Grace Journal 7.3 (Fall, 1966) 13-23.
[2 of 2]
[Copyright © 1966
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
WHAT IS GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE?
EDWARD J. YOUNG
In our last lecture we sought to
show, upon the basis of an exposition of
2
Timothy
of the verse is so clear that there would seem to
be little reason for question. What
Timothy
teaches is beyond dispute. Why, then, are not all Christian people willing
to agree upon the
clear and simple teaching of the epistle? Why do even evangelicals
sometimes refuse to come to grips with what the
Bible so plainly asserts respecting
itself? Why do some insist that there are errors in
the Bible, still maintaining that the
phenomena of the Scriptures alone must guide us in
accepting a proper view?
The Original Copies of
Scripture
Perhaps one answer to the above questions may be
found in the fact that in
the copies of the Scriptures now in our possession
there are minor errors, and hence,
it is assumed, these errors were probably also in
the original copies. There are men
who refuse to accept the position that in the
original copies (the so-called autographa)
of the Bible we have works that are entirely free
from error. All too often, it is asserted
that an appeal to the originals is really a flight
from reality. We do not have these
originals, so the argument runs; how then do we
know that they are errorless? How
can we say of them that they are infallible and
inerrant? An appeal to the originals is
too often discarded as being unworthy of
consideration.
Nevertheless, we must consider the
originals. Of course, it is true that we today do
not possess these autographa;
it is perfectly true that we have not seen them nor has
any living man seen them. Does it therefore follow
that an appeal to them is merely
a way out of the difficulty? The present copies
of the Bible do contain errors, we
must acknowledge, and so we appeal to the originals
which we have never seen. Is
not this merely an escape from difficulty? It might
seem that such were indeed the
case; that is, at first sight it might appear to be
so, until we begin to investigate the
question more closely. And as an introduction to
the question we may well consider
again the language of Paul to Timothy.
When Paul makes his double statement
about all Scripture, what Scripture
precisely does he have in mind? When he declares
that all Scripture is God-breathed
and that it is profitable, of what Scripture is he
speaking? Is he referring to the copies
of the Bible that were extant in his day or is he
referring to the autographa? In the
little work to which
we have already made reference, Professor Beegle
asserts that
the extant manuscripts of Scripture were regarded
as being the same as the originals
because the attribute of theopneustos applied permanently
to them. Paul, he tells us,"
--probably
never thought in terms of the technical distinction between
13
14
GRACE
JOURNAL
the autographs and copies of Scripture" (op. cit., p. 29). Nor does Paul, we are
told
any special claims for or characterize the
originals in such a way as would set them
from the copies of the Bible that were extant in his
own day. No explicit statements in the
Testament,
we are told, single out the autographs as being different from the copies of
Bible which the
copies of the Scriptures are not inspired. In one
passage, Professor Beegle explicitly
states that Paul was thinking in terms of the extant
manuscripts, namely, 2 Timothy 3:16.1
We are grateful to Professor Beegle
for thus setting the issue clearly before us.
His
words require considerable comment and cannot be dismissed offhand. Basically,
then, the question that is often raised may be
stated as follows: “When Paul wrote 2
Timothy
3:16, he was thinking of the copies of the Bible then extant, and so what he
wrote concerning the Scripture applies to those
copies."
In the first place, we must be cautious when we
speak of what may have been
in Paul's mind when he wrote. We do not know what
was in his mind except as we
have the Scriptures. As he wrote, he was borne of
the Holy Spirit. The whole question
of the mode of the outbreathing
of Scripture is one that is filled with mystery. How far
the human penman of Scripture may have understood
what he was writing is a matter
that we cannot assert with positiveness.
How much he may have been conscious of divine
superintendence is again a matter upon
which we cannot speak. The whole subject is
fraught with mystery. We do not actually know
what was in the mind of Paul when he
wrote. We certainly do not know all that was in his
mind. How he actually came to
express in writing the majestic thoughts which
are found in his epistles is something into
which we cannot probe.
We simply have the Scripture before us. To
assume that Paul may have been
aware of all the implications of what he wrote is not
warranted. We can but examine
and study the Scripture itself, knowing that its
ultimate author is the Holy Spirit, the
third Person of the Trinity. Our question therefore
must be reformulated. We must
not ask, for we are unable to answer, "Did
Paul in writing to Timothy have in mind
the autographa or the
extant copies of Scripture? Was he thinking of the originals of
the Bible or of the copies that were present in his
day?" We must rather ask, "Does
2
Timothy
or does it refer to the autographa?”
