A
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
GENESIS
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. Abbreviations without clear meanings have │
│ been left unchanged. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ bold text: --> =text=. │
│ subscripts --> x_{3} │
│ superscripts --> x{th} │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The International Critical Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D.
_Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford_
THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
_Late Master of University College, Durham_
AND
THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.
_Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics
Union Theological Seminary, New York_
The International
Critical Commentary
On the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments
EDITORS’ PREFACE
THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British
and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. _The
Cambridge Bible for Schools_, the _Handbooks for Bible Classes and
Private Students_, _The Speaker’s Commentary_, _The Popular Commentary_
(Schaff), _The Expositor’s Bible_, and other similar series, have
their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of
Commentaries as the _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament_; De Wette’s _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
Neuen Testament_; Meyer’s _Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar_; Keil and
Delitzsch’s _Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament_; Lange’s
_Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk_; Nowack’s _Handkommentar zum
Alten Testament_; Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament_
Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases
enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public; others are
in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or
American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot,
Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment
of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to
combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical,
comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical
scholarship, and in a measure lead its van.
Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark
of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the
Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS,
D.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,
for the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New
Testament, in Great Britain.
The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and
will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based
upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible,
and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly
for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style.
Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions still
remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper
place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be
introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct
from matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testament the
exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be
serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of
Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the
Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature
of the subject. Historical and Archæological questions, as well
as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the
Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes
will constitute a uniform series.
The International Critical Commentary
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
=GENESIS.= The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old
Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of
England, Cambridge, England. [_Now Ready._
=EXODUS.= The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
University of Edinburgh.
=LEVITICUS.= J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
=NUMBERS.= The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Mansfield College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._
=DEUTERONOMY.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor
of Hebrew, Oxford. [_Now Ready._
=JOSHUA.= The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,
United Free Church College, Glasgow.
=JUDGES.= The Rev. GEORGE MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._
=SAMUEL.= The Rev. H. P. SMITH, D.D., Professor of Old Testament
Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [_Now Ready._
=KINGS.= The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and
Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary,
New York City.
=CHRONICLES.= The Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [_Now Ready._
=EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.= The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of
St. Mark’s Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E.
Divinity School, Philadelphia.
=PSALMS.= The Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate
Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [_2 volumes. Now Ready._
=PROVERBS.= The Rev. C. H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._
=JOB.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of
Hebrew, Oxford.
=ISAIAH.= Chapters I‒XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
=ISAIAH.= Chapters XL‒LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of
the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of
Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England.
=JEREMIAH.= The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
=EZEKIEL.= The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev.
CHARLES F. BURNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John’s
College, Oxford.
=DANIEL.= The Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St.
Michael’s Church, New York City.
=AMOS AND HOSEA.= W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President of
the University of Chicago, Illinois. [_Now Ready._
=MICAH TO HAGGAI.= Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; Prof.
CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York;
W. HAYES WARD, D.D., LL.D., Editor of _The Independent_, New York;
Prof. JULIUS A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof.
H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University.
=ZECHARIAH TO JONAH.= Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P. SMITH
and Prof. J. A. BEWER.
=ESTHER.= The Rev. L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford
Theological Seminary. [_Now Ready._
=ECCLESIASTES.= Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical
Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [_Now Ready._
=RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS.= Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
=ST. MATTHEW.= The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer
in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._
=ST. MARK.= Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testament
Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [_Now Ready._
=ST. LUKE.= The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham. [_Now Ready._
=ST. JOHN.= The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St.
Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.
=HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.,
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WILLOUGHBY
C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter
College, Oxford.
=ACTS.= The Rev. C. H. TURNER, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of London.
=ROMANS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the
Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King’s College, London.
[_Now Ready._
=CORINTHIANS.= The Right Rev. ARCHBISHOP ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., Lord
Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., and DAWSON WALKER,
D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham.
=GALATIANS.= The Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
=EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.= The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D.Litt.,
sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now
Librarian of the same. [_Now Ready._
=PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON.= The Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor
of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
[_Now Ready._
=THESSALONIANS.= The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of Biblical
Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
=THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.= The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden of Keble
College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
=HEBREWS.= The Rev. A. NAIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King’s
College, London.
=ST. JAMES.= The Rev. JAMES H. ROPES, D.D., Bussey Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
=PETER AND JUDE.= The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
[_Now Ready._
=THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.= The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow and
Divinity Lecturer in King’s College, Cambridge.
=REVELATION.= The Rev. ROBERT H. CHARLES, M.A., D.D., sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
GENESIS
JOHN SKINNER, D.D.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
A
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
GENESIS
BY
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., HONORARY M.A. (CAMBRIDGE)
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF
OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1910
TO
MY WIFE
PREFACE.
It is a little over six years since I was entrusted by the Editors
of “The International Critical Commentary” with the preparation of
the volume on Genesis. During that time there has been no important
addition to the number of commentaries either in English or in German.
The English reader still finds his best guidance in Spurrell’s valuable
_Notes_ on the text, Bennett’s compressed but suggestive exposition
in the _Century Bible_, and Driver’s thorough and masterly work in the
first volume of the _Westminster Commentaries_; all of which were in
existence when I commenced my task. While no one of these books will
be superseded by the present publication, there was still room for a
commentary on the more elaborate scale of the “International” series;
and it has been my aim, in accordance with the programme of that series,
to supply the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and
archæological questions, which the present state of scholarship demands.
The most recent German commentaries, those of Holzinger and Gunkel,
had both appeared before 1904; and I need not say that to both, but
especially to the latter, I have been greatly indebted. Every student
must have felt that Gunkel’s work, with its æsthetic appreciation of
the genius of the narratives, its wider historical horizons, and its
illuminating use of mythological and folklore parallels, has breathed a
new spirit into the investigation of Genesis, whose influence no writer
on the subject can hope or wish to escape. The last-mentioned feature
is considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part of
which (1909) was published just too late to be utilised for this volume.
That I have not neglected the older standard commentaries of Tuch,
Delitzsch, and Dillmann, or less comprehensive expositions like that of
Strack, will be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the notes.
The same remark applies to many books of a more general kind (mostly
cited in the list of “Abbreviations”), which have helped to elucidate
special points of exegesis.
The problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis are, indeed,
too varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily treated within
the compass of a single volume. The old controversies as to the
compatibility of the earlier chapters with the conclusions of modern
science are no longer, to my mind, a living issue; and I have not
thought it necessary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those
who are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages of Dr.
Driver, where they will find these matters handled with convincing
force and clearness. Rather more attention has been given to the recent
reaction against the critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am
very far from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative
or its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the scholarly work
of the last hundred and fifty years. At all events, my own belief in
the essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed
by the renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present
undertaking required. It will probably appear to some that the analysis
is pushed further than is warranted, and that duplicates are discovered
where common sense would have suggested an easy reconciliation. That is
a perfectly fair line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept
in view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain
which is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts
from cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontrovertible,
and moves on to others where it is less certain; and it is surely
evident that when the composition of sources is once established,
the slightest differences of representation or language assume a
significance which they might not have apart from that presumption.
That the analysis is frequently tentative and precarious is fully
acknowledged; and the danger of basing conclusions on insufficient data
of this kind is one that I have sought to avoid. On the more momentous
question of the historical or legendary character of the book, or
the relation of the one element to the other, opinion is likely to be
divided for some time to come. Several competent Assyriologists appear
to cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of fresh discoveries
which will vindicate the accuracy of at least the patriarchal
traditions in a way that will cause the utmost astonishment to some
who pay too little heed to the findings of archæological experts. It
is naturally difficult to estimate the worth of such an anticipation;
and it is advisable to keep an open mind. Yet even here it is possible
to adopt a position which will not be readily undermined. Whatever
triumphs may be in store for the archæologist,――though he should prove
that Noah and Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are all real historical
personages,――he will hardly succeed in dispelling the atmosphere of
mythical imagination, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the
life and soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be necessary,
if we are to retain our faith in the inspiration of this part of
Scripture, to recognise that the Divine Spirit has enshrined a part of
His Revelation to men in such forms as these. It is only by a frank
acceptance of this truth that the Book of Genesis can be made a means
of religious edification to the educated mind of our age.
As regards the form of the commentary, I have endeavoured to include
in the large print enough to enable the reader to pick up rapidly
the general sense of a passage; although the exigencies of space have
compelled me to employ small type to a much larger extent than was
ideally desirable. In the arrangement of footnotes I have reverted
to the plan adopted in the earliest volume of the series (Driver’s
_Deuteronomy_), by putting all the textual, grammatical, and
philological material bearing on a particular verse in consecutive
notes running concurrently with the main text. It is possible that in
some cases a slight embarrassment may result from the presence of a
double set of footnotes; but I think that this disadvantage will be
more than compensated to the reader by the convenience of having the
whole explanation of a verse under his eye at one place, instead of
having to perform the difficult operation of keeping two or three pages
open at once.
In conclusion, I have to express my thanks, first of all, to two
friends by whose generous assistance my labour has been considerably
lightened: to Miss E. I. M. Boyd, M.A., who has rendered me the
greatest service in collecting material from books, and to the Rev.
J. G. Morton, M.A., who has corrected the proofs, verified all the
scriptural references, and compiled the Index. My last word of all
must be an acknowledgment of profound and grateful obligation to Dr.
Driver, the English Editor of the series, for his unfailing interest
and encouragement during the progress of the work, and for numerous
criticisms and suggestions, especially on points of philology and
archæology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to give
effect.
JOHN SKINNER.
CAMBRIDGE,
_April 1910_.
CONTENTS.
○ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
○ INTRODUCTION
○ § 1. _Introductory: Canonical Position of the Book――its general
Scope――and Title_
_A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
○ § 2. _History or Legend?_
○ § 3. _Myth and Legend――Foreign Myths――Types of mythical Motive_
○ § 4. _Historical Value of the Tradition_
○ § 5. _Preservation and Collection of the Traditions_
_B._ STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
○ § 6. _Plan and Divisions_
○ § 7. _The Sources of Genesis_
○ § 8. _The collective Authorship of Yahwist and Elohist_
○ § 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist――their Relation to
Literary Prophecy_
○ § 10. _Date and Place of Origin――Redaction of Jehovist_
○ § 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction_
○ COMMENTARY
EXTENDED NOTES:――
○ The Divine Image in Man
○ The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath
○ Babylonian and other Cosmogonies
○ The Site of Eden
○ The ‘Protevangelium’
○ The Cherubim
○ Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend
○ Origin of the Cain Legend
○ The Cainite Genealogy
○ The Chronology of Chapter 5, etc.
○ The Deluge Tradition
○ Noah’s Curse and Blessing
○ The Babel Legend
○ Chronology of 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
○ Historic Value of Chapter 14
○ Circumcision
○ The Covenant-Idea in Priestly-Code
○ Destruction of the Cities of the Plain
○ The Sacrifice of Isaac
○ The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting
○ The Legend of Peniel
○ The Sack of Shechem
○ The Edomite Genealogies
○ The Degradation of Reuben
○ The Fate of Simeon and Levi
○ The “Shiloh” Prophecy of 49¹⁰
○ The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes
INDEX――
○ I. English
○ II. Hebrew
ABBREVIATIONS.¹
¹ Most Abbreviations have been replaced in the text with the
full name or title for easier reading.
1. SOURCES (see pages xxxiv ff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.
E Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative.
J Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative.
JE Jehovist, or the combined narrative of Yahwist and
Elohist.
P or PC The Priestly Code.
Pᵍ The historical kernel or framework of Priestly-Code
(see page lvii).
Rᴱ Redactors within the schools of Elohist, Yahwist, and
Rᴶ Priestly-Code, respectively.
Rᴾ
Rᴶᴱ The Compiler of the composite work Jehovist.
Rᴶᴱᴾ The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch.
EV[V] English Version[s] (Authorised or Revised).
_Jub._ _The Book of Jubilees._
MT Massoretic Text.
OT Old Testament.
Aq. Greek Translation of Aquila.
Θ Greek Translation of Theodotion.
Σ Greek Translation of Symmachus.
Gr.-Ven. Codex ‘Græcus Venetus’ (14th or 15th century.).
Ⓖ The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the Old Testament
(edited by A. E. Brooke and N. M‘Lean, Cambridge, 1906).
Ⓖᴸ Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde,
_Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior
Græce_, etc. (1883).
Ⓖᴬᴮᴱᴹ ᵉᵗᶜᐧ Codices of LXX (see Brooke and M‘Lean, page v.).
Ⓛ Old Latin Version.
Ⓢ The Syriac Version (Peshiṭtå).
⅏ The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (Walton’s
‘London Polyglott’).
Ⓣᴼ The Targum of Onkelos [2nd century A.D.] (edited by
Berliner, 1884).
Ⓣᴶ The Targum of Jonathan [8th century A.D.] (edited by
Ginsburger, 1903).
Ⓥ The Vulgate.
2. COMMENTARIES.
Ayles Herbert Henry Baker Ayles, _A critical Commentary on
Genesis ii. 4‒iii. 25_ (1904).
Ba[ll] Charles James Ball, _The Book of Genesis: Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Text printed in colours
exhibiting the composite structure of the book, with
Notes_ (1896). See _SBOT_.
Ben[nett] William Henry Bennett, _Genesis_ (Century Bible).
Calv[in] _Mosis Libri V cum Johannis Calvini Commentariis.
Genesis seorsum_, etc. (1563).
De[litzsch] Franz Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar über die Genesis_
(5th edition, 1887).
Di[llmann] _Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erklärt
von August Dillmann_ (6th edition, 1892). The work
embodies frequent extracts from earlier editions
by Knobel: these are referred to below as
“Knobel-Dillmann”
Dr[iver] _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_,
by Samuel Rolles Driver (7th edition, 1909).
Gu[nkel] _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_, von Hermann Gunkel
(2nd edition, 1902).
Ho[lzinger] _Genesis erklärt_, von Heinrich Holzinger (1898).
IEz. Abraham Ibn Ezra († _circa_ 1167).
Jer[ome], Jerome († 420), _Quæstiones sive Traditiones
_Qu._ hebraicæ in Genesim_.
Kn[obel] August Wilhelm Knobel.
Kn.-Di. See Dillmann.
Ra[shi] Rabbi Shelomoh Yiẓḥaḳi († 1105).
Spurrell George James Spurrell, _Notes on the Text of the
Book of Genesis_ (2nd edition, 1896).
Str[ack] _Die Genesis übersetzt und ausgelegt_, von Hermann
Leberecht Strack (2nd edition, 1905).
Tu[ch] Friedrich Tuch, _Commentar über die Genesis_ (2nd
edition, 1871).
3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.
Barth, _ES_ Jakob Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum semitischen
insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_ (1893).
Barth, _NB_ _Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen_
(1889‒91).
Barton, _SO_ George Aaron Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_
(1902).
B.-D. Seligmann Baer and Franz Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_
(1869). The Massoretic Text, with Appendices.
BDB Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles
Augustus Briggs, _A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament_ (1891‒ ).
Benz[inger], Immanuel Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_ (2nd
_Arch._² edition, 1907).
_Ber. R._ The Midrash _Bereshith Rabba_ (translated into German
by August Wünsche, 1881).
Bochart, Samuel Bochartus, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus
_Hieroz._ de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ (edited by Rosenmüller,
1793‒96).
Bu[dde], Karl Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ (1883).
_Urg._
Buhl, _GP_ Frants Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_ (1896).
Buhl _Geschichte der Edomiter_ (1893).
Burck[hardt] John Lewis Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and
Wahábys_.
_Travels in Syria and the Holy Land._
Che[yne], Thomas Kelly Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of
_TB[A]I_ Ancient Israel_ (1907).
_CIS_ _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_ (1881‒ ).
Cook, _Gl._ Stanley Arthur Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic
Inscriptions_ (1898).
Cooke, _NSI_ George Albert Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic
Inscriptions_ (1903).
Co[rnill], Carl Heinrich Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte
_Einl._ Testament_ (see page xl, note).
Co[rnill], _History of the People of Israel_ (Translated, 1898).
_Hist._
Curtiss, _PSR_ Samuel Ives Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion
to-day_ (1902).
Dav[idson] Andrew Bruce Davidson, _Hebrew Syntax_.
Dav[idson] _The Theology of the Old Testament_ (1904).
_OTTh._
_DB_ _A Dictionary of the Bible_, edited by James Hastings
(1898‒1902).
Del[itzsch], Friedrich Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_
_Hwb._ (1896).
Del[itzsch], _Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische
_Par._ Studie_ (1881).
Del[itzsch], _Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen
_Prol._ Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ (1886).
Del[itzsch] See _BA_ below.
Doughty, _AD_ Charles Montagu Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_
(1888).
Dri[ver], Samuel Rolles Driver, _An Introduction to the
_LOT_ Literature of the Old Testament_ (Revised edition,
1910).
Dri[ver], _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_
_Sam._ (1890).
Dri[ver], _T._ _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ (3rd
edition, 1892).
_EB_ _Encyclopædia Biblica_, edited by Thomas Kelly Cheyne
and John Sutherland Black (1899‒1903).
_EBL_ See Hilprecht.
Ee[rdmans] Bernardus Dirk Eerdmans, _A lttestamentliche
Studien_:
i. _Die Komposition der Genesis._
ii. _Die Vorgeschichte Israels._
Erman, _LAE_ Adolf Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (translated by
Helen Mary Tirard, 1894).
Erman, _Hdbk._ _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ (translated by
Agnes Sophia Griffith, 1907).
Ew[ald], _Gr._ Heinrich Ewald, _Ausführliches Lehrbuch der
hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ (8th edition,
1870).
Ew[ald], _HI_ _History of Israel_ [English translation, 1871].
Ew[ald], _Ant._ _Antiquities of Israel_ [English translation, 1876].
Field Frederick Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt;
sive Veterum Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Fragmenta_ (1875).
Frazer, _AAO_ James George Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies
in the history of Oriental Religion_ (1906).
Frazer, _GB_ _The Golden Bough; a Study in Magic and Religion_
(2nd edition, 1900).
Frazer _Folklore in the Old Testament_ (1907).
v. Gall, August Freiherr von Gall, _Altisraelitische
_CSt._ Kultstätten_ (1898).
G.-B. Wilhelm Gesenius’ _Hebräisches und aramäisches
Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament_ (14th
edition by Buhl, 1905).
Geiger, Abraham Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen
_Urschr._ der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern
Entwickelung des Judenthums_ (1857).
Ges[enius], Wilhelm Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus
_Th._ Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_
(1829‒58).
G.-K. Wilhelm Gesenius’ _Hebräische Grammatik_, völlig
umgearbeitet von Emil Kautzsch (26th edition, 1896)
[English translation, 1898].
Glaser, Eduard Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie
_Skizze_ Arabiens_, ii. (1890).
Gordon, _ETG_ Alexander Reid Gordon, _The Early Traditions of
Genesis_ (1907).
Gray, _HPN_ George Buchanan Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper
Names_ (1896).
Gu[nkel], Hermann Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
_Schöpf._ Endzeit_ (1895).
Guthe, _GI_ Hermann Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1899).
Harrison, Jane Ellen Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of
_Prol._ Greek Religion_ (2nd edition, 1908).
Hilprecht, Hermann Vollrat Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible
_EBL_ Lands during the 19th century_ [with the co-operation
of Benzinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903).
Ho[lzinger], Heinrich Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
_Einl._ or (1893).
_Hex._
Hom[mel], _AA_ Fritz Hommel, _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistischsemitologischen Inhalts_ (i‒iii, 1892‒ ).
Hom[mel], _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
_AHT_ Monuments_ (1897).
Hom[mel], _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte
_AOD_ Testament_ (1902).
Hom[mel], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1885).
_Gesch._
Hom[mel], _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ (1893).
_SA Chrest._
Hupf[eld], Hermann Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und die
_Qu._ Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ (1853).
Jastrow, _RBA_ Morris Jastrow, _The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria_ (1898).
_JE_ _The Jewish Encyclopædia._
Je[remias], Alfred Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
_ATLO_² alten Orients_ (2nd edition, 1906).
Jen[sen], Peter Jensen, _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890).
_Kosm._
_KAT_² _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_, by
Schrader (2nd edition, 1883).
_KAT_³ _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament._ Third
edition, by Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
Kent, _SOT_ Charles Foster Kent, _Narratives of the Beginnings
of Hebrew History_ [Students’ Old Testament] (1904).
_KIB_ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, edited by Eberhard
Schrader (1889‒ ).
Kit[tel], _BH_ Rudolf Kittel, _Biblia Hebraica_ (Genesis) (1905).
Kit[tel], _GH_ _Geschichte der Hebräer_ (1888‒92).
Kön[ig], Friedrich Eduard König, _Historisch-kritisches
_Lgb._ Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ (2 volumes,
1881‒95).
Kön[ig], _S_ _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen
Sprache_ (1897).
KS Emil Kautzsch and Albert Socin, _Die Genesis mit
aüsserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften_.
Kue[nen], Abraham Kuenen, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (see
_Ges. Abh._ page xl, _note_).
Kue[nen], _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan
_Ond._ en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_
(see page xl, _note_).
Lag[arde], Paul Anton de Lagarde, _Ankündigung einer neuen
_Ank._ Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_
(1882).
Lag[arde], _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (1866).
_Ges. Abh._
Lag[arde], _Mittheilungen_, i‒iv (1884‒91).
_Mitth._
Lag[arde] _Orientalia_, 1, 2 (1879‒80).
Lag[arde], _Semitica_, 1, 2 (1878).
_Sem._
Lag[arde], _Symmicta_, 2 parts (1877‒80).
_Symm._
Lag[arde], _Onomastica Sacra_ (1870).
_OS_
Lane, _Lex._ Edward William Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_
(1863‒93).
Lane, _ME_ _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern
Egyptians_ (5th edition, 1860).
Len[ormant], François Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’histoire_,
_Or._ (i‒iii, 1880‒84).
Levy, Jacob Levy, _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die
_Ch. Wb._ Targumim und Midraschim_ (3rd edition, 1881).
Lidz[barski], Mark Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen
_Hb._ or Epigraphik_ (1898).
_NSEpigr._
Lu[ther], _INS_ See Meyer, _INS_.
Marquart Josef Marquart, _Fundamente israelitischer und
jüdischer Geschichte_ (1896).
Meyer, _Entst._ Eduard Meyer, _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ (1896).
Meyer, _GA¹_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (Band i. 1884).
Meyer, _GA²_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (2nd edition, 1909).
Meyer, _INS_ _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, von Eduard
Meyer, mit Beiträgen von Bernhard Luther (1906).
Müller, _AE_ Wilhelm Max Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_ (1893).
Nestle, _MM_ Eberhard Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_ (1893).
Nö[ldeke], Theodor Nöldeke, _Beiträge zur semitischen
_Beitr._ Sprachwissenschaft_ (1904).
Nö[ldeke], _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_
_Unters._ (1869).
_OH_ _Oxford Hexateuch_ = Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,
_The Hexateuch_ (see page xl, _note_).
Oehler, _ATTh_ Gustav Friedrich Oehler, _Theologie des Alten
Testaments_ (3rd edition, 1891).
Ols. Justus Olshausen.
Orr, _POT_ James Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_ (1906).
_OS_ See Lagarde.
P[ayne] Robert Payne Smith, _Thesaurus Syriacus_ (1879, 1901).
Sm[ith], _Thes._
Petrie William Flinders Petrie, _A History of Egypt_.
Pro[cksch] Otto Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die
Elohimquelle_ (1906).
Riehm, _Hdwb._ Eduard Carl August Riehm, _Handwörterbuch des
biblischen Altertums_ (2nd edition, 1893‒94).
Robinson, _BR_ Edward Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_
(2nd edition, 3 volumes, 1856).
Sayce, _EHH_ Archibald Henry Sayce, _The Early History of the
Hebrews_ (1897).
Sayce, _HCM_ _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the
Monuments_ (2nd edition, 1894).
_SBOT_ _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, a critical
edition of the Hebrew Text printed in Colours_,
under the editorial direction of Paul Haupt.
Schenkel, _BL_ Daniel Schenkel, _Bibel-Lexicon_ (1869‒75).
Schr[ader], Eberhard Schrader, _Keilinschriften und
_KGF_ Geschichtsforschung_ (1878).
Schr[ader] See _KAT_ and _KIB_ above.
Schultz, Hermann Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_ (English
_OTTh_ translation, 1892).
Schürer, _GJV_ Emil Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (3rd and 4th editions,
1898‒1901).
Schw[ally] Friedrich Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_ (1892).
_Semitische Kriegsaltertümer_, i. (1901).
Smend, _ATRG_ Rudolf Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen
Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd edition, 1899).
GASm[ith], George Adam Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy
_HG_ Land_ (1895).
Rob. Smith, William Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in
_KM_² Early Arabia_ (2nd edition, 1903).
Rob. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd
_OTJC_² edition, 1892).
Rob. Smith, _The Prophets of Israel_ (2nd edition, 1895).
_Pr._²
Rob. Smith, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_ (2nd
_RS_² edition, 1894).
Spiegelberg Wilhelm Spiegelberg, _Aegyptologische Randglossen
zum Alten Testament_ (1904).
_Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der
aegyptischen Monumente_ (3rd edition, 1904).
Sta[de] Bernhard Stade, _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und
Abhandlungen_ (1899).
Sta[de], _BTh_ _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_, i. (1905).
Sta[de], _GVI_ _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1887‒89).
Steuern[agel], Carl Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der
_Einw._ israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ (1901).
TA Tel-Amarna Tablets [_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
v; Knudtzon, _Die el-Amarna Tafeln_ (1908‒ )].
Thomson, _LB_ William McClure Thomson, _The Land and the Book_
(3 volumes, 1881‒86).
Tiele, Cornelis Petrus Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im
_Gesch._ Altertum_, i. (German edition, 1896).
Tristram, Henry Baker Tristram, _The Natural History of the
_NHB_ Bible_ (9th edition, 1898).
We[llhausen], Julius Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs
_Comp._² und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_
(2nd edition, 1889).
We[llhausen], _De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles
_De gent._ 2. 4 enumerantur_ (1870).
We[llhausen], _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ (2nd edition, 1897).
_Heid._
We[llhausen], _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ (6th edition,
_Prol._⁶ 1905).
We[llhausen] _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._
We[llhausen], _Der Text der Bücher Samuelis_ (1871).
_TBS_
Wi[nckler], Hugo Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_
_AOF_ (1893- ).
Wi[nckler], _Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_ (1892).
_ATU_
Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1892).
_GBA_
Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_ (i. ii.,
_GI_ 1895, 1900).
Wi[nckler] See _KAT_³ above.
Zunz, _GdV_ Leopold Zunz, _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der
Juden_ (2nd edition, 1892).
4. PERIODICALS, ETC.
_AJSL_ _American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures_ (continuing _Hebraica_).
_AJTh_ _American Journal of Theology_ (1897‒ ).
_ARW_ _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._
_BA_ _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, herausgegeben von Friedrich
Delitzsch und Paul Haupt (1890‒ ).
_BS_ _Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_
(1844‒ ).
_Deutsche Litteraturzeitung_ (1880‒ ).
_Exp._ _The Expositor._
_ET_ _The Expository Times._
_GGA_ _Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_ (1753— ).
_GGN_ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen._
_Hebr._ _Hebräica_ (1884‒95). See _AJSL_.
_JBBW_ [Ewald’s] _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_
(1849‒1865).
_J[S]BL_ _Journal of_ [the Society of] _Biblical Literature
and Exegesis_ (1881‒ ).
_JPh_ _The Journal of Philology_ (1872‒ ).
_JQR_ _The Jewish Quarterly Review._
_JRAS_ _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland_ (1834‒ ).
_JTS_ _The Journal of Theological Studies_ (1900‒ ).
_Lit[erarisches] Zentralbl[att für Deutschland]_
(1850‒ ).
_M[B]BA_ _Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._ Continued in
_Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_ (1881‒ ).
_MVAG_ _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_
(1896‒ ).
_NKZ_ _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_ (1890‒ ).
_OLz_ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ (1898‒ ).
_PAOS_ _Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental
Society_ (1851‒ ).
_PEFS_ Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._
_PSBA_ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_
(1878‒ ).
_SBBA_ See _MBBA_ above.
_SK_ _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_ (1828‒ ).
_ThLz_ _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_ (1876‒ ).
_ThT_ _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ (1867‒ ).
_TSBA_ _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology._
_ZA_ _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_ (1886‒ ).
_ZATW_ _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_
(1881‒ ).
_ZDMG_ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_ (1845‒ ).
_ZDPV_ _Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_
(1878‒ ).
_ZKF_ _Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_ (1884‒85).
_ZVP_ _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft_ (1860‒ ).
5. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.
NH ‘New Hebrew’: the language of the Mishnah, Midrashim,
and parts of the Talmud.
_v.i._ _vide infra_ Used in references from commentary to
footnotes, and _vice versâ_.
_v.s._ _vide supra_
* Frequently used to indicate that a section is of
composite authorship.
† After Old Testament references means that all
occurrences of the word or usage in question are
cited.
√ Root or stem.
׳ Sign of abbreviation in Hebrew words.
וגו׳ = וגומר = ‘and so on’: used when a Hebrew citation
is incomplete.
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. _Introductory: Canonical position of the book
――its general scope――and title._
The Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this §) forms the
opening section of a comprehensive historical work which, in the Hebrew
Bible, extends from the creation of the world to the middle of the
Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 25³⁰). The tripartite division of the Jewish
Canon has severed the later portion of this work (Joshua‒Kings), under
the title of the “Former Prophets” (הנביאים הראשונים), from the earlier
portion (Genesis‒Deuteronomy), which constitutes the Law (התורה),――a
seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Tôrāh having
attained canonical authority soon after its completion in the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity of the Prophetical scriptures
was not recognised till some centuries later.¹ How soon the division
of the Tôrāh into its five books (חמשה חומשי התורה: ‘the five fifths of the
Law’) was introduced we do not know for certain; but it is undoubtedly
ancient, and in all probability is due to the final redactors of the
Pentateuch.² In the case of Genesis, at all events, the division is
obviously appropriate. Four centuries of complete silence lie between
its close and the beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history
of a nation as contrasted with that of a family; and its prevailing
character of _individual biography_ suggests that its traditions are of
a different quality, and have a different origin, from the _national_
traditions preserved in Exodus and the succeeding books. Be that as it
may, Genesis is a unique and well-rounded whole; and there is no book
of the Pentateuch, except Deuteronomy, which so readily lends itself to
monographic treatment.
¹ See Ryle, _Canon of the Old Testament_, chapters iv. v.;
Wildeboer, _Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament_², 27
ff., 101 ff.; Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_,
8 f.; Budde, article ‘Canon,’ in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, and
Woods, ‘Old Testament Canon,’ in _A Dictionary of the Bible_.
² Kuenen, _Onderzoek_, i. pages 7, 331. The earliest external
evidence of the fivefold division is Philo, _De Abrahamo_,
_initial_ (Τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐν πέντε βίβλοις ἀναγραφέντων, ἡ
πρώτη καλεῖται καὶ ἐπιγράφεται Γένεσις, ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου
γενέσεως, ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ περιέχει, λαβοῦσα τὴν πρόσρησιν· καίτοι
κτλ.); Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 39. It is found, however,
in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX, and
seems to have served as a model for the similar division of
the Psalter. That it follows natural lines of cleavage is
shown by Kuenen (_ll.cc._); and there is no reason to doubt
that it is as old as the canonisation of the Tôrāh.
Genesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a
peculiarity of the Pentateuch that it is Law-book and history in one:
while its main purpose is legislative, the laws are set in a framework
of narrative, and so, as it were, are woven into the texture of the
nation’s life. Genesis contains a minimum of legislation; but its
narrative is the indispensable prelude to that account of Israel’s
formative period in which the fundamental institutions of the theocracy
are embedded. It is a collection of traditions regarding the immediate
ancestors of the Hebrew nation (chapters 12‒50), showing how they were
gradually isolated from other nations and became a separate people; and
at the same time how they were related to those tribes and races most
nearly connected with them. But this is preceded (in chapters 1‒11) by
an account of the origin of the world, the beginnings of human history
and civilisation, and the distribution of the various races of mankind.
The whole thus converges steadily on the line of descent from which
Israel sprang, and which determined its providential position among
the nations of the world. It is significant, as already observed, that
the narrative stops short just at the point where family history ceases
with the death of Joseph, to give place after a long interval to the
history of the nation.
_The Title._――The name ‘Genesis’ comes to us through the
Vulgate from the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply
Γένεσις (LXX{EM, most cursives}), rarely ἡ γένεσις (LXX⁷²),
a contraction of Γένεσις κόσμου (LXXᴬ ¹²¹). An interesting
variation in one cursives. (129)――ἡ βίβλος τῶν γενέσεων (compare
2⁴ 5¹)¹――might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view
the series of _Tôlĕdôth_ (see page xxxiv), and regarded the book
as the book of origins in the wide sense expressed above. But
there is no doubt that the current Greek title is derived from
the opening theme of the book, the creation of the world.²――So
also in Syriac (_sephrå dabrīthå_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (ἡ
κτίσις), and occasionally among the Rabbis (ספר יצירה).――The common
Jewish designation is בראשית, after the first word of the book
(Origen, in Eusebius _Church History_, vi. 25; Jerome, _Prologus
Galeatus_, and _Questions on Genesis_); less usual is חומש ראשון,
‘the first fifth.’――Only a curious interest attaches to the
unofficial appellation ספר הישר (based on 2 Samuel 1¹⁸) or ס׳ הישרים
(the patriarchs) see Carpzov, _Introductio in libros canonicos
bibliorum Veteris Testamenti_ page 55; Delitzsch, 10.
¹ _Cambridge Septuagint_, page 1.
² See the quotation from Philo on page i above; and compare
Pseudo-Athanasius _De synposis scripturæ sacræ_ 5.
_A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
§ 2. _History or Legend?_
The first question that arises with regard to these ‘origins’ is
whether they are in the main of the nature of history or of legend,
――whether (to use the expressive German terms) they are _Geschichte_,
things that happened, or _Sage_, things said. There are certain broad
differences between these two kinds of narrative which may assist us to
determine to which class the traditions of Genesis belong.
History in the technical sense is an authentic record of actual events
based on documents contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with the
facts narrated. It concerns itself with affairs of state and of public
interest,――with the actions of kings and statesmen, civil and foreign
wars, national disasters and successes, and such like. If it deals
with contemporary incidents, it consciously aims at transmitting to
posterity as accurate a reflexion as possible of the real course of
events, in their causal sequence, and their relations to time and place.
If written at a distance from the events, it seeks to recover from
contemporary authorities an exact knowledge of these circumstances,
and of the character and motives of the leading personages of the
action.――That the Israelites, from a very early period, knew how to
write history in this sense, we see from the story of David’s court
in 2 Samuel and the beginning of 1 Kings. There we have a graphic and
circumstantial narrative of the struggles for the succession to the
throne, free from bias or exaggeration, and told with a convincing
realism which conveys the impression of first-hand information derived
from the evidence of eye-witnesses. As a specimen of pure historical
literature (as distinguished from mere annals or chronicles) there is
nothing equal to it in antiquity, till we come down to the works of
Herodotus and Thucydides in Greece.
Quite different from historical writing of this kind is the _Volkssage_,
――the mass of popular narrative _talk_ about the past, which exists in
more or less profusion amongst all races in the world. Every nation, as
it emerges into historical consciousness, finds itself in possession of
a store of traditional material of this kind, either circulating among
the common people, or woven by poets and singers into a picture of a
legendary heroic age. Such legends, though they survive the dawn of
authentic history, belong essentially to a pre-literary and uncritical
stage of society, when the popular imagination works freely on dim
reminiscences of the great events and personalities of the past,
producing an amalgam in which tradition and phantasy are inseparably
mingled. Ultimately they are themselves reduced to writing, and give
rise to a species of literature which is frequently mistaken for
history, but whose true character will usually disclose itself to a
patient and sympathetic examination. While legend is not history, it
has in some respects a value greater than history. For it reveals the
soul of a people, its instinctive selection of the types of character
which represent its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place
and mission in the world; and also, to some indeterminate extent,
the impact on its inner life of the momentous historic experiences in
which it first woke up to the consciousness of a national existence and
destiny.¹
¹ Compare Gordon, _Early Traditions_, 84: “As a real expression
of the living spirit of the nation, a people’s myths are the
mirror of its religious and moral ideals, aspirations, and
imaginations.”
In raising the question to which department of literature the
narratives of Genesis are to be referred, we approach a subject beset
by difficulty, but one which cannot be avoided. We are not entitled to
assume _a priori_ that Israel is an exception to the general rule that
a legendary age forms the ideal background of history: whether it be
so or not must be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it
prove to be no exception, we shall not assign to its legends a lower
significance as an expression of the national spirit than to the heroic
legends of the Greek or Teutonic races. It is no question of the truth
or religious value of the book that we are called to discuss, but only
of the kind of truth and the particular mode of revelation which we are
to find in it. One of the strangest theological prepossessions is that
which identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact accuracy either in
science or in history. Legend is after all a species of poetry, and it
is hard to see why a revelation which has freely availed itself of so
many other kinds of poetry――fable, allegory, parable――should disdain
that form of it which is the most influential of all in the life of
a primitive people. As a vehicle of religious ideas, poetic narrative
possesses obvious advantages over literal history; and the spirit of
religion, deeply implanted in the heart of a people, will so permeate
and fashion its legendary lore as to make it a plastic expression of
the imperishable truths which have come to it through its experience
of God.
The legendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears in
such characteristics as these: (1) The narratives are the
literary deposit of an oral tradition which, if it rests on
any substratum of historic fact, must have been carried down
through many centuries. Few will seriously maintain that the
patriarchs prepared written memoranda for the information of
their descendants; and the narrators nowhere profess their
indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians freely refer to
written authorities where they used them (Kings, Chronicles);
but no instance of this practice occurs in Genesis. Now oral
tradition is the natural vehicle of popular legend, as writing
is of history. And all experience shows that apart from written
records there is no exact knowledge of a remote past. Making
every allowance for the superior retentiveness of the Oriental
memory, it is still impossible to suppose that an accurate
recollection of bygone incidents should have survived twenty
generations or more of oral transmission. Nöldeke, indeed, has
shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so
defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabatæans
and Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.¹ (2)
The literary quality of the narratives stamps them as products
of the artistic imagination. The very picturesqueness and
truth to life which are sometimes appealed to in proof of their
historicity are, on the contrary, characteristic marks of legend
(Dillmann, 218). We may assume that the scene at the well of
Ḥarran (chapte 24) actually took place; but that the description
owes its graphic power to a reproduction of the exact words
spoken and the precise actions performed on the occasion
cannot be supposed; it is due to the revivifying work of
the imagination of successive narrators. But imagination,
uncontrolled by the critical faculty, does not confine itself to
restoring the original colours of a faded picture; it introduces
new colours, insensibly modifying the picture till it becomes
impossible to tell how much belongs to the real situation and
how much to later fancy. The clearest proof of this is the
existence of parallel narratives of an event which can only
have happened once, but which emerges in tradition in forms so
diverse that they may even pass for separate incidents (12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
∥ 20¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ∥ 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ; 16. ∥ 21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ; 15. ∥ 17, etc.).――(3) The
subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind congenial to
the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different
from transactions on the stage of history. The proper theme of
history, as has been said, is great public and political events;
but legend delights in _genre_ pictures, private and personal
affairs, trivial anecdotes of domestic and everyday life, and so
forth,――matters which interest the common people and come home
to their daily experience. That most of the stories of Genesis
are of this description needs no proof; and the fact is very
instructive.² A real history of the patriarchal period would
have to tell of migrations of peoples, of religious movements,
probably of wars of invasion and conquest; and accordingly
most modern attempts to vindicate the historicity of Genesis
proceed by way of translating the narratives into such terms
as these. But this is to confess that the narratives themselves
are not history. They have been simplified and idealised to suit
the taste of an unsophisticated audience; and in the process
the strictly historic element, down to a bare residuum, has
evaporated. The single passage which preserves the ostensible
appearance of history in this respect is chapter 14; and
that chapter, which in any case stands outside the circle
of patriarchal tradition, has difficulties of its own which
cannot be dealt with here (see page 271 ff.).――(4) The final
test――though to any one who has learned to appreciate the spirit
of the narratives it must seem almost brutal to apply it――is the
hard matter-of-fact test of self-consistency and credibility.
It is not difficult to show that Genesis relates incredibilities
which no reasonable appeal to miracle will suffice to remove.
With respect to the origin of the world, the antiquity of man
on the earth, the distribution and relations of peoples, the
beginnings of civilisation, etc., its statements are at variance
with the scientific knowledge of our time;³ and no person of
educated intelligence accepts them in their plain natural sense.
We know that angels do not cohabit with mortal women, that the
Flood did not cover the highest mountains of the world, that
the ark could not have accommodated all the species of animals
then existing, that the Euphrates and Tigris have not a common
source, that the Dead Sea was not first formed in the time of
Abraham, etc. There is admittedly a great difference in respect
of credibility between the primæval (chapters 1‒11) and the
patriarchal (12‒50) traditions. But even the latter, when taken
as a whole, yields many impossible situations. Sarah was more
than sixty-five years old when Abraham feared that her beauty
might endanger his life in Egypt; she was over ninety when the
same fear seized him in Gerar. Abraham at the age of ninety-nine
laughs at the idea of having a son; yet forty years later
he marries and begets children. Both Midian and Ishmael were
grand-uncles of Joseph; but their descendants appear as tribes
trading with Egypt in his boyhood. Amalek was a grandson of
Esau; yet the Amalekites are settled in the Negeb in the time
of Abraham. ⁴――It is a thankless task to multiply such examples.
The contradictions and violations of probability and scientific
possibility are intelligible, and not at all disquieting, in a
collection of legends; but they preclude the supposition that
Genesis is literal history.
¹ _Amalekiter_, page 25 f.
² Compare Winckler, _Abraham als Babylonier_, 7.
³ See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and
Notes_, XXXI ff. 19 ff.
⁴ See Reuss, _Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten
Testaments_², 167 f.
It is not implied in what has been said that the tradition is destitute
of historical value. History, legendary history, legend, myth, form a
descending scale, with decreasing emphasis on the historical element,
and the lines between the first three are vague and fluctuating. In
what proportions they are combined in Genesis it may be impossible to
determine with certainty. But there are three ways in which a tradition
mainly legendary may yield solid historical results. In the first place,
a legend may embody a more or less exact recollection of the fact in
which it originated. In the second place, a legend, though unhistorical
in form, may furnish material from which history can be extracted.
Thirdly, the collateral evidence of archæology may bring to light a
correspondence which gives a historical significance to the legend. How
far any of these lines can be followed to a successful issue in the
case of Genesis, we shall consider later (§ 4), after we have examined
the obviously legendary motives which enter into the tradition.
Meanwhile the previous discussion will have served its purpose if
any readers have been led to perceive that the religious teaching of
Genesis lies precisely in that legendary element whose existence is
here maintained. Our chief task is to discover the meaning of the
legends as they stand, being assured that from the nature of the case
these religious ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient
Israel. It is a suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the
permanent value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that
underlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.¹
¹ On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the
admirable statement of A. R. Gordon, _Early Traditions of
Genesis_, pages 76‒92.
§ 3. _Myth and legend――Foreign myths
――Types of mythical motive._
1. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On this question
there has been all the variety of opinion that might be expected.
Some writers, starting with the theory that mythology is a necessary
phase of primitive thinking, have found in the Old Testament abundant
confirmation of their thesis.¹ The more prevalent view has been that
the mythopœic tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of
its religion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown in its
literature. Others have taken up an intermediate position, denying
that the Hebrew mind produced myths of its own, but admitting that it
borrowed and adapted those of other peoples. For all practical purposes,
the last view seems to be very near the truth.
¹ Goldziher, _Der Mythos bei den Hebräern_ (1876).
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see
Tuch, pages I‒XV; Gunkel, page XVII; Höffding, _Philosophy
of Religion_ (Engish translation), 199 ff.; Gordon, 77 ff.;
Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch_, I. etc.――The
practically important distinction is that the legend does,
and the myth does not, start from the plane of historic fact.
The myth is properly a story of the gods, originating in an
impression produced on the primitive mind by the more imposing
phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to the
personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story
is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of
the narrative an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on
observation of a solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative
of the sun-god (see page 180 f.). But the utility of this
distinction is largely neutralised by a universal tendency
to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men (Sargon of
Agadé, Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.); so that the most
indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant
the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage.
――Gordon differentiates between spontaneous (nature) myths
and reflective (ætiological) myths; and, while recognising the
existence of the latter in Genesis, considers that the former
type is hardly represented in the Old Testament at all. The
distinction is important, though it may be doubted if ætiology
is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and as a
parasitic development it appears to attach itself indifferently
to myth and legend. Hence there is a large class of narratives
which it is difficult to label either as mythical or as
legendary, but in which the ætiological or some similar motive
is prominent (see page xi ff.).
2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent in the primitive
traditions of chapters 1‒11. The discovery of the Babylonian versions
of the Creation- and Deluge-traditions has put it beyond reasonable
doubt that these are the originals from which the biblical accounts
have been derived (pages 45 ff., 177 f.). A similar relation obtains
between the antediluvian genealogy of chapter 5 and Berossus’s list of
the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood (page 137 f.).
The story of Paradise has its nearest analogies in Iranian mythology;
but there are faint Babylonian echoes which suggest that it belonged to
the common mythological heritage of the East (page 90 ff.). Both here
and in chapter 4 a few isolated coincidences with Phœnician tradition
may point to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium through which
such myths came to the knowledge of the Israelites.――All these (as
well as the story of the Tower of Babel) were originally genuine
myths――stories of the gods; and if they no longer deserve that
appellation, it is because the spirit of Hebrew monotheism has
exorcised the polytheistic notions of deity, apart from which true
mythology cannot survive. The few passages where the old heathen
conception of godhead still appears (1²⁶ 3²²ᐧ ²⁴ 6¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), only
serve to show how completely the religious beliefs of Israel have
transformed and purified the crude speculations of pagan theology,
and adapted them to the ideas of an ethical and monotheistic faith.
The naturalisation of Babylonian myths in Israel is conceivable
in a variety of ways; and the question is perhaps more
interesting as an illustration of two rival tendencies in
criticism than for its possibilities of actual solution. The
tendency of the literary school of critics has been to explain
the process by the direct use of Babylonian documents, and
to bring it down to near the dates of our written Pentateuch
sources.¹ Largely through the influence of Gunkel, a different
view has come to prevail, viz., that we are to think rather
of a gradual process of assimilation to the religious ideas
of Israel in the course of oral transmission, the myths having
first passed into Canaanite tradition as the result (immediate
or remote) of the Babylonian supremacy prior to the Tell-Amarna
period, and thence to the Israelites.² The strongest argument
for this theory is that the biblical versions, both of the
Creation and the Flood, give evidence of having passed through
several stages in Hebrew tradition. Apart from that, the
considerations urged in support of either theory do not
seem to me conclusive. There are no recognisable traces of a
specifically Canaanite medium having been interposed between the
Babylonian originals and the Hebrew accounts of the Creation and
the Flood, such as we may surmise in the case of the Paradise
myth. It is open to argue against Gunkel that if the process
had been as protracted as he says, the divergence would be much
greater than it actually is. Again, we cannot well set limits to
the deliberate manipulation of Babylonian material by a Hebrew
writer; and the assumption that such a writer in the later
period would have been repelled by the gross polytheism of the
Babylonian legends, and refused to have anything to do with
them, is a little gratuitous. On the other hand, it is unsafe to
assert with Stade that the myths could not have been assimilated
by Israelite theology before the belief in Yahwe’s sole deity
had been firmly established by the teaching of the prophets.
Monotheism had roots in Hebrew antiquity extending much further
back than the age of written prophecy, and the present form of
the legends is more intelligible as the product of an earlier
phase of religion than that of the literary prophets. But when
we consider the innumerable channels through which myths may
wander from one centre to another, we shall hardly expect to
be able to determine the precise channel, or the approximate
date, of this infusion of Babylonian elements into the religious
tradition of Israel.
¹ See Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_, 1883), 515 f.;
Kuenen, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xviii. (1884), 167
ff.; Kosters, _i.b._ xix. (1885), 325 ff., 344; Stade,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, (1895),
159 f., (1903), 175 ff.
² _Schöpfung und Chaos_ (1895), 143 ff.; _Genesis_² (1902),
64 f. Compare Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction
and Notes_, 31.
It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit
no traces of Babylonian mythology, they contain a few examples
of mythical narrative to which analogies are found in other
quarters. The visit of the angels to Abraham (see page 302 f.),
and the destruction of Sodom (page 311 f.), are incidents of
obviously mythical origin (stories of the gods); and to both,
classical and other parallels exist. The account of the births
of Esau and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (page 359),
which is repeated in the case of Zeraḥ and Pereẓ (chapter 38).
The whole story of Jacob and Esau presents several points of
contact with that of the brothers Hypsouranios (Šamem-rum)
and Usōos in the Phœnician mythology (Usōos = Esau: see pages
360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric variant of the
incest of Reuben (page 427). These phenomena are among the most
perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradition.¹
We can as yet scarcely conjecture the hidden source from which
such widely ramified traditions have sprung, though we may not
on that account ignore the existence of the problem. It would be
at all events a groundless anticipation that the facts will lead
us to resolve the patriarchs into mythological abstractions.
They are rather to be explained by the tendency already referred
to (page ix), to mingle myth with legend by transferring
mythical incidents to historic personages.
¹ See Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_, page LVI.
3. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical elements
of the tradition, to classify the leading types of mythical, or
semi-mythical (page ix), motive which appear in the narratives of
Genesis. It will be seen that while they undoubtedly detract from the
literal historicity of the records, they represent points of view which
are of the greatest historical interest, and are absolutely essential
to the right interpretation of the legends.¹
¹ The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken,
with some simplification, from Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt
und erklärt_, page XVIII ff.
(a) The most comprehensive category is that of _ætiological_ or
_explanatory_ myths; _i.e._, those which explain some familiar
fact of experience by a story of the olden time. Both the
questions asked and the answers returned are frequently of the
most naïve and childlike description: they have, as Gunkel,
_Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ has said, all the charm which
belongs to the artless but profound reasoning of an intelligent
child. The classical example is the story of Paradise and the
Fall in chapters 2, 3, which contains one explicit instance of
ætiology (2²⁴: why a man cleaves to his wife), and implicitly a
great many more: why we wear clothes and detest snakes, why the
serpent crawls on his belly, why the peasant has to drudge in
the fields, and the woman to endure the pangs of travail, etc.
(page 95). Similarly, the account of creation explains why there
are so many kinds of plants and animals, why man is lord of them
all, why the sun shines by day and the moon by night, etc.; why
the Sabbath is kept. The Flood-story tells us the meaning of
the rainbow, and of the regular recurrence of the seasons: the
Babel-myth accounts for the existing diversities of language
amongst men. Pure examples of ætiology are practically confined
to the first eleven chapters; but the same general idea pervades
the patriarchal history, specialised under the headings which
follow.
(b) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal
narratives, is what may be called _ethnographic_ legends. It
is an obvious feature of the narratives that the heroes of them
are frequently personifications of tribes and peoples, whose
character and history and mutual relationships are exhibited
under the guise of individual biography. Thus the pre-natal
struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the rivalry of ‘two
nations’ (25²³); the monuments set up by Jacob and Laban mark
the frontier between Israelites and Aramæans (31⁴⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ); Ishmael
is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16¹²), and Cain of some
ferocious nomad-tribe; Jacob and his twelve sons represent the
unity of Israel and its division into twelve tribes; and so on.
This mode of thinking was not peculiar to Israel (compare the
Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, Aeolus, Achæus, Ion, of the Greeks);¹ but
it is one specially natural to the Semites from their habit of
speaking of peoples as _sons_ (_i.e._ members) of the collective
entity denoted by the tribal or national name (sons of Israel,
of Ammon, of Ishmael, etc.), whence arose the notion that these
entities were the real progenitors of the peoples so designated.
That in some cases the representation was correct need not be
doubted; for there are known examples, both among the Arabs and
other races in a similar stage of social development, of tribes
named after a famous ancestor or leader of real historic memory.
But that this is the case with all eponymous persons――_e.g._
that there were really such men as Jerahmeel, Midian, Aram,
Sheba, Amalek, and the rest――is quite incredible; and, moreover,
it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are an exact copy
of the personal experiences of its reputed ancestor, even if
he existed. We must therefore treat these legends as symbolic
representations of the ethnological affinities between different
tribes or peoples, and (to a less extent) of the historic
experiences of these peoples. There is a great danger of driving
this interpretation too far, by assigning an ethnological value
to details of the legend which never had any such significance;
but to this matter we shall have occasion to return at a later
point (see page xix ff.).
¹ See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_
112; Gordon, _The Early Traditions of Genesis_, 88.
(c) Next in importance to these ethnographic legends are the
_cult_-legends. A considerable proportion of the patriarchal
narratives are designed to explain the sacredness of the
principal national sanctuaries, while a few contain notices of
the origin of particular ritual customs (circumcision, chapter
17 [but compare Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ]; the abstinence from eating the
sciatic nerve, 32³³). To the former class belong such incidents
as Hagar at Lahairoi (16), Abraham at the oak of Mamre (18),
his planting of the tamarisk at Beersheba (21³³), Jacob at
Bethel――with the reason for anointing the sacred stone, and the
institution of the tithe――(28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), and at Peniel (32²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ);
and many more. The general idea is that the places were hallowed
by an appearance of the deity in the patriarchal period, or
at least by the performance of an act of worship (erection of
an altar, etc.) by one of the ancestors of Israel. In reality
the sanctity of these spots was in many cases of immemorial
antiquity, being rooted in the most primitive forms of Semitic
religion; and at times the narrative suffers it to appear that
the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch (see on
12⁶). It is probable that inauguration-legends had grown up at
the chief sanctuaries while they were still in the possession
of the Canaanites. We cannot tell how far such legends were
transferred to the Hebrew ancestors, and how far the traditions
are of native Israelite growth.
(d) Of much less interest to us is the _etymological_ motive
which so frequently appears as a side issue in legends of
wider scope. ♦Speculation on the meaning and origin of names
is fascinating to all primitive peoples; and in default of a
scientific philology the most fantastic explanations are readily
accepted. That it was so in ancient Israel could be easily
shown from the etymologies of Genesis. Here, again, it is just
conceivable that the explanation given may occasionally be
correct (though there is hardly a case in which it is plausible);
but in the majority of cases the real meaning of the name stands
out in palpable contradiction to the alleged account of its
origin. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the same name
explained in two different ways (many of Jacob’s sons, chapter
30), or to have as many as three suggestions of its historic
origin (Ishmael, 16¹¹ 17²⁰ 21¹⁷; Isaac, 17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁹). To claim
literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.
♦ “Speculalation” replaced with “Speculation”
(e) There is yet another element which, though not mythical or
legendary, belongs to the imaginative side of the legends, and
has to be taken account of in interpreting them. This is the
element of _poetic idealisation_. Whenever a character enters
the world of legend, whether through the gate of history or
through that of ethnographic personification, it is apt to be
conceived as a type; and as the story passes from mouth to mouth
the typical features are emphasised, while those which have
no such significance tend to be effaced or forgotten. Then
the dramatic instinct comes into play――the artistic desire
to perfect the story as a lifelike picture of human nature in
interesting situations and action. To see how far this process
may be carried, we have but to compare the conception of Jacob’s
sons in the Blessing of Jacob (chapter 49) with their appearance
in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren. In the
former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the
characters attributed to them are those of the tribes they
represent. In the latter, these characteristics have almost
entirely disappeared, and the central interest is now the pathos
and tragedy of Hebrew family life. Most of the brothers are
without character or individuality; but the accursed Reuben
and Simeon are respected members of the family, and the ‘wolf’
Benjamin has become a helpless child whom the father will hardly
let go from his side. This, no doubt, is the supreme instance
of romantic or ‘novelistic’ treatment which the book contains;
but the same idealising tendency is at work elsewhere, and must
constantly be allowed for in endeavouring to reach the historic
or ethnographic basis from which the legends start.
§ 4. _Historical value of the tradition._
It has already been remarked (page vii) that there are three chief ways
in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradition may yield solid
historical results: _first_, through the retention in the popular
memory of the impression caused by real events and personalities;
_secondly_, by the recovery of historic (mainly ethnographic) material
from the biographic form of the tradition; and _thirdly_, through
the confirmation of contemporary ‘archæological’ evidence. It will be
convenient to start with the last of these, and consider what is known
about――
1. _The historical background of the patriarchal traditions._――The
period covered by the patriarchal narratives¹ may be defined very
roughly as the first half of the second millennium (2000‒1500) B.C.
The upper limit depends on the generally accepted assumption, based
(somewhat insecurely, as it seems to us) on chapter 14, that Abraham
was contemporary with Ḫammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian
dynasty. The date of Ḫammurabi is probably _circa_ 2100 B.C.² The
lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is usually assigned
(as it must be if Exodus 1¹¹ is genuine) to the reign of Merneptah of
the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty (_circa_ 1234‒1214 B.C.). Allowing a
sufficient period for the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to
about the middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the
family left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chronology assigns
nearly the same date as above to Abraham, but a much earlier one for
the Exodus (_circa_ 1490), and reduces the residence of the patriarchs
in Canaan to 215 years; since, however, the chronological system rests
on artificial calculations (see pages 135 f., 234), we cannot restrict
our survey to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal
period in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so
numerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field than the
five centuries mentioned above.³
¹ The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal
tradition, because it is only with regard to it that the
question of essential historicity arises. Every one admits
that the pre-historic chapters (1‒11) stand on a different
footing, and there are few who would claim for them the
authority of a continuous tradition.
² The date here assigned to Ḫammurabi is based on the recent
investigations of Thureau-Dangin (_Journal des Savants_
[1908], 190 ff.; _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xxi. [1908],
176 ff.), and Ungnad (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_
[1908], 13 ff.); with whom Poebel (_Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement.
The higher estimates which formerly prevailed depended
on the natural assumption that the first three dynasties
of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880 and 1884)
reigned _consecutively_ in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King
(_Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_) published
new material, which showed conclusively that the Second
dynasty, ruling over the ‘Country of the Sea,’ was at
least partly, if not wholly, contemporaneous with the First
and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer
(_Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold
that the Third (Kaššite) dynasty followed immediately on the
First; and that consequently the previous estimates of the
chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the
total duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according
to List A). The scholars cited at the head of this note
consider, on the other hand, that the contemporaneousness
was only partial, and that there was an interval of 176
years between the close of the First dynasty and the
accession of the Third. The chief _data_ are these: King’s
new chronicle has proved beyond dispute (1) that Ilima-ilu,
the founder of the Second dynasty, was contemporary with
Samsu-iluna and Abi-ešu’, the 7th and 8th kings of the First
dynasty; and (2) that Ea-gâmil, the last king of the Second
dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Kaššite
(king?), Kaštiliaš. Now, Kaštiliaš is the name of the
3rd king of the Kaššite dynasty; and the question is whether
this Kaštiliaš is to be identified with the contemporary
of Ea-gâmil. Thureau-Dangin, etc., answer in the
affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the
identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty
coincides with a gap in the list of Kaššite kings (8th
to 15th), where the name of Kaštiliaš may have stood.
Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gâmil with the third
Kaššite king; but gets rid of the interregnum by a somewhat
arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty
to about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is
referred to the lucid note in Driver, _The Book of Genesis
with Introduction and Notes_⁷ XXVII. ff. (with lists).――King
believes that his date for Ḫammurabi (_circa_ 1958‒1916)
facilitates the identification of that monarch with the
Amraphel of Genesis 14 (see page 257 f. below), by bringing
the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer
accord with the biblical data; but in view of the artificial
character of the biblical chronology (_v.s._), it is
doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed to this
consideration.
³ Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Exodus 1¹¹) put
back to _circa_ 1450 B.C. (Hommel, _The Expository Times._,
x. [1899], 210 ff.; Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_,
422 ff.); while Eerdmans would bring it down to _circa_ 1125
B.C. (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 74; _The Expositor_ 1908,
September, 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Winckler,
al.) identified with a minister of Amenophis IV. (_circa_
1380‒1360), by Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche Studien_ with
a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty
(_circa_ 1205). See page 501 f.
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of writers, this
period of history has been so illumined by recent discoveries that
it is no longer possible to doubt the essential historicity of the
patriarchal tradition.¹ It is admitted that no external evidence has
come to light of the existence of such persons as Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Joseph, or even (with the partial exception of Joseph) of
men playing parts at all corresponding to theirs. But it is maintained
that contemporary documents reveal a set of conditions into which
the patriarchal narratives fit perfectly, and which are so different
from those prevailing under the monarchy that the situation could not
possibly have been imagined by an Israelite of that later age. Now,
that recent archæology has thrown a flood of light on the period in
question, is beyond all doubt. It has proved that Palestinian culture
and religion were saturated by Babylonian influences long before the
supposed date of Abraham; that from that date downwards intercourse
with Egypt was frequent and easy; and that the country was more than
once subjected to Egyptian conquest and authority. It has given us a
most interesting glimpse from about 2000 B.C. of the natural products
of Canaan, and the manner of life of its inhabitants (Tale of Sinuhe).
At a later time (Tell-Amarna letters) it shows the Egyptian dominion
threatened by the advance of Hittites from the north, and by the
incursion of a body of nomadic marauders called Ḫabiri (see page 218).
It tells us that Jakob-el (and Joseph-el?) was the name of a place in
Canaan in the first half of the 15th century (pages 360, 389 f.), and
that Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200 B.C.; also that
Hebrews (‛Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from the time of
Ramses II. to that of Ramses IV. (Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham
und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_ 146 ff.; Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche
Studien_ 52 ff.; _The Expositor_ _l.c._ 197). All this is of the
utmost value; and _if_ the patriarchs lived in this age, then this
is the background against which we have to set their biographies.
But the real question is whether there is such a correspondence
between the biographies and their background that the former would
be unintelligible if transplanted to other and later surroundings.
We should gladly welcome any evidence that this is the case; but
it seems to us that the remarkable thing about these narratives is
just the absence of background and their general compatibility with
the universal conditions of ancient Eastern life.² The case for
the historicity of the tradition, based on correspondences with
contemporary evidence from the period in question, appears to us to
be greatly overstated.
