon the crust of the earth. Yet while this general harmony of Genesis with geology is established, we may safely affirm, with another Christian scientist, that " the classification of the rocks is not yet in a condition to warrant us to believe it likely that any scheme will be found satisfactory, which claims to have discovered a complete parallelism between the ages of nature, as revealed to us in the fossiliferous strata, and the days of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis." 1 In this indeterminate state of the. question, it is enough that Dr. Murphy has established a reasonable harmony between his interpretation of the history of creation by Moses and the schedule of creation as furnished by geology.

The sententious philosophy of the author is strikingly apparent in his comments upon " the great introductory sentence " of Genesis : " This simple sentence denies atheism ; for it assumes the being of God. It denies polytheism, and among its various forms the doctrine of two eternal principles, the one good and the other evil ; for it confesses the one eternal Creator. It denies materialism ; for it asserts the creation of matter. It denies pantheism ; for it assumes the existence of God before all things, and apart from them. It denies fatalism ; for it involves the freedom of the Eternal Being." A writer who is capable of such clear and discriminating thought expressed in language so strong and compact, will be welcomed by American students of theology.

The laws of interpretation laid down by Dr. Murphy in his Introduction, commend themselves equally by their simplicity and their good sense. It is the boast of the destructive criticism that it subjects the Old Testament to the same tests which it applies to other ancient documents ; but in point of fact, this criticism applies to the Bible the most arbitrary and exceptional

1 Dr. John Duns ; Biblical Natural Science, I. 48.

YI PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

methods. How many difficulties raised by Bishop Colenso against the authenticity of the Pentateuch would have been obviated by the simple principle "that " we cannot found the slightest inference on a passage which we do not understand, or affirm a single discrepancy until we have made all reasonable inquiry whether it really exists, and what is its precise nature and amount " ! Thus Colenso's objection to Lev. viii. 1-4, that the court of the tabernacle could not have contained the whole congregation, betrays his want of familiarity with Hebrew terms.

" The congregation is simply a multitude assembled, a gathering or collection of people, without reference to organization or special appointment. With the definite article, it generally meant the whole body of the people. Hence every assembly was a congregation ; but every congregation was not an assembly. We may say the congregration of the assembly, but we do not say in Scripture language the assembly of the congregation.

" The word md'ed means appointed or stated meeting time,- and an appointed festival or convention held at that time. It is the word constantly used in the phrase \ tabernacle of the • congregation,' which is the tent of appointment or meeting, at the door of which all civil and sacred meetings were by appointment held. Now, putting the true equivalents for the three words edah, qahal, and md'ed where they occur, the passage quoted stands thus : ' And gather thou all the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded him, and the assembly was gathered into the door of the tent of the meeting.' Here, then, it appears the term in the original is the assembly, a select body, containing, not certainly the women and children, unless as idle spectators, nor even the main part of the able-bodied men of twenty years old and upwards, but the princes of tribes, the chiefs of houses, the elders, and probably the ' officers ' and some of the higher judges, and including a proportion of the

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Til

priestly tribe under these designations. The number cf those who were regular members of this assembly, or of those who were actually in attendance on this occasion, we do not know. And thus it is utterly impossible for us to create an impossibility here, do or suppose what we will." 1

Dr. Murphy reminds his readers that a meeting of parishioners is summoned and held in the vestry of the parish church, and legally transacts the parish business, though according to the Bishop of Natal " the vestry would only hold six abreast, and at that rate the parishioners would extend perhaps ten miles into space ! " ' Applying this common-sense view to the case in hand, he says :

" Let us recollect that the court was fifty cubits wide, and that its gate was twenty cubits — twice the width of the door of the tent — or thirty-six feet wide. Now, with a tent-door of eighteen feet, and a court-entrance of thirty-six feet, only ninety feet apart, and a laver and an altar in the interval, what will a reasonable man, with some little practical experience in public meetings, understand by being assembled ' at the door of the tent of meeting ? ' Obviously he will suppose such an assembly may be in any part of the square within the court or of the space in front of it which may be required for the convenience of the assembly. If you are told that a man is at your door, you suppose him, no doubt, to be within a foot or two of it ; but if you are told that a mob is at your door, you presently imagine that they may occupy not only the area, but the whole of the opposite street. How much more, if your door were eighteen feet wide, your area-gate thirty-six, and the multitude tenfold greater ! We read in Acts xiii. 44, that the next Sabbath-day came almost the ivhole city together to hear the Word of God ; and in xvii. 5, that i The nineteen alleged impossibilities of Colenso on the Pentateuch shown to b& possible. By the Rev. James G. Murphy, LL.D., T.C.D. Loi don, James Nisbit & Co. pp. 15, 16.