If the question be formulated in this way we shall
at least be able to approach an answer. Whether
even this formulation does justice
to the matter is a question that can only be
decided upon the exegesis of the passage
in question.
Approaching the subject in this way we then ask
whether the passage in
Timothy
has reference to the autographa or to extant copies
of the Bible. A mere
glance at the verse makes clear that Paul is speaking
generally of the Scripture. This
is the Scripture which is able to make one wise
unto salvation. In the verse under
consideration he makes no explicit
distinction between autographa and extant copies.
That
point is obvious and can hardly be disputed Paul says however that the
Scripture
is God-breathed, and in so doing is making a
statement which has to do with the
origin of Scripture. This point is often overlooked.
It seems to be overlooked in
Professor Beegle's
discussion of the passage. Professor Beegle
constantly speaks
of the "inspiration" of the Scripture,
but, as we have sought to point out in the
previous lecture, the word "inspiration” is
not a satisfactory word to render into
English
the Greek word theopneustos.
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 15
What we must insist upon is that in using this
word theopneustos,
Paul
is making a statement about the origin of the
Bible. How did the Bible come
into existence? The answer to this question,
according to Paul, is that the Bible
is God-breathed. It is the use of this very word
upon the part of Paul which
compels us to look more closely into the matter.
Can it be said that the copies
of the Bible extant in Paul's day were
God-breathed? Obviously this cannot have
been said of them. Assuming that Paul's primary
emphasis is upon the Old
Testament,
we may well ask whether any of the Hebrew Bibles which were
found in the Jerusalem of Paul's day were
God-breathed. Of course, they were
not. In those days one would have found copies of
the Hebrew Old Testament
written on scrolls which were kept in the synagogues.
It would have been
possible both in
to have entered the
synagogue and to have examined these rolls. If one were
to ask the rabbis concerning the origin of these
scrolls, quite possibly one would
be told the name of the scribe who had copied the
scroll. The scroll would have
been a copy made from a former copy and that in turn
would have been copied
from one previously existing. To say that these
scrolls were God-breathed would
be to assert what was not the truth. In Paul's day
there was not a single copy of
the Old Testament of
which it could be said that it was God-breathed.
In our previous lecture we sought to show what
the true meaning of this
Greek
word was. It is a word that is in perfect keeping with such expressions in
the Old Testament as "the mouth of the Lord
hath spoken it." In the very nature
of the case then, this word refers to the origin
of the Scriptures. The Scripture
finds its origin in God and not in man. It is not a
product of human composition,
but was breathed forth by God Himself. When
therefore, Paul says that Scripture
is God-breathed the
meaning is that the origin of the Bible is to be found in an
act of God. He breathed forth the words of the
Scriptures, and therefore, this
word can only apply to the autographa.
It certainly does not apply to extant copies
of the Bible and to maintain that it does is
simply to betray an ignorance of the
Greek language.
The appeal to the autographa
therefore does not owe its existence to a
desire to escape from difficulties that are present in
the extant copies of the
Bible. It is Paul himself who speaks of the origin of
the Bible, and we are led
by his words to a consideration thereof. The predicate
theopneustos,
(God-breathed),
we must insist, does not have reference to extant copies
of the Scriptures. It
characterizes the origin of the
Bible, and in the very nature of the case, unless
we wish to deprive language of all meaning, refers
to the autographa.
The force of this fact may become clearer by
means of an illustration.
Suppose
that a man says, "I believe that the Bible is a revelation from God."
His
language is general and what he says about the
Bible is true. We begin, however,
to examine in greater detail the force of his
statement. Is he speaking about the
autographa or about the King James
Version that he holds in his hand? In his
declaration perhaps these alternatives were not in
view. He is making a general
statement about Scripture. We begin to examine his
statement. When we say
that the Bible is a revelation from God we are
asserting that the Bible was
revealed to us by God. Now, there can hardly be
any question about the King
James Version of the Bible. Despite the respect
that many of us have for that
version, we are not willing to say that it was revealed
to us by God. That is
not its origin at all, and to insist that it is, is
to betray a woeful ignorance of the
facts of the origin of Scripture. When one says
therefore that the Bible is a
revelation from God he is saying that God revealed
the words of the Bible to
man, and in the very nature of the case is
referring to the autographa. The
statement, "The Bible is a revelation
16 GRACE
JOURNAL
from God," is a general declaration about the
Bible. It is perfectly true. When,
however, we begin to ask the question, "In
what sense is the Bible a revelation,
“we are brought face to face with the autographa.
