You are apparently quoting from pages 52-53 in the English translation of the 10-volume commentary on the Bible, Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament written in German by Johann Friedrich Karl Keil and Franz Julius Delitzsch and originally published in the years 1866-1877. Keil wrote on Genesis through Esther and Jeremiah to Malachi; Delitzsch wrote on Job to Isaiah. In the English Edition that you are quoting from, the part on the Pentateuch was translated by James Martin. Delitzsch also wrote separately a 2-volume commentary on Genesis in German, Commentar über die Genesis. This work is far more detailed and accurate than what Keil wrote. The first edition was published in 1852, and a fourth edition in 1866. A fifth and final edition translated by Sophia Taylor was published in 1888. It is a hard copy of this edition that I have here in my study. On pages 85-86, Delitzsch expressly contradict the ridiculously incorrect statements made by Keil.
I am reading
Sophia Taylor's translation of 1889. First, I cannot perceive what contradiction on pp. 85-86 you are referring to. "Dome" and "solid structures" are not invoked by Delitzsch, to my mind. Secondly, I don't accept Delitzsch is necessarily an advance on Keil, for the following reasons.
Delitzsch seems signed up to the authenticity of the higher criticism. This was much in vogue in Germany, in that era. His "Introduction" tends to affirm more value placed on the "criticism" than on the inspiration of the text. He writes at p. 1 of his Introduction:
"CRITICISM at present fixes the date of the main bulk of the Pentateuch, the so-called Priest Codex, together with the Law of Holiness, which has so striking a relation to Ezekiel, at the time of the captivity and the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Deuteronomy however presupposes the primary legislation contained in Ex. xix.-xxiv. and the work of the Jehovistic historian. Hence we cannot avoid relegating the origin of certain component parts of the Pentateuch to the middle ages of the kings ; and, if we continue our critical analysis, we find ourselves constrained to go back still farther, perhaps even to the times of the Judges, and thus to tread the soil of a hoar antiquity without incurring the verdict of lack of scientific knowledge. Even those who insist upon transferring the conception of the account of the creation in Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, and of the primaeval histories, which are of a form homogeneous with it, to the post-exilian period, do not, for the most part, deny that they are based upon subjects and materials handed down from long past ages. For the most part, we repeat ; for there are even some who think that these primaeval histories, e.g. the account of the Deluge, were not brought with them by the Terahites at their departure from Chaldea, but first obtained by the exiles in Babylon from Babylonian sources, and remodelled in Israelite fashion. Under these circumstances, and especially on the threshold of Genesis, — that book of origins and primaeval history, — it will be a suitable preparation for our critical problems to attain to historical certainty as to how far the art of writing reaches back among the people to whom the authorship of Genesis belongs, and as to the date at which the beginnings of literature may be found or expected among them."
Then he discourses on the origin of writing and at the bottom of page 3 of his Introduction he states:
"Hence the patriarchal ancestral families of Israel do not as yet manifest a knowledge of writing, which first appears among the people on their departure from Egypt. The Pentateuchal history itself impresses upon us the fact that Israel learned the art of writing in Egypt, where the possession of this art reaches far back in pre-Mosaic times. For the exodus took place under Menephthes (per the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, he ruled from
1213 until 1203 BC ), the fourth Pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, and Herodotus already saw the pyramid belonging to the 1st Manethonian dynasty covered with hieroglyphics."
Let's assess this info. against modern archaeology. IMO, it is discountable. (1) Abraham was a prince of Ur, a city at the centre of the Sumerian / Akkadian civilization. Hence he would certainly have known how to write. Joseph also, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. There is nothing to suggest that the Hebrews didn't retain the knowledge of writing throughout their stay in Egypt, and may even have taught it to the Egyptians. Sumerian writing dates back to 3300BC, at least. So that consigns Delitzsch's statement "the patriarchal ancestral families of Israel do not as yet manifest a knowledge of writing" as rubbish. (2) The date of the exodus was more likely the 15th century BC, or earlier. The 19th dynasty date is completely wrong, a legacy of past error. Ramses II had nothing to do with the exodus and wasn't the pharaoh of oppression. (3) The articles of the higher criticism, the distinction between the J" source (Yahwist) using "Jehovah" and the "E" source (Elohist) using "Elohim", were a 19th/20th century fad, and today are credited by few persons as historical fact.
As one commentator has remarked "The presuppositions and beliefs of the Bible writers and of the critics were absolutely contradictory. To maintain that the modern view is a development and advance upon the Biblical view, is absurd. No presupposition can develop a presupposition which contradicts and nullifies it. To say that the critical position and the Biblical position, or the traditional evangelical view which is the same as the Biblical, are reconcilable, is the most fatuous folly and delusion."
I suggest that if you credit Delitzsch as an advance on Keil, then what you're advocating is that the critical view should transcend the evangelical. I put it to you that the evangelical and higher criticism POVs are actually irreconcilable. But as I say, in respect of Gen 1:6-9, I don't know what point you're making.
Oh, and by the way, the article is anonymous, as all the articles there are, so nobody can correct their error. I don't allow my students to quote from anonymous sources in their research papers because of that lack of accountability. And before you ask, my real name is John R. Himes, as I've said numerous times on the BB, so no, I'm never anonymous.
