Commentary on Genesis

Background Information

1). The Initial Records.

A careful consideration of the Book of Genesis can bring the reader to only one conclusion, and that is that it is made up of a number of differing ancient ‘records’ which have been welded together to form a whole without totally destroying the differences between them.

A good example of this is found in chapter 14. This chapter is so distinctive, and so different from the rest of Genesis, that it clearly once stood on its own. It begins by setting the action in history, ‘in the days of Amraphel --- etc’, which is unique in Genesis. It calls Abram ‘the Hebrew’, which is the only reference to Abram as ‘the Hebrew’, which suggests that it was either written by someone outside the clan, or that it was written so as to distinguish Abram to outsiders. And it gives an overall impression of being put together in an official form.

Again, chapter 23 is a small pearl of beauty describing a very personal event, the purchase of land by Abraham in the land of Canaan, is patterned according to typical ancient Hittite covenants, and again gives off the impression of being a record within a record.

It is not accidental that both these accounts record events in which a firm ‘covenant’ (promises made between two or more people or groups and binding on both sides) or ‘contract’ (as we would usually call it today, although the idea of covenant stresses the personal element which is largely absent from a ‘contract’) is made between Abram and outside parties, in the one case the King Melchizedek, and on the other Ephron the Hittite. We clearly have here the actual records of covenants made between Abraham and his compatriots.

We can also consider the difference between the grandeur and poetic form (although it is not pure poetry) of the Creation narrative of Chapter 1.1 - 2.4, compared with the following narratives. This too almost certainly once stood on its own, possibly being read out at the beginning of the new year as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and provision for man, or it may have been written as an introduction to the following records when they were compiled into Genesis 1-11.

These conclusions are confirmed by an interesting phenomenon which appears in Genesis. In a number of places we have the phrase ‘these are the generations (toledoth) of ---’, a phrase which has puzzled people through the ages. But here we should note that ‘toledoth’ differs from the normal word for ‘generations’ and means more a genealogical history, so that it could read ‘this is the history of --’.

This used to be thought of as a phrase used by an editor to divide up sections of the book of Genesis. However, we now know that when ancient clay tablets were used to record information it was customary to put at the top or bottom a brief phrase which described the content of the tablet (which we call ‘a colophon’) so that someone sifting through tablets could quickly find the one he wanted. It is apparent therefore that the phrase ‘these are the generations of --’ (‘this is the history of ---’) is a trace of such colophons which have been incorporated into the text of Genesis.

Thus we have evidence of both diversities of types of records which have been brought together as one, and of clear indications that the events were once recorded on clay or stone.

Another phenomenon of the first part of Genesis should also attract our attention, for it is at the root of the significance of these chapters, and that is that each section is built around some form of ‘covenant’ or ‘saying’. This applies continually right up to the time of Jacob, when a more expansive history begins. The reason therefore that they were put into writing was because of this very fact. They evidenced the covenant and reminded the people concerned of the specific promises included.

It is surely not without significance that it was at the time of Jacob that papyrus (a type of writing material made from the leaves of the papyrus plant found in Egypt, and forming a kind of primitive paper) became available for the writing of records due to Joseph’s position in Egypt, thus making record keeping easier. And when Jacob became an important historical character in his own right as father to the Vizier of Egypt, a court where writing was far more common, Jacob’s history would be looked on as important for its own sake, simply because he was Joseph’s father.

It must be remembered that in these ancient days the writing of history was probably not a common feature of life among the smaller semi-nomadic tribes, although it was so among larger groups. Writing materials were usually bulky, and much, though not all, history would be passed on by oral tradition from one generation to another, and passed on very accurately, for the ancients had far better memories for such things than we have due to constant practise. However, what were recorded in writing were covenants, and theophanies (god-appearances), as ‘necessary’ evidence of the covenant, and not only would the covenant itself be recorded, but also the events surrounding the covenant, the events which gave rise to the covenant, as these were looked on as an important part of the whole picture.

Thus it must be seen as significant that the first part of the book of Genesis could well be called the ‘book of covenants’. These records were made in writing and were considered worth carrying around, simply because they were the evidence of covenants made, and in the large part covenants made between God and man. As such the latter were sacred, and they may well have been read aloud at certain special times throughout the year such as New Year and Harvest.