So it is also with Paul's utterance in 2 Timothy
3:16. What Paul here
declares is a general declaration about the Bible.
When, however, we begin to
ask in what sense Paul's words are true, we are
brought face to face with the
autographa. The Scriptures are
truly God-breathed, but it was the first copies
of the Bible that came directly from the divine
mouth. These copies alone
were given to us by God. Paul is talking about the
origin of the Bible and to
force his language to refer to something else is to
do an injustice to that language.
The Profitable Scripture
It is often asserted at the present time that we
can have all the blessings
of the Christian faith without an inerrant
original. Therefore, so the conclusion
seems to be, an inerrant original is not very
important, for God did not deem it
necessary to preserve it for our benefit. The
Bibles which we have are errant,
and yet we are blessed through their message. Inerrancy
then, we are told, is
not so very important
after all. God has been willing to permit the work of
His kingdom to be carried on with an errant
Bible.
Again, we must turn to
2 Timothy for help in considering this question. Paul here makes the
statement
that "all Scripture is profitable.” And again
the question may be raised: Is Paul
speaking of the copies of the Scripture extant in
his day or is he speaking of the
original? And again we must insist that this question
is really beside the point.
Paul
is simply making a general truthful declaration about the Bible. He tells
us that the whole Bible is profitable. When we
hear his words we again ask,
"In
what sense is this statement true?" When we ask this question we realize
that this assertion of Paul's has to do with a
quality of Scripture and not with
its origin. When Paul had said that "all
Scripture is God-breathed" he was
asserting something concerning the origin of the
Scripture, and in the nature
of the case could only have been referring to the autographa. When, however,
he tells us that all Scripture is profitable, he
is making a general characterization
of Scripture. Scripture, wherever it may be found,
is profitable, or, to put the matter
in a slightly different fashion, "Whatever is
Scripture is profitable."
Does this statement refer to the extant copies
of the Bible? Our answer is, "It most
certainly does insofar as these copies are
Scripture." If there are copyist's errors in the
extant copies of the Bible, obviously these errors are
not Scripture. Let us illustrate
by means of an extreme example. Suppose, for some
reason, I decide to copy out
by hand the book of Exodus. That would be quite an
undertaking and quite difficult.
In
copying I find that I become quite tired. Exodus is a long book, and
unfortunately
I
make some mistakes. When I am copying out the eighth commandment, for example,
inadvertently, I omit
the negative. Instead of copying the commandment, "Thou
shalt not steal," my
copy reads, "Thou shalt steal." This unfortunate
error is not
Scripture. The words "thou shalt
steal,” whatever else may be said about them, are
not profitable to anyone. Hence, we must say, that
the present, copies of the Bible
are profitable, insofar as they are Scripture. If
there are copyist's or other errors in
them, we must seek by means of the science of
textual criticism to correct these errors.
Error,
in the nature of the case, cannot be profitable. It is the Scripture which is
profitable, and Scripture cannot be confined to any
one copy or to copies written in anyone language.
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 17
When
we say that the Scripture is profitable, what is meant is that the truth which
the
words of Scripture expresses, is profitable. It is
for this reason, that the science of textual
criticism is so important and that the science of
translation is equally if not more significant.
What
we need is to know precisely what it is that God said to man. To know this we
must
engage in translation.
Perhaps it is not out of place to stress the
fact that competent translation is one of
the most important tasks of the serious Bible
student as it is also one of the great needs of
the day. And the reason why it is so important is
that translation attempts to place in our
own language the very thoughts of the original. The
competent translator seeks not to
impose upon the original his own thoughts nor merely
to paraphrase the original but
rather to say in his own language precisely what is
found in the original.
Hence we see the importance of maintaining the
doctrine of the verbal inspiration
of the Bible, for it is only through the words of
Scripture that the truths of Scripture
may be conveyed. At first sight it might seem, and
indeed there are those who tell us
that such is the case, that the really important
thing is not the words of the Bible after
all, but rather the truths which the Bible teaches.
"If we have these truths," so the
argument seems to run, “we have the message which
God wanted us to have, and
that is the crucial thing.” And coupled with such
assertions one often finds a warning
against the sin of Bibliolatry.