VIII PKEFACE TO THE AMEK1CAN EDITION.

they set all the city in an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason. Here all the city was at the door of one house." 1

These examples, taken from another work of our author, illustrate the principle laid down above, and expose the fallacy of much of the hypothetical criticism upon the Pentateuch. " In fact," says Dr. Murphy, " the argument of the school of critics to which Dr. Colenso belongs is built up of a series of surmises upon the ground of certain difficulties which they cannot solve. This is a beguiling sort of argument. He that deals in it is prone to forget the difference between the bearing of a probability or presumption on a supposition and on a conclusion. A second or third presumption in favor of a supposition adds to its probability. But if one probable premise enter into our reasoning, the remotest conclusion can never rise above that probability. If two premises are only probable, every after-conclusion is less probable than either of them. On the other hand, an established fact outweighs a whole host of adverse presumptions, and ninety-nine undisputed " statements are abundantly sufficient to sustain one that admits of some dispute." 2

This general reasoning Dr. Murphy afterwards presses with the argumentum ad hominem against Colenso' s alleged incongruities in the account of the passover.

" The Bishop knows a little of Hebrew ; but he is not what we should call a Hebrew scholar. He does not understand, or he does not know how to apply, the laws of Hebrew composition. "When the sacred writer spoke of midnight in the previous chapter [Exodus xi.] he was, let us admit, arrived at the 14th Abib in one line of the history. But then he had another to carry on, and so he goes back in the twelfth chapter to the 1st Abib to bring up this second line. And in the twelfth verso ' this night ' means the night after the 14th Abib mentioned in the sixth verse. For the Hebrew writer always imagines himself at the time and place of the scene

Preface To The American Edition. IX

described, and therefore naturally uses this night in reference to the 14th day at which he has arrived in his directions. And besides, if this night were the night of the 14th, as the Bishop insists, how could directions be given on the 14th about what was to be done on the 10th ? Here is a man who is ignorant of three common laws of Hebrew composition, or does not know how to apply them, presuming to criticize Moses, and only betraying the shallowness of his own knowledge or the precipitancy of his own judgment."

Dr. Colenso's arithmetical difficulties with regard to the duties and the apportionments of the priests are disposed of by Dr. Murphy with a combination of logic, learning, and wit that leaves the Bishop of Natal but little ground to stand upon. The following spicy paragraph concludes that portion of the discussion :

" It seems a strange thing for a bishop to object to thirteen cities being given to the priestly family. Has he never heard of bishops' lands with towns built on them ? Surely, if they could not inhabit all the houses, they could let them to solvent tenants. This is the most frivolous objection we have ever met with, and especially from such a quarter. Most of our readers are acquainted with such things as bishops' palaces, revenues, lands, rentals, etc., and will not therefore be greatly astonished at thirteen towns with their suburbs for the whole future priesthood of Israel."

A second general principle laid down by Dr. Murphy is, that " presumed contradictions or discrepancies in the book lie as well against the theory of a mechanical compilation from heterogeneous materials by a final redactor as against an original unity of authorship." The favorite argument of the destructive school of critics is, that the discrepancies between the so-called Jehovistic and Elohistic elements in the Pentateuch forbid the supposition of unity of authorship ; and: hence the hypothesis that the Books of Moses were a compilation from distinct documents and traditions, to which an uncertain date

X PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

is assigned, somewhere in the period between the Judges and the Babylonish exile. But even if the alleged discrepancies could be established — which Dr. Murphy by no means admits — the fact would weigh as well against unity of editorship as against an original unity of authorship. Indeed, a compiler or redactor of a later age might be expected to correct discrepancies which had crept into the original composition. And Dr. Murphy reasons conclusively that any possible hypothesis for the solution of the difficulties inherent in an ancient history which bears the general marks of antiquity, is sufficient to remore the objection that the narrative is self-contradictory. We owe much to a writer whose critical learning is guided and applied by such strong common sense.

Dr. Murphy has condensed his theory of inspiration into this pithy aphorism,. — that the Bible is the Word of God, "with all the peculiarities of man and all the authority of God." This same thought he has amplified in the pamphlet so often quoted, —

" The inspiration of the written Word of God we consider simply explained by the following words from Rev. ii. 1 : " Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus, write." Here the Lord dictates, and John writes. The mode in which this takes place is not our concern ; the fact is. The thoughts, purposes^ commands, doctrines, promises of God, pass through the channel of John's mind, and come to expression by his tongue or by his pen. Hence the Scriptures are for the matter and the form in one respect the Word of God, — displaying the unity, harmony, and infallibility of its lofty source, — and in another respect the word of man — exhibiting all the peculiarities of his mother tongue and his individual mind. The simple development of this proposition will explain all those phenomena of Scripture by which it proves itself to be in the primary' sense the Word of God, and at the same time, in the secondary sense, the word of the actual writer."