No inventor or later ‘storyteller’ would have even thought of confining himself simply to such events, and this can give us the confidence that the Book of Genesis is based on very ancient genuine records which record events as they took place, (for when it became possible, with the invention of writing, the covenants would be recorded immediately).

This also helps to explain why we have such gaps in the ‘life of Abraham’ and why Isaac is treated with such paucity. When there were no theophanies or important covenants there were no written records, and it is surely significant that no attempt was made to incorporate any ‘oral tradition’ in any large measure. It can give us the confidence, even from a human point of view, that what we have recorded is reliable and was not subjected to major change throughout centuries. Very occasionally an explanatory piece of information is recorded, or a change is made which bears the stamp of being added at a later date as a scribe ‘updated’ information, (a common feature of ancient records) but these are both rare and obvious additions.

At some stage, of course, someone did take the records and connect them together as we have them today, and connecting links were put in, but these were minor adjustments. A case could be put forward for arguing that Abraham, that God-fearing, well educated and astute man of business, might well have put together the epic from Genesis 1-11, which clearly has a Mediterranean background, (it may well have been his reading of the ancient family tablets in Ur that prepared him for the call of God), while the remainder of Genesis might easily have been incorporated with this as early as the time of Joseph, when the past history of the forebears of such an important personage would be considered as of such significance that it should be recorded on papyrus.

While Moses, at a later date, is traditionally seen as having put together most of the Pentateuch, with the exception, perhaps, of the report of his death and other small adjustments which were necessary as time went by, we would be wrong to assume that nothing was done before then. Moses called on previously existing material.

2). The Salvation History

While Genesis is made up mainly of covenant records supplemented by the lives of Jacob and Joseph, it also became part of a greater whole. For from Genesis to Joshua we really have one continuing record split up into six volumes, the salvation history of Israel, which begins with the primeval history in Genesis 1 to 11 and finishes with the triumphant conquest of Palestine and the receiving of the land from God. This can be summarised as follows:

a). The Primeval History (Genesis 1 to 11).

God creates the world and puts man upon it. Given a perfect environment man rebels against God and is cast out from that environment. Mankind expands but sinfulness increases resulting in God’s judgment of the flood. God begins again with Noah, but man’s sinfulness increases still further until man is scattered over the face of the earth and languages are confused.

b). The Patriarchs (Genesis 12 to 50).

God calls Abraham to leave his life among sinful men to begin a new life in the chosen land. Abraham obeys God and prospers in the new land, succeeded by Isaac and Jacob. He is given promises by God Who enters into a covenant with him that one day his descendants will possess the land and that through him all the world will be blessed. When famine threatens Jacob’s own existence, Jacob’s son, Joseph, becomes vizier of Egypt, and the family with their tribe move to Egypt.

c). The Deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 1 to 19).

Failing to return to the chosen land the people find themselves enslaved in Egypt. But God raises up Moses to deliver them, and he obtains their freedom by God’s power, and leads them out of Egypt to Sinai where they enter into covenant with God.

d). God’s Covenant with His People and the Establishment of the Tabernacle (Exodus 20 to 38).

God establishes His covenant with them as their suzerain Lord, lays out the covenant requirements, and sets up the Tabernacle as their place of worship. He gives them a symbol of His presence with them. His visible presence is known through cloud and fire.

e). God’s Provision for their Worship and for the Maintenance of the Covenant (Leviticus).

The provision of a sacrificial system, a priesthood, various covenant health restrictions, the day of Atonement, more covenant restrictions, the appointed Feasts, provisions in respect of their future in the chosen land.

f). The Journey from Sinai to the Chosen Land (Numbers).

The tribes are numbered, the Levites appointed, the consecration of the Tabernacle, the provision of Manna, the chosen land is reached and spies sent out, the unbelief of the people, the sentence to wilderness wandering, the law of offerings (a guarantee of their future), the settlement at the oasis of Kadesh for 38 years, the advance by a roundabout route skirting Edom, defeating the Amorites, conquering Bashan, philandering with Moab. The tribes are renumbered ready for entry into the land, none being left of those who were numbered at the beginning, Joshua appointed to succeed Moses, the appointed Feasts are re-established, revenge against Midian, the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh ask to be allowed to occupy Jazer and Gilead, the lands of Bashan and the Amorites (outside the ‘promised’ land), and promise to support the Conquest of the land. Summary of the journey from Egypt, the inhabitants of the chosen land to be driven out, the boundaries of the chosen land delineated, cities of refuge to be established, the people now ready to enter the land.

g). Moses Speaks to the People in Preparation for Entry into the Land (Deuteronomy).