Truth, however, must be conveyed in words if
there is to be an effective and
lasting communication. We cannot really have the
truth of the Bible or its teachings
unless these things find expression in words. The
divorce between the message of
the Scripture and the words in which that message
is couched is largely an illusory
one. If we destroy the words of the Bible we simply
do not have its message. It is
important that we have the words of God in order
that we have the Word of God.
Indeed,
without the one we do not have the other, for the two are really one. The
words which God has spoken to us are His message, His
Word.
Hence, in the nature of the case it should
appear that only the words which
God
spoke are of profit to us today. And the loving care which has been expended
by so many upon the text of the Bible is really an
evidence of the fact that those
who expend this care realize how all important it
is that we have the very words
of God. With the copies of the Bible extant sufficient
of the original has been
preserved so that we have the message of God.
That, however, which is profitable
is Scripture, and if we are to receive profit we
must have the Scripture.
Difficulties and the Profitableness of the Bible
There are those who point to some of the
difficulties found in the present
copies of the Bible and who go on to make the
assumption that those difficulties
were found in the autographa
and so are actually part of the inspired Bible. They
then come to the conclusion that a Bible which
contains errors, which is errant and
not infallible may nevertheless be a Bible that exists
for our profit. We have already
considered this question somewhat, but it is now
necessary to examine it a bit more
closely.
18
GRACE
JOURNAL
In his interesting work on The Inspiration of the Bible, Professor Beegle
adduces
certain of the difficulties which a study
Scriptural phenomena presents, and concludes
that the doctrine of an inerrant Scripture has not
faced up to these difficulties.2 Professor
Beegle mentions several problems, some of which the
present lecturer has discussed
elsewhere. Before we proceed to consider the
relationship that the phenomena of
Scripture
sustain to the question of Scripture's profitableness, we must note that it is
not
incumbent upon us to answer every difficulty in
the Bible, and furthermore, if we are not
able to give an answer or a solution to every
conceivable difficulty, we have no right to
conclude that there must be a genuine error
present.
Among the difficulties which Professor Beegle discusses are the following:
Jude
14, Jude 9, The Reign of Pekah,
the Reign of Hezekiah, Genesis 5, Acts 7:4,
the speech of Stephen, Acts
1
Corinthians 3:19. This is an imposing list. These questions have been studied
over and over again and it cannot be said that they have
been satisfactorily answered.
But
there is no warrant for asserting that there were actual errors found in the
autographa. If we knew all that
was to be known about these difficulties we should
be more restrained in declaring that the Scripture
is errant.
Our present concern, however, is with the
question of the profitability of the
Scripture,
and it is in this connection that we shall consider the remarks which
Professor
Beegle makes on Genesis 5. In Genesis 5 there is
obviously present a
certain pattern. The genealogy of man is traced
from Adam through the three sons
of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. We are told that
a certain man lived so many
years and then begat a son, then it is stated how
long this particular man lived after
his begetting the son and there is added the
statement, "and he begat sons and
daughters." Finally the total years of the
man's life is given together with the statement
"and he died," the notable exception of course being
Enoch. On the basis of this
chapter Archbishop Ussher,
as is well known, reckoned the date of the creation to
be 4004 B. C.
Today, of course, we know that the earth is
older than 4004 B.C. and so
we reject the chronology which was given by Ussher. But what about the one
who wrote down the fifth chapter of Genesis?
Professor Beegle asks some
pertinent questions. If the writer merely wished
to highlight the main men in the
pre-Flood world, why did he give the three numbers
for each man named; i.e.
age at birth of the son, years lived after the
birth of the son and then the total
number of years? Evidently the writer intended these
figures to be interpreted
literally. Many believers, before the discoveries
of geology, thought that the
purpose of the genealogy in Genesis 5 was to
provide a chronology, and they
accepted that chronology at face value.
Evangelicals today, however, have come up with
the interpretation which
sees in the genealogy merely a genealogy and not a
chronology. They believe that
there are gaps in the lists and hence they simply do
not any longer regard the
chapter as presenting chronological information.
Most decisively they reject
Archbishop Ussher's
chronology.