But it is not within the province of this brief Introduction

Preface To The American Edition. XI

to analyze all the principles of the author, nor to discuss his opinions upon disputed questions. It only remains to add a few words concerning the author himself.

Dr. Murphy was born in 1808, in the village of Comber, County, Down, about seven miles from Belfast. After the usual scholastic training he entered Trinity College, Dublin, where he soon attained the technical rank of a " scholar," which entitled him to certain important privileges. In 1836 he was ordained to the ministry in the Presbyterian Church, and commenced his parochial labors in the town of Ballyshannon, County Donegall, where he remained till 1841, when he removed to Belfast as Head Master of the Eoyal Academical Institution. He was no less distinguished as a mathematician than for his classical attainments.

In 184T he was appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to his present office as Professor of Hebrew in the Assembly's College at Belfast. This college, which nearly corresponds to an American theological seminary, has a Faculty consisting of Dr. Cooke, Professor of Sacred Ehetoric and Catechetics ; Dr. Edgar, Professor of Systematic Theology ; Dr. Killen, Professor of Church History and Pastoral Theology ; Dr. Murphy, Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages ; Dr. Gibson, Professor of Natural Theology and Christian Ethics ; and Dr. J. L. Porter, Professor of Biblical Literature. Several of these gentlemen are well known in the United States. Drs. Edgar and Gibson have visited this country, and Dr. Gibson's narrative of the " Year of Grace in Ireland," published by Messrs. Gould & Lincoln, has had an extensive circulation ; Dr. Killen's volume on " The Ancient Church " has been republished by Mr. Scribner of New York ; Dr. Porter, formerly of Damascus, has contributed several articles to the Bibliotheea Sacra and to various Biblical encyclopedias.

The Assembly's College has, upon an average, about one hundred students in theology in its several classes. It is

XII PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, though each Professor receives an endowment from "the government of two hundred and fifty pounds in addition to students' fees.

Adjacent to this institution is Queen's College, which has an average of four hundred students, in arts, medicine, law, and agriculture. This college furnishes yearly a large number of students to the theological college ; the two institutions working in entire harmony.

Dr. Murphy received from Trinity College the honorary degree of LL. D. He is thoroughly Irish in birth, in education, in ecclesiastical offices, and in literary labors and honors. In addition to the volume on Genesis herewith presented to the public, he has published a Hebrew Grammar for the use of his students, and has translated Keit's Commentary on Kings for Clark's Foreign Theological Library. He has now nearly completed his Commentary on Exodus. His view upon the most important point of Egyptian chronology is foreshadowed in a private note to the subscriber, as follows : " Adhering still to the Hebrew or Masoretic text of the Old Testament, I am constrained to stand by the Hebrew chronology until I meet with some experimentum cruris that will prove or disprove it."

In character, Dr. Murphy has the simplicity of the true scholar and the devout and humble spirit of the true disciple of Christ. In introducing him to American students at the present period, it is not unimportant to add that he has shared the sympathy of his colleague, Dr. Gibson, for the United States during our struggle with the rebellion, and that as a friend of freedom and of the progress of humanity, he desires, " the prosperity of this country in all its noble and beneficent enterprises."

JOSEPH P. THOMPSON.

New Yokk, Nov. 1866.

Author's Preface

An ancient writing, purporting to be continuous and handed down to us as the work of one author, is to be received as such unless we have good and solid reasons for the contrary. The Pentateuch is a book exactly of this description, continuous in its form, and coming down to us as in the main the work of Moses. We may not give up this prima facie evidence without cause. In particular, we should require strong and cogent arguments to convince us that this interesting monument of antiquity is, as some say, a dry and bare compilation, not even of document after document, but of selections from several later works all going over nearly the same ground, dovetailed into one another by a still later hand to form a factitious whole. For at first sight this seems to be a mere stretch of fancy, in which criticism has overmastered philosophy. A scheme so intricate in form and fantastic in conception cannot be accepted, unless it stand on impregnable grounds.

The main grounds on which this theory rests appear to be two, — first, certain discrepancies and difficulties that are supposed to be adverse to the unity and early origin of the work ; and second, certain characteristics of style, by which the selections are detected and restored to their original authors, who are then seen to be consistent in themselves, though still inconsistent with one another. And the result to which this theory leads, is, that the Pentateuch is neither given by inspiration of God nor historically valid, but rather a mechanical compilation of a later age from heterogeneous materials, the discrepancies of which the compiler had not either the sense to perceive or the tact to eliminate.