¹ Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 365: “Wir haben gezeigt, dass das Milieu
der Vätergeschichten in allen Einzelheiten zu den
altorientalischen Kulturverhältnissen stimmt, die uns die
Denkmäler für die in Betracht kommenden Zeit bezeugen.”
² A striking illustration of this washing out of historical
background is the contrast between the Genesis narratives
and the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe, from which Jeremias, (_Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 298 ff.)
quotes at length in demonstration of their verisimilitude.
While the latter is full of detailed information about the
people among whom the writer lived, the former (except in
chapters 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (24³ 37 ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ)
to the aboriginal population of Palestine proper. Luther
(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 156 f.) even
maintains that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at
this time an uninhabited country! Without going so far as
that, we cannot but regard the fact as an indication of the
process of abstraction which the narratives have undergone
in the course of oral transmission. Would they appeal to
the heart of the world as they do if they retained, to
the extent sometimes alleged, the signature of an obsolete
civilisation?
The line of argument that claims most careful attention is to
the following effect: Certain legal customs presupposed by the
patriarchal stories are now known to have prevailed (in Babylon)
in the age of Ḫammurabi; these customs had entirely ceased in
Israel under the monarchy; consequently the narratives could not
have been invented by legend-writers of that period (Jeremias,
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 355 ff.). The
strongest case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Code
of Ḫammurabi 146 to the position of Hagar as concubine-slave
in chapter 16 (below, page 285). Here everything turns on the
probability that this usage was unknown in Israel in the regal
period; and it is surely pressing the _argumentum ex silentio_
too far to assert confidently that if it had been known it would
certainly have been mentioned in the later literature. We must
remember that Genesis contains almost the only pictures of
intimate family life in the Old Testament, and that it refers
to many things not mentioned later simply because there was
no occasion to speak of them. Were twin-births peculiar to the
♦patriarchal period because two are mentioned in Genesis and
none at all in the rest of the Old Testament? The fact that
the custom of the concubine-slave has persisted in Mohammedan
countries down to modern times, should warn us against such
sweeping negations.――Again, we learn (_ib._ 358) that the
simultaneous marriage with two sisters was permitted by ancient
Babylonian law, but was proscribed in Hebrew legislation as
incestuous. Yes, but the law in question (Leviticus 18¹⁸) is
late; and does not its enactment in the Priestly-Code rather
imply that the practice against which it is directed survived
in Israel till the close of the monarchy?――The distinction
between the _mōhar_, or purchase price of a wife, and the gift
to the bride (_ib._), should not be cited: the _mōhar_ is an
institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral societies;
it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Exodus 22¹⁶); its
name is not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into
personal service is in accordance with Arab practice (page 383
below).¹――In short, it does not appear that the examples given
differ from another class of usages, “die nicht spezifisch
altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spätern bez. intergentilen
Rechtszuständen entsprechen, die aber ... wenigstens teilweise
eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Code Ḫammurabi erfahren.”
The “interessante Beleuchtung” will be freely admitted.
♦ “patriarchial” replaced with “patriarchal”
¹ See S. A. Cook, _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, 79 f.
Still less has the new knowledge of the _political_
circumstances of Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation
of the patriarchal tradition, although it has brought to
light certain facts which have to be taken into account in
interpreting that tradition. The complete silence of the
narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the
country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a
fading of the actual situation from the popular memory during
the course of oral transmission. The existence of Philistines
in the time of Abraham is, so far as archæology can inform
us, a positive anachronism. On the whole it must be said that
archæology has in this region created more problems than it
has solved. The occurrence of the name Yaḳob-el in the time of
Thothmes III., of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses II., and of
Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (Ḫabiri?)
in Palestine in the 15th century, and in Egypt (‛Apriw?) from
Ramses II. to Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to
the adjustment of the patriarchal figures to their original
background. We do not seem as yet to be in sight of a historical
construction which shall enable us to bring these conflicting
data into line with an intelligible rendering of the Hebrew
tradition.
It is considerations such as these that give so keen an edge
to the controversy about the genuineness of chapter 14. That
is the only section of Genesis which seems to set the figure of
Abraham in the framework of world history. If it be a historical
document, then we have a fixed centre round which the Abrahamic
traditions, and possibly those of the other patriarchs as well,
will group themselves; if it be but a late imitation of history,
we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an uncertain
and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to estimate
the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the
commentary below (page 271 ff.). Here, however, it is in point
to observe that even if the complete historicity of chapter 14
were established, it would take us but a little way towards the
authentication of the patriarchal traditions as a whole. For
that episode confessedly occupies a place entirely unique in
the records of the patriarchs; and all the marks of contemporary
authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs that
the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack
that particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral
traditions and historic notices relating to the same individual
proves that the former rest on a basis of fact; but it does not
warrant the inference that the oral tradition is accurate in
detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the circumstances
of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham of oral
tradition is a far more important religious personality than
Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in chapter 14.
2. _Ethnological theories._――The negative conclusion expressed above
(page xvii f.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian analogies to the
patriarchal tradition, depends partly on the assumption of the school
of writers whose views were under consideration: viz., that the
narratives are a transcript of actual family life in that remote
age, and therefore susceptible of illustration from private law as we
find it embodied in the Code of Ḫammurabi. It makes, however, little
difference if for family relations we substitute those of clans and
peoples to one another, and treat the individuals as representatives
of the tribes to which Israel traced its origin. We shall then find
the real historic content of the legends in migratory movements,
tribal divisions and fusions, and general ethnological phenomena, which
popular tradition has disguised as personal biographies. This is the
line of interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles
since Ewald;¹ and it has given rise to an extraordinary variety of
theories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it is not necessarily
inconsistent with belief in the individual existence of the patriarchs;
though its more extreme exponents do not recognise this as credible.
The theories in question fall into two groups: those which regard the
narratives as ideal projections into the past of relations subsisting,
or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in Canaan;² and those
which try to extract from them a real history of the period before
the Exodus. Since the former class deny a solid tradition of any kind
behind the patriarchal story, we may here pass them over, and confine
our attention to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth in
the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
¹ _History of Israel_ i. 363, 382, etc.
² So Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 319 ff.
[English translation 318 ff.], _Israelitische und jüdische
Geschichte_ 11 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
i. 145 ff., _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, i. 112 ff., 347 ff.
As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor
worse than others that might be chosen, we may take that of
Cornill. According to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed
a migration from Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through
the successive separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main
body of immigrants was so reduced that it might have been
submerged, but for the arrival of a fresh contingent from
Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the names, except Abraham’s,
are all tribal or national). This reinforcement consisted
of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest and
strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but
was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to
Egypt. The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support,
was assailed by the Leah-tribes led by Reuben; but the attempt
was foiled, and Reuben lost his birthright. Subsequently the
whole of the tribes were driven to seek shelter in Egypt, when
Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing them to settle by its
side in the frontier province of Egypt (_History of Israel_,
29 ff.).
It will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on two leading
ideas: _tribal affinities_ typified by various phases of the marriage
relation; and _migrations_. As regards the first, we have seen (page
xii) that there is a true principle at the root of the method. It
springs from the personification of a tribe under the name of an
individual, male or female; and we have admitted that many names in
Genesis have this significance, and probably no other. If, then, two
eponymous ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers,
we may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious of an
extremely close affinity. If a male eponym is married to a female,
we may presume (though with less confidence) that the two tribes were
amalgamated. Or, if one clan is spoken of as a wife and another as
a concubine, we may reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow
inferior to the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this
kind (each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent
probabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable; and the
attempt to apply it to all the complex family relationships of the
patriarchs only lands us in confusion.¹――The idea of _migration_ is
still less trustworthy. Certainly not every journey recorded in Genesis
(_e.g._ that of Joseph from Hebron to Shechem and Dothan, 37¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ:
_pace_ Steuernagel) can be explained as a migratory movement. Even when
the ethnological background is apparent, the movements of tribes may be
necessary corollaries of the assumed relationships between them (_e.g._
Jacob’s journey to Ḥarran: page 357); and it will be difficult to draw
the line between these and real migrations. The case of Abraham is no
doubt a strong one; for if his figure has any ethnological significance
at all, his exodus from Ḥarran (or Ur) can hardly be interpreted
otherwise than as a migration of Hebrew tribes from that region. We
cannot feel the same certainty with regard to Joseph’s being carried
down to Egypt; it seems to us altogether doubtful if this be rightly
understood as an enforced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in
advance of the rest (see page 441).
¹ Guthe (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1‒6) has formulated
a set of five rules which he thinks can be used (with
tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology into
historical terms. There is probably not one of them which
is capable of rigorous and universal application. Thus, the
marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel does not necessarily
imply that Jacob was a tribe which successively absorbed
the two clans so named: it is just as likely that the union
of Leah and Rachel with one another _produced_ the entity
called Jacob.
But it is when we pass from genealogies and marriages and journeys
to pictorial narrative that the breakdown of the ethnological method
becomes complete. The obvious truth is that no tribal relationship can
supply an adequate motive for the wealth of detail that meets us in the
richly coloured patriarchal legends; and the theory stultifies itself
by assigning ethnological significance to incidents which originally
had no such meaning. It will have been noticed that Cornill utilises a
few biographical touches to fill in his scheme (the youthful ambition
of Joseph; his sale into Egypt, etc.), and every other theorist does
the same. Each writer selects those incidents which fit into his own
system, and neglects those which would ♦embarrass it. Each system has
some plausible and attractive features; but each, to avoid absurdity,
has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent extension of
its principles. The consequence is endless diversity in detail, and no
agreement even in general outline.¹
♦ “embarass” replaced with “embarrass”
¹ Luther (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading theories
(Wellhausen, Stade, Gunkel, Cornill), with the purpose of
showing that the consistent application of the method would
speedily lead to absurd results (46). He would undoubtedly
have passed no different verdict on later combinations,
such as those of Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der
israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_; Peters, _Early Hebrew
Story_, 45 ff.; Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die
Elohimquelle_, 330 ff. etc.――What Grote has written about
the allegorical interpretation of the Greek legends might
be applied word for word to these theories: “The theorist
who adopts this course of explanation finds that after one
or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open,
and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous
refinements and conjectures” (_History of Greece_, edition,
1888, page 2).
It is evident that such constructions will never reach any
satisfactory result unless they find some point of support in
the history of the period as gathered from contemporary sources.
The second millennium B.C. is thought to have witnessed one
great movement of Semitic tribes to the north, viz., the Aramæan.
About the middle of the millennium we find the first notices of
the Aramæans as nomads in what is now the Syro-Arabian desert.
Shortly afterwards the Ḫabiri make their appearance in Palestine.
It is a natural conjecture that these were branches of the
same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the
explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent
of Hebrews and Aramæans. The question then arises whether we can
connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with
what stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the
reckoning, because neither is ever brought into contact with the
Aramæans; Rebekah is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by
the chronology, unless (with Cornhill) we bring down his date
to _circa_ 1500, or (with Steuernagel) regard his migration as
a traditional duplicate of Jacob’s return from Laban. But if
Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must
have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of
the Ḫabiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation
of two traditions,――one tracing his nativity to Ḥarran and the
other to Ur; and it is conceivable that he is the symbol of two
migrations, one of which might be identified with the arrival
of the Ḫabiri, and the other might have taken place as early as
the age of Ḫammurabi. But these are speculations no whit more
reliable than any of those dealt with above; and it has to be
confessed that as yet archæology has furnished no sure basis for
the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permissible
to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which
shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at
present how far that history can be explained on ethnological
lines.¹
¹ To the whole class of theories considered above (those which
try to go behind the Exodus), Luther (_l.c._ 44 f.) objects
that they demand a continuous occupation of Palestine
from the time when the legends were formed. He hints at
a solution, which has been adopted in principle by Meyer
(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 127 ff., 415,
433), and which if verified would relieve some difficulties,
archæological and other. It is that two independent
accounts of the origin of the nation are preserved: the
Genesis-tradition, carrying the ancestry of the people back
to the Aramæans, and the Exodus-tradition, which traces the
origin of the nation no further than Moses and the Exodus.
There are indications that in an earlier phase of the
patriarchal tradition the definitive conquest of Canaan was
carried back to Jacob and his sons (chapters 34. 38. 48²²);
on Meyer’s view this does not necessarily imply that the
narratives refer to a time subsequent to Joshua. A kernel
of history may be recognised in both strands of tradition,
on the assumption (not in itself a violent one) that only
a section of Israel was in Egypt, and came out under Moses,
while the rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the
Exodus-tradition to the whole people was a natural effect of
the consolidation of the nation; and this again might give
rise to the story of Jacob’s migration to Egypt, with all
his sons.
3. _The patriarchs as individuals._――We come, in the last place,
to consider the probability that the oral tradition, through its
own inherent tenacity of recollection, may have retained some true
impression of the events to which it refers. After what has been
said, it is vain to expect that a picture true in every detail
will be recoverable from popular tales current in the earliest ages
of the monarchy. The course of oral tradition has been too long,
the disturbing influences to which it has been exposed have been
too numerous and varied, and the subsidiary motives which have
grafted themselves on to it too clearly discernible, to admit of the
supposition that more than a _substantial nucleus_ of historic fact
can have been preserved in the national memory of Israel. It is not,
however, unreasonable to believe that such a historical nucleus exists;
and that with care we may disentangle from the mass of legendary
accretions some elements of actual reminiscence of the prehistoric
movements which determined the subsequent development of the national
life.¹ It is true that in this region we have as a rule only subjective
impressions to guide us; but in the absence of external criteria a
subjective judgement has its value, and one in favour of the historic
origin of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the contrary
effect.――The two points on which attention now falls to be concentrated
are: (a) the personalities of the patriarchs; and (b) the religious
significance of the tradition.
¹ Compare Winckler, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 204: “Es ist nämlich immer wahrscheinlicher,
dass ein grosses für die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend
gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem
Gedächtniss besser erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten
seines Herganges.”
(a) It is a tolerably safe general maxim that tradition does not invent
names, or persons. We have on any view to account for the entrance of
such figures as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph into the imagination
of the Israelites; and amongst possible avenues of entrance we must
certainly count it as one, that they were real men, who lived and were
remembered. What other explanations can be given? The idea that they
were native creations of Hebrew mythology (Goldziher) has, for the
present at least, fallen into disrepute; and there remain but two
theories as alternatives to the historic reality of the patriarchs:
viz., that they were originally personified tribes, or that they were
originally Canaanite deities.
The conception of the patriarchs as tribal eponyms, we have
already seen to be admissible, though not proved. The idea
that they were Canaanite deities is not perhaps one that can
be dismissed as transparently absurd. If the Israelites, on
entering Canaan, found Abraham worshipped at Hebron, Isaac at
Beersheba, Jacob at Bethel, and Joseph at Shechem, and if they
adopted the cult of these deities, they might come to regard
themselves as their children; and in course of time the gods
might be transformed into human ancestors around whom the
national legend might crystallise. At the same time the theory
is destitute of proof; and the burden of proof lies on those
who maintain it. Neither the fact (if it be a fact) that the
patriarchs were objects of worship at the shrines where their
graves were shown, nor the presence of mythical traits in their
biographies, proves them to have been superhuman beings.――The
discussion turns largely on the evidence of the patriarchal
_names_; but this, too, is indecisive. The name Israel is
national, and in so far as it is applied to an individual it is
a case of eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph
(assuming these to be contractions of _Yiẓḥaḳ-el_, etc.) are
also most naturally explained as tribal designations. Meyer,
after long vacillation, has come to the conclusion that they are
divine names (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 249 ff.);
but the arguments which formerly convinced him that they are
tribal seem to us more cogent than those to which he now gives
the preference. That names of this type frequently denote tribes
is a fact; that they may denote deities is only a hypothesis.
That they may also denote individuals (_Yaḳub-ilu_, _Yašup-ilu_)
is true; but that only establishes a possibility, hardly a
probability; for it is more likely that the individual was
named after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an
individual.――The name Abram stands by itself. It represents no
ethnological entity, and occurs historically only as the name
of an individual; and though it is capable of being interpreted
in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy is in favour of
explaining it as a theophorous human name. The solitary allusion
to the biblical Abram in the monuments――the mention of the
‘Field of Abram’ in Shishak’s inscription (see page 244)――is
entirely consistent with this acceptation.――It is probably a
mistake to insist on carrying through any exclusive theory of
the patriarchal personalities. If we have proved that Abram was
a historical individual, we have not thereby proved that Isaac
and Jacob were so also; and if we succeed in resolving the
latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham
falls under the same category.
There is thus a justification for the tendency of many writers to
put Abraham on a different plane from the other patriarchs, and
to concentrate the discussion of the historicity of the tradition
mainly on his person. An important element in the case is the clearly
conceived type of _character_ which he represents. No doubt the
character has been idealised in accordance with the conceptions
of a later age; but the impression remains that there must have
been something in the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the
idealisation. It is this perception more than anything else which
invests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it has
possessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still resists the
attempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious phantasy. If
there be any truth in the description of legend as a form of narrative
conserving the impression of a great personality on his age, we may
venture, in spite of the lack of decisive evidence, to regard him as a
historic personage, however dim the surroundings of his life may be.¹
¹ Compare Höffding, _Philosophy of Religion_ 199 ff.: “Its
essence [that of legend] consists in the idea of a wonderful
personality who has made a deep impression on human
life――who excited admiration, furnished an example, and
opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a strong
expansion of feeling takes place: this in turn gives rise
to a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which
a process of picture-making is set in motion.... In legends
... the central interest is in the subject-matter, in the
centripetal power, which depends on an intensification
of memory rather than on any naïve personification and
colouring....”
(b) It is of little consequence to know whether a man called Abraham
lived about 2000 B.C., and led a caravan from Ur or Ḥarran to Palestine,
and defeated a great army from the east. One of the evil effects of the
controversial treatment of such questions is to diffuse the impression
that a great religious value attaches to discussions of this kind.
What it really concerns us to know is the spiritual significance of
the events, and of the mission of Abraham in particular. And it is
only when we take this point of view that we do justice to the spirit
of the Hebrew tradition. It is obvious that the central idea of the
patriarchal tradition is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as
a nation it originated in a great religious movement, that the divine
call which summoned Abraham from his home and kindred, and made him
a stranger and sojourner on the earth, imported a new era in God’s
dealings with mankind, and gave Israel its mission in the world (Isaiah
41⁸ ᶠᐧ). Is this conception historically credible?
Some attempts to find historic points of contact for this view of
Abraham’s significance for religion will be looked at presently; but
their contribution to the elucidation of the biblical narrative seems
to us disappointing in the extreme. Nor can we unreservedly assent to
the common argument that the mission of Moses would be unintelligible
apart from that of Abraham. It is true, Moses is said to have appealed
to the God of the fathers; and if that be a literally exact statement,
Moses built on the foundation laid by Abraham. But that the distinctive
institutions and ideas of the Yahwe-religion could not have originated
with Moses just as well as with Abraham, is more than we have a right
to affirm. In short, positive proof, such as would satisfy the canons
of historical criticism, of the work of Abraham is not available.
What we can say is, in the first place, that if he had the importance
assigned to him, the fact is just of the kind that might be expected
to impress itself indelibly on a tradition dating from the time of
the event. We have in it the influence of a great personality, giving
birth to the collective consciousness of a nation; and this fact is of
a nature to evoke that centripetal ‘intensification of memory’ which
Höffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and the preserving salt
of legend as contrasted with myth. In the second place, the appearance
of a prophetic personality, such as Abraham is represented to have
been, is a phenomenon with many analogies in the history of religion.
The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the
religion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ
of divine revelation; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the
first of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated
to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself. The keynote of Abraham’s
piety is _faith_ in the unseen,――faith in the divine impulse which
drove him forth to a land which he was never to possess; and faith
in the future of the religion which he thus founded. He moves before
us on the page of Scripture as the man through whom faith, the living
principle of true religion, first became a force in human affairs. It
is difficult to think that so powerful a conception has grown out of
nothing. As we read the story, we may well trust the instinct which
tells us that here we are face to face with a decisive act of the
living God in history, and an act whose essential significance was
never lost in Israelite tradition.
The significance of the Abrahamic migration in relation to the
general movements of religious thought in the East is the theme
of Winckler’s interesting pamphlet, _Abraham als Babylonier,
Joseph als Aegypter_ (1903). The elevation of Babylon, in the
reign of Ḫammurabi, to be the first city of the empire, and the
centre of Babylonian culture, meant, we are told, a revolution
in religion, inasmuch as it involved the deposition of Sin,
the old moon-god, from the supreme place in the pantheon in
favour of the ‘Deliverer Marduk,’ the tutelary deity of Babylon.
Abraham, a contemporary, and an adherent of the older faith,
opposed the reformation; and, after vainly seeking support
for his protest at Ur and Ḥarran, the two great centres of
the worship of Sin, migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of
Ḫammurabi’s empire, to worship God after his fashion. How much
truth is contained in these brilliant generalisations it is
difficult for an ordinary man to say. In spite of the ingenuity
and breadth of conception with which the theory is worked
out, it is not unfair to suggest that it rests mostly on a
combination of things that are not in the Bible with things
that are not in the monuments. Indeed, the only positive point
of contact between the two data of the problem is the certainly
remarkable fact that tradition does connect Abraham with two
chief centres of the Babylonian moon-worship. But what we
chiefly desiderate is some evidence that the worship of the
moon-god had greater affinities with monotheism than the worship
of Marduk, the god of the vernal sun. [The attempt to connect
Joseph with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten
(Amenophis IV.) is destitute of plausibility.]――To a similar
effect Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 327 ff.: “A reform movement of protest against the
religious degeneration of the ruling classes” was the motive of
the migration (333), perhaps connected with the introduction of
a new astronomical era, the Taurus-epoch (which, by the way, had
commenced nearly 1000 years before! compare 66). The movement
assumed the form of a migration――a Hegira――under Abraham as
Mahdi, who preached his doctrine as he went, made converts
in Ḥarran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and elsewhere, finally
establishing the worship of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of
Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic legend, considerably
different from the old.
§ 5. _Preservation and collection of the traditions._
In all popular narration the natural unit is the short story, which
does not too severely tax the attention of a simple audience, and which
retains its outline and features unchanged as it passes from mouth
to mouth.¹ A large part of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives
of this description,――single tales, of varying length but mostly very
short, each complete in itself, with a clear beginning and a satisfying
conclusion. As we read the book, unities of this kind detach themselves
from their context, and round themselves into independent wholes; and
it is only by studying them in their isolation, and each in its own
light, that we can fully appreciate their charm and understand, in some
measure, the circumstances of their origin. The older stratum of the
primæval history, and of the history of Abraham, is almost entirely
composed of single incidents of this kind: think of the story of the
Fall, of Cain and Abel, of Noah’s drunkenness, of the Tower of Babel;
and again of Abraham in Egypt, of the flight or expulsion of Hagar, of
the sacrifice of Isaac, etc., etc. When we pass the middle of the book,
the mode of narration begins to change. The biography of Jacob is much
more a consecutive narrative than that of Abraham; but even here the
separate scenes stand out in their original distinctness of outline
(_e.g._ the transference of the birthright, Jacob at Bethel, the
meeting with Rachel at the well, the wrestling at Peniel, the outrage
on Dinah, etc.). It is not till we come to the history of Joseph that
the principle of biographical continuity gains the upper hand. Joseph’s
story is, indeed, made up of a number of incidents; but they are made
to merge into one another, so that each derives its interest from its
relation to the whole, and ends (except the last) on a note of suspense
and expectation rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the
greater popularity and more frequent repetition of the stories of Jacob
and Joseph; but at the same time it bears witness to a considerable
development of the art of story-telling, and one in which we cannot but
detect some degree of professional aptitude and activity.
¹ Compare Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ page XXXII,
to whose fine appreciation of the “Kunstform der Sagen” this
§ is greatly indebted.
The short stories of Genesis, even those of the most elementary type,
are exquisite works of art, almost as unique and perfect in their own
kind as the parables of our Lord are in theirs. They are certainly not
random productions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable stamp
of individual genius (Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ page xxx).
Now, between the inception of the legends (which is already at some
distance from the traditional facts) and the written form in which
they lie before us, there stretches an interval which is perhaps in
some instances to be measured by centuries. Hence two questions arise:
(1) What was the fate of the stories during this interval? Were they
cast adrift on the stream of popular talk,――with nothing to secure
their preservation save the perfection of their original form,――and
afterwards collected from the lips of the people? Or were they taken
in hand from the first by a special class of men who made it their
business to conserve the integrity of the narratives, and under whose
auspices the mass of traditional material was gradually welded into its
present shape? And (2), how is this whole process of transmission and
consolidation related to the use of writing? Was the work of collecting
and systematising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it
already commenced at the stage of oral narration?
To such questions, of course, no final answers can be given. (1) It
is not possible to discriminate accurately between the modifications
which a narrative would undergo through constant repetition, and
changes deliberately made by responsible persons. On the whole, the
balance of presumption seems to us to incline towards the hypothesis
of professional oversight of some sort, exercised from a very early
time. On this assumption, too, we can best understand the formation
of legendary cycles; for it is evident that no effective grouping of
tradition could take place in the course of promiscuous popular recital.
(2) As to the use of writing, it is natural to suppose that it came
in first of all as an aid to the memory of the narrator, and that as
a knowledge of literature extended the practice of oral recitation
gradually died out, and left the written record in sole possession of
the field. In this way we may imagine that books would be formed, which
would be handed down from father to son, annotated, expanded, revised,
and copied; and so collections resembling our oldest pentateuchal
documents might come into existence.¹
¹ See Gilbert Murray, _Rise of the Greek Epic_, page 92 ff.
Here we come upon one important fact which affords some guidance in
the midst of these speculations. The bulk of the Genesis-tradition
lies before us in two closely parallel and practically contemporaneous
recensions (see page xliii ff. below). Since there is every reason to
believe that these recensions were made independently of each other,
it follows that the early traditions had been codified, and a sort
of national epos had taken shape, prior to the compilation of these
documents. When we find, further, that each of them contains evidence
of earlier collections and older strata of tradition, we must assume
a very considerable period of time to have elapsed between the
formation of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of Yahwist
and Elohist. Beyond this, however, we are in the region of vaguest
conjecture. We cannot tell for certain what kind of authority had
presided over the combination of the legends, nor whether it was first
done in the oral or the literary stage of translation. We may think of
the priesthoods of the leading sanctuaries as the natural custodians of
the tradition:¹ the sanctuaries were at least the obvious repositories
of the cult-legends pertaining to them. But we cannot indicate any
sanctuary of such outstanding national importance as to be plausibly
regarded as the centre of a national epic.² Or we may assign a
conspicuous share in the work to the prophetic guilds which, in the
time of Samuel, were _foci_ of enthusiasm for the national cause, and
might conceivably have devoted themselves to the propagation of the
national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume, with Gunkel, _Genesis
übersetzt und erklärt_, that there existed in Israel, as among the
Arabs, guilds of professional story-tellers, exercising their vocation
at public festivals and such like gatherings, for the entertainment
and instruction of the people. The one certainty is that a considerable
time must be allowed for the complex mental activities which lie behind
our earliest literary sources. It is true that the rise of a national
epos presupposes a strongly developed consciousness of national unity;
but in Israel the national ideal was much older than its realisation
in the form of a state, and therefore we have no reason for placing the
unification of the traditions later than the founding of the monarchy.
From the age of Samuel at least all the essential conditions were
present; and a lower limit than that will hardly meet the requirements
of the case.
¹ Compare Stade, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, i. 347 ff.
² Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_,
however (392 f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the
national legend was developed.
We may here refer to a matter of great importance in its bearing
on the possibility of accurate oral transmission of the legends:
viz. the recent effort of Sievers (_Metrische Studien_, ii.,
1904‒5) to resolve the whole of Genesis into verse. If his
theory should be established, it would not merely furnish the
most potent instrument of literary analysis conceivable, but it
would render credible a very high degree of verbal exactitude
during the period of unwritten tradition. The work of Sievers
is viewed with qualified approval both by Gunkel, _Genesis
übersetzt und erklärt_ (page xxix f.) and Procksch, _Das
nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_ (210 ff.), and it is
certain to evoke interesting discussion. The present writer, who
is anything but a ‘Metriker von Fach,’ does not feel competent
to pronounce an opinion on its merits. Neither reading aloud,
nor counting of syllables, has convinced him that the scansion
holds, or that Hebrew rhythm in general is so rigorously exact
as the system demands. The prejudice against divorcing poetic
form from poetic feeling and diction (of the latter there
is no trace in what have been considered the prose parts of
Genesis) is not lightly to be overcome; and the frequent want
of coincidence between breaks in sense and pauses in rhythm
disturbs the mind, besides violating what used to be thought
a fundamental feature of Hebrew poetry. Grave misgivings are
also raised by the question whether the Massoretic theory of
the syllable is (as Sievers assumes) a reliable guide to the
pronunciation and rhythm of the early Hebrew language. It seems
therefore hazardous to apply the method to the solution of
literary problems, whether by emendation of the text, or by
disentanglement of sources.
B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
§ 6. _Plan and Divisions._
That the Book of Genesis forms a literary unity has been a commonplace
of criticism since the maiden work of Ewald¹ put an end to the
Fragmentary Hypothesis of Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the
book, as has already been briefly indicated (page ii), is to show
how Israel, the people of God, attained its historical position among
the nations of the world; in particular, how its peculiar relation to
God was rooted in the moral greatness and piety of its three common
ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and how through God’s promise
to them it had secured an exclusive right to the soil of Canaan.² This
purpose, however, appears less in the details of the history (which
are obviously governed by a variety of interests) than in the scope and
arrangement of the work as a whole, especially in the ‘framework’ which
knits it together, and reveals the plan to which the entire narrative
is accommodated. The method consistently followed is the progressive
isolation of the main line of Israel’s descent by brief genealogical
summaries of the collateral branches of the human family which diverge
from it at successive points.
¹ _Die Komposition der Genesis, kritisch untersucht_
(1823).――In that essay Ewald fell into the natural error of
confusing unity of plan with unity of authorship,――an error,
however, which he retracted eight years later (_Theologische
Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 595 ff.), in favour of a
theory (virtually identical with the so-called Supplementary
Hypothesis) which did full justice to the unity and
skilful disposition of the book, while recognising it to
be the result of an amalgamation of several documents. The
distinction has never since been lost sight of; and all
subsequent theories of the composition of Genesis have
endeavoured to reconcile the assumption of a diversity of
sources with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed
arrangement of the material. The view which is generally
held does so in this way: three main documents, following
substantially the same historical order, are held to
have been combined by one or more redactors; one of these
documents, being little more than an epitome of the history,
was specially fitted to supply a framework into which the
rest of the narrative could be fitted, and was selected
by the redactor for this purpose; hence the plan which we
discover in the book is really the design of one particular
writer. It is obvious that such a conception quite
adequately explains all the literary unity which the Book
of Genesis exhibits.
² See Tuch, _Commentar über die Genesis_ XVI ff.
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by
the editor’s practice of inserting the collateral genealogies
(_Tôlĕdôth_) at the close of the principal sections (11¹⁰⁻³⁰;
25¹²⁻¹⁸; 36).¹ This yields a natural and convenient division
into four approximately equal parts, namely:
I. The Primæval History of mankind: i.‒xi.²
II. The History of Abraham: xii. 1‒xxv. 18.
III. The History of Jacob: xxv. 19‒xxxvi. 43.
IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren: xxxvii.‒l.