Their progress summarised, the laws revised and reiterated, all in the form of a treaty (in a recognised 2nd millennium BC covenant form) between their God and themselves. Moses sees the land from Mount Nebo, the death of Moses.

h). The Conquest of the Land (Joshua).

The triumphs of Joshua and the tribes, the land is divided up, the Tent of Meeting established at Shiloh, the cities of refuge appointed, the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half Manasseh return home, Joshua’s charge to the tribes of Israel, Joshua dies.

3). The Place of the Records in the regular annual Festivals

Many myths abounded in the ancient world to do with, among other things, creation, the nature cycle and the flood. But these myths were not just ‘stories’ written for entertainment. The very word ‘myth’ indicates their purpose, for the ‘myth’ (muthos) is something that is related as part of a religious festival in order to influence the order of things.

As the ancient world sought to maintain the order of things, and to ensure the smooth transition of the seasons and the fruitfulness of the land, they considered that an important part was played in this by their religious festivals, held at important times of the year, in which they acted out their relationship with the activities of the gods.

The king would take an important part in these ceremonies, for he was seen in some way as the embodiment of the people, and the proper keeping of the festivals with the recitation and acting out of the mythology was considered vital to the future prosperity of both land and people. Thus myths were not seen as something that were true or untrue, but as something which reflected the deepest truths, the very root of existence.

However, the genius of the patriarchs and of Israel lay in the fact that myth was replaced by real-life history. At their religious festivals they too would read out the activities of their God. This is clearly demonstrated by the way Moses urged such action on Israel in the book of Deuteronomy 6.21-25; 26.5-10; 27.11-26 see also 31.10-11; Joshua 24.2-24. But the assumption must be made anyway, for some ceremonies had to take place at the established festivals, and the people had to learn the covenants somehow.

But these festivals were closely associated with the covenants God had made with them, and their purpose was not to ‘manipulate’ Him but to re-establish that covenant, and thereby ensure by their loyalty that He was faithful to them. Thus the records of covenants kept and maintained throughout the generations almost certainly had a part to play in these festivals, as did also many of the Psalms. Indeed we see it as almost a certainty that the creation narrative had its part to play in at least one of these covenant ceremonies.

4). The Use of Numbers and Creation.

This subject is dealt with more fully in our articles on The Use of Numbers in the Ancient Near East, but it is necessary at this point briefly to consider the facts, as they are important in the interpretation of Genesis.

In ancient days, around the time of Abraham, numbers were not generally in use, except for business and scholarly purposes. Most people in their everyday lives were probably limited to using the ‘numbers’ two and three, where ‘two’ meant ‘a few’ and ‘three’ meant ‘many’. We know for example that in 1 Kings 17.12 the widow speaks of gathering ‘two sticks’ when she means ‘a few sticks’. Had she been gathering a large number she would have said ‘three sticks’. So when numbers were used generally they were adjectival and had a significance over and above specific quantity. Indeed quantity was a secondary consideration.

Thus in the religious stories of ancient Sumer (Ur of the Chaldees from which Abraham came had been a Sumerian city) the numbers three and seven were the only numbers used. This was because ‘three’ denoted completeness and ‘seven’ had come to indicate divine perfection. There were seven gates to the underworld, not because someone had counted them, but because this constituted the divine perfection of the gates that barred the way to and from the underworld. The writer commenced with the use of the number seven, and built his account around it, in order to denote the divine perfection of what was written about. And this example can be repeated again and again. In the creation and flood narratives of Sumer and Babylon creation and the flood also take place in ‘seven days’, although in all other respects their creation narratives do not remotely parallel Genesis 1. Thus this was a recognised pattern and conveyed the sense of the divine completeness of the creation.