What, however, about the original intention
of the writer? The writer intended the passage to
be chronological, whereas we
today, because of the modern discoveries in the
scientific field, impute to the
passage another meaning. Because we have
obtained new scientific knowledge,
we, according to Professor Beegle's
charge, ignore the clear meaning of the
passage. We cannot accommodate the intent of the
Biblical writer to the
scientific knowledge which is our possession today.
And, we may add in
passing, if this is really the situation which
faces us, what becomes of the
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 19
profitability of Scripture? If this
fifth chapter of Genesis cannot agree with that which
is actual fact, then how can we say that all
Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness? In particular is it difficult
to understand how this chapter can be of
instruction in righteousness if it is out
of harmony with what we today know to be true.
This question must be carefully faced. Is Paul
correct when he says that
"all Scripture is . . . profitable?" Genesis 5 is
Scripture, but if it is basically in
error and presents a wrong view of reality or if it
even leads or compels us to
accept a wrong view of reality, then, how can we say
that it is profitable? In the
first place, we may say by way of answer, we have no way
of knowing what
may have been in the mind of the human writer of
this portion of the Bible
when he composed Genesis 5. We simply do not know
whether he intended
it to be chronological or not. Suppose that Moses
did compose this chapter
having used other previously existing written
documents to aid him. Suppose,
too, that he was acquainted with the cuneiform accounts
of the longevity of
kings before the flood. When Moses arranged the fifth
chapter of Genesis,
how do we know what was in his mind? He nowhere
states that his intention
was to give either a chronological or a nonchronological account.
By way of illustration we may ask what was in
the mind of the composer
of the prediluvian long
lists which the cuneiform documents have preserved
for us. Is there any possible way to tell? He must
be a bold man indeed who
would claim to be able to answer such a question. Nor
are we able to tell
what the intention of the human writer of Genesis 5
was. More important,
however, is the fact that the ultimate author of
Genesis 5 is God Himself.
Was
the Lord seeking at this point to teach us that the names of Genesis 5
were necessarily chronological and that only such an
interpretation does them
justice? These are the questions which we must
face.
It is perfectly true that believers regarded the
chapter as teaching
chronology and that they held this opinion for
years. It is also true, as far
as the present lecturer knows that what caused a
shift in interpretation was
the discovery that the earth is presumably older
than 4004 B. C. There can
be no question but that this caused interpreters
to take another look at the
chapter. And we can certainly be grateful for
anything that causes us to take
another look at the Bible. We must constantly be
willing to submit our
interpretations to the Scriptures
themselves to be tested thereby. This is not
interpreting the Bible by science as
some would put it. But natural revelation
can often be of aid in enabling us rightly to
understand the Scripture.
An example may be in point. For years students
of the Bible believed
that the true Mt. Sinai was the
The
mountain is majestic, and fits the description that is given in the book of
Exodus. It is quite possible, however, that in view
of recent studies upon the
topography of the Arabian peninsula, particularly
of the wilderness of Zin,
that we may now have to look elsewhere for a
location of the mountain. It
may turn out, after all, that
cannot yet be settled with definiteness. Here,
however, is an example where
a study of the geography of the land is an aid in
the understanding of the text
of the Bible.
20
GRACE
JOURNAL
It is often the case that we read the Bible with
closed eyes. For years men read the
epistle to the Galatians but apparently could
see nothing in it incongruous with a religion
of works righteousness. Finally, however, God
raised up a monk who read the epistle
to the Galatians with his own eyes and the
Reformation was born. And so it may be
with the fifth chapter of Genesis. For years men may
have read this with their eyes
closed, merely accepting what others had said.
Tradition can be a very powerful thing
and there was not much reason why any should break
from tradition. It needed, in this
one instance at least,
something to jar men out of their
misinterpretation to take another look at the chapter. If
science was responsible for this, we may indeed
be grateful.
Did the fifth chapter of Genesis, however, in
any sense deceive men? Was it
written in such a way as to lead men to embrace
a wrong interpretation or might it
simply be that men did not notice the chapter as
carefully as they might have done?
We
believe that the latter is the case. God has not deceived men, for the Scripture,
being His Word, is infallible; it neither deceives
nor is it itself deceived.
It will be well to examine the content of the
chapter somewhat carefully, in
order to discover whether it does intend to teach a
chronology. First of all, we note
that there are ten names from Adam to Noah. Inasmuch
as ten is a number similarly
employed elsewhere in Genesis it is quite
possible that this very fact would point
toward a definite schematization. The same number
appears again in the genealogy
in chapter ten, and also there are ten sections of
generations in the composition of the
book of Genesis.