A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement
of the various sections.
¹ The genealogies of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ and 22²⁰⁻²⁴ do not count:
these are not _Tôlĕdôth_, and do not belong to the document
used as a framework. Chapter 10 (the Table of peoples) would
naturally stand at the close of a section; but it had to be
displaced from its proper position before 11¹⁰ to find room
for the story of the Dispersion (11¹⁻⁹). It may be said,
however, that the _Tôlĕdôth_ of Adam (chapter 5) should mark
a main division; and that is probably correct, though for
practical purposes it is better to ignore the subdivision
and treat the primæval history as one section.
² Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at 11²⁷ or ³⁰;
but the actual division of chapters has its recommendation,
and it is not worth while to depart from it.
It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has
marked the headings of the various sections by the formula
[וִ]אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת, which occurs eleven times in the book: 2⁴ᵃ 5¹ ¹ 6⁹
10¹ 11¹⁰ 11²⁷ 25¹² 25¹⁹ 36¹ 36⁹ 37². Transposing 2⁴ᵃ to the
beginning, and disregarding 36⁹ (both arbitrary proceedings),
we obtain ten parts; and these are actually adopted by Franz
Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar über die Genesis_ as the divisions
of his commentary. But the scheme is of no practical utility,
――for it is idle to speak of 11¹⁰⁻²⁶ or 25¹²⁻¹⁸ as sections
of Genesis on the same footing as 25¹⁹‒35²⁹ or 37²‒50²⁶; and
theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will
suffice to point out the incongruity that, while the histories
of Noah and Isaac fall under their own _Tôlĕdôth_, those of
Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall under the _Tôlĕdôth_ of their
respective fathers. See, further, page 40 f.
¹ זָה סֵפֶר תולדות.
§ 7. _The Sources of Genesis._
The Book of Genesis has always been the strategic position of
Pentateuchal literary criticism. It was the examination of this book
that led Astruc, in 1753,¹ to the important discovery which was the
first positive achievement in this department of research. Having
noticed the significant alternation of the divine names in different
sections of the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon
could not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary habit of
two writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk of Genesis into two
documents, one distinguished by the use of the name אֱלֹהִים, and the other
by the use of יְהֹוָה; while a series of fragmentary passages where this
criterion failed him brought the total number of his _mémoires_ up to
twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise the magnitude
of this discovery, which Eichhorn² speedily put on a broader basis
by a characterisation of the style, contents, and spirit of the two
documents. Neither Astruc nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further
than Exodus 2,――partly because they were influenced by the traditional
opinion (afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,
and did not expect to find traces of composition in the history
contemporaneous with Moses. We shall see presently that there is a
deeper reason why this particular clue to the analysis could not at
first be traced beyond the early chapters of Exodus.
¹ _Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il paroît que
Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse._
² _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, 1780‒3 (1st edition).
While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc’s discovery took
the direction of showing that the use of the two divine names is
determined by a difference of meaning which made the one or the
other more suitable in a particular connexion, the more recent
opposition entrenches itself mostly behind the uncertainties
of the text, and maintains that the Versions (especially LXX)
show the Massoretic Text to be so unreliable that no analysis
of documents can be based on its data: see Klostermann,
_Der Pentateuch_ (1893), page 20 ff.; Dahse, _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, vi. (1903), 305 ff.; Redpath, _American
Journal of Theology_, viii. (1904), 286 ff.; Eerdmans, _Die
Komposition der Genesis_ (1908), 34 ff.; Wiener, _Bibliotheca
Sacra and Theological Review_ (1909), 119 ff.――It cannot be
denied that the facts adduced by these writers import an element
of uncertainty into the analysis, _so far as it depends on
the criterion of the divine names_; but the significance of
the facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories
propounded to account for the textual phenomena are improbable
in the extreme. (1) So far as I have observed, no attention is
paid to what is surely a very important factor of the problem,
the _proportion_ of divergences to agreements as between LXX
and Massoretic Text. In Genesis the divine name occurs in one or
other form about 340 times (in Massoretic Text, יהוה 143 times +
אלהים 177 times + י׳ א׳ 20 times). The total deviations registered
by Redpath (296 ff.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34 f.)
they are 49; _i.e._ little more than one-seventh of the whole.
Is it so certain that that degree of divergence invalidates
a documentary analysis founded on so much larger a field of
undisputed readings? (2) In spite of the confident assertions of
Dahse (309) and Wiener (131 f.) there is not a single instance
in which LXX is ‘demonstrably’ right against Massoretic Text.
It is readily conceded that it is probably right in a few cases;
but there are two general presumptions in favour of the superior
fidelity of the Massoretic tradition. Not only (a) is the
chance of purely clerical confusion between κ̅ς and θ̅ς greater
than between יהוה and אלהים, or even between י׳ and א׳, and (b) a
change of divine names more apt to occur in _translation_ than
in _transcription_, but (c) the distinction between a proper
name יהוה and a generic אלהים is much less likely to have been
overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives κύριος
and θεός. An instructive example is 4²⁶, where LXX κύριος ὁ θεός
is ‘demonstrably’ wrong. (3) In the present state of textual
criticism it is impossible to determine in particular cases what
is the original reading. We can only proceed by the imperfect
method of averages. Now it is significant that while in Genesis
LXX substitutes θεός for יהוה 21 times, and κύριος ὁ θεός 19 times
(40 in all), there are only 4 cases of κύριος and 6 of κύριος
ὁ θεός for אלהים (10 in all: the proportions being very much the
same for the whole Pentateuch). LXX thus reveals a decided (and
very natural) preference for the ordinary Greek θεός over the
less familiar κύριος. Dahse urges (page 308) that Massoretic
Text betrays an equally marked preference for יהוה, and has
frequently substituted it for אלהים; but that is much less
intelligible. For although the pronunciation of יהוה as אֲדֹנָי might
have removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton,――and that would be
a very good reason for leaving יהוה where it was,――it suggests no
motive at all for inserting it where it was not. There is force,
however, in Gray’s remark on a particular case (_A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Numbers_ page 311), that “wherever [ὁ]
κ̅ς appears in LXX it deserves attention as a possible indication
of the original text.” (4) The documentary theory furnishes
a better explanation of the alternation of the names than any
other that has been propounded. Redpath’s hypothesis of a double
recension of the Pentateuch, one mainly Yahwistic and the other
wholly (?) Elohistic, of which one was used only where the other
was illegible, would explain anything, and therefore explains
nothing; least of all does it explain the frequent coincidence
of hypothetical illegibility with actual changes of style,
phraseology, and standpoint. Dahse (following out a hint of
Klostermann) accounts for the phenomena of Massoretic Text (and
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) by the desire to
preserve uniformity within the limits of each several pericope
of the Synagogue lectionary; but why some pericopes should be
Yahwistic and others Elohistic, it is not easy to conceive. He
admits that his view cannot be carried through in detail; yet
it is just of the kind which, if true, ought to be verifiable
in detail. One has but to read consecutively the first three
chapters of Genesis, and observe how the sudden change in the
divine name coincides with a new vocabulary, representation,
and spiritual atmosphere, in order to feel how paltry all such
artificial explanations are in comparison with the hypothesis
that the names are distinctive of different documents. The
experience repeats itself, not perhaps quite so convincingly,
again and again throughout the book; and though there are cases
where the change of manner is not obvious, still the theory
is vindicated in a sufficient number of instances to be worth
carrying through, even at the expense of a somewhat complicated
analysis, and a very few demands (see page xlviii f.) on the
services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems. (5) It was
frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see _Historisch-critisch
Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des
Ouden Verbonds_ i. pages 59, 62) that the test of the divine
names is not _by itself_ a sufficient criterion of source or
authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through a
too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.¹ Nevertheless
the opinion can be maintained that the Massoretic Text is far
superior to the Versions, and that its use of the names is a
valuable clue to the separation of documents. Truth is sometimes
stranger than fiction; and, however surprising it may appear
to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the
Massoretic Text does reproduce with substantial accuracy the
characteristics of the original autographs. At present that
assumption can only be tested by the success or failure of the
analysis based on it. It is idle to speculate on what would
have happened if Astruc and his successors had been compelled
to operate with LXX instead of Massoretic Text; but it is a
rational surmise that in that case criticism would still have
arrived, by a more laborious route, at very much the positions
it occupies to-day.
¹ It should be clearly understood that as regards Priestly-Code
and Yahwist the distinction of divine names is but one
of many marks of diverse authorship (see Driver _An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_⁸, 131
ff., where more than _fifty_ such distinguishing criteria
are given), and that after Exodus 6, where this particular
criterion disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as
before. As regards Yahwist and Elohist, the analysis, though
sometimes dependent on the divine names alone, is _generally_
based on other differences as well.
The next great step towards the modern documentary theory of the
Pentateuch was Hupfeld’s¹ demonstration that אלהים is not peculiar to
one document, but to two; so that under the name Elohist two different
writers had previously been confused. It is obvious, of course, that
in this inquiry the divine names afford no guidance; yet by observing
finer marks of style, and the connexion of the narrative, Hupfeld
succeeded in proving to the ultimate satisfaction of all critics that
there was a second Elohistic source (now called Elohist), closely
parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (Yahwist), and that both Yahwist and
Elohist had once been independent consecutive narratives. An important
part of the work was a more accurate delimitation of the first Elohist
(now called the Priestly Code: Priestly-Code), whose outlines were
then first drawn with a clearness to which later investigation has had
little to add.²
¹ _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_
(1853). Hupfeld’s discovery had partly been anticipated
by Ilgen (_Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses_ [1798]).
Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld, criticism had passed through
two well-defined phases: the Fragmentary Hypothesis (see
page xxxii f. above) and the Supplementary Hypothesis, of
which the classical exposition is Tuch’s fine commentary
on Genesis (1858; reissued by Arnold in 1871). The latter
theory rested partly on a prejudice――that the framework of
the Pentateuch was necessarily supplied by its oldest source;
partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld dispelled;
and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so
interlaced with Elohistic that the former could plausibly
be regarded as on the whole supplementary to the latter.
Though Tuch’s commentary did not appear till 1858, the theory
had really received its death-blow from Hupfeld five years
before.
² See Nöldeke, _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_,
1869, pages 1‒144. It is worthy of mention here that this
great scholar, after long resisting the theory of the
late origin of Priestly-Code, has at last declared his
acceptance of the position of Wellhausen (see _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, 1908, 203).
Though Hupfeld’s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of
the utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pentateuch as a
whole. In particular, it brought to light a fact which at once
explains why Genesis presents a simpler problem to analysis than
the rest of the Pentateuch, and furnishes a final proof that
the avoidance of יהוה by two of the sources was not accidental,
but arose from a theory of religious development held and
expressed by both writers. For both Priestly-Code (Exodus
6² ᶠᶠᐧ) and Elohist (Exodus 3¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ) connect the revelation of
the Tetragrammaton with the mission of Moses; while the former
states emphatically that God was not known by that name to the
patriarchs.¹ Consistency demanded that these writers should use
the generic name for Deity up to this point; while Yahwist, who
was bound by no such theory, could use יהוה from the first.² From
Exodus 6 onwards Priestly-Code regularly uses יהוה; Elohist’s
usage fluctuates between א׳ and י׳ (perhaps a sign of different
strata within the document), so that the criterion no longer
yields a sure clue to the analysis.
¹ A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will
be found in the article of H. M. Wiener referred to above
(_Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_, 1909, 158 ff.).
² For a partial exception, see on 4²⁶.
It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to trace the
extension of these lines of cleavage through the other books of the
Hexateuch; and of the reflex results of the criticism of the later
books on that of Genesis only two can here be mentioned. One is the
recognition of the unique position and character of Deuteronomy in
the Pentateuch, and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth
year of Josiah.¹ Although this has hardly any direct influence on the
criticism of Genesis, it is an important landmark in the Pentateuch
problem, as furnishing a fixed date by reference to which the age of
the other documents can partly be determined. The other point is the
question of the date of Priestly-Code. The preconception in favour
of the antiquity of this document (based for the most part on the
fact that it really forms the framework of the Pentateuch) was nearly
universal among scholars down to the publication of Wellhausen’s
_Geschichte Israels_, i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to
be groundless by Graff² and Kuenen in 1866‒69.
¹ De Wette, _Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_
(1806‒7); Riehm, _Gesetzgebung Mose’s im Lande Moab_ (1854);
al.
² _Die geschichtliche Bücher des Alte Testaments_ (1866). Graf
did not at first see it necessary to abandon the earlier
date of the _narratives_ of Priestly-Code; for an account
of his subsequent change of opinion in correspondence with
Kuenen, as well as the anticipations of his final theory
by Vatke, Reuss, and others, we must refer to Kuenen _An
Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin and Composition
of the Hexateuch_ xix ff., or Holzinger’s _Einleitung in den
Hexateuch_, especially page 64 ff.
This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison of
the layers of legislation in the later Pentateuch books with
one another, and with the stages of Israel’s religious history
as revealed in the earlier historical books; from which it
appeared that the laws belonging to Priestly-Code were later
than Deuteronomy, and that their codification took place during
and after, and their promulgation after, the Exile. There
was hesitation at first in extending this conclusion to the
_narratives_ of Priestly-Code, especially those of them in
Genesis and Exodus 1‒11. But when the problem was fairly
faced, it was perceived, not only that Priestly-Code in Genesis
presented no obstacle to the theory, but that in many respects
its narrative was more intelligible as the latest than as the
oldest stratum of the book.
The chief positions at which literary criticism has arrived with regard
to Genesis are, therefore, briefly these: (1) The oldest sources are
Yahwist and Elohist, closely parallel documents, both dating from the
best period of Hebrew literature, but distinguished from each other by
their use of the divine name, by slight idiosyncrasies of style, and
by quite perceptible differences of representation. (2) These sources
were combined into a composite narrative (Jehovist) by a redactor
(Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), whose hand can be detected in several patches of
a literary complexion differing from either of his authorities. He has
done his work so deftly that it is frequently difficult, and sometimes
impossible, to sunder the documents. It is generally held that this
redaction took place before the composition of Deuteronomy, so that
a third stage in the history of the Pentateuch would be represented
by the symbols Jehovist + Deuteronomy. (3) The remaining source
Priestly-Code is a product of the Exilic or post-Exilic age, though it
embodies older material. Originally an independent work, its formal and
schematic character fitted it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal
narrative; and this has determined the procedure of the final redactor
(Redactorᴾᵉⁿᵗᵃᵗᵉᵘᶜʰ), by whom excerpts from Jehovist have been used to
fill up the skeleton outline which Priestly-Code gave of the primitive
and patriarchal history.
The above statement will, it is hoped, suffice to put the reader in
possession of the main points of the critical position occupied in the
Commentary. The evidence by which they are supported will partly be
given in the next four §§; but, for a full discussion of the numerous
questions involved, we must here refer to works specially devoted to
the subject.¹
¹ The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, _Historisch-critisch
onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken
des Ouden Verbonds_², i. (1885) [English translation,
_The Hexateuch_ (1886)]; and _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_
(translated into German by Budde); Wellhausen, _Composition
des Hexateuchs_, etc. (²1889); and _Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels_ (⁶1905) [English translation 1885];
Westphal, _Les Sources du Pentateuch_ (1888, 1892); Reuss,
_Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments_ (²1890);
Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_
(²1892); Driver, _Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament_ (⁸1909); Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
(1893); Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (⁶1908);
König, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1893); Carpenter
and Harford-Battersby, _Composition of the Hexateuch_ (1902)
[= volume i. of _The Hexateuch_ (1900)].
Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been
modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made
by Professor Orr, whose book, _The Problem of the Old Testament_,
deservedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory
of the Pentateuch that has recently appeared in English. Dr.
Orr admits (a) that Astruc was right in dividing a considerable
part of Genesis into Elohistic and Yahwistic sections; (b) that
Eichhorn’s characterisation of the style of the two documents
has, in the main, ‘stood the test of time’; (c) that Hupfeld’s
observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis
‘in substance corresponds with facts’; and (d) that even Graf
and Wellhausen ‘mark an advance,’ in making Priestly-Code a
relatively later stratum of Genesis than Jehovist (pages 196‒201).
When we see so many defences evacuated one after another, we
begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how a theory
which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin
clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is
going to be prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading
havoc over the ‘believing view’ of the Old Testament. Dr.
Orr thinks to stem the torrent by adopting two relatively
conservative positions from Klostermann. (1) The first is the
denial of the distinction between Yahwist and Elohist (216 ff.).
As soon as Hupfeld had effected the separation of Elohist from
Priestly-Code, it ought to have been perceived, he seems to
suggest, that the sections thus disentangled are really parts
of Yahwist (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter is not
quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The
distinction in the divine names remains; and so he is driven
to admit that Yahwist and Elohist were, not indeed independent
works, but different literary recensions of one and the same
old work (229). What is meant by two versions in circulation
alongside of each other, which never had currency as separate
documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his readers some
explanation; if there were two recensions they certainly existed
separately; and he cannot possibly know how far their agreement
extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents
is, nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that Yahwist and
Elohist are independent recensions of a common body of tradition,
while he maintains that they were recensions of a single
document, differing in nothing but the use of יהוה or אלהים. What
reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical view, and
coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the _first_ place, the
difference between Yahwist and Elohist is _not_ confined to
the divine names. The linguistic evidence is very much clearer
than Dr. Orr represents; and differences of conception, though
slight, are real. It is all very well to quote from candid and
truth-loving opponents admissions of the close resemblance of the
narratives, and the difficulty and uncertainty of the analysis,
in particular instances, and to suggest that these admissions
amount to a throwing up of the case; but no man with an
independent grasp of the subject will be imposed on by so cheap
a device. In the _second_ place, Yahwist and Elohist consist
largely of duplicate narratives of the same event. It is true,
this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no difficulty in
conceiving that Abraham twice told the same lie about his wife,
and that his son Isaac followed his example, with very similar
results in the three cases. But he will hardly affect to be
surprised that other men take a more natural view,¹ and regard
the stories as traditional variations of the same theme.――(2)
The second position is that Priestly-Code was never a distinct
or self-subsisting document, but only a “framework” enclosing
the contents of Jehovist (341‒377). Again we have to ask what Dr.
Orr means by a ‘framework,’ which, in his own words, “has also,
at certain points, its original, and, in parts, considerable
contributions to bring to the history” (272); and how he can
possibly tell that these original and considerable contributions
did not come from an independent work. The facts that it is now
closely interwoven with Jehovist, and that there are gaps in
its narrative (even if these gaps were more considerable than
there is any reason to suppose), prove nothing except that it
has passed through the hands of a redactor. That its history
presupposes a knowledge of Jehovist, and is too meagre to be
intelligible apart from it, is amply explained by the critical
view that the author wished to concentrate attention on the
great religious turning-points in the history (the Creation,
the Flood, the Covenant with Abraham, the Blessing of Jacob by
Isaac, the origin of the name Israel, the Settlement in Egypt,
etc.), and dismissed the rest with a bare chronological epitome.
When we add that on all these points, as well as others,
the ‘original and considerable contributions’ are (Dr. Orr’s
protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent from the
older tradition, we have every proof that could be desired
that Priestly-Code was an independent document, and not a mere
supplementary expansion of an earlier compilation (see, further,
page lvii ff. below). But now, supposing Dr. Orr to have made
good his contentions, what advantage has he gained? So far as
we can see, none whatever! He does indeed go on to assert a
preference for the term ‘collaboration’ as expressing the ‘kind
and manner of the activity which brought the Pentateuchal books
into their present shape’ (375).² But that preference might just
as easily have been exercised on the full literary results of
the critical theory. And Dr. Orr deceives himself if he imagines
that that flimsy hypothesis will either neutralise the force
of the arguments that have carried criticism past the barren
eccentricities of Klostermann, or save what he chooses to
consider the ‘essential Mosaicity’ of the Pentateuch.
¹ So even Sayce, _Early History of the Hebrews_ (1897), 62 f.,
64 f.
² It is a grave injustice to Dillmann to associate his name,
however remotely, with this theory of ‘collaboration’ (527).
What Dillmann is speaking of in the words cited is simply
the question whether the three documents, Priestly-Code,
Elohist, and Yahwist, were combined by a single redaction,
or whether two of them were first put together and
afterwards united with the third. Dr. Orr, on the other
hand, is thinking of “the labours of _original composers_,
working with a common aim and towards a common end” (375).
If everything beyond this is conjectural (376), there is
nothing but conjecture in the whole construction.
Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications,
has announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school,
and commenced to lay down the programme of a new era in Old
Testament criticism (_Hibbert Journal_ vii. [1909], 813 ff.).
His _Komposition der Genesis_ (1908) gives a foretaste of his
literary method; and certainly the procedure is drastic enough.
The divine names are absolutely misleading as a criterion
of authorship; and the distinction between Priestly-Code and
Jehovist goes overboard along with that between Yahwist and
Elohist. Criticism is thus thrown back into its original chaos,
out of which Eerdmans proceeds to evoke a new kosmos. His
one positive principle is the recognition of a polytheistic
background behind the traditions, which has been obscured in
various degrees by the later monotheistic interpretation. By
the help of this principle, he distinguishes four stages in the
development of the tradition. (1) The first is represented by
remnants of the original undiluted polytheism, where Yahwe does
not appear at all; _e.g._ 35¹⁻⁷; the Israel-recension of the
Joseph-stories; the groundwork of chapters 1. 20. 28¹⁻⁹ 6⁹‒9¹⁷.
(2) Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods; 4.
9¹⁸⁻²⁷ 22. 27. 28¹¹⁻²² 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage,
polytheistic legends are transferred to Yahwe as the only God:
2. 3. 6¹⁻⁸ 7¹⁻⁵ 8²⁰⁻²² 11¹⁻⁹ 16. 18. 19. 24. 25¹⁹⁻³⁴ 26. (4)
Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion: 15¹⁻⁶ 17.
35⁹⁻¹⁵ 48³⁻⁶. Now, we are quite prepared to find traces of all
these stages of religion in the Genesis-narratives, if they
can be proved; and, indeed, all of them except the second are
recognised by recent critics. But while any serious attempt to
determine the age of the legends from their contents rather than
from their literary features is to be welcomed, it is difficult
to perceive the distinctions on which Eerdmans’s classification
is based, or to admit that, for example, chapter 17 is one
whit more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on
Eerdmans’s own showing, the classification affords no clue to
the composition and history of the book. In order to get a start,
he has to fall back on the acknowledged _literary_ distinction
between a Jacob-recension and an Israel-recension of the
Joseph-narratives (on this see page 439 below). Since the former
begins אלה תלדות יעקב, it is considered to have formed part of a
comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing with Adam
(5¹), set in a framework of _Tôlĕdôth_. This is the groundwork
of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it
contains, however, legends of all the first three classes!),
Yahwe being to the compiler simply one of the gods; and must
therefore have originated before the Exile: a lower limit is
700 B.C. This collection was soon enlarged by the addition of
legends not less ancient than its own; and by the insertion
of the Israel-recension, which is as polytheistic in character
as the _Tôlĕdôth_-collection! The monotheistic manipulation
of the work set in after Deuteronomy; but how many editions it
went through we cannot tell for certain. The last thorough-going
reviser was the author of chapter 17; but additions were made
even later than that, etc. etc. A more bewildering hypothesis
it has never been our lot to examine; and we cannot pretend to
believe that it contains the rudiments of a successful analysis.
There is much to be learned from Eerdmans’s work, which is full
of acute observations and sound reasoning in detail; but as
a theory of the composition of Genesis it seems to us utterly
at fault. What with Winckler and Jerome, and Cheyne, and now
Eerdmans, Old Testament scholars have a good many new eras
dawning on them just now. Whether any of them will shine unto
the perfect day, time will show.
§ 8. _The collective authorship of Yahwist and Elohist._
In Yahwist and Elohist we have, according to what has been said above,
the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which had at one time
existed in the oral form. When we compare the two documents, the first
thing that strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and
contents. The only important difference is that Elohist’s narrative
does not seem to have embraced the primitive period, but to have
commenced with Abraham. But from the point where Elohist strikes into
the current of the history (at chapter 20, with a few earlier traces in
chapter 15), there are few incidents in the one document to which the
other does not contain a parallel.¹. What is much more remarkable, and
indeed surprising, is that the _manner_ of narration changes in the two
documents _pari passu_. Thus the transition from the loose connexion
of the Abraham legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob,
and then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see page
xxviii f.), is equally noticeable in Yahwist and in Elohist. It is
this extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which
proves that both documents drew from a common body of tradition, and
even suggests that that tradition had already been partly reduced to
writing.²
¹ The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course,
on the validity of the finer processes of analysis, with
regard to which there is room for difference of opinion. On
the analysis followed in the commentary, the only episodes
in Elohist to which there is no trace of a parallel in
Yahwist, after chapter 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22;
Esau’s selling of his birthright, 25²⁹⁻³⁴ (?); the theophany
of Mahanaim, 32²ᐧ ³; the purchase of land at Shechem, 33¹⁸⁻²⁰;
and the various incidents in 35¹⁻⁸ᐧ ¹⁴⁻²⁰. Those peculiar to
Yahwist are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of
Sodom, 19¹⁻²⁸; Lot and his daughters, 19³⁰⁻³⁸; the birth of
Jacob and Esau, 25²¹⁻²⁸; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob’s
meeting with Rachel, 29²⁻¹⁴; Reuben and the love-apples,
30¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; the incest of Reuben, 35²¹ᐧ ²²ᵃ; Judah and Tamar,
38; Joseph’s temptation, 39⁷⁻²⁰; the cup in Benjamin’s
sack, 44; Joseph’s agrarian policy, 47¹³⁻²⁶ (?); and the
genealogies of 22²⁰⁻²⁴ 25¹⁻⁶.
² One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the
facts can be best explained by the hypothesis of literary
dependence of one document on the other (so Luther _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 169: “Elohist steht
völlig in seinem [Yahwist’s] Banne”). But the present writer
is convinced from repeated examination, that the differences
are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way (see
Procksch, 305 f.).
Here we come back, from the side of analysis, to a question which
was left unsettled in § 5; the question, namely, of the process by
which the oral tradition was consolidated and reduced to writing. It
has been shown with great probability that both Yahwist and Elohist
are _composite documents_, in which minor legendary cycles have
been incorporated, and different strata of tradition are embedded.
This presupposes a development of the tradition within the circle
represented by each document, and leads eventually to the theory
advocated by most recent critics, that the symbols Yahwist and Elohist
must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two _schools_,
_i.e._, two series of narrators, animated by common conceptions,
following a common literary method, and transmitting a common form of
the tradition from one generation to another.
The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described
in the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated
here. In Yahwist, composite structure has been most clearly made
out in the Primæval History (chapters 1‒11), where at least two,
and probably more, strands of narrative can be distinguished
(pages 1‒4). Gunkel seems to have shown that in 12‒25 two
cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (page 240);
also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban legends
were originally independent of each other: this last, however,
applies to Yahwist and Elohist alike, so that the fusion had
probably taken place in the common tradition which lies behind
both. Further, chapters 34 and 38 (pages 418, 450) belong to an
older stratum of tradition than the main narrative; and the same
might be said of chapter 49 (page 512), which may very plausibly
be regarded as a traditional poem of the ‘school’ of Yahwist,
and the oldest extant specimen of its _repertoire_.――With regard
to Elohist, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in
the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however,
we have imperfectly assimilated fragments of a more ancient
tradition in 34 (? if Elohist be a component there), 35¹⁻⁷ 48²²
and perhaps some other passages.――The important fact is that
these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the
main source to which they are assigned; at least, no linguistic
_differentiæ_ of any consequence have yet been discovered.¹ The
problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to
their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity.
¹ The only exception would be Sievers’ metrical analysis,
which leads to results far more complicated than can be
justified by other indications (see page xxxi f.).
While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally
recognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which
best explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the
impression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception
and standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two
collections, and maintain that (in the case of Yahwist especially) the
stamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave
much play for the activity of a ‘school.’¹ It is very difficult to
hold the balance even between the claims of unity and complexity in the
documents; but the theory of single authorship may easily be pressed
too far. If we could get through with only a Yahwist¹ and Yahwist²,
Elohist¹, Elohist² etc.,――_i.e._, with the theory of one main document
supplemented by a few later additions,――it would be absurd to speak
of ‘schools.’ And even if the case were considerably more complicated,
it might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics
do) with the idea of _literary_ schools, manipulating written documents
under the influence of tendencies and principles which had become
traditional within special circles. Gunkel goes, however, much further
with his conception of Yahwist and Elohist as first of all guilds of
oral narrators, whose stories gradually took written shape within their
respective circles, and were ultimately put together in the collections
as we now have them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the
action of an outstanding personality in shaping either the oral or
the literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage of suggesting
a medium in which the traditional material might have assumed its
specifically Yahwistic or Elohistic form before being incorporated in
the main document of the school. It is at all events a satisfactory
working hypothesis; and that is all that can be looked for in so
obscure a region of investigation. Whether it is altogether so
artificial and unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the
reader must judge for himself.
¹ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in _Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstämme_, 107‒170, where the thesis is upheld
that the Yahwist (_i.e._ Yahwist¹) is not a stage in the
natural process of remodelling the tradition; that he does
not mean merely to retail the old stories as he found them,
but writes his book with the conscious purpose of enforcing
certain ideas and convictions which often run contrary to
the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Luther seems
to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primæval
tradition from consideration (108), and ignoring the
distribution of the Yahwistic material over the various
stages of the redaction (155). It makes a considerable
difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the
sections which Luther assigns to Yahwist² (_e.g._ chapters
34, 38, 19) really represent older phases of tradition than
the main document; for if they existed in their Yahwistic
colouring prior to the compilation of Yahwist¹, there must
have been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them;
and even if they received their literary stamp at a later
time, there must still have been something of the nature
of a school to impress the Yahwistic character so strongly
upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an Ephraimite,
a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and
Rechabite movement of the 9th century, an opponent of the
cultus, and an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the
drift of the old tradition, seems to go far beyond the
evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly reconcilable
with the religious tone and spirit of the narratives.――To
a similar effect writes Procksch, _Sagenbuch_, 284‒308;
although he does justice to the composite structure of the
document Yahwist, and describes it in terms which throw a
shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of authorship.
When we read of an “einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den
wie in einen Stamm ♦Geschichten ganz anderer Herkunft
gewissermassen aufgepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen
durch die massgebenden Ideen” (294 f.), we cannot help
asking where these branches grew before they were engrafted
on their present stem. If we are right in distinguishing
a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the
beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the
time of Enosh, it is not easy to account for their fusion on
any theory which does not allow a relative independence to
the two conceptions.
♦ “Geschicten” replaced with “Geschichten”
§ 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist
――their relation to Literary Prophecy._
It is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive
characterisation of the literary or general features of the two older
documents of Genesis. If Yahwist and Elohist are to be regarded as, in
the main, recensions of a common body of oral tradition, and if they
are the work of schools rather than of individuals, it is obvious that
the search for characteristic differences loses much of its interest;
and in point of fact the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary
types is apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which
have to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object here
is simply to specify some outstanding differences which justify the
separation of sources, and which may assist us later to determine the
relative ages of the two documents.