We will find that this use of numbers is paralleled in Genesis in the fact that all journeys are either ‘three day’ journeys or ‘seven day’ journeys. These phrases simply refer to journeys which are of a shorter or longer variety, and probably date back a considerable distance in the past. Some would do the journeys in more and some in less, but the description would always be in terms of those numbers, which were used adjectivally and not literally. Later, in the time of Jacob, Jacob can say ‘you have changed my wages ten times’. Again the number is not literal but simply means ‘a number of times’. We can compare with this how even in the present day we can speak of having ‘a thousand and one things to do’, meaning quite a number. It sounds precise but is in fact simply adjectival and not numerical. In the ancient world this was the everyday use of numbers.

So when we come to the account of creation we have to consider the question as to whether the ‘seven days’ are to be taken literally. Did God really bind himself to seven periods of around twenty four hours, or is the pattern one deliberately used by the writer to convey the perfection of God’s handywork?

All too often this question is considered as though it were either a challenge to orthodoxy, or a yielding to science, and one is left wondering whether the heat with which some argue for ‘a literal seven twenty-four hour days’ (which means scientifically established days!) lies more in a fear of being seen as making concessions to science than as a genuine attempt to face the question on the evidence. Part of the problem lies in the fact that once the concept of an almost universally agreed ‘twenty-four hour day’ was established it gradually began to become pre-eminently the scientifically established meaning of the term ‘day’ and rooted in the modern mind. Thus we find it difficult to go back to times when men’s minds were not so fixed.

This is not completely true. We still, of course, call the period of light ‘day’ as opposed to ‘night’, and we speak of long months of uninterrupted light in the Arctic circle as an ‘Arctic day’, where we are entering more into the ancient way of thinking, but to the modern the twenty-four hour day is pre-eminent because it is scientifically exact. It then determines the length of months and years.

This is very different from the situation in the ancient world when the term had no such scientific definition, and people’s minds were more flexible to ideas of time. To them an arctic day would have been just another ’day’ like any other, although they may have remarked on how long it seemed to last. Even in our present day we might say ‘the day has passed quickly’ or ‘it has been a long day’. When there were no hours, hour glasses, sun dials or clocks to judge by, men did not see days as being of a specific length.

Thus in the Old Testament the term ‘yom’ (usually translated ‘day’, but sometimes ‘time’, or ‘year’) could itself be used in various ways. In Genesis 1 ‘yom’ refers to a period of light as opposed to darkness, day rather than night, a usage that we still have today. It could also refer to a longer period of time. For example, the ‘yom’ when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, referred to an appointed time and involved a period (Genesis 2.4). Consider also ‘the day (yom) of the Lord’ (Isaiah 13.6,9 and often in the Old Testament), where the idea is again of a period and an appointed time, this time of judgment.

So it could refer to a period of light, a time-period, or a moment of time (it is translated ‘time’ 64 times in AV). It could even refer to a year (14 times in AV). And these were not, as with us, just a metaphorical extension of the usage of a term with a specific meaning. These were different aspects of the meaning of ‘yom’.

Even when applied to the period from evening to evening it was not specific. A ‘day’ was a period between evening and evening of undefined length, depending on the setting of the sun. There were no such things as ‘hours’. Indeed the word ‘hour’ does not appear in the Old Testament until the time of Daniel. It is a late concept. The concept of a ‘a twenty four hour day’ was thus totally unknown.

So a day in the sense in which we would normally understand it was to them an indefinite period between evening and evening, which varied in length without division, albeit for men in Palestine and the surrounding areas marginally. Their minds and ideas of time were not fixed like ours.

Indeed it must be recognised that the ancients did not understand time as we do. It is significant that there is no Hebrew word for the chronological concept of time as such, for they did not think of time in that way. Time was a practical occurrence determined mainly by sun and moon.

There were words for an appointed time, the ‘right’ time, and so on (one of which was ‘yom’), and they had words which could represent longer or shorter periods of time such as ‘year’, ‘month’, ‘day’, and so on, but these also were fluid and related to activities of the sun and moon, and the changes in the seasons. Nothing was scientifically fixed.

There was, for example, no fixed length to a year. It consisted usually of twelve moon cycles, until this got out of line with the seasons when a thirteenth moon cycle was added. Although it is true that a 365 day year is witnessed to in the area which included Palestine, it was not a standard norm in every day living. Thus the prophets can think in terms of 360 (12 x 30) days to a year, (compare how the Flood record can see five months as ‘150 days’), and even this is longer than most actual years which were for twelve lunar months (of 28-29 days per month), with an occasional thirteen month year required, to bring the year in line with the seasons. So ‘years’ varied in length.