Throughout the chapter emphasis also falls upon
the number of years that
a man lived until he begat a descendant. This
appears to be important. It must
be noted that a general statement is also made,
that each one also begat sons and
daughters. From the birth of the first descendant
to the phrase, "And he begat
sons and daughters, " it is said that the
patriarch in question lived so many years.
Now
it would seem to be very unlikely that the text meant that he begat sons and
daughters all at once. In fact such an
interpretation is definitely excluded. For
example, Seth lived one hundred and five years
and begat Enos. After the begetting
of Enos he lived eight
hundred and seven years and begat sons and daughters.
The
total number of years of his life, however, is nine hundred twelve, or one
hundred and five plus eight hundred and seven.
Having lived nine hundred and
twelve years Seth died. Are we to assume that in one
year he begat sons and
daughters and that this was also the year of his death?
Obviously such an
interpretation does not satisfy the
requirements of the text. The text itself
requires us to interpret that Seth lived one
hundred and five years and then
begat Enos. With respect to
the begetting of the other sons and daughters,
however, it would seem that this occurred over a
period of eight hundred and
seven years, or, to put it differently, throughout
the remainder of Seth's life.
What
stands out from this then is that a great distinction is made between the
notice of the birth of the first-born and the notice
of the birth of other sons
and daughters. Emphasis falls upon the first-born
in each instance. What is
the reason for this?
With each of the patriarchs also, apart from
Enoch, there occurs the
statement, "and he died." These words
sound like a refrain calling to mind the
assurance of the serpent, “ye shall not die."
Into this continuous reign of death
there is interjected the declaration concerning
Enoch, "and he was not, for God
took him." Death appears to have sovereign
control over
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 21
the destiny of the human race, but its control is only
apparent. Here in the line of promise,
death's wide reign is interrupted, and Enoch
escapes death, because of God's intervention.
God
is mindful of His promise, and shows to a world under the universal power of
death
that He is the God of life, and that the promise of
life is greater than the power of death.
It is very difficult to escape the conclusion,
wholly apart from any considerations
of science, that Moses has given to us here a
schematic arrangement. This seems to be
supported by the number ten. That Seth was the
actual son of Adam appears from
and that Enos was the son
of Seth appears also from
that Noah is the actual son of Lamech.
Both at the beginning of the genealogy and at
its conclusion the actual son of a father is
mentioned. Whether, however, this continued
to be the case with each patriarch is open to
question. Inasmuch as this is a schematic
arrangement it may very well be that in some cases,
we are to understand that the
patriarch lived so many years and begat the line
that culminated in the one who is
mentioned as his son. This, of course, is a
perfectly legitimate usage of the word "son.”
If
this interpretation is correct, then it is clear that not everyone in the line
of descent
is mentioned. That the arrangement is schematic
appears also in that Enoch the seventh
in the line is taken by God. The verb laqah which is
here used of Enoch is suitable to
express the thought that God had translated him,
i. e., had taken him from this earthly
existence into the heavenly existence to be with
Himself. In the Babylonian list of
ante-diluvian kings we may note also
that it is the seventh king who is carried away
to be with the gods and to share in their secrets.
Furthermore, it is the tenth in the
Babylonian list who is the hero of the Flood. These correspondences
do not mean
that the list in Genesis derives from the Babylonian
list. What they mean is that the
truth was handed down
among the Babylonians also and that what they have
preserved for us in their lists is simply a
garbled version of what had once taken
place. In the fifth chapter of Genesis, however, we
have the truth which in corrupted
form comes to light in the cuneiform documents.
It is also to the point to ask what the purpose
of Genesis 5 really is. Is the
writer here setting before us as his primary purpose
the giving of a chronology
which will enable us to add up the figures and so
come to an understanding of
the age of the earth? That hardly seems to be the
purpose at all. Rather, a close
reading of the chapter would seem to show that
what the writer wishes to convey
is that even during the line of promise death
exercised its universal, almost
unrestrained reign. When we compare
the list in chapter five with the list of the
Cainites in chapter four we notice that there the
schematic arrangement is
completely lacking. In this line emphasis falls
upon certain members of the sons
of Cain and the purpose is quite different from
that which is found in chapter
five. The actual line of descent is given in quite hasty
terms, "And unto Enoch
was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and
Methusael begat
Lamech" (Genesis
over