Yahwist presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than
Elohist. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure
narrative style in the Old Testament; and in Genesis it rarely, if
ever, falls below the highest level. But while Elohist hardly attains
the same perfection of form, there are whole passages, especially
in the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to
the one a superiority over the other. Yahwist excels in picturesque
‘objectivity’ of description,――in the power to paint a scene with few
strokes, and in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues,
in particular, are inimitable “for the delicacy and truthfulness with
which character and emotions find expression in them” (compare Genesis
44¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ).¹ Elohist, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper
vein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account
of Isaac’s sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of Hagar (21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), the
dismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob’s fraud
(27³⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), Jacob’s lifelong grief for Rachel (48⁷), or his tenderness
towards Joseph’s children (48¹⁴).² But here again no absolute
distinction can be drawn; in the history of Joseph, _e.g._, the vein
of pathos is perhaps more marked in Yahwist than in Elohist. Where
parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it is found
in several instances that Yahwist’s objectivity of treatment has
succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in Elohist
is transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The best
example is Yahwist’s picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable
Bedawi woman (chapater 16), as contrasted with Elohist’s modernised
version of the incident (21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), with its affecting picture of the
mother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, Elohist
(chapter 20) introduces an extenuation of Abraham’s falsehood about
his wife which is absent from the older narrative of Yahwist (12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ).
¹ Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament_, page 119.
² Compare Gunkel, page LXXVII.
It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material
comprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences
reduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular
phrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other.
The most important case is, of course, the distinctive use (in the
pre-Mosaic period) of Yahwe in Yahwist and Elohim in Elohist.¹ But
round this are grouped a number of smaller linguistic differences which,
when they occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage,
enable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the sources.
¹ This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology;
in the case of Elohist, it is the application of a theory
of religious development which connected the revelation of
the name Yahwe with the mission of Moses (Exodus 3¹³⁻¹⁵).
It is now generally held that the original Elohist continued
to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that
the occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to
secondary strata of the document. On either view the choice
of the general name of deity is difficult to account for.
Procksch regards it as due to the influence of the great
monotheistic movement headed by Elijah; but that is not
probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah’s crusade was
precisely jealousy for _Yahwe_, the national God of Israel.
Gunkel, on the other hand, thinks it arose from the fact
that the legends were largely of Canaanite and polytheistic
origin; and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal
history Elohist contains several strong traces of a
polytheistic basis of the narratives (28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 32²ᐧ ³ 35⁷
etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic sense to the mind
of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against
Eerdmans).
_The divine names._――While the possibility of error in the
Massoretic textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of
inadvertence in the use of יהוה and אלהים are in Genesis singularly
few. In Elohist contexts, יהוה occurs 22¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ ᵇⁱˢ 28²¹ 31⁴⁹, where
its presence seems due to the intentional action of a redactor.
Yahwist has אלהים (a) in 3¹⁻⁵ 4²⁵ (a special case: see pages 2,
53); (b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is
to be emphasised, 32²⁹; (c) in conversations with, or references
to, heathen (real or supposed), 9²⁷ 39⁹ 41³²ᵇᐧ ³⁸ 43²⁸ᐧ ²⁹
44¹⁶; there are also (d) some doubtful examples which are very
probably to be assigned to Elohist, 33⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ 42²⁸. It is only
in the last group (if even there), with the possible addition
(see page 155) of 8¹, that redactional alteration or scribal
error need be suspected.
For _the inhabitants of Canaan_, Yahwist uses כנעני, 10¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ 12⁶
(? Redactor), 24³ᐧ ³⁷ 50¹¹ + (with פרזי, 13⁷ (Redactor?) 34³⁰);
Elohist אמרי, 15¹⁶ 48²² +.¹
¹ The cross (+) means that the usage is continued in the other
books of the Hexateuch.
For the name _Jacob_, Yahwist substitutes _Israel_ after 35²²
(except 46⁵ᵇ); Elohist consistently uses _Jacob_ (except 46²
48⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ [50²⁵?]).
The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis)
highly characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively:
Yahwist: אבי and ושם אחיו in genealogies: the former, 4²⁰ᐧ ²¹
10²¹ 11²⁹ 22²¹; the latter, 4²¹ 10²⁵ (compare 22²¹ 25²⁶
38²⁹ ᶠᐧ).――זְקֻנִים (in connexion with a late-born child), 21²ᵃᐧ ⁷
24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰.――מצא חן, 6⁸ 18³ 19¹⁹ 30²⁷ 32⁶ 33⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ 34¹¹ 39⁴
47²⁵ᐧ ²⁹ 50⁴ +.――טרם (without ב), 2⁵ 19⁴ 24¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵ +.――ידע (in sexual
sense), 4¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁵ 19⁵ᐧ ⁸ 24¹⁶ 38²⁶ (also in Priestly-Code).――ילד
(= ‘beget’), 4¹⁸ 10⁸ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁶ 22²³ 25³.――יש, 24²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹ 28¹⁶
39⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸ 42² 43⁴ᐧ ⁷ 44¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶ 47⁶ᵇ + (42¹ Elohist?).――Derivatives
of √ עצב, ♦3¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷ 5²⁹ 6⁶ 45⁵ᵃ.――הפעם, 2²³ 18³² 29⁴ᐧ ³⁵ 30²⁰ᵇ
46³⁰ +.――צעיר, צעירה (for the younger of two brothers or sisters),
19³¹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁸ 25²³ 29²⁶ 43³³ 48¹⁴.――קרא בשם י׳, 4²⁶ 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³
26²⁵ +.――רוץ לקראת, 18² [19¹] 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴.――שפחה, 12¹⁶ 16¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸
24³⁵ 30⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ⁴³ 32⁶ᐧ ²³ 33¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶ (20¹⁴ 30¹⁸ Redactor: also
common in Priestly-Code); see on אמה below.――השקיף, 18¹⁶ 19²⁸
26⁸ +.――מעט with following genitive, 18⁴ 24¹⁷ᐧ ⁴³ 43²ᐧ ¹¹
44²⁵.――_Particles_: בעבור, 3¹⁷ 8²¹ 12¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 18²⁶ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³² 21³⁰
26²⁴ 27⁴ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ³¹ 46³⁴.――כי־על־כן, 18⁵ 19⁸ 33¹⁰ 38²⁶ +.――לבלתי, 3¹¹
4¹⁵ 19²¹ 38⁹ + (in Elohist and Priestly-Code once each).――נא, in
Yahwist about 40 times, in Elohist about 6 times (in Genesis).
♦ duplicate reference “16.” removed
Elohist: אמה, 20¹⁷ 21¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³ 30³ 31³³ + (see שפחה above).――גדול
and קטן (‘elder’ and ‘younger’), 29¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴
(compare 41⁵¹ ᶠᐧ).――כלכל, 45¹¹ 47¹² 50²¹.――משכרת, 29¹⁵ 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹.――A
very characteristic idiom of Elohist is the vocative (sometimes
doubled: 22¹¹ 46², Exodus 3⁴, [1 Samuel 3⁴ LXX] +) with the
answer הנני: 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 27¹ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ 31¹¹ 37¹³ 46² +.――Elohist is
further distinguished by a number of rare or archaic words or
phrases: אמנה, 20¹² + Joshua 7²⁰; דגה, 48¹⁶ +; זבד, 30²⁰; חמת,
21¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹ +; טחה, 21¹⁶ +; כן (‘honest’), 42¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴;
מנים, 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ +; נין ונכד, 21²³ (compare Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹ +); עקד,
22⁹ +; פלל, 48¹¹; פתר, 40⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 41⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ +; פתרון, 40⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 41¹¹ +; צנום,
41²³; קשיטה, 33¹⁹ + Joshua 24³² [Job 42¹¹] +; by a partiality for
rare infinitive forms (31²⁸ 46³ 50²⁰ 48¹¹ +), and the occasional
use of long forms of the nominal suffix (21²⁹ [31⁶] 41²¹ 42³⁶).
The religious and theological conceptions of the two documents are in
the main identical, though a certain difference of standpoint appears
in one or two features. Both evince towards the popular cultus an
attitude of friendly toleration, with a disposition to ignore its
cruder aspects; and this tendency is carried somewhat further in
Yahwist than in Elohist. Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah,
or sacred pole, Elohist alludes, without offence, to the Maẓẓebah,
or sacred pillar (28¹⁸ᐧ ²² 31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 35²⁰); whereas Yahwist nowhere
allows to the maẓẓebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe.
A very singular circumstance is that while both frequently record the
erection of altars by the patriarchs, they are remarkably reticent
as to the actual offering of sacrifice: Elohist refers to it only
twice (22. 46¹), and Yahwist never at all in the patriarchal history
(contrast 4³ ᶠᶠᐧ 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). It is difficult to imagine that the omission
is other than accidental: the idea that it indicates an indifference
(Gunkel), or a conscious opposition (Luther), to the cultus, can hardly
be entertained; for after all the altar had no use or significance
except as a means of sacrifice.――The most striking diversity appears
in the representation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His
revelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in which Yahwe
(or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in human form, and in broad
daylight, is peculiar to Yahwist (chapters 16. 18. 19), and corresponds
to the highly anthropomorphic language which is observed in other parts
of the document (chapters 2. 3. 7. 8. 11⁵ᐧ ⁷). Elohist, on the contrary,
records no daylight theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms
of revelation,――the dream or night-vision (15¹ 20³ᐧ ⁶ 21¹² [compare ¹⁴]
22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 46²),¹ or the voice of the angel from heaven
(21¹⁷). In this respect Elohist undoubtedly represents a more advanced
stage of theological reflexion than Yahwist.――The national feeling in
both sources is buoyant and hopeful: the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’
the sombre and melancholy view of life which marks the primæval history
of Yahwist disappears absolutely when the history of the immediate
ancestors of Israel is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which
some writers note as characteristic of Elohist finds no expression
whatever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Joshua 24), it
belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we are not here
concerned.
¹ We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which
seem to stand on a somewhat different footing (page 345).
Nocturnal revelations occur, however, in Yahwist (26²⁴ 28¹³),
but whether in the oldest parts of the document is not quite
certain.
Here we touch on a question of great importance, and one fortunately
capable of being brought to a definite issue: viz., the relation of
Yahwist and Elohist to the literary prophecy of the 8th and following
centuries. It is usual to speak of the combined Jehovist as the
_Prophetical_ narrative of the Pentateuch, in distinction from
Priestly-Code, the _Priestly_ narrative; and in so far as the name
is employed (as, _e.g._, by Driver _An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament_⁸, 117) to emphasise that contrast, it is
sufficiently appropriate. As used, however, by many writers, it carries
the implication that the documents――or that one to which the epithet
is applied――show unmistakable traces of the influence of the later
prophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to us entirely erroneous.
It is undoubtedly the case that both Yahwist and Elohist are pervaded
by ideas and convictions which they share in common with the writing
prophets: such as, the monotheistic conception of God, the ethical
view of His providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition
to certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, maẓẓebas, teraphim,
etc.). But that these and similar principles were first enunciated
by the prophets of the 8th century, we have no reason to suppose.
Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a man of God, is called _Nābî’_
(20⁷, compare Deuteronomy 34¹⁰) necessarily imply that the figure of
an Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers. We must bear
in mind that the 9th century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement
which, commencing in Northern Israel, extended into Judah; and that
any prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to have
come from the impulse of that movement as from the later development
which is so much better known to us. But in truth it is questionable
if any prophetic impulse at all, other than those inherent in the
religion from its foundation by Moses, is necessary to account for the
religious tone of the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that
the really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in those
parts of Yahwist and Elohist with which we have to do. These are: the
presentiment of the impending overthrow of the Israelitish nationality,
together with the perception of its moral necessity, the polemic
against foreign deities, the denunciation of prevalent oppression and
social wrong, and the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of
recovering Yahwe’s favour. Not only are these conceptions absent from
our documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they should have
been in the air in the age when the documents were composed. For,
though it is true that very different religious ideas may exist side
by side in the same community, it is scarcely credible that Yahwist and
Elohist could have maintained their confident hope for the future of
the nation intact against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This
consideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary strata
of Elohist, and the redactional additions to Jehovist, which do come
within the sweep of the later prophetic movement, clearly show that the
circles from which these writings emanated were sensitively responsive
to the sterner message of the prophets.
§ 10. _Date and place of origin――Redaction of Jehovist._
On the relative age of Yahwist and Elohist, there exists at present no
consensus of critical opinion. Down to the appearance of Wellhausen’s
_Geschichte Israels_ in 1878, scholars were practically unanimous
in assigning the priority to Elohist.¹ Since then, the opposite view
has been strongly maintained by the leading exponents of the Grafian
theory,² although a number of critics still adhere to the older
position.³ The reason for this divergence of opinion lies not in the
paucity of points of comparison, but partly in the subjective nature
of the evidence, and partly in the fact that such indications as exist
point in opposite directions.
¹ Hupfeld, Schrader, Nöldeke, Reuss, al.
² Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Meyer; so Luther, Procksch, al.
³ Dillmann, Kittel, König, Winckler al.
To take a few examples from Genesis: Chapter 16¹⁻¹⁴ (Yahwist)
produces an impression of greater antiquity than the parallel
21⁹⁻¹⁹ (Elohist); Yahwist’s explanation of the name Issachar,
with its story of the love-apples (30¹⁴⁻¹⁶), is more primitive
than that of Elohist (30¹⁷); Yahwist (30²⁸⁻⁴³) attributes the
increase of Jacob’s flocks to his own cunning, whereas Elohist
(31⁴⁻¹³) attributes it to the divine blessing. On the other hand,
Elohist’s recension of the Bethel-theophany (28¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) is
obviously more antique than Yahwist’s (¹³⁻¹⁶); and in the Joseph
narratives the leadership of Reuben (Elohist) is an element
of the original tradition which Yahwist has altered in favour
of Judah. A peculiarly instructive case is 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠ (Yahwist)
∥ 20 (Elohist) ∥ 26⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwist), where it seems to us (though
Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is clearly
right in holding that Yahwist has preserved both the oldest and
the youngest form of the legend, and that Elohist represents an
intermediate stage.
This result is not surprising when we understand that Yahwist and
Elohist are not individual writers, but guilds or schools, whose
literary activity may have extended over several generations, and who
drew on a store of unwritten tradition which had been in process of
codification for generations before that. This consideration forbids us
also to argue too confidently from observed differences of theological
standpoint between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that Elohist,
with its comparative freedom from anthropomorphisms and sensible
theophanies, with its more spiritual conception of revelation, and
its greater sensitiveness to ethical blemishes on the character of
the patriarchs (page xlviii), occupies, on the whole, a higher level
of reflexion than Yahwist; but we cannot tell how far such differences
are due to the general social _milieu_ in which the writers lived, and
how far to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which they belonged.
All that can safely be affirmed is that, while Elohist has occasionally
preserved the more ancient form of the tradition, there is a strong
presumption that Yahwist as a whole is the earlier document.
In attempting to determine the absolute dates of Yahwist and Elohist,
we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both are earlier
than the age of written prophecy (page li f.); in other words, 750
B.C. is the _terminus ad quem_ for the composition of either. If it be
the case that 37⁸ in Elohist presupposes the monarchy of the house of
Joseph, the _terminus a quo_ for that document would be the disruption
of the kingdom, _circa_ 930 (compare Deuteronomy 33⁷); and indeed no
one proposes to fix it higher. Between these limits, there is little to
guide us to a more precise determination. General considerations, such
as the tone of political feeling, the advanced conception of God, and
traces of the influence of 9th-century prophecy, seem to us to point to
the later part of the period, and in particular to the brilliant reign
of Jeroboam II. (785‒745), as the most likely time of composition.¹ In
Yahwist there is no unequivocal allusion to the divided kingdom; and
nothing absolutely prevents us from putting its date as early as the
reign of Solomon. The sense of national solidarity and of confidence
in Israel’s destiny is even more marked than in Elohist; and it has
been questioned, not without reason, whether such feelings could have
animated the breast of a Judæan in the dark days that followed the
dissolution of Solomon’s empire.² That argument is not greatly to be
trusted: although the loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt
in Judah (Isaiah 7¹⁷), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was
plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th century, and we cannot
tell how far in the intervening period religious idealism was able
to overcome the depression natural to a feeble and dependent state,
and keep alive the sense of unity and the hope of reunion with the
larger Israel of the north. In any case, it is improbable that Yahwist
and Elohist are separated by an interval of two centuries; if Elohist
belongs to the first half of the 8th century, Yahwist will hardly be
earlier than the 9th.³
¹ So Procksch (178 ff.), who points out a number of indications
that appear to converge on that period of history.
Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Holzinger agree; Reuss, Dillmann,
Kittel place it in the 9th century.
² Procksch. 286 ff.
³ So Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Kittel, Gunkel al.
Specific historical allusions which have been thought to
indicate a more definite date for Yahwist (or Elohist) prove
on examination to be unreliable. If 31⁴⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 49²³ ᶠᶠᐧ contained
references to the wars between Israel and Aram under Omri and
his successors, it would be necessary to bring the date of
both documents down to that time; but Gunkel has shown that
interpretation to be improbable.――27⁴⁰ᵇ presupposes the revolt
of Edom from Judah (_circa_ 840); but that prosaic half-verse is
probably an addition to the poetic passage in which it occurs,
and therefore goes to show that the blessing itself is earlier,
instead of later, than the middle of the 9th century.――The curse
on Canaan (9²³ ᶠᶠᐧ) does not necessarily assume the definite
subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel; and if it did, would
only prove a date not earlier than Solomon.――Other arguments,
such as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelaḥ and
Nineveh in the list of Assyrian cities in 10¹¹ etc., are still
less conclusive.
While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to Yahwist and
Elohist, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally accepted
view that the former is of Judæan and the latter of Ephraimite origin.
Only, it must be premised that the body of patriarchal tradition which
lies behind both documents is native to northern, or rather central,
Israel, and must have taken shape there.¹ The favourite wife of
Jacob is not Leah but Rachel, the mother of Joseph (Ephraim-Manasseh)
and Benjamin; and Joseph himself is the brightest figure in
all the patriarchal gallery. The sacred places common to both
recensions――Shechem, Bethel, Mahanaim, Peniel, Beersheba――are, except
the last, all in Israelite territory; and Beersheba, though belonging
geographically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a favourite resort
of pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴, 1 Kings 19³).――It
is when we look at the divergence between the two sources that
the evidence of the Ephraimite origin of Elohist and the Judæan of
Yahwist becomes consistent and clear. Whereas Elohist never evinces
the slightest interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above,
Yahwist makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable theophany,
and thus indelibly associates its sanctity with the name of Abraham.
It is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the founding of the
northern sanctuaries, Shechem and Bethel (12⁷ᐧ ⁸); but we can hardly
fail to detect something perfunctory in his description, as compared
with Elohist’s impressive narrative of Jacob’s dream at Bethel
(28¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), or his own twofold account of the founding of
Beersheba (chapters 21. 26). It is Elohist alone who records the place
of Rachel’s grave (35¹⁹), of those of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah (⁸), of
Joseph (Joshua 24³²), and Joshua (³⁰),――all in the northern territory.
The sections peculiar to Yahwist (page xliii) are nearly all of local
Judæan interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; 19¹⁻²⁸ is a legend of the
Dead Sea basin; 19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ deals with the origin of the neighbouring
peoples of Moab and Ammon; 38 is based on the internal tribal history
of Judah (and is not, as has been supposed, charged with animosity
towards that tribe: see page 455). Finally, while Joseph’s place of
honour was too firmly established to be challenged, it is Yahwist
who, in defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright
and the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (49⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 35²² ᶠᐧ, the Joseph
narratives).――These indications make it at least relatively probable
that in Yahwist we have a Judæan recension of the patriarchal tradition,
while Elohist took its shape in the northern kingdom.
¹ Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 317. It is
the neglect of this fact that has mainly led to the belief
that Yahwist, like Elohist, is of Ephraimite origin (Kuenen,
Reuss, Schrader, Fripp, Luther, al.).
The composite work Jehovist is the result of a redactional operation,
which was completed before the other components (♦D and Priestly-Code)
were incorporated in the Pentateuch.¹ The redactors (Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ)
have done their work (in Genesis) with consummate skill and care,
and have produced a consecutive narrative whose strands it is often
difficult to unravel. They have left traces of their hand in a few
harmonising touches, designed to remove a discrepancy between Yahwist
and Elohist (16⁹ ᶠᐧ 28²¹ᵇ? 31⁴⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ ⁽ᵖᵃˢˢⁱᵐ⁾ 39¹ 41⁵⁰? 46¹ 50¹⁰ ᶠᐧ):
some of these, however, may be later glosses. Of greater interest
are a number of short additions, of similar import and complexion but
occurring both in Yahwist and Elohist, which may, not with certainty
but with great probability, be assigned to these editors (13¹⁴⁻¹⁷
18¹⁷⁻¹⁹ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴ 32¹⁰⁻¹³ 46³ᵇ{β}): to this redaction we are
disposed also to attribute a thorough revision of chapter 15. In these
passages we seem to detect a note of tremulous anxiety regarding the
national future of Israel and its tenure of the land of Canaan, which
is at variance with the optimistic outlook of the original sources,
and suggests that the writers are living under the shadow of impending
exile. A slight trace of Deuteronomic phraseology in 18¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ and
26³ᵇ ᶠᶠᐧ confirms the impression that the redaction took place at some
time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.
♦ Abbreviation “D” undefined in forward or text; probably
Deuteronomy.
¹ So Nöldeke, Wellhausen, and most; against Hupfeld, Dillmann,
al.
§ 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction._
It is fortunately not necessary to discuss in this place all the
intricate questions connected with the history and structure of the
Priests’ Code. The Code as a whole is, even more obviously than Yahwist
or Elohist, the production of a school,――in this case a school of
juristic writers, whose main task was to systematise the mass of
ritual regulations which had accumulated in the hands of the Jerusalem
priesthood, and to develop a theory of religion which grew out of them.
Evidence of stratification appears chiefly in the legislative portions
of the middle Pentateuch, where several minor codes are amalgamated,
and overlaid with considerable accretions of later material. Here,
however, we have to do only with the great historical work which forms
at once the kernel of the Code and the framework of the Pentateuch, the
document distinguished by Wellhausen as Q (_Quatuor foederum liber_),
by Kuenen as Priestly-Code², by others as Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ.¹
Although this groundwork shows traces of compilation from pre-existing
material (see pages 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428 f., etc.), it nevertheless
bears the impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.
¹ Kuenen’s Priestly-Code¹ is the so-called Law of Holiness
(Priestly-Codeʰ), which is older than the date usually
assigned to Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ.
No critical operation is easier or more certain than the
separation of this work, down even to very small fragments,
from the context in which it is embedded. When this is done, and
the fragments pieced together, we have before us, almost in its
original integrity, an independent document, which is a _source_,
as well as the framework, of Genesis. We have seen (page xli)
that the opposite opinion is maintained by Klostermann and Orr,
who hold that Priestly-Code is merely a supplementing redactor
of, or ‘collaborator’ with, Jehovist. But two facts combine to
render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments
form a consecutive history, in which the _lacunæ_ are very few
and unimportant, and those which occur are easily explicable
as the result of the redactional process. The precise state
of the case is as follows: In the primæval history no _hiatus_
whatever can be detected. Dr. Orr’s assertion (_The Problem of
the Old Testament_, 348 f.) that Priestly-Code’s account of the
Flood _must_ have contained the episodes of the birds and the
sacrifice, because both are in the Babylonian version, will
be worth considering when he has made it probable either that
Priestly-Code had ever read the Babylonian story, or that, if
he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter
of fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we
shall see presently, Noah’s sacrifice is an incident which
Priestly-Code would certainly have suppressed if he had known
of it.――In the history of Abraham there is again no reason
to suspect any omission. Here is a literal translation of the
_disjecta membra_ of Priestly-Code’s epitome of the biography
of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse
transposed (19²⁹): 12⁴ᵇ “Now Abram was 75 years old when he went
out from Ḥarran. ⁵ And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his
brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had acquired,
and all the souls whom they had procured; and they went out to
go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.
13⁶ And the land could not bear them so that they might dwell
together, for their possessions were great, and they were not
able to dwell together. ¹¹ᵇ So they separated from one another:
¹²ᵃᵇ Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the
cities of the Oval. 19²⁹ And when God destroyed the cities
of the Oval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from
the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in
which Lot dwelt.――16¹ Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no
children. ³ So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her
maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and
gave her to Abram her husband for a wife to him. ¹⁵ And Hagar
bore to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom
Hagar bore to him Ishmael. ¹⁶ And Abram was 86 years old when
Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.――17¹ And when Abram was 99 years
old, _Yahwe_ appeared to Abram, and said to him,” etc. Here
follows the account of the covenant with Abraham, the change
of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of circumcision,
and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah (chapter
17).――The narrative is resumed in 21¹ᵇ “And _Yahwe_ did to
Sarah as he had spoken, ²ᵇ at the appointed time which God had
mentioned. ³ And Abraham called the name of his son who was born
to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. ⁴ And Abraham circumcised
Isaac his son when he was 8 days old, as God had commanded him.
⁵ And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born
to him.――23¹ And the life of Sarah was 127 years; ² and Sarah
died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.”
This introduces the story of the purchase of Machpelah as a
burying-place (chapter 23), and this brings us to――25⁷ “And
these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he
lived: 175 years; ⁸ and he expired. And Abraham died in a good
old age, an old man and full [of years], and was gathered to his
father’s kin. ⁹ And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the
cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the
Hittite, which is opposite Mamre: ¹⁰ the field which Abraham
bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and
Sarah his wife.――¹¹ And after the death of Abraham, God blessed
Isaac his son.” The reader can judge for himself whether
a narrative so continuous as this, every isolated sentence
of which has been detached from its context by unmistakable
criteria of the style of Priestly-Code, is likely to have been
produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an
older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19²⁹,
let him note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its
present position that verse is, considered as a supplement to
19¹⁻²⁸.――In the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there
are undoubtedly omissions which _we_ can only supply from
Jehovist; and if we were to judge from these parts alone, the
supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is. We
miss, _e.g._, accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob’s
arrival in Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel,
of the birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt,
his reconciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other
particulars. Even here, however, the theory is absolutely
negatived by the contradictions to Jehovist which will be
specified immediately. Dr. Orr’s argument on this point (_The
Problem of the Old Testament_, 343 ff.) really assumes that
the account of Jehovist is the _only_ way in which the gaps of
Priestly-Code could be filled up; but the examination of the
story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts
are fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome
of the history, similar to that of the history of Abraham, has
been abridged in the redaction, by the excision of a very few
sentences, in favour of the fuller narrative of Jehovist.――(2)
The second fact which makes Dr. Orr’s hypothesis untenable is
this, that in almost every instance where Priestly-Code expands
into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the
events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents.
The difference between Priestly-Code’s cosmogony and Yahwist’s
account of the Creation is such that it is ludicrous to speak
of the one as a supplement or a ‘framework’ to the other; and
the two Flood stories are hardly less irreconcilable (see page
148). In the life of Abraham, we have two parallel accounts
of the covenant with Abraham in chapter 15 (Jehovist) and 17
(Priestly-Code); and it is evident that the one supersedes and
excludes the other. Again, Priestly-Code’s reason for Jacob’s
journey to Mesopotamia (28¹⁻⁹) is quite inconsistent with
that given by Jehovist in chapter 27 (page 374 f.); and his
conception of Isaac’s blessing as a transmission of the blessing
originally bestowed on Abraham (28⁴) is far removed from
the idea which forms the motive of chapter 27. In Jehovist,
Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob’s return from
Mesopotamia (32³); in Priestly-Code he does not leave Canaan
till after the burial of Isaac (35⁶). Priestly-Code’s account
of the enmity between Joseph and his brethren is unfortunately
truncated, but enough is preserved to show that it differed
essentially from that of Jehovist (see page 444). It is
difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to
Yahwist and Elohist, but it certainly was not at Machpelah,
as in Priestly-Code (see page 538 f.). And so on. Everywhere
we see a tendency in Priestly-Code to suppress or minimise
discords in the patriarchal households. It is inconceivable
that a supplementer should thus contradict his original at
every turn, and at the same time leave it to tell its own story.
When we find that the passages of an opposite tenor to Jehovist
form parts of a practically complete narrative, we cannot
avoid the conclusion that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is an independent
document, which has been preserved almost entire in our
present Book of Genesis. The question then arises whether these
discrepancies spring from a divergent tradition followed by
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ or from a deliberate re-writing of the
history as told by Jehovist, under the influence of certain
theological ideals and principles, which we now proceed to
consider.
The central theme and objective of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the
institution of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the
Tabernacle, erected, after its heavenly antitype, by Moses at Mount
Sinai. For this event the whole previous history of mankind is a
preparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last of four world-ages:
from the Creation to the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to
Moses, and from Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine
revelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name of God: El
Shaddai to Abraham (17¹), and Yahwe to Moses (Exodus 6³). Each period,
also, is marked by the institution of some permanent element of the
theocratic constitution, the Levitical system being conceived as a
pyramid rising in four stages: the Sabbath (2² ᶠᐧ); permission of the
slaughter of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the
blood (9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); circumcision (17); and, lastly, the fully developed
Mosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial
worship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars nor
sacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history; and even the
distinction between clean and unclean animals is supposed to be unknown
at the time of the Flood. It is particularly noteworthy that the
profane, as distinct from the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which
even the Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back
to the covenant with Noah.
Beneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling idea of a
progressive unfolding of God’s will to men, we discover a theory of
religion which, more than anything else, expresses the spirit of the
Priestly school to which the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ belonged.
The exclusive emphasis on the formal or _institutional_ aspect of
religion, which is the natural proclivity of a sacerdotal caste,
appears in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ in a very pronounced fashion. Religion
is resolved into a series of positive enactments on the part of God,
and observance of these on the part of man. The old cult-legends (page
xii f.), which traced the origin of existing ritual usages to historic
incidents in the lives of the fathers, are swept away; and every
practice to which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct
command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand,
such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of
personal piety――the disposition of the heart towards God――his narrative
hardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a
theology at once more abstract and shallower than that of Yahwist
or Elohist, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions
shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life
(chapter 3. 6⁵ 8²¹ 18²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 45⁸ etc.), and succeeds in depicting the
personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward
fellowship with God (compare 22. 24¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 32⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 48¹⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would
be unfair to charge the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with indifference
to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating
character and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are
none the less characteristic of the type of mind that produced the
colourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant
ideas of the Priestly theology.
Another characteristic distinction between Jehovist and Priestly-Code
is seen in the enhanced _transcendentalism_ of the latter’s conception
of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthropopathic, expressions
are studiously avoided (an exception is Genesis 2² ᶠᐧ: compare Exodus
31¹⁷ᵇ); revelation takes the form of simple _speech_; angels, dreams,
and visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not
described; God is said to ‘appear’ to men, and to ‘go up from them’
(Genesis 17¹ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ 35⁹ᐧ ¹³ 48³, Exodus 6³), but the manner of His
appearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation
at Sinai (Exodus 24¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²⁹ᵇ 40³⁴ ᶠᐧ). It is true that a similar
inconcreteness often characterises the theophanies of Yahwist and
Elohist, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided
approximation to the abstract conceptions of Priestly-Code. But a
comparison of the parallels chapter 17 with 15, or 35⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ with 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ,
makes it clear that Priestly-Code’s departure from the older tradition
springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from
the representation of Godhead.