Again actual ‘months’ were determined by the cycles of the moon of 28-29 days, although for convenience they could be thought of as being for approximately thirty days.

Days also were evening to evening, not for an exact twenty four hours (an unknown concept). Nothing was precise. So the ancients did not think of time precisely. It is true, of course, that when speaking of ‘days’ in this sense, a general idea of its length in day to day life would be in mind, but Joshua’s long day (Joshua 10.14) was still recognised as being one day, albeit unique. It was when evening came that another ‘day’ was ended. Had they travelled in the arctic they would still have thought of an arctic day as a day, although recognising it was very long.

The uniqueness of Joshua’s ‘day’ lay not so much in its appreciated length as such. It is questionable how far this would have been known. It lay in the fact that when it was actually coming to a close it was extended in response to prayer and ‘natural’ events occurred which were unusual.

So when the Psalmist says of God, ‘For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as watch in the night’ (Psalm 90.4), he was merely recognising that with God time was even more fluid, and that a day for God was of an even more undefined length.

We should consider in this regard that in the Creation account the establishing of the length of days according to the sun did not occur until the ‘fourth day’. It was then that the sun and moon were called on to establish ‘signs and seasons, days and years’. This means that the writer is specifically telling us that the length of an earth day was not determined until the ‘fourth day’, and he would not have, as with us, the problem of stepping outside a scientifically defined time period.

If we do claim that God did limit Himself to ‘twenty four hour days’ prior to that, (and we cannot see why He should), we must recognise that it certainly had no connection with ‘natural days’. It was purely arbitrary. This counts heavily against those who say ‘the account naturally reads as though it were seven natural days’. We could argue that the account naturally suggests the opposite, that the days cannot be ‘natural days’ as natural days had not been established until the fourth ‘day’.

It is of course always theoretically possible to argue that God did limit Himself to the equivalent of natural days, and that He was free to do what He wished, but it is difficult to see why He should have done so, or why He should ‘speak’ and then wait about twenty four hours before doing so again. The truth is that it only appears to be the natural way of reading it because we approach it from a modern viewpoint. It is certain that the ancients did not have the same difficulty.

So when the writer speaks of God as acting in ‘seven days’ without direct reference to sun and moon which do not begin their work until the fourth day, we are well justified in seeing him as meaning ‘days of God’ which could be as long or as short as God pleased.

We must in fact ask ourselves the question as to what alternative words the writer had available in order to convey his meaning of seven ‘time periods’. He had before him the mythical representations of creation as ‘seven-day’ events, where the essential meaning was of a perfectly created world. Indeed he also himself wished to represent God as completing His work in the perfect time-scale. And this he probably saw as God’s working week of seven ‘God-days’ ending with the day of rest which signified the perfect completion of the ‘work’.

The early Hebrew language did not have a multiplicity of time words with which he could express himself. Any other description than that of seven ‘yom’ would have been unnecessarily vague to his readers. And ‘seven yom’ is the only man period not specifically linked to the sun and moon (It may have arisen from phases of the moon, but it is significant that this did not happen anywhere else). Thus rather than limiting God to earthly time he saw him as outside that time.

Nor would any other description have fitted the probable pattern of the yearly feast for which the account may well have been written. All creation accounts in the outside world had as their reason for existence their importance for recital at festivals where the gods had to be manipulated. While God did not have to be manipulated, the celebration of the covenant, which bound Him to His people, did have to be carried out. A seven day pattern would fit a seven day feast.

The writer was not trying to be sophisticated. He was trying to express a divine pattern. It thus seems perfectly reasonable, and in accordance with ancient ideas of time, that his intention was that his readers should think in terms of ‘days of God’ as meaning periods in which God acted, without limiting Him to the length of earthly ‘days’, the latter being an idea which in the beginning had no place until the fourth period (except to mean something else). As we have seen men considered that a thousand years were to Him but as yesterday, or a part of the night. And that was another way of saying that to God time was seen from a totally different perspective.

So just as man would do a day’s labour, and then cease for the night, commencing again the next day, he decided to describe God’s activity in a similar way. This also had the added advantage that it enabled the application of his record to the seven days of a religious festival, which was a common use of creation stories. But, we repeat, it must be considered very doubtful whether he wanted to restrict God to the length of earth days. What he was almost certainly more concerned to do was portray the activity in a sevenfold pattern to bring out the divine perfection of the work.

The very ‘first day’, for example, is in fact a problem to the twenty four hour day theory. It has no recognised commencement other than the act of creation. The truth is that the phrase ‘the evening and the morning were of the first day’ cannot be taken literally for there was no evening. All began with darkness. Are we really to believe that God created that which was ‘waste and empty’ in total darkness, and then ‘hovered’ by His Spirit for a period of about eight or so hours before His incredible work of creating light?

And are we asked to believe that once this light pervaded the universe, He ‘separated the light from the darkness’ in a period of twelve hours or so? The impression is rather given that it was instantaneous. And he then goes on to ‘separate the light from the darkness’. This must surely refer not to the primeval ‘emptiness’ into which he introduced light, but to the separation of day as we know it from night as we know it, earthly light and darkness. So as light has replaced the primeval emptiness, so also has the new darkness. Thus this must mean that during that first ‘day’ He made periods of both. It is natural to read the account as though the division between light and darkness, taking place after light had been created, took place before the coming evening which was part of the second day.

Thus on the first day there is a period of total ‘emptiness’, then light is produced, cancelling out the ‘emptiness’, then periods of light and darkness are established. Yet the Hebrews considered one day to be a single period of darkness followed by a single period of light. This is all very contradictory. But if the writer saw the term day as metaphorically signifying a ‘working day’ of God, with no specific time limit, it all fits neatly into place.

Are we really to think that He deliberately alternated light and darkness in accordance with the pattern the sun would later establish, before He created the sun or brought its activity to bear? Why on earth should He do so when there were no ‘ruling lights’? We may also ask, did He also at the same time ensure that daylight varied at different periods of time around the world when the sun was not active? If not these were no standardised days.

Yet such a scenario is surely artificial. It is far more reasonable to believe that the writer intends his framework of ‘the first day’ to be an indication of a period of activity by God during which He arranges separation of day and night, which comes to completion with the universe vibrant with light, and with periods of light and darkness clearly established, a period of unknown length, whether of a brief second or of a thousand years. By ‘the evening and the morning was of the first day’ he is indicating metaphorically, in a picturesque fashion, that God had completed the first of His six periods of activity in a succint and recognised way. A specific length of earth time was surely outside his perspective.

Furthermore, as we shall see in the commentary, the whole account, while patterned in a clearly structured way, is necessarily simplified. On the first day light is brought into being, on the fourth it is controlled by sun and moon, on the second day the seas and atmosphere are brought into being and on the fifth they are populated by fish and birds, on the third day the dry land first appears and then the vegetation , while on the sixth are produced both the animals and man who populate it and eat from it. Thus the third and sixth day are connected with two ‘creative activities’ in order to fit the ‘six-day’ period. This suggests more the activity of the writer in fitting his narrative into the six-day pattern than the actual timing of the activities of God.

The divisions must not, of course, be over-pressed. They do not take into account the complexity of many aspects of the creative work. For example, the birds need to eat and nest and needed dry ground as well as air and water. But what the writer is really drawing out is that God fully made His provision before further advancing His work. While it is always a remote possibility, and I think it can be rated no higher than that, that God chose to work in a pattern restricted to an earth time which did not yet exist, it is far more likely that the pattern is one of man’s devising under God’s guidance which was not intended to be taken as literally representing a week as experienced by men.

A further point should also be borne in mind, and that is that while the first six ‘days’ are clearly defined as being ‘the evening and the morning were of the ---- day’, the seventh day is not depicted as ending at all. It is left open ended. This was probably because as the creation is seen as ‘very good’ there remained no further work for God to do. Thus these seven days of God are seen as a unit in themselves, not something to be repeated. They are not just the first of the world’s weeks, for in a very real sense they did not end. God’s ‘rest’ continues.

So the contention is that the ‘yoms’ are ‘yoms’ (time periods) of God, not ‘twenty four hour’ days, and they represent whatever time God chose to use in fulfilling His work. They are seven so as to convey the idea of divine perfection, and it is this pattern that determines the dating of the Sabbath and not the other way around. And this is a view reached on the basis of the text and of the Hebrew meaning of words and concepts of time, not on the basis of some attempt to reconcile things with ‘science’.