It remains to consider, in the light of these facts,
Priestly-Code’s attitude to the traditional history of the
patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that he accepts the
main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But whether
he knew that tradition from other sources than Yahwist and
Elohist, is a question not so easily answered. For the primitive
period, _direct_ dependence on Yahwist is improbable, because
of the marked diversity in the accounts of the Creation and the
Flood: here Priestly-Code seems to have followed a tradition
closely akin to, but not identical with, that of Yahwist. In
the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose
that he had any other authorities than Yahwist and Elohist. The
general course of events is the same, and differences of detail
are all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code. But
the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history,
both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a meagre summary,
with little save a chronological significance, and that the
points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial
are (with one exception) precisely those which introduce a
new religious dispensation: viz. the Creation, the Flood, the
Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus. The single exception is the
purchase of Machpelah (chapter 23), an event which doubtless
owes its prominence to its connexion with the promise of the
land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest, a certain emphasis
naturally lies on outstanding events, like the origin of
the name Israel (35⁹ ᶠᐧ), or the settlement of Jacob’s family
in Egypt (47⁵⁻¹¹); and the author lingers with interest on
the transmission of the patriarchal blessing and promise
from Isaac to Jacob (28³ 35¹²), and from Jacob to his sons
(48³ ᶠᐧ). But these are practically all the incidents to which
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ attaches any sort of significance of
their own; and even these derive much of their importance from
their relation to the chronological scheme into which they are
fitted.――Hence to say that Priestly-Code’s epitome would be
‘unintelligible’ apart from Jehovist, is to confuse his point of
view with our own. It is perfectly true that from Priestly-Code
alone we should know very little of the characters of the
patriarchs, of the motives which governed their actions, or
of the connexion between one event and another. But these
are matters which Priestly-Code had no interest in making
‘intelligible.’ He is concerned solely with events, not with
causes or motives. The individual is sufficiently described when
we are told whose son he was, how long he lived, what children
he begot, and such like. He is but a link in the generations
that fill up the history; and even where he is the recipient of
a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends on
his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any
personal endowment or providential training.
The _style_ of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ can be characterised without the
reserves and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the
difference between Yahwist and Elohist (page xlvii f.); there is
no better illustration of the dictum _le style c’est l’homme_ than
in this remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects
the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped terminology,
its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its monotonous
repetitions, and its general determination to leave no loophole for
misinterpretation or misunderstanding. The jurist’s love of order and
method appears in a great facility in the construction of schemes and
schedules――genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc.――as well
as in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a whole. It
is necessary to read the whole work consecutively in order to realise
the full effect of the laboured diffuseness, the dry lucidity and
prosaic monotony of this characteristic product of the Priestly school
of writers. On the other hand, the style is markedly deficient in the
higher elements of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an
impressive dignity (as in Genesis 1. 47⁷⁻¹¹), it is apt to degenerate
into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set phrases and rigid
formulæ (see Numbers 7). The power of picturesque description, or
dramatic delineation of life and character, is absent: the writer’s
imagination is of the mechanical type, which cannot realise an object
without the help of exact quantitative specification or measurement.
Even in chapter 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative in
the Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the measured
periodic movement of the action, and the recurrent use of standing
expressions from the opening to the close. That such a style might
become the property of a school we see from the case of Ezekiel,
whose writings show strong affinities with Priestly-Code; but of all
the Priestly documents, Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the one in which the
literary bent of the school is best exemplified, and (it may be added)
is seen to most advantage.
The following selection (from Driver, _An Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament_⁸, 131 ff.) of distinctive
expressions of Priestly-Code, occurring in Genesis, will give a
sufficient idea of the stylistic peculiarity of the book, and
also of its linguistic affinities with the later literature, but
especially with the Book of Ezekiel.
אלהים as the name of God, uniformly in Genesis, except 17¹
21¹ᵇ.――מין, ‘kind’: 1¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ (Leviticus 11,
Deuteronomy 14; only again Ezekiel 47¹⁰).――שָׁרַץ, ‘to swarm’:
1²⁰ᐧ ²¹ 7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷ +¹ (outside of Priestly-Code only Psalms
105³⁰, Ezekiel 47⁹).――שֶׁרֶץ, ‘swarming things’: 1²⁰ 7²¹ + (only in
Priestly-Code and Deuteronomy 14¹⁹).――פרה ורבה: 1²²ᐧ ²⁸ 8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷
17²⁰ 28³ 35¹¹ 47²⁷ 48⁴ (Exodus 1⁷, Leviticus 26⁹; elsewhere only
Jeremiah 3¹⁶ [inverted], 23³, Ezekiel 36¹¹).――לאכלה: 1²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ 6²¹
9³ + (elsewhere only in Ezekiel (10 times), and (as infinitive)
Jeremiah 12⁹).――תולדות: 10³² 25¹³ + (elsewhere 1 Chronicles
5⁷ 7²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ 8²⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 26³¹). The phrase [ו]אלה תולדות occurs in
Priestly-Code 10 times in Genesis (see page xxxiv), and in
Numbers 3¹; elsewhere only Ruth 4¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1²⁹.――גוע:
6¹⁷ 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²³ + (elsewhere poetical: Zechariah 13⁸,
Psalms 88¹⁶ 104²⁹, Lamentations 1¹⁹, and 8 times in Job).――עִמְּךָ,
אִתְּךָ, etc. (appended to enumerations): 6¹⁸ 7⁷ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 9⁸ 28⁴
46⁶ᐧ ⁷ +.――אחריכם, etc. (after ‘seed’): 9⁹ 17⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁹ 35¹²
48⁴ +.――עצם היום הזה: 7¹³ 17²³ᐧ ²⁶ +; only in Priestly-Code and
Ezekiel 2³ 24² 40¹ (Joshua 10²⁷ redactional).――יהם――למשפחותם:
8¹⁹ 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹ 36⁴⁰ + (very often in Priestly-Code: elsewhere
only Numbers 11¹⁰ [Jehovist], 1 Samuel 10²¹, 1 Chronicles 5⁷ 6⁴⁷ᐧ
⁴⁸).――ברית עולם: 9¹⁶ 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ +, only in Priestly-Code.――במאד מאד:
17²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰ + Exodus 1⁷; elsewhere only Ezekiel 9⁹ 16¹³.――רכוש: 12⁵
13⁶ 31¹⁸ 36⁷ 46⁶ +; elsewhere Genesis 14¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ 15¹⁴; and
15 times in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel.――רָכַשׁ: 12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶
+.――נפש (= ‘person’): 12⁵ 36⁶ 46¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ +; “much more
frequent in Priestly-Code than elsewhere.”――יכם――לדרתם: 17⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²
+ 36 times (only in Priestly-Code).――מגורים: 17⁸ 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹
+ Exodus 6⁴; elsewhere Ezekiel 20³⁸, Psalms 55¹⁶ 119⁵⁴, Job
18¹⁹ +.――אחזה: 17⁸ 23⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰ 36⁴³ 47¹¹ 48⁴ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +. Often in
Ezekiel (44²⁸ 45⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 46¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 48²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²); elsewhere Psalms
2⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸ 9² [= Nehemiah 11³], 2 Chronicles 11¹⁴ 31¹
+.――מקנה: 17¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ 23¹⁸ + (confined to Priestly-Code except
Jeremiah 32¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――עמים (= ‘father’s kin’): 17¹⁴ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷
35²⁹ 49³³ + (also Ezekiel 18¹⁸; elsewhere Judges 5¹⁴?, Hosea
10¹⁴ +).――תושב: 23⁴ + 10 times (also 1 Kings 17¹?, 1 Chronicles
29¹⁵, Psalms 39¹³).――קנון: 31¹⁸ [34²³] 36⁶ + (outside of
Priestly-Code, only Ezekiel 38¹² ᶠ; Proverbs 4⁷, Psalms 104²⁴
105²¹).
¹ As on page xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further
examples are found in the rest of the Pentateuch. It should
be expressly said, however, that the + frequently covers
a considerable number of cases; and that a _selection_ of
phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent
the strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in
the more exhaustive lists of Driver (_l.c._) or the _Oxford
Hexateuch_ (volume i. pages 208‒221).
In the choice of synonymous expressions, Priestly-Code exhibits
an exclusive preference for הוליד in the sense of ‘beget’ over ילד
(in the genealogies of Yahwist), and for the form אני of the 1st
person pronoun (אנכי only in Genesis 23⁴).
Geographical designations peculiar to Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ are:
_Kiryath-’Arba‛_ (for Hebron) 23² 35²⁷ +; _Machpelah_, 23⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹
25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +; _Paddan-Aram_, 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶
46¹⁵ +.――To these may be added ארץ כנען, 11³¹ 12⁵ 13¹² 16³ 17⁸
23²ᐧ ¹⁹ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁶ 37¹ +; the expression is found in
Jehovist only in the Joseph-section (chapters 42, 44, 45, 47).
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ has כנען without ארץ only in בנות כנען (28¹ 36²).
In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list
is by no means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the
linguistic and stylistic distinction between Priestly-Code and
Jehovist (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in criticism.
The _date_ of the composition of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ lies between the
promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.C.), and the post-Exilic
reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It is later than Deuteronomy,
because it assumes without question the centralisation of worship
at one sanctuary, which in Deuteronomy is only held up as an ideal
to be realised by a radical reform of established usage. A nearer
determination of date depends on questions of the internal analysis
of Priestly-Code which are too complex to be entered on here. That the
Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the
division between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer
of Deuteronomy, and of which we find the origin and justification in
Ezekiel 44⁶⁻¹⁶, is presupposed as already established (Numbers 3. 4.
8, etc.). It is possible, however, that that distinction belongs to
a stratum of the legislation not included in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ;
in which case Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ might very well be earlier than
Ezekiel, or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern
us here. For the understanding of Genesis, it is enough to know that
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, both in its theological conceptions and its
attitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought
much later than Yahwist and Elohist.
The view that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ was written before the Exile
(in the end of the 7th century) is advocated by Procksch (_l.c._
319 ff.), who reduces this part of Priestly-Code to narrower
limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an
essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit,
embracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the
Law of Holiness (Priestly-Codeʰ), and recognising the priestly
status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Deuteronomy
(Numbers 17¹⁶⁻²⁴ and Priestly-Codeʰ in its original form). If
that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the
document is older than Ezekiel. It is admitted both by Kuenen
and Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 116) that
the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later
strata of Priestly-Code as compared with Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ,
but that it is not recognised in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is not
clear. As to _pre-Exilic_ origin, the positive arguments
advanced by Procksch are not very cogent; and it is doubtful
whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than
the _possibility_ of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact
which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Procksch:
viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in chapter 10 bears
internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable
time before the 5th century B.C. (page 191 below); but that may
be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of
Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ made use of pre-existing documents in the
preparation of his work.
The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pentateuch is
the amalgamation of Priestly-Code with the older documents,――in Genesis
the amalgamation of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with Jehovist. That this
process has left traces in the present text is quite certain _a priori_;
though it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of
this kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (compare 6⁷
7⁷ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ 10²⁴ 27⁴⁶ etc.). The aim of the redactor was, in general, to
preserve the _ipsissima verba_ of his sources as far as was consistent
with the production of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he
appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every fragment of
Priestly-Code that could possibly be retained. It is not improbable
that this rule was uniformly observed by him, and that the slight
_lacunæ_ which occur in Priestly-Code after chapter 25 are due to
the activity of later scribes in smoothing away redundancies and
unevennesses from the narrative. That such changes might take place
after the completion of the Pentateuch we see from 47⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, where LXX
has preserved a text in which the dovetailing of sources is much more
obvious than in Massoretic Text.――If the lawbook read by Ezra before
the congregation as the basis of the covenant (Nehemiah 8¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was the
entire Pentateuch (excepting late additions),¹ the redaction must have
been effected before 444 B.C., and in all probability the redactor was
Ezra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems to the present writer
more probable) Ezra’s lawbook was only the Priestly Code, or part of
it (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ + Priestly-Codeʰ),² then the final redaction
is brought down to a later period, the _terminus ad quem_ being the
borrowing of the Jewish Pentateuch by the Samaritan community. That
event is usually assigned, though on somewhat precarious grounds, to
Nehemiah’s second term of office in Judæa (_circa_ 432 B.C.).
¹ So Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kittel al.
² So Cornill, Holzinger al.
Of far greater interest and significance than the date or manner
of this final redaction, is the fact that it was called for by the
religious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism. Nothing else would have
brought about the combination of elements so discordant as the naïve
legendary narratives of Jehovist and the systematised history of the
Priestly Code. We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly
theology is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or
that, if the tendencies represented by the Code had prevailed, the
stories which are to us the most precious and edifying parts of the
Book of Genesis would have found no place in an authoritative record
of God’s revelation of Himself to the fathers. But this is not the
only instance in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged
more wisely than the learning of the schools. We know that deeper
influences than the legalism and institutionalism of Priestly-Code’s
manifesto――necessary as these were in their place――were at work in the
post-Exilic community: the individualism of Jeremiah, the universalism
of the second Isaiah, the devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists,
and the daring reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may
surely add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the
abstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find its
nutriment in the immortal stories through which God spoke to the heart
then, as He speaks to ours to-day.
COMMENTARY.
THE PRIMÆVAL HISTORY.
CHAPTERS I‒XI.
It has been shown in the Introduction (page xxxiii) that the
most obvious division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly
equal parts, of which the first (chapters 1‒11) deals with the
Creation of the world, and the history of primitive mankind
prior to the call of Abraham. These chapters are composed of
excerpts from two of the main sources of the Pentateuch, the
Priestly Code, and the Yahwistic document. Attempts have been
made from time to time (_e.g._ by Schrader, Dillmann, and
more recently Winckler) to trace the hand of the Elohist in
chapters 1‒11; but the closest examination has failed to produce
any substantial evidence that Elohist is represented in the
Primitive History at all. By the great majority of critics the
non-Priestly traditions in this part of Genesis are assigned to
the Yahwistic cycle: that is to say, they are held to have been
collected and arranged by the school of rhapsodists to whose
literary activity we owe the document known as Yahwist.
To the Priests’ Code, whose constituents can here be isolated
with great certainty and precision, belong: 1. The Cosmogony
(1¹‒2⁴ᵃ); 2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5); 3.
An account of the Flood (6⁹‒9²⁹*); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*);
5. The Genealogies of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶), and Terah (11²⁷⁻³²*),
ending with Abraham. There is no reason to suppose either that
the original Priestly-Code contained more than this, or, on
the other hand, that Priestly-Code was written to supplement
the older tradition, and to be read along with it. It is in
accordance with the purpose and tendency of the document
that the only events recorded in detail――the Creation and the
Flood――are those which inaugurate two successive World-ages
or Dispensations, and are associated with the origin of two
fundamental observances of Judaism――the Sabbath (2³), and the
sanctity of the blood (9⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).
* The asterisk denotes that the passages so marked are
interspersed with extracts from another source. The detailed
analysis will be found in the commentary on the various
sections.
In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome
is the rich variety of life and incident which characterises
the Yahwistic sections, viz.: 1. The Creation and Fall of Man
(2⁴ᵇ‒3²⁴); 2. Cain and Abel (4¹⁻¹⁶); 3. The Genealogy of Cain
(4¹⁷⁻²⁴); 4. A fragmentary Sethite Genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...);
5. The marriages with divine beings (6¹⁻⁴); 6. An account of
the Flood (6⁵‒8²²*); 7. Noah’s Curse and Blessing (9²⁰⁻²⁷);
8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (11¹⁻⁹);
10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Teraḥ (11²⁸⁻³⁰). Here we
have a whole gallery of varied and graphic pictures, each
complete in itself and essentially independent of the rest,
arranged in a loosely chronological order, and with perhaps a
certain unity of conception, in so far as they illustrate the
increasing wickedness that accompanied the progress of mankind
in civilisation. Even the genealogies are not (like those of
Priestly-Code) bare lists of names and figures, but preserve
incidental notices of new social or religious developments
associated with particular personages (4¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁶ 5²⁹),
besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology from which
the names have been drawn (4¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ).
_Composition of Yahwist._――That a narrative composed of so
many separate and originally independent legends should present
discrepancies and discontinuities is not surprising, and is
certainly by itself no proof of literary diversity. At the same
time there are many indications that Yahwist is a composite work,
based on older collections of Hebrew traditions, whose outlines
can still be dimly traced. (1) The existence of two parallel
genealogies (Cainite and Sethite) at once suggests a conflate
tradition. The impression is raised almost to certainty when we
find that both are derived from a common original (page 138 f.).
(2) The Cainite genealogy is incompatible with the Deluge
tradition. The shepherds, musicians, and smiths, whose origin is
traced to the last three members of the genealogy, are obviously
not those of a bygone race which perished in the Flood, but
those known to the author and his contemporaries (page 115 f.).
(3) Similarly, the Table of Nations and the story of the
Confusion of Tongues imply mutually exclusive explanations of
the diversities of language and nationality: in one case the
division proceeds slowly and naturally on genealogical lines, in
the other it takes place by a sudden interposition of almighty
power. (4) There is evidence that the story of the Fall was
transmitted in two recensions (page 52 f.). If Gunkel be right,
the same is true of Yahwist’s Table of Peoples, and of the
account of the Dispersion; but there the analysis is less
convincing. (5) In 4²⁶ we read that Enosh introduced the worship
of Yahwe. The analogy of Exodus 6² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code) affords
a certain presumption that the author of such a statement will
have avoided the name יהוה up to this point; and as a matter
of fact אֱלֹהִים occurs immediately before in verse ²⁵. It is true
that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage
except 3¹⁻⁵, where other explanations might be thought of. But
throughout chapters 2 and 3 we find the very unusual compound
name יהוה אלהים, and it is a plausible conjecture that one recension
of the Paradise story was distinguished by the use of Elohim,
and that Yahwe was inserted by a harmonising Yahwistic editor
(so Budde, Gunkel, al.: see page 53).
To what precise extent these phenomena are due to documentary
differences is a question that requires to be handled with the
utmost caution and discrimination. It is conceivable that a
single author should have compiled a narrative from a number
of detached legends which he reported just as he found them,
regardless of their internal consistency. Nevertheless, there
seems sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that (as
Wellhausen has said) we have to do not merely with _aggregates_
but with _sequences_; although to unravel perfectly the various
strands of narrative may be a task for ever beyond the resources
of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the
principal theories.――(a) Wellhausen (_Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
9‒14) seems to have been the first to perceive that 4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ is a
late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4¹⁶⁻²⁴ and on chapters
2, 3; that originally chapters 2‒4 existed not only without
4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ, but also without 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ and 5²⁹; and that chapters 2. 3.
4¹⁶⁻²⁴ 11¹⁻⁹ form a connexion to which the story of the Flood
is entirely foreign and irrelevant.――(b) The analysis was
pushed many steps further by Budde (_Biblische Urgeschichte_,
passim), who, after a most exhaustive and elaborate examination,
arrived at the following theory: the primary document (Yahwist¹)
consisted of 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁹ᐧ ¹⁶⁻²⁵ 3¹⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ 6³ 3²³ 4¹ᐧ ²ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹⁷⁻²⁴
6¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁴ 10⁹ 11¹⁻⁹ 9²⁰⁻²⁷. This was recast by Yahwist²
(substituting אלהים for יהוה down to 4²⁶), whose narrative
contained a Cosmogony (but no Paradise story), the Sethite
genealogy, the Flood-legend, the Table of Nations, and a
seven-membered Shemite genealogy. These two recensions were then
amalgamated by Yahwist³, who inserted dislocated passages of
Yahwist¹ in the connexion of Yahwist², and added 4¹⁻⁵ 5²⁹ etc.
Yahwist² attained the dignity of a standard official document,
and is the authority followed by Priestly-Code at a later time.
The astonishing acumen and thoroughness which characterise
Budde’s work have had a great influence on critical opinion,
yet his ingenious transpositions and reconstructions of the
text seem too subtle and arbitrary to satisfy any but a slavish
disciple. One feels that he has worked on too narrow a basis by
confining his attention to successive overworkings of the same
literary tradition, and not making sufficient allowance for the
simultaneous existence of relatively independent forms.――(c)
Stade (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xiv. 274 ff. [= _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_
244‒251]) distinguishes three main strata: (1) chapters 2. 3.
11¹⁻⁹; (2) 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²² 9²⁰⁻²⁷ 10⁹? 6¹ᐧ ²?; (3) the Flood-legend,
added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a
Sethite genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...) and inserted the story
of Cain and Abel, and the Song of Lamech (4²³ ᶠᐧ).――(d) Gunkel
(_Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_² 1 ff.) proceeds on somewhat
different lines from his predecessors. He refuses in principle
to admit incongruity as a criterion of source, and relies on
certain verses which bear the character of connecting links
between different sections. The most important is 5²⁹ (belonging
to the Sethite genealogy), where we read: “This (Noah) shall
comfort us from our labour and from the toil of our hands on
account of the ground which Yahwe has cursed.” Here there is an
unmistakable reference backward to 3¹⁷, and forward to 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.
Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming the core of a
document where יהוה was not used till 4²⁶, and hence called
Yahwistᵉ, consisting of: one recension of the Paradise story;
the (complete) Sethite genealogy; and Noah’s discovery of
wine. From this sequence are excluded obviously: the second
recension of the Paradise story; the Cainite genealogy; and (as
Gunkel thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah appears in quite a
different character: these belong to a second document (Yahwistʲ).
Again, 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ form a connecting link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations; but Gunkel distinguishes two Yahwistic strata
in the Table of Nations and assigns one to each of his documents:
similarly with the section on the Tower of Babel. The legend of
Cain and Abel is regarded (with Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.)
as an editorial expansion.
In this commentary the analysis of Gunkel is adopted in the
main; but with the following reservations: (1) The account of
the Flood cannot be naturally assigned to Yahwistʲ, because of
its admitted incompatibility with the assumption of the Cainite
genealogy (see above). Gunkel, indeed, refuses to take such
inconsistencies into account; but in that case there is no
reason for giving the Flood to Yahwistʲ rather than to Yahwistᵉ.
There is no presumption whatever that only two documents are
in evidence; and the chapters in question show peculiarities
of language which justify the assumption of a separate source
(Stade), say Yahwistᵈ. (2) With the Flood passage goes the
Yahwistic Table of Peoples (9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ). The arguments for two
Yahwists in chapter 10 are hardly decisive; and Yahwistᵉ at
all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethnographic
survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel’s analysis of 11¹⁻⁹
appears on the whole to be sound; but even so there is no ground
for identifying the two components with Yahwistᵉ and Yahwistʲ
respectively. On the contrary, the tone of both recensions has
a striking affinity with that of Yahwistʲ: note especially (with
Wellhausen) the close resemblance in form and substance between
11⁶ and 3²². Thus:
Yahwistʲ = 3²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁴ 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ 6¹⁻⁴ 11¹⁻⁹;
Yahwistᵉ = 22⁴ᵇ‒3¹⁹*ᐧ ²³ 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ... 9²⁰⁻²⁷;
Yahwistᵈ = 6⁵‒8²²* 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ 10*;
Yahwistʳ = 4¹⁻¹⁶*.
Such constructions, it need hardly be added, are in the highest
degree precarious and uncertain; and can only be regarded as
tentative explanations of problems for which it is probable that
no final solution will be found.
I. 1‒II. 3.
_Creation of the World in Six Days:
Institution of the Sabbath._
A short Introduction describing the primæval chaos (1¹ᐧ ²) is followed
by an account of the creation of the world in six days, by a series of
eight divine fiats, viz.: (1) the creation of light, and the separation
of light from darkness, ³⁻⁵; (2) the division of the chaotic waters
into two masses, one above and the other below the ‘firmament,’ ⁶⁻⁸;
(3) the separation of land and sea through the collecting of the lower
waters into “one place,” ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰; (4) the clothing of the earth with its
mantle of vegetation, ¹¹⁻¹³; (5) the formation of the heavenly bodies,
¹⁴⁻¹⁹; (6) the peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, ²⁰⁻²³;
(7) the production of land animals, ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵; and (8) the creation of man,
²⁶⁻³¹. Finally, the Creator is represented as resting from His works on
the seventh day; and this becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance
of the weekly Sabbath rest (2¹⁻³).
_Character of the Record._――It is evident even from this bare outline
of its contents that the opening section of Genesis is not a scientific
account of the actual process through which the universe originated.
It is a world unknown to science whose origin is here described,――the
world of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse of earth,
surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a vault
called the ‘firmament,’ above which again are the waters of a heavenly
ocean from which the rain descends on the earth (see on verses ⁶⁻⁸).¹
That the writer believed this to be the true view of the universe,
and that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actually
came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt (Wellhausen,
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 296). But the fundamental
difference of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the
significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of physical
fact which can be brought into line with the results of modern science.
The key to its interpretation must be found elsewhere.
¹ The fact referred to above seems to me to impose an absolute
veto on the attempt to harmonise the teaching of the chapter
with scientific theory. It may be useful, however, to
specify one or two outstanding difficulties of detail.
(1) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that the
definition of ‘day’ as ‘geological period’ is essential
to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible. (2)
The creation of sun and moon _after_ the earth, after the
alternation of day and night, and even after the appearance
of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities. (3)
Palæontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if
it did not actually follow that of animal life, certainly
did not _precede_ it by an interval corresponding to two
‘days.’ (4) The order in which the various living forms are
created, the manner in which they are grouped, and their
whole development compressed into special periods, are all
opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial
discussion of these questions see Driver, _Genesis_, 19‒26.
It is there shown conclusively, not only that the modern
attempts at reconciliation fail, but (what is more important)
that the point at issue is not one of science, but simply
of _exegesis_. The facts of science are not in dispute; the
only question is whether the language of Genesis will bear
the construction which the harmonising scientists find it
necessary to put upon it.
In order to understand the true character of the narrative, we must
compare it with the _cosmogonies_ which form an integral part of all
the higher religions of antiquity. The demand for some rational theory
of the origin of the world as known or conceived is one that emerges
at a very early stage of culture; and the efforts of the human mind in
this direction are observed to follow certain common lines of thought,
which point to the existence of a cosmological tradition exerting a
widespread influence over ancient speculation on the structure of the
universe. There is ample evidence, as will be shown later (below, page
45 ff.), that the Hebrew thinkers were influenced by such a tradition;
and in this fact we find a clue to the inner meaning of the narrative
before us. The tradition was plastic, and therefore capable of being
moulded in accordance with the genius of a particular religion; at the
same time, being a tradition, it retained a residuum of unassimilated
material derived from the common stock of cosmological speculation
current in the East. What happened in the case of the biblical
cosmogony is this: that during a long development within the sphere of
Hebrew religion it was gradually stripped of its cruder mythological
elements, and transformed into a vehicle for the spiritual ideas which
were the peculiar heritage of Israel. It is to the depth and purity of
these ideas that the narrative mainly owes that character of sobriety
and sublimity which has led many to regard it as the primitive revealed
cosmogony, of which all others are grotesque and fantastic variations
(Dillmann, page 10).
The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, therefore, in the
fact that in it the monotheistic principle of the Old Testament has
obtained classical expression. The great idea of God, first proclaimed
in all its breadth and fulness by the second Isaiah during the Exile,
is here embodied in a detailed account of the genesis of the universe,
which lays hold of the imagination as no abstract statement of the
principle could ever do. The central doctrine is that the world is
_created_,――that it originates in the will of God, a personal Being
transcending the universe and existing independently of it. The pagan
notion of a Theogony――a generation of the gods from the elementary
world-matter――is entirely banished. It is, indeed, doubtful if the
representation goes so far as a _creatio ex nihilo_, or whether a
pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on verse ¹); it
is certain at least that the _kosmos_, the ordered world with which
alone man has to do, is wholly the product of divine intelligence
and volition. The spirituality of the First Cause of all things, and
His absolute sovereignty over the material He employs, are further
emphasised in the idea of the _word_ of God――the effortless expression
of His thought and purpose――as the agency through which each successive
effect is produced; and also in the recurrent refrain which affirms
that the original creation in each of its parts was ‘good,’ and as a
whole ‘very good’ (verse ³¹), _i.e._ that it perfectly reflected the
divine thought which called it into existence. The traces of mythology
and anthropomorphism which occur in the body of the narrative belong
to the traditional material on which the author operated, and do
not affect his own theological standpoint, which is defined by the
doctrines just enumerated. When to these we add the doctrine of man,
as made in the likeness of God, and marked out as the crown and goal
of creation, we have a body of religious truth which distinguishes the
cosmogony of Genesis from all similar compositions, and entitles it to
rank among the most important documents of revealed religion.
_The Framework._――The most noteworthy literary feature of the
record is the use of a set of stereotyped formulæ, by which the
separate acts of creation are reduced as far as possible to a
common expression. The structure of this ‘framework’ (as it may
be called) is less uniform than might be expected, and is much
more regular in LXX than in Massoretic Text. It is impossible to
decide how far the irregularities are due to the original writer,
and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the possibility
of accident, we have to allow on the one hand for the natural
tendency of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on
the other hand for deliberate omissions, intended to bring out
Sacred numbers in the occurrences of the several formulæ.¹
¹ A familiar instance is the ‘ten sayings’ of _Pirḳê ’Abôth_,
5, 1: בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם, where the number 10 is arrived at
by adding to the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of ויאמר
in Massoretic Text (verses²⁸ᐧ ²⁹).
The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here:
(a) The fiat (_And God said, Let_ ...) introduces (both in
Massoretic Text and LXX) each of the eight works of creation
(verses³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁶). (b) _And it was so_ occurs
literally 6 times in Massoretic Text, but virtually 7 times:
_i.e._ in connection with all the works except the sixth
(verses⁽³⁾ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰); in LXX also in verse ²⁰. (c)
The execution of the fiat (_And God made_ ...――with variations)
is likewise recorded 6 times in Massoretic Text and 7 times
in LXX (verses⁷ᐧ ⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷). (d) The sentence of
divine approval (_And God saw that it was good_) is pronounced
over each work except the second (in LXX there also), though
in the last instance with a significant variation: see
verses⁴ᐧ ⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. (e) The naming of the objects
created (_And God called_ ...) is peculiar to the three acts of
separation (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰). (f) _And God blessed_ ... (3 times)
is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath day
(verses²²ᐧ ²⁸ 2³). (g) The division into days is marked by the
closing formula, _And it was evening, etc._, which, of course,
occurs 6 times (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ³¹), being omitted after the
third and seventh works.
The occurrence of the ויהו כן _before_ the execution of the fiat
produces a redundancy which may be concealed but is not removed
by substituting _so_ for _and_ in the translation (_So God made_,
etc.). When we observe further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in
LXX 5 out of 7) the execution is described as a _work_, that
the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment is often far
from complete, and finally that 2²ᵃ seems a duplicate of 2¹, the
question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to
a literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as
a series of _fiats_ has been superimposed on another conception
of it as a series of _works_. The observation does not carry us
very far, since no analysis of sources can be founded on it; but
it is perhaps a slight indication of what is otherwise probable,
viz. that the cosmogony was not the free composition of a single
mind, but reached its final form through the successive efforts
of many writers (see below).¹
¹ See, now, Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_
i. 349 and Schwally in _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._,
ix. 159‒175, which have appeared since the above paragraph
was written. Both writers point out the twofold conception
of the creation which runs through the chapter; and Schwally
makes out a strong case for the composition of the passage
from two distinct recensions of the cosmogony.
_The Seven Days’ Scheme._――The distribution of the eight
works over six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen,
Ewald, Schrader, Wellhausen, Dillmann, Budde, Gunkel, al.) a
modification introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law, and
at variance with the original intention of the cosmogony. Before
entering on that question, it must be pointed out that the
adjustment of days to works proceeds upon a clear principle, and
results in a symmetrical arrangement. Its effect is to divide
the creative process into two stages, each embracing four works
and occupying three days, the last day of each series having two
works assigned to it. There is, moreover, a remarkable, though
not perfect, parallelism between the two great divisions. Thus
the _first_ day is marked by the creation of light, and the
_fourth_ by the creation of the heavenly bodies, which are
expressly designated ‘light-bearers’; on the _second_ day the
waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the
space between heaven and earth is formed, and so the _fifth_
day witnesses the peopling of these regions with their living
denizens (fishes and fowls); on the _third_ day the dry land
emerges, and on the _sixth_ terrestrial animals and man are
created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work of
the _third_ day (trees and grasses) corresponds to the last
appointment of the _sixth_ day, by which these products are
assigned as the food of men and animals. Broadly speaking,
therefore, we may say that “the first three days are days of
preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment” (Driver
_Genesis_ 2). Now whether this arrangement belongs to the
original conception of the cosmogony, or at what stage it was
introduced, are questions very difficult to answer. Nothing at
all resembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents;
for the division into seven tablets of the _Enuma eliš_ series
has no relation to the seven days of the biblical account.¹ If
therefore a Babylonian origin is assumed, it seems reasonable to
hold that the scheme of days is a Hebrew addition; and in that
case it is hard to believe that it can have been introduced
without a primary reference to the distinctively Israelitish
institution of the weekly Sabbath. It then only remains to
inquire whether we can go behind the present seven days’ scheme,
and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier arrangement
which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a
form different from what we now find.
¹ See below, page 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian
and Etruscan analogies; see page 50.
The latter position is maintained by Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 187 ff.), who holds that the scheme of days is a
secondary addition to the framework as it came from the hand
of its Priestly author (Q). In the original cosmogony of Q a
division into seven days was recognised, but in a different form
from what now obtains; it was moreover not carried through in
detail, but merely indicated by the statement of 2² that God
finished His work on the seventh day. The key to the primary
arrangement he finds in the formula of approval, the absence
of which after the second work he explains by the consideration
that the separation of the upper waters from the lower and of
the lower from the dry land form really but one work, and were
so regarded by Q. Thus the seven works of creation were (1)
separation of light from darkness; (2) separation of waters
(⁶⁻¹⁰); (3) creation of plants; (4) luminaries; (5) fish
and fowl; (6) land animals; (7) man. The statement that God
finished His work on the seventh day Wellhausen considers to
be inconsistent with a six days’ creation, and also with the
view that the seventh was a day of rest; hence in chapter 2, he
deletes ²ᵇ and ³ᵇ, and reads simply: “and God finished His work
which He made on the seventh day, and God blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it.”――This theory has been subjected to a
searching criticism by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 487
ff.; compare also Dillmann 15), who rightly protests against
the subsuming of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea
under one rubric as a ‘separation of waters,’ and gets rid of
the difficulty presented by 2²ᵃ by reading _sixth_ instead of
_seventh_ (see on the verse). Budde urges further that the idea
of the Sabbath as a day on which work might be done is one not
likely to have been entertained in the circles from which the
Priestly Code emanated,¹ and also (on the ground of Exodus 20¹¹)
that the conception of a creation in six days followed by a
divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel long before
the age of that document.――It is to be observed that part of
Budde’s argument (which as a whole seems to me valid against
the specific form of the theory advanced by Wellhausen) only
pushes the real question a step further back; and Budde himself,
while denying that the seven days’ scheme is secondary to
Priestly-Code, agrees with Ewald, Dillmann, and many others
in thinking that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the
cosmogony in which that scheme did not exist.
¹ See Jerome’s polemical note, in _Quæstiones sive Traditiones
hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._
The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight
works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an
attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has
been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting
(Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other
way; for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained
in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had
some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the
originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of
two entirely dissimilar works under the third day; (b) the
separation of two closely related works on the second and third
days; (c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the
existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated
(thus far Dillmann 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the
fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These
objections are not all of equal weight; and explanations more
or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the
whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions: that
the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally
incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the
former during the Hebrew development of the cosmogony, that
this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of
the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later
than Priestly-Code, and in all probability long before his time.
_Source and Style._――As has been already hinted, the section
belongs to the Priestly Code (Priestly-Code). This is the
unanimous opinion of all critics who accept the documentary
analysis of the Hexateuch, and it is abundantly proved both by
characteristic words and phrases, and general features of style.
Expressions characteristic of Priestly-Code are (besides the
divine name אלהים): ברא (see on verse¹), זכר ונקבה ²⁷, חיתו ארץ [חית ה׳]
²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³⁰, לאכלה ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, מין ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵, מקוה ¹⁰, פרה ורבה ²²ᐧ ²⁸,
רָמַשׂ, רֶמֶשׂ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³⁰, שָׁרַץ, שֶׁרֶץ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹, and תולדות in
2⁴ᵃ.――Compare the lists in Dillmann, page 1; Gunkel, page 107,
and _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 208‒220; and for details see the
Commentary below.――Of even greater value as a criterion of
authorship is the unmistakable literary manner of the Priestly
historian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict
adherence to a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous
repetition of set phraseology, the aim at exact classification
and definition, and generally the subordination of the concrete
to the formal elements of composition: these are all features of
the ‘juristic’ style cultivated by this school of writers,――“it
is the same spirit that has shaped Genesis 1 and Genesis 5”
(Gunkel).――On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse
judgments have been pronounced. Gunkel, whose estimate is on
the whole disparaging, complains of a lack of poetic enthusiasm
and picturesqueness of conception, poorly compensated for by a
marked predilection for method and order. It is hardly fair to
judge a prose writer by the requirements of poetry; and even
a critic so little partial to Priestly-Code as Wellhausen is
impressed by “the majestic repose and sustained grandeur” of the
narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium (_Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 297). To deny to a writer capable
of producing this impression all sense of literary effect is
unreasonable; and it is perhaps near the truth to say that
though the style of Priestly-Code may, in technical descriptions
or enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an
extreme case in Numbers 7), he has found here a subject suited
to his genius, and one which he handles with consummate skill.
It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of
the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find in the
severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first
chapter of Genesis.
In speaking of the style of Priestly-Code it has to be borne
in mind that we are dealing with the literary tradition of a
school rather than with the idiosyncrasy of an individual. It
has, indeed, often been asserted that this particular passage
is obviously the composition ‘at one heat’ of a single writer;
but that is improbable. If the cosmogony rests ultimately on
a Babylonian model, it “must have passed through a long period
of naturalisation in Israel, and of gradual assimilation to
the spirit of Israel’s religion before it could have reached
its present form” (Driver, _Genesis_ 31). All, therefore, that
is necessarily implied in what has just been said is that the
_later stages_ of that process must have taken place under the
auspices of the school of Priestly-Code, and that its work has
entered very deeply into the substance of the composition.――Of
the earlier stages we can say little except that traces of them
remain in those elements which do not agree with the ruling
ideas of the last editors. Budde has sought to prove that the
story had passed through the school of Yahwist before being
adopted by that of Priestly-Code; that it was in fact the form
into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer called
Yahwist². Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as
would be supplied by allusions to Genesis 1 in other parts of
Yahwist²) there is none: it is an inference deduced mainly from
these premises: (1) that the creation story shows traces of
overworking which presuppose the existence of an older Hebrew
recension; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric
tradition Priestly-Code betrays his dependence on Yahwist²; and
(3) that Yahwist² in turn is markedly dependent on Babylonian
sources (see _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 463‒496, and the
summary on page 491 f.). Even if all these observations be
well founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a
demonstration of Budde’s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture
so long as we assume that little was written beyond what we have
direct or indirect evidence of (_ib._ 463¹); but when we realise
how little is known of the diffusion of literary activity in
ancient Israel, the presumption that Yahwist² was the particular
writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes very
slender indeed.
=1.= We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome question of
syntax which affects the sense of every member of verse ¹. While all
ancient versions and many moderns take the verse as a complete sentence,
others (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause,
subordinate either to verse ³ (Rashi, and so most) or verse ² (Ibn Ezra,
apparently). On the latter view the verse will read: _In the beginning
of God’s creating the heavens and the earth_: בְּרֵאשִׁית being in the
construct state, followed by a clause as genitive (compare Isaiah 29¹,
Hosea 1² etc.; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 130 _d_; Davidson § 25).
In a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to
the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with verse ¹
it is necessary to leave the alternative open.――_In the beginning_]
If the clause be subordinate the reference of ראשית is defined by what
immediately follows, and no further question arises. But if it be an
independent statement _beginning_ is used absolutely (as in John 1¹),
and two interpretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts
the creation (_ex nihilo_) of the primæval chaos described in verse ²;
or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process narrated in the
chapter. The former view has prevailed in Jewish and Christian theology,
and is still supported by the weighty authority of Wellhausen. But
(1) it is not in accordance with the usage of ראשית (see below); (2)
it is not required by the word ‘create,’――a created chaos is perhaps
a contradiction (Isaiah 45¹⁸ לֹא־תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ), and Wellhausen himself admits
that it is a remarkable conception; and (3) it is excluded by the
object of that verb: _the heavens and the earth_. For though that
phrase is a Hebrew designation of the universe as a whole, it is only
the _organised_ universe, not the chaotic material out of which it
was formed, that can naturally be so designated. The appropriate name
for chaos is ‘the earth’ (verse ²); the representation being a chaotic
earth from which the heavens were afterwards made (⁶ ᶠᐧ). The verse
therefore (if an independent sentence at all) must be taken as an
introductory heading to the rest of the chapter.¹――_God created._]
The verb בָּרָא contains the central idea of the passage. It is partly
synonymous with עָשָׂה (compare verses ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ with ²⁵), but 2³ shows that
it had a specific shade of meaning. The idea cannot be defined with
precision, but the following points are to be noted: (a) The most
important fact is that it is used exclusively of _divine_ activity――a
restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in other
languages (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 304).
(b) The idea of _novelty_ (Isaiah 48⁶ ᶠᐧ 41²⁰ 65¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 31²¹) or
_extraordinariness_ (Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ [Yahwist]) of result is
frequently implied, and it is noteworthy that this is the case in the
only two passages of certainly early date where the word occurs. (c) It
is probable also that it contains the idea of _effortless_ production
(such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition² (Psalms 33⁹). (d) It
is obvious (from this chapter and many passages) that the sense stops
short of _creatio ex nihilo_,――an idea first explicitly occurring in 2
Maccabees 7²⁸. At the same time the facts just stated, and the further
circumstance that the word is always used with accusative of product
and never of material, constitute a long advance towards the full
theological doctrine, and make the word ‘create’ a suitable vehicle
for it.
¹ The view that verse ¹ describes an earlier creation of heaven
and earth, which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned,
needs no refutation.
² The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their
word _banû_ (see philosophical note); but the association
seems accidental; and its significance is exaggerated by
Gunkel when he says “the idea of creation is that man may
form with his hands, the god brings to pass through his
word” (_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 23).
_Banû_ is quite synonymous with _ipisû_ (make), and is not
restricted to the divine activity.
* * * * *
=1.=――ראשית] The form is probably contracted from רְאֵשִׁית (compare
שְׁאֵרִית), and therefore not derived directly from רֹאשׁ. It signifies
primarily the _first_ (or _best_) part of a thing: Genesis 10¹⁰
(‘nucleus’), 49³ (‘first product’), Deuteronomy 33²¹, Amos 6⁶
etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc., see
Gray’s note, _Numbers_ 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into
a temporal sense, as the _first stage_ of a process or series of
events: Hosea 9¹⁰ (‘in its first stage’), Deuteronomy 11¹² (of
the year), Job 8⁷ 40¹⁹ (a man’s life), Isaiah 46¹⁰ (starting
point of a series), etc. Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 386) has said that Deuteronomy 11¹² is the earliest
instance of the temporal sense; but the distinction between
‘first part’ and ‘temporal beginning’ is so impalpable that not
much importance can be attached to the remark. It is of more
consequence to observe that at no period of the language does
the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given,
viz. the first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated
or clearly implied. That being so, the prevalent determinate
construction becomes intelligible. That in its ceremonial
sense the word should be used absolutely was to be expected (so
Leviticus 2¹² [Numbers 18¹²] Nehemiah 12⁴⁴: with these may be
taken also Deuteronomy 33²¹). In its temporal applications it
is always defined by genitive or suffix except in Isaiah. 46¹⁰,
where the antithesis to אחרית inevitably suggests the intervening
series of which ר׳ is the initial phase. It is therefore doubtful
if בָּר׳ could be used of an absolute beginning detached from
its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like בָּראשנה or בַּתּחלה (see
Isaiah 1²⁶, Genesis 13³).――This brings us to the question of
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) verse ¹ an
independent sentence (_all_ versions and the great majority of
commentaries, including Calvin, Delitzsch, Tuch, Wellhausen,
Driver). _In sense_ this construction (taking the verse as
superscription) is entirely free from objection: it yields an
easy syntax, and a simple and majestic opening. The absence
of the article tells against it, but is by no means decisive.
At most it is a matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek
transliterations Βαρησηθ (Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ
supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Fragmenta_), and Βαρησεθ (Lagarde, _Ankündigung
einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_
5), alongside of Βρησιθ, may show that in ancient times the
first word was sometimes read בָּר׳. Even the Massoretic pointing
does not necessarily imply that the word was meant as construct;
ר׳ is never found with articles, and Delitzsch has well pointed
out that the stereotyped use or omission of articles with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which
eludes our analysis (_e.g._ מִקֶּדֶם, מֵרֹאשׁ, בָּרִאשֹׁנָה: compare König
_Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_
§ 294 g). The construction seems to me, however, opposed to
the essentially _relative_ idea of ר׳,――its express reference to
_that of which_ it is the beginning (see above). (b) verse ¹
protasis: verse ² parenthesis: verse ³ apodosis;――_When God
began to create ...――now the earth was ...――God said, Let
there be light._ So Rashi, Ewald, Dillmann,¹ Holzinger, Gunkel,
al.――practically all who reject (a). Although first appearing
explicitly in Rashi († 1105), it has been argued that this
represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in
under the influence of LXX from a desire to exclude the idea
of an eternal chaos preceding the creation.² But the fact that
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ agrees with LXX militates against that opinion.
The one objection to (b) is the ‘verzweifelt geschmacklose
Construction’ (Wellhausen) which it involves. It is replied
(Gunkel, al.) that such openings may have been a traditional
feature of creation stories, being found in several Babylonian
accounts, as well as in Genesis 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁶. In any case a lengthy
parenthesis is quite admissible in good prose style (see 1
Samuel 3²ᵃ{β}⁻³, with Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the
Books of Samuel_, _ad loc._), and may be safely assumed here
if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for adopting it. The
clause as genitive is perfectly regular, though it would be
easy to substitute infinitive בְּרֹא (mentioned but not recommended
by Rashi). (c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more
consideration than it has received, is to take verse ¹ as
protasis and verse ² as apodosis, ‘_When God began to create the
heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc._’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra?
but see Cheyne, in _Hebräica_ ii. 50). So far as sense goes
the sequence is eminently satisfactory; the ויאמר of verse ³ is
more natural as a continuation of verse ² than of verse ¹. The
question is whether the _form_ of verse ² permits its being
construed as apodosis. The order of words (subject before
predicate) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumstantial
clause (Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in
Hebrew_ § 157; Davidson § 138 (_c_)); but there is no
absolute rule against an apodosis assuming this form after a
time-determination (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the
Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78). Close parallels (for it is hard to
see that the ויהי makes any essential difference) are Genesis 7¹⁰
(Yahwist), 22¹ (Elohist), or (with imperfect), Leviticus 7¹⁶ᵇ
(Priestly-Code). The construction is not appreciably harsher
than in the analogous case of 2⁵, where it has been freely
adopted.――ברא] enters fully into Old Testament usage only on the
eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious passages
(Amos 4¹³, Isaiah 4⁵, Jeremiah 31²¹), its first emergence in
prophecy is in Ezekiel (3 times); it is specially characteristic
of II Isaiah (20 times), in Priestly-Code 10 times, and in other
late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic use rests on
Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ (Yahwist), Deuteronomy 4³². There
is no reason to doubt that it belongs to the early language;
what can be fairly said is that at the Exile the thought of the
divine creation of the world became prominent in the prophetic
theology, and that for this reason the term which expressed it
technically obtained a currency it had not previously enjoyed.
The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as the
root of a Piel meaning ‘cut,’ hence ‘form by cutting,’ ‘carve,’
‘fashion,’ (Aramaic _baraʸ_, Phœnician ברא [_Corpus Inscriptionum
Semiticarum_, i. 347⁴]: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._; Lane,
_A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament_ 197 b;
Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 244
[with ?]); but the evidence of the connexion is very slight. The
only place where בֵּרֵא could mean ‘carve’ is Ezekiel 21²⁴ ᵇⁱˢ; and
there the text is almost certainly corrupt (see Cornill, Toy,
Kraetschmar, _ad loc._). Elsewhere it means ‘cut down’ (Ezekiel
23⁴⁷) or ‘clear ground by hewing down trees’ (Joshua 17¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸
[Yahwist])――a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make
(Dillmann, Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387). The Aramaic _bara’a_ (used chiefly
of creation of animate beings) is possibly borrowed from
Hebrew. Native philologists connect it, very unnaturally, with
_bari’a_, ‘be free’; so that ‘create’ means to _liberate_ (from
the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178 b, c): Dillmann’s view is similar.
Barth (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 58) has proposed to
identify ברא (through mutation of liquids) with the Assyrian verb
for ‘create,’ _banū_; but rejects the opinion that the latter is
the common Semitic בנה ‘build’ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 498¹), with which ברא alternates in Sabæan (Müller
in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
xxxvii. 413, 415).
¹ Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of
a redactional operation. Originally the place of verse ¹ was
occupied by 2⁴ᵃ in its correct form: אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בְּבָרְאָם אלהים.
When this was transposed it was necessary to frame a new
introduction, and in the hands of the editor it assumed the
form of verse ¹ (similarly, Stade _Biblische Theologie des
Alten Testaments_ i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely
accepted view of the original position of 2⁴ᵃ (see on the
verse), and Dillmann’s intricate hypothesis would seem to me
an additional argument against it.
² See Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer
Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums_
344, 439, 444. The _Mechilta_ (on Exodus 12⁴⁰: Winter and
Wünsche’s German translation, page 48) gives verse ¹ as one
of thirteen instances of things ‘written for King Ptolemy’;
and Geiger infers that the change was deliberately made for
the reason mentioned. The reading alleged by _Mechilta_ is
אלהים ברא בראשית, which gives the _sense_ but not the _order_ of
LXX. The other variations given are only partly verified by
our texts of LXX; see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ 2² 11⁷ 18¹² 49⁶.
* * * * *
=2. Description of Chaos.=――It is perhaps impossible to unite the
features of the description in a single picture, but the constitutive
elements of the notion of chaos appear to be Confusion (תהו ובהו),
Darkness, and Water (תהום, מים). The weird effect of the language is
very impressive. On the syntax, see above.――_waste and void_] The exact
meaning of this alliterative phrase――_Tōhû wā-Bōhû_――is difficult to
make out. The words are nouns; the connotation of תהו ranges from the
concrete ‘desert’ to the abstract ‘nonentity’; while בהו possibly means
‘emptiness’ (_v.i._). The exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the
latter aspect, and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty
space (Gunkel). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah’s vision of
Chaos-come-again (4²³⁻²⁶), which is simply that of a darkened and
devastated earth, from which life and order have fled. The idea here
is probably similar, with this difference, that the distinction of land
and sea is effaced, and the earth, which is the subject of the sentence,
must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in which the elements
of the future land and sea were commingled.――_Darkness_ (an almost
invariable feature of ancient conceptions of chaos) _was upon the face
of the Deep_] The _Deep_ (תְּהוֹם) is the subterranean ocean on which the
earth rests (Genesis 7¹¹ 8² 49²⁵, Amos 7⁴ etc.); which, therefore,
before the earth was formed, lay bare and open to the superincumbent
darkness. In the Babylonian Creation-myth the primal chaos is
personified under the name _Ti’āmat_. The Hebrew narrative is free
from mythological associations, and it is doubtful if even a trace
of personification lingers in the name תהום. In Babylonian, _ti’āmatu_
or _tāmtu_ is a generic term for ‘ocean’; and it is conceivable that
this literal sense may be the origin of the Hebrew conception of
the Deep (see page 47).――_The Spirit of God was brooding_] not, as
has sometimes been supposed, a _wind_ sent from God to dry up the
waters (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and a few moderns), but the
divine Spirit, figured as a bird brooding over its nest, and perhaps
symbolising an immanent principle of life and order in the as yet
undeveloped chaos. Compare Milton, _Paradise Lost_, i. 19 ff., vii.
233 ff. It is remarkable, however, if this be the idea, that no further
effect is given to it in the sequel. (1) The idea of the Spirit as
formative principle of the kosmos, while _in the line_ of the Old
Testament doctrine that he is the source of life (Psalms 33⁶ 104²⁹ ᶠᐧ),
yet goes much beyond the ordinary representation, and occurs only here
(possibly Isaiah 40¹³). (2) The image conveyed by the word _brooding_
(מְרַחֶפֶת) is generally considered to rest on the widespread cosmogonic
speculation of the world-egg (so even Delitzsch and Dillmann), in
which the organised world was as it were hatched from the fluid chaos.
If so, we have here a fragment of mythology not vitally connected
with the main idea of the narrative, but introduced for the sake of
its religious suggestiveness. In the source from which this myth was
borrowed the brooding power might be a bird-like deity¹ (Gunkel), or an
abstract principle like the Greek Ἔρως, the Phœnician Πόθος, etc.: for
this the Hebrew writer, true to his monotheistic faith, substitutes the
Spirit of God, and thereby transforms a “crude material representation
... into a beautiful and suggestive figure” (Driver _The Book of
Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 5).
¹ In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is
often represented as a bird hovering over the waters
(Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ vi. 241).
The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that
of empty space (Hesiod, Aristotle, Lucretius, etc.) and the
‘rudis indigestaque moles’ of Ovid (_Metamorphoses _ i. 7).
The Babylonian representation embraces the elements of darkness
and water, and there is no doubt that this is the central idea
of the Genesis narrative. It is singular, however, that of the
three clauses of verse ² only the second (which includes the two
elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent
description (for on any view the ‘waters’ of the third must
be identical with the _Tĕhôm_ of the second). It is possible,
therefore, that the verse combines ideas drawn from diverse
sources which are not capable of complete synthesis. Only
on this supposition would it be possible to accept Gunkel’s
interpretation of the first clause as a description of empty
space. In that case _the earth_ is probably not inclusive
of, but contrasted with, _Tĕhôm_: it denotes the space _now_
occupied by the earth, which being empty leaves nothing but the
deep and the darkness.
* * * * *
=2.= תהו ובהו] LXX ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος; Aquila κένωμα καὶ
οὐθέν; Symmachus ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον; Theodotion κενὸν (or
οὐθὲν) καὶ οὐθὲν; Vulgate _inanis et vacua_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
צדיא וריקניא (‘desolate and empty’); Peshiṭtå (‡ 2 Syriac words).
The fragmentary Jerome Targum has a double translation: “And the
earth was תהיא ובהיא, and (compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ) _desolate_ from
the sons of men, and _empty_ of work.” תהו occurs along with בהו
in Jeremiah 4²³, Isaiah 34¹¹; תהו alone in 17 passages besides.
The meaning varies between two extremes: (a) a (trackless)
_desert_ (Job 12²⁴ [= Psalms 107⁴⁰] 6¹⁸, Deuteronomy 32¹⁰), and
(b) _unsubstantiality_ (שאין לו ממש, Abraham Ibn Ezra) or ‘nonentity,’
a sense all but peculiar to II Isaiah (also 1 Samuel 12²¹,
and _perhaps_ Isaiah 29²¹), but very frequent there. The primary
idea is uncertain. It is perhaps easier on the whole to suppose
that the abstract sense of ‘formlessness,’ or the like, gave
rise to a poetic name for desert, than that the concrete
‘desert’ passed over into the abstract ‘formlessness’; but we
have no assurance that either represents the actual development
of the idea. It seems not improbable that the Old Testament
usage is entirely based on the traditional description of the
primæval chaos, and that the word had no definite connotation
in Hebrew, but was used to express any conception naturally
associated with the idea of chaos――‘formlessness,’ ‘confusion,’
‘unreality,’ etc.――בהו] (never found apart from תהו) may be
connected with _bahiya_ = ‘be empty’; though Aramaic is hardly
a safe guide in the case of a word with a long history behind
it. The identification with Βααυ, the mother of the first man
in Phœnician mythology (see page 49 f.), is probable.――תהום] is
undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Babylonian _Ti’āmat_:
a connexion with Aramaic _Tihāmat_, the Red Sea littoral
province (Hoffmann in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320 b, c;
Jensen, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 560). In early
Hebrew the word is rare, and always (with possible exception
of Exodus 15⁵ᐧ ⁸) denotes the subterranean ocean, which is the
source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed (Genesis
49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³, Amos 7⁴, and so Deuteronomy 8⁷, Genesis
7¹¹ 8² (Priestly-Code); compare Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 195), and
is a remnant of the primal chaos (Genesis 1², Psalms 104⁶,
Proverbs 8²⁷). In later writings it is used of the sea (plural,
seas), and even of torrents of water (Psalms 42⁸); but, the
passages being poetic, there is probably always to be detected
a reference to the world-ocean, either as source of springs,
or as specialised in earthly oceans (see Ezekiel 26¹⁹). Though
the word is almost confined to poetry (except Genesis 1²
7¹¹ 8², Deuteronomy 8⁷, Amos 7⁴), the only clear cases of
personification are Genesis 49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³ (_Tĕhôm_ that
coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the article (except
with plural in Psalms 106⁹, Isaiah 63¹³) proves that it is a
proper name, but _not_ that it is a personification (compare
the case of שְׁאוֹל). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that תהום,
unlike most Hebrew names of fluids, is feminine, becoming
occasionally masculine only in later times when its primary
sense had been forgotten (compare Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 62): this might be
due to an original female personification.――מרחפת] Greek Versions
and Vulgate express merely the idea of motion (ἐπεφέρετο,
ἐπιφερόμενον, _ferebatur_); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ מנשבא (‘blow’ or
‘breathe’); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Jerome (_Quæstiones sive
Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_): “incubabat sive confovebat in
similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis.” It is impossible
to say whether ‘brood’ or ‘hover’ is the exact image here, or
in Deuteronomy 32¹¹,――the only other place where the Piel occurs
(the Qal in Jeremiah 23⁹ may be a separate root). The Syriac
verb has great latitude of meaning; it describes, _e.g._, the
action of Elisha in laying himself on the body of the dead
child (2 Kings 4³⁴); and is used of angels _hovering_ over the
dying Virgin. It is also applied to a waving of the hands (or of
fans) in certain ecclesiastical functions, etc. (see Payne Smith,
_Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3886).
* * * * *
=3‒5. First work: Creation of light.=――_[And] God said_] On the
connexion, see above, pages 13 ff.; and on the significance of the
_fiat_, page 7.――_Let there be light_] The thought of light as the
first creation, naturally suggested by the phenomenon of the dawn,
appears in several cosmogonies; but is not expressed in any known form
of the Babylonian legend. There the creator, being the sun-god, is
in a manner identified with the primal element of the kosmos; and the
antithesis of light and darkness is dramatised as a conflict between
the god and the Chaos monster. In Persian cosmogony also, light, as
the sphere in which Mazda dwells, is uncreated and eternal (Tiele,
_Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_ ii. 295 f.). In Isaiah 45⁷ both
light and darkness are creations of Yahwe, but that is certainly not
the idea here. Compare Milton’s _Paradise Lost_, iii. 1 ff.:
“Hail, holy Light! offspring of heaven first-born;
Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam,” etc.
* * * * *
=3.= ויהי אור corresponds to the ויהי כן of subsequent acts.
* * * * *
=4.= _saw that the light was good_] The formula of approval does
not extend to the darkness, nor even to the coexistence of light
and darkness, but is restricted to the light. “Good” expresses the
contrast of God’s work to the chaos of which darkness is an element.
Gunkel goes too far in suggesting that the expression covers a ‘strong
anthropomorphism’ (the possibility of failure, happily overcome). But
he rightly calls attention to the bright view of the world implied
in the series of approving verdicts, as opposed to the pessimistic
estimate which became common in later Judaism.――_And God divided,
etc._]. To us these words merely suggest alternation in time; but
Hebrew conceives of a _spatial_ distinction of light and darkness, each
in its own ‘place’ or abode (Job 38¹⁹ ᶠᐧ). Even the separate days and
nights of the year seem thought of as having independent and continuous
existence (Job 3⁶).
The Hebrew mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the
existence of light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and
moon _rule_ the day and night, but light and darkness exist
independently of them. It is a mistake, however, to compare
this with the scientific hypothesis of a cosmical light diffused
through the nebula from which the solar system was evolved.
It is not merely light and darkness, but day and night, and
even the alternation of evening and morning (verse ⁵), that
are represented as existing before the creation of the sun.
* * * * *
=4.= האור כי טוב ] with attracted object: see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 117 _h_; Davidson § 146.
* * * * *
=5.= _And God called, etc._] The name――that by which the thing is
summoned into the field of thought――belongs to the full existence of
the thing itself. So in the first line of the Babylonian account, “the
heaven was not yet named” means that it did not yet exist.――_And it
became evening, etc._] Simple as the words are, the sentence presents
some difficulty, which is not removed by the supposition that the
writer follows the Jewish custom of reckoning the day from sunset to
sunset (Tuch, Gunkel, Bennett, etc.). The Jewish day may have begun
at sunset, but it did not end at sunrise; and it is impossible to take
the words as meaning that the evening and morning _formed_ the first
(second, etc.) day. Moreover, there could be no evening before the
day on which light was created. The sentence must refer to the _close_
of the first day with the first evening and the night that followed,
leading the mind forward to the advent of a new day, and a new display
of creative power (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). One must not
overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.
The interpretation of יום as _æon_, a favourite resource of
harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain
sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usage (not
even Psalms 90⁴). It is true that the conception of successive
creative periods, extending over vast spaces of time, is found
in other cosmogonies (Delitzsch 55); but it springs in part
from views of the world which are foreign to the Old Testament.
To introduce that idea here not only destroys the analogy on
which the sanction of the sabbath rests, but misconceives the
character of the Priestly Code. If the writer had had æons in
his mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating
how many millenniums each embraced.
* * * * *
=5.= יום in popular parlance denotes the period between dawn and
dark, and is so used in ⁵ᵃ. When it became necessary to deal
with the 24-hours’ day, it was most natural to connect the night
with the _preceding_ period of light, reckoning, _i.e._, from
sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevailing usage of Old
Testament (יום ולילה). In post-exilic times we find traces of the
reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase לילה ויום (νυχθήμερον),
Isaiah 27³ 34¹⁰, Esther 4¹⁶. Priestly-Code regularly employs the
form ‘day and night’; and if Leviticus 23³² can be cited as a
case of the later reckoning, Exodus 12¹⁸ is as clearly in favour
of the older (see Marti, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1036; König,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lx.
605 ff.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the
less natural method in this passage.――קָ֫רָא] _Mil‛el_, to avoid
concurrence of two accented syllables.――♦לַ֫יְלָה] (also _Mil‛el_)
a reduplicated form (לַיְלַי; compare Aramaic ליליא): see Nöldeke,
_Mandäische Grammatik_ § 109; Prätorius, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 218; König ii. § 52 c.――יום
אחד] ‘a first day,’ or perhaps better ‘one day.’ On אהד as ordinal,
see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 98 _a_, 134 _p_; Davidson § 38, _R._ 1;
but compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387.
♦ “לַיְ֫לָה” replaced with “לַ֫יְלָה”
* * * * *
=6‒8. Second work: The firmament.=――The second fiat calls into
existence a _firmament_, whose function is to divide the primæval
waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as
the theatre of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the
dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a
material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Psalms
104¹³, Amos 9⁶) supported by “pillars” (Job 26¹¹), and resembling in
its surface a “molten mirror” (Job 37¹⁸). Above this are the heavenly
waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors”
(Genesis 7¹¹ 8², 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹) opened and shut by God at His pleasure
(Psalms 78²³). The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and
earth is widely diffused; it is perhaps embodied in our word ‘heaven’
(from _heave?_) and Old English ‘lift.’ A graphic illustration of
it is found in Egyptian pictures, where the god Shu is seen holding
aloft, with outstretched arms, the dark star-spangled figure of the
heaven-goddess, while the earth-god lies prostrate beneath (see
Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 7).¹
But the special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully
intelligible apart from the Babylonian creation-myth, and the climatic
phenomena on which it is based (see below, page 46).
¹ Compare also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, _Anthropologie
der Naturvölker_ vi. 245 ff.; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 45 ff.
Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been
propounded (Winckler, _Himmels- und Weltbild der Babylonier_,
25 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 164,
174) which identifies it with the Babylonian _šupuk šamē_, and
explains both of the Zodiac. The view seems based on the highly
artificial Babylonian theory of a point-for-point correspondence
between heaven and earth, according to which the Zodiac
represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly
heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But
whatever be the truth about _šupuk šamē_, such a restriction
of the meaning of רקיע is inadmissible in Hebrew. In Psalms
19², Daniel 12³ it might be possible; but even there it is
unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is absolutely
excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the
firmament is _named_ heaven, and birds (whose flight is not
restricted to 10° on either side of the ecliptic) are said to
fly ‘in front of the firmament.’
* * * * *
=6.= רָקִיעַ] (LXX στερέωμα, Vulgate _firmamentum_) a word found
only in Ezekiel, Priestly-Code, Psalms 19² 150¹, Daniel 12³. The
absence of article shows that it is a _descriptive_ term, though
the only parallels to such a use would be Ezekiel 1²² ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ
10¹ (compare Phœnician מרקע = ‘dish’ [_Blechschale_]: _Corpus
Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i. 90¹; see Lidzbarski 370, 421).
The idea is _solidity_, not thinness or extension: the sense
‘beat thin’ belongs to the Piel (Exodus 39³ etc.); and this
noun is formed from the Qal, which means either (intransitive)
to ‘stamp with the foot’ (Ezekiel 6¹¹), or (transitive), ‘stamp
firm,’ ‘consolidate’ (Isaiah 42⁵ etc.). It is curious that the
verb is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven,
except Job 37¹⁸.――ויחי מבדיל] on participle expressing permanence,
see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_
§ 135, 5.――בֵּין־לְ: König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der
hebräischen Sprache_ § 319 n.――וַיַּבְדֵּל] LXX supplies as subject
ὁ θεός.――=7.= ויהי כן] transposed in LXX to end of verse ⁶, its
normal position,――if indeed it be not a gloss in both places
(Wellhausen).――=8.= LXX also inserts here the formula of
approval: on its omission in Hebrew, see above, pages 8, 9.
* * * * *
=9, 10. Third work: Dry land and sea.=――The shoreless lower ocean,
which remained at the close of the second day, is now replaced by
land and sea in their present configuration. The expressions used:
_gathered together ... appear_――seem to imply that the earth already
existed as a solid mass covered with water, as in Psalms 104⁵ᐧ ⁶; but
Dillmann thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a muddy
mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally suggested by verse ².
Henceforth the only remains of the original chaos are the subterranean
waters (commonly called _Tĕhôm_, but in Psalms 24² ‘sea’ and ‘streams’),
and the circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Job 26¹⁰, Psalms
139⁹, Proverbs 8²⁷), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.
Wellhausen’s argument, that verses ⁶⁻¹⁰ are the account of a
single work (above, page 9 f.), is partly anticipated by Abraham
Ibn Ezra, who points out that what is here described is no true
creation, but only a manifestation of what was before hidden and
a gathering of what was dispersed. On the ground that earth and
heaven were made on one day (2⁴), he is driven to take ויאמר as
pluperfect, and assign verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ to the second day. Some such
idea may have dictated the omission of the formula of approval
at the close of the second day’s work.
* * * * *
=9.= יִקָּווּ] in this sense, only Jeremiah 3¹⁷. For מָקוֹם read with LXX
מִקְוֶה = ‘gathering-place,’ as in verse ¹⁰. Nestle (_Marginalien
und Materialien_, 3) needlessly suggests for the latter
מִקְרֶה, and for יקוו, יִקָּרוּ.――מִתַּחַת] not ‘from under’ but simply
‘under’ (see verse ¹⁰); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _c_².――וְתֵרָאֶה]
jussive unapocopated, as often near the principal pause;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _a_.――At the end of the verse LXX adds:
καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς
αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά: _i.e._ וַיִּקָּווּ הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מִקְוֵיהֶם וַתֵּרָא הַיַּבָּשָׁה.
The addition is adopted by Ball, and the plural αὐτῶν proves at
least that it rests on a Hebrew original, ὕδωρ being singular
in Greek (Wellhausen).――=10.= יַמִּים] the plural (compare Genesis
49¹³, Deuteronomy 33¹⁹, Psalms 46³ ᶠᐧ [where it is construed
as singular] 24² etc.) is mostly poetic and late prose; it is
probably not numerical, but plural of extension like מַיִם, שָׁמַיִם,
and therefore to be rendered as singular.
* * * * *
=11‒13. Fourth work: Creation of plants.=――The appearing of the earth
is followed on the same day, not inappropriately, by the origination
of vegetable life. The earth itself is conceived as endowed with
productive power――a recognition of the principle of development not
to be explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual renewal
(Dillmann); see to the contrary verse ¹² compared with verse ²⁴.――=11.=
_Let the earth produce verdure_] דֶּשֶׁא means ‘fresh young herbage,’ and
appears _here_ to include all plants in the earliest stages of their
growth; hence the classification of flora is not _three_fold――grass,
herbs, trees (Dillmann, Driver, al.)――but _two_fold, the generic דשא
including the two kinds עֵשֶׂב and עֵץ (Delitzsch, Gunkel, Holzinger, etc.).
The distinction is based on the methods of reproduction; the one kind
producing seed merely, the other fruit which contains the seed.――The
verse continues (amending with the help of LXX): _grass producing
seed after its kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which_
(_i.e._ the fruit) _is its_ (the tree’s) _seed after its_ (the tree’s)
_kind_.――_after its kind_] _v.i._――_upon the earth_] comes in very
awkwardly; it is difficult to find any suitable point of attachment
except with the principal verb, which, however, is too remote.
* * * * *
=11.= תַּֽדְשֵׁא דֶּשֶׁא] literally ‘vegetate vegetation,’ the noun being
accusative cognate with the verb.――תַּֽ׳ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; on the
pointing with _Metheg_ (Baer-Delitzsch page 74) see König i.
§ 42, 7. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) must have read תוצא as verse
¹².――דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב] LXX (βοτάνην χόρτου) and Vulgate treat the words as
in annexion, contrary to the accents and the usage of the terms.
It is impossible to define them with scientific precision; and
the twofold classification given above――herb and tree――is more
or less precarious. It recurs, however, in Exodus 9²⁵ 10¹²ᐧ ¹⁵
(all Yahwist), and the reasons for rejecting the other are,
first, the absence of וְ before עשב; and, second, the syntactic
consideration that דשא as cognate accusative may be presumed to
define completely the action of the verb.――דשׁא denotes especially
fresh juicy herbage¹ (Proverbs 27²⁵) and those grasses which
never to appearance get beyond that stage. עשב, on the other
hand (unlike דּ׳), is used of human food, and therefore includes
cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Psalms 104¹⁴).――עץ]
read וִעֵץ with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, and 3 Hebrew MSS (Ball).――למינו, למינהו] On
form of suffix see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _d_. LXX in verse ¹¹
inserts the word after זרע (rendering strangely κατὰ γένος καὶ
καθ’ ὁμοιότητα,――and so verse ¹²), and later in the verse (κατὰ
γένος εἰς ὁμοιότητα) transposes as indicated in the translation
above.――מין] a characteristic word of Priestly-Code, found
elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 14¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (from Leviticus
11), and (dubiously) Ezekiel 47¹⁰,――everywhere with suffix. The
etymology is uncertain. If connected with תְּמוּנָה (form, likeness),
the meaning would be ‘form’ (Latin, _species_); but in usage
it seems to mean simply ‘kind,’ the singular suffix here
being distributive: “according to its several kinds.” In
Syriac the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe. For
another view, see Friedrich Delitzsch, _Prolegomena eines
neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_
143 f.――=12.= ותוצא] One is tempted to substitute the rare ותדשא
as in verse ¹¹ (so Ball).――After עץ LXX adds פרי: Ball deletes the
פרי in verse ¹¹.
¹ In Aramaic this sense is said to belong to _‛ušb_, but Hebrew
עשׂב has no such restriction.
* * * * *
=14‒19. Fifth work: The heavenly luminaries.=――On the parallelism
with the first day’s work see above, page 8 f. The verses describe
only the creation of sun and moon; the clause _and the stars_ in
verse ¹⁶ appears to be an addition (_v.i._). The whole conception
is as unscientific (in the modern sense) as it could be――(a) in its
geocentric standpoint, (b) in making the distinction of day and night
prior to the sun, (c) in putting the creation of the vegetable world
before that of the heavenly bodies. Its religious significance, however,
is very great, inasmuch as it marks the advance of Hebrew thought from
the heathen notion of the stars to a pure monotheism. To the ancient
world, and the Babylonians in particular, the heavenly bodies were
animated beings, and the more conspicuous of them were associated or
identified with the gods. The idea of them as an animated host occurs
in Hebrew poetry (Judges 5²⁰, Isaiah 40²⁶, Job 38⁷ etc.); but here
it is entirely eliminated, the heavenly bodies being reduced to mere
_luminaries_, i.e. either embodiments of light or perhaps simply
‘lamps’ (_v.i._). It is possible, as Gunkel thinks, that a remnant
of the old astrology lurks in the word _dominion_; but whereas
in Babylonia the stars ruled over human affairs in general, their
influence here is restricted to that which obviously depends on them,
viz. the alternation of day and night, the festivals, etc. Compare
Job 38³³, Psalms 136⁷⁻⁹ (Jeremiah 31³⁵). It is noteworthy that this
is the only work of creation of which the purpose is elaborately
specified.――_luminaries_ (מְא[וֹ]רֹת)] _i.e._ bearers or embodiments of
light. The word is used most frequently of the sevenfold light of
the tabernacle (Exodus 25⁶ etc.); and to speak of it as expressing a
markedly prosaic view of the subject (Gunkel) is misleading.――_in the
firmament, etc._] moving in prescribed paths on its lower surface.
This, however, does not justify the interpretation of רקיע as the Zodiac
(above, page 22).――_to separate between the day, etc._]. Day and night
are independent entities; but they are now put under the _rule_ of
the heavenly bodies, as their respective spheres of influence (Psalms
121⁶).――_for signs and for seasons, etc._] מוֹעֲדִים (seasons) appears never
(certainly not in Priestly-Code) to be used of the natural seasons
of the year (Hosea 2¹¹, Jeremiah 8⁷ are figurative), but always of
a time conventionally agreed upon (see Exodus 9⁵), or fixed by some
circumstance. The commonest application is to the _sacred seasons_ of
the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the moon (compare Psalms
104¹⁹). If the natural seasons are excluded, this seems the only
possible sense here; and Priestly-Code’s predilection for matters
of cultus makes the explanation plausible.――אֹתֹת (signs) is more
difficult, and none of the explanations given is entirely satisfactory
(_v.i._).――=16.= _for dominion over the day ... night_] in the sense
explained above; and so verse ¹⁸.――_and the stars_] Since the writer
seems to avoid on principle the everyday names of the objects, and to
describe them by their nature and the functions they serve, the clause
is probably a gloss (but _v.i._). On the other hand, it would be too
bold an expedient to supply an express naming of the planets after the
analogy of the first three works (Tuch).
The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies
is confused, and suggests overworking (Holzinger). The clauses
which most excite suspicion are the two beginning with והיו (the
difficult ¹⁴ᵇ and ¹⁵ᵃ{α});――note in particular the awkward
repetition of למארות וגו׳. The functions are stated with perfect
clearness in ¹⁶⁻¹⁸: (a) to give light upon the earth, (b) to
rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from darkness. I
am disposed to think that ¹⁴ᵇ was introduced as an exposition
of the idea of the verb משׁל, and that ¹⁵ᵃ{α} was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to
the insertions of LXX (_v.i._), which may be borrowed from verse
¹⁷ ᶠᐧ.
* * * * *
=14.= יהי מארת] (∥ יהי אור in verse ³). On the breach of concord, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _o_; Davidson § 113 _b_.――מאור] a late
word, is used of heavenly bodies in Ezekiel 32⁸, Psalms 74¹⁶;
it never means ‘lamp’ exactly, but is often applied collectively
to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle; once it is used
of the eyes (Proverbs 15³⁰), and once of the divine countenance
(Psalms 90⁸).――ברקיע הש׳] the genitive is not partitive but
explicative: Davidson § 24 (_a_).――LXX inserts at this point:
εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἄρχειν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς,
καί.――לאתת] In Jeremiah 10² אתות השמים are astrological portents
such as the heathen fear, and that is commonly taken as the
meaning here, though it is not quite easy to believe the writer
would have said the sun and moon were _made_ for this purpose.¹
If we take אֹת in its ordinary sense of ‘token’ or ‘indication,’
we might suppose it defined by the words which follow. Tuch
obtains a connexion by making the double ו = _both ... and_
(“as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and years”):
others by a _hendiadys_ (“signs _of_ seasons”). It would be less
violent to render the first ו _und zwar_ (_videlicet_): “as signs,
_and that_ for seasons,” etc.; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._ וְ
1. b, where some of the examples come, at any rate, very near the
sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the same sense by reading
לְמוֹ׳ simply (_Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, 1870, 380).――=16.= ואת הכ׳] Driver
(_Hebrew_ ii. 33) renders “and the lesser light, as also the
stars, to rule,” etc. The construction is not abnormal; but
would the writer have said that the stars rule the night?――=18.=
וּֽלְהַבדיל] On the comparative sheva see König i. § 10, 6 e.
¹ The prophetic passages cited by Driver (_The Book of Genesis
with Introduction and Notes_ 10¹) all contemplate a reversal
of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as
illustrations of its normal functions.
* * * * *
=20‒23. Sixth work: Aquatic and aërial animals.=――_Let the waters
swarm with swarming things――living creatures, and let fowl fly, etc._]
The conjunction of two distinct forms of life under one creative act
has led Gunkel to surmise that two originally separate works have been
combined in order to bring the whole within the scheme of six days.
Bennett (rendering _and fowl that may fly_) thinks the author was
probably influenced by some ancient tradition that birds as well
as fishes were produced by the water (so Rashi and Abraham Ibn Ezra
on 2¹⁹). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction has the
support of all Greek versions and Vulgate; but it is not certain that
the verb can mean “_produce_ a swarm.” More probably (in connexions
like the present: see Exodus 7²⁸ [Yahwist] [English Version 8³],
Psalms 105³⁰) the sense is simply _teem with_, indicating the place
or element in which the swarming creatures abound, in which case it
cannot possibly govern עוֹף as objective.――שֶׁרֶץ has a sense something like
‘vermin’: _i.e._ it never denotes ‘a swarm,’ but is always used of the
creatures that appear in swarms (_v.i._).――נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה] literally, ‘living
soul’; used here collectively, and with the sense of נפש weakened, as
often, to ‘individual’ or ‘being’ (contrast verse ³⁰ and see on 2⁷).
The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according to Old Testament
ideas, the first appearance of life on the earth, for life is nowhere
predicated of the vegetable kingdom.――_over the earth in front of
the firmament_] _i.e._ in the atmosphere, for which Hebrew has no
special name.――=21.= _created_] indistinguishable from _made_ in
verse ²⁵.――_the great sea monsters_] The introduction of this new
detail in the execution of the fiat is remarkable. הַתַּנִינִם here denotes
actual marine animals; but this is almost the only passage where it
_certainly_ bears that sense (Psalms 148⁷). There are strong traces of
mythology in the usage of the word: Isaiah 27¹ 51⁹ (Gunkel _Schöpfung
und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30‒33), Psalms 74¹³(?); and it may
have been originally the name of a class of legendary monsters like
Ti’āmat. The mythological interpretation lingered in Jewish exegetical
tradition (see below).――=22.= _And God blessed them, etc._] In
contrast with the plants, whose reproductive powers are included in
their creation (verse ¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), these living beings are endowed with
the right of self-propagation by a separate act――a benediction (see
verse ²⁸). The distinction is natural.――_be fruitful, etc._] “There is
nothing to indicate that only a single pair of each kind was originally
produced” (Bennett); the language rather suggests that whole species,
in something like their present multitude, were created.
* * * * *
=20.= ישרצו ... שרץ] On syntax see Davidson § 73, _R._ 2. The root
has in Aramaic the sense of ‘creep,’ and there are many passages
in Old Testament where that idea would be appropriate (Leviticus
11²⁹ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³ etc.); hence Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 293), ‘creeping vermin generally.’
But here and Genesis 8¹⁷ 9⁷, Exodus 1⁷ 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ it
can only mean ‘teem’ or ‘swarm’; and Driver (_Genesis_ 12) is
probably right in extending that meaning to all the passages
in Hebrew Genesis 1²⁰ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ are the only
places where the construct with cognitive accusative appears;
elsewhere the animals themselves are subject of the verb. The
words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary
of Priestly-Code.――But for the fact that שֶׁרָץ never means ‘swarm,’
but always ‘swarming thing,’ it would be tempting to take it as
construct state before נפש חיה (LXX, Aquila, Vulgate). As it is,
נ׳ ח׳ has all the awkwardness of a gloss (see 2¹⁹). The phrase is
applied once to man, 2⁷ (Yahwist); elsewhere to animals,――mostly
in Priestly-Code (Genesis 1²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶, Leviticus
11¹⁰ᐧ ⁴⁶ etc.).――ועוף יעופף] The order of words as in verse ²²
(והעוף ירב), due to emphasis on the new subject. The use of
descriptive imperfect (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
Vulgate) is mostly poetic, and for reasons given above must here
be refused.――על פני] = ‘in front of’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._
פנה, II. 7, a,――LXX inserts ויהי כן at the end of the verse.――=21.=
התנינם] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far
the Hebrew usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The
important point is that it represents a power hostile to God,
not only in the passages cited above, but also in Job 7¹².
There are resemblances in the Aramaic _tinnīn_, a fabulous
amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now in the sea
(personification of the waterspout? _Lectures on the Religion of
the Semites_², 176), concerning which the Arabian cosmographers
have many wonderful tales to relate (Mas‛ūdī, i. 263, 266 ff.;
Kazwīnī, Ethé’s translation i. 270 ff.). Rashi, after explaining
literally, adds by way of Haggada that these are ‘Leviathan and
his consort,’ who were created male and female, but the female
was killed and salted for the righteous in the coming age,
because if they had multiplied the world would not have stood
before them (compare Enoch 60⁷⁻⁹, 4 Esdras 6⁴⁹⁻⁵², _Bereshith
Rabba_ chapter 7).¹――ואת כל־נפש הח׳ Compare 9¹⁰, Leviticus 11¹⁰; נ׳
though without article is really determined by כל (but see
Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209
(1)).――אשר שרצו] א׳, accusative of definition, as שֶׁרֶץ in verse
²⁰.――=22.= פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ] highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (only 3 times
elsewhere).
¹ In Babylonian _tannînu_ is said to be a mythological
designation of the earth (Jensen _Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier_ 161; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 136⁷; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_
109²⁴); but that throws no light on Hebrew.
* * * * *
=24, 25. Seventh work: Terrestrial animals.=――=24.= _Let the
earth bring forth living creatures_] נפש חיה (again collectively) is
here a generic name for _land_ animals, being restricted by what
precedes――‘living animals that spring from the earth.’ Like the plants
(verse ¹²), they are boldly said to be produced by the earth, their
bodies being part of the earth’s substance (2⁷ᐧ ¹⁹); this could not be
said of fishes in relation to the water, and hence a different form
of expression had to be employed in verse ²⁰.――The classification of
animals (best arranged in verse ²⁵) is threefold: (1) wild animals,
חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ (roughly, _carnivora_); (2) domesticated animals, בְּהֵמָה
(_herbivora_); (3) reptiles, רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, including perhaps creeping
insects and very small quadrupeds (see Driver _A Dictionary of the
Bible_, i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division appears in
a Babylonian tablet――‘cattle of the field, beasts of the field and
creatures of the city’ (Jensen _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1, 42 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ 112 f.).――=25.= _God
saw that it was good_] The formula distinctly marks the separation of
this work from the creation of man, which follows on the same day. The
absence of a benediction corresponding to verses ²²ᐧ ²⁸ is surprising,
but it is idle to speculate on the reason.
* * * * *
=24.= The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed
throughout the Old Testament. בהמה (from a root signifying ‘be
dumb’――Aramaic and Ethiopic) denotes collectively, _first_,
animals as distinguished from man (Exodus 9¹⁹ etc.), but chiefly
the larger mammals; _then_, domestic animals (the dumb creatures
with which man has most to do), (Genesis 34²³ 36⁶ etc.). Of
_wild_ animals specially it is seldom used alone (Deuteronomy
32²⁴, Habakkuk 2¹⁷), but sometimes with an addition (אֶרֶץ, שָׂדֶה,
יַעַר) which marks the unusual reference. As a noun of unity,
Nehemiah 2 ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴. See Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._――חַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ] an
archaic phrase in which וֹ represents the old case ending of the
nominative, _u_ or _um_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 90 _n_). So Psalms
79²; חיתו in other combinations Isaiah 56⁹, Zephaniah 2¹⁴, Psalms
104¹¹; Psalms 50¹⁰ 104²⁰. In sense it is exactly the same as the
commoner חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ 1²⁵ᐧ ³⁰ 9²ᐧ ¹⁰ etc.), and usually denotes _wild_
animals, though sometimes animals in general (ζῶον).――רמש and שרץ
naturally overlap; but the first name is derived from the manner
of movement, and the second from the tendency to swarm (Driver
_l.c._).
* * * * *
=26‒28. Eighth work: Creation of man.=――As the narrative approaches its
climax, the style loses something of its terse rigidity, and reveals
a strain of poetic feeling which suggests that the passage is moulded
on an ancient creation hymn (Gunkel). The distinctive features of
this last work are: (a) instead of the simple jussive we have the
cohortative of either self-deliberation or consultation with other
divine beings; (b) in contrast to the lower animals, which are made
each after its kind or type, man is made in the image of God; (c) man
is designated as the head of creation by being charged with the rule of
the earth and all the living creatures hitherto made.――=26.= _Let us
make man_] The difficulty of the 1st person plural has always been felt.
Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by
reading נַֽעֲשֶׂה as participle Niphal――a view the absurd grammatical
consequences of which are trenchantly exposed by Abraham Ibn
Ezra. The older Christian commentaries generally find in the
expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even Calvin); but that
doctrine is entirely unknown to the Old Testament, and cannot
be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained
as plural of self-deliberation (Tuch), or after the analogy of
the ‘we’ of royal edicts; but Dillmann has shown that neither is
consistent with native Hebrew idiom. Dillmann himself regards it
as based on the idea of God expressed by the plural אלהים, as ‘the
living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers and forces’ (so
Driver); but that philosophic rendering of the concept of deity
appears to be foreign to the theology of the Old Testament.
* * * * *
=26.= בצלמנו כדמותנו] LXX κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν.
_Mechilta_ (see above, page 14), gives as LXX’s reading
בצלם ובדמות.――On the בְּ ‘of a model,’ compare Exodus 25⁴⁰;
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ III. 8.――צלם] Assyrian _ṣalmu_,
the technical expression for the statue of a god (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 476³); Aramaic and
Syrian צַלְמָא, = ‘image’; the root is not _ẓalima_, ‘be dark,’
but possibly _ṣalama_, ‘cut off’ (Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of
‘pattern’ or ‘model’ is confined to the Priestly-Code passages
cited above; it stands intermediate between the concrete sense
just noted (an artificial material reproduction: 1 Samuel 6⁵
etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. ‘an unreal
semblance’ (Psalms 39⁷ 73²⁰).――דְּמוּת is the abstract noun
_resemblance_; but also used concretely (2 Chronicles 4³,
like Syrian (‡ Syriac word); Aramaic _dumyat_ = ‘effigy.’ The
ו is radical (form דִּמְוַת, compare Aramaic); hence the ending וּת
is no proof of Aramaic influence (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels_⁵ 388); see Driver _The Journal of Philology_
xi. 216.――ובכל־הארץ] Insert חַיַּת with Peshiṭtå (_v.s._). Other
versions agree with Massoretic Text.
* * * * *
The most natural and most widely accepted explanation is that God
is here represented as taking counsel with divine beings other
than Himself, viz. the angels or host of heaven: compare 3²² 11⁷,
Isaiah 6⁸, 1 Kings 22¹⁹⁻²² (so Philo, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra,
Delitzsch, Holzinger, Gunkel, Bennett, al.). Dillmann objects to this
interpretation, _first_, that it ascribes to angels some share in
the creation of man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine;¹ and,
_second_, that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to
by Priestly-Code at all. There is force in these considerations; and
probably the ultimate explanation has to be sought in a pre-Israelite
stage of the tradition (such as is represented by the Babylonian
account: see below, page 46), where a polytheistic view of man’s
origin found expression. This would naturally be replaced in a Hebrew
recension by the idea of a heavenly council of angels, as in 1 Kings
22, Job 1, 38⁷, Daniel 4¹⁴ 7¹⁰ etc. That Priestly-Code retained the
idea in spite of his silence as to the existence of angels is due to
the fact that it was decidedly less anthropomorphic than the statement
that man was made in the image of the one incomparable Deity.――_in our
image, according to our likeness_] The general idea of likeness between
God and man frequently occurs in classical literature, and sometimes
the very term of this verse (εἰκών, _ad imaginem_) is employed. To
speak of it, therefore, as “the distinctive feature of the Bible
doctrine concerning man” is an exaggeration; although it is true that
such expressions on the plane of heathenism import much less than in
the religion of Israel (Dillmann). The idea in this precise form is in
the Old Testament peculiar to Priestly-Code (5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶); the conception,
but not the expression, appears in Psalms 8⁶: later biblical examples
are Sirach 17³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Wisdom 2²³ (where the ‘image’ is equivalent to
immortality), 1 Corinthians 11⁷, Colossians 3¹⁰, Ephesians 4²⁴,
James 3⁹.
¹ Compare Calvin: “Minimam vero tam præclari operis partem
Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est.”
The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the
Babylonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of
Ea-bani, Aruru forms a mental image (_zikru_: see Jensen
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 401 f.) of the God Anu
(_ib._ 120, l. 33); and similarly, in the Descent of Ištar, Ea
forms a _zikru_ in his wise heart before creating Aṣūšunamir
(_ib._ 86. l. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously
to the bodily form of the created being. See, further, _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³ 506; _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 167.
The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine
lie beyond the scope of this commentary;¹ and it is sufficient
to observe with regard to them――(1) that the ‘image’ is not
something peculiar to man’s original state, and lost by the
Fall; because Priestly-Code, who alone uses the expression,
knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9⁶ employs the term, without
any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction
between εἰκών (_imago_) and ὁμοίωσις (_similitudo_)――the former
referring to the essence of human nature and the latter to
its accidents or its endowments by grace――has an apparent
justification in LXX, which inserts καί between the two phrases
(see below), and _never mentions the ‘likeness’ after_ 1²⁶; so
that it was possible to regard the latter as something belonging
to the divine idea of man, but not actually conferred at his
creation. The Hebrew affords no basis for such speculations:
compare 5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶.――(3) The view that the divine image consists
in dominion over the creatures (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom,
Socinians, etc.) is still defended by Holzinger; but it cannot
be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure,
and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the
creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man,
already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image
marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so
qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not
the essence, of the divine image (compare Psalms 8⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, Sirach
17²⁻⁴)――(4) Does the image refer primarily to the spiritual
nature or to the bodily form (upright attitude, etc.) of man?
The idea of a corporeal resemblance seems free from objection
on the level of Old Testament theology; and it is certainly
strongly suggested by a comparison of 5³ with 5¹. God is
expressly said to have a ‘form’ which can be seen (תְּמוּנָה,
Numbers 12⁸, Psalms 17¹⁵); the Old Testament writers constantly
attribute to Him bodily parts; and that they ever advanced to
the conception of God as formless spirit would be difficult to
prove. On the other hand, it may well be questioned if the idea
of a spiritual _image_ was within the compass of Hebrew thought.
Dillmann, while holding that the central idea is man’s spiritual
nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is
the expression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual
qualities.² It might be truer to say that it denotes primarily
the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of
which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol.³――Note
the striking parallel in Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 76 ff.
¹ A good summary is given by Zapletal, _Alttestamentliches_,
1‒15.
² So Augustine, _On Genesis against the Manichaeans_ 1. 17:
“Ita intelligitur per animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta
corporis forma, homo factus ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.”
³ Compare Engert, _Die Weltschöpfung_, 33.
_Man_ (אָדָם) is here generic (the human race), not the proper name of
an individual, as 5³. Although the great majority of commentaries take
it for granted that a single pair is contemplated, there is nothing in
the narrative to bear out that view; and the analogy of the marine and
land animals is against it on the whole (Tuch and Bennett).――_fish of
the sea, etc._] The enumeration coincides with the classification of
animals already given, except that _the earth_ occurs where we should
expect _wild beast of the earth_. חַיַּת should undoubtedly be restored
to the text on the authority of Peshiṭtå.――=27.= _in his image, in the
image of God, etc._] The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the
language, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man,
like Psalms 8 (Gunkel).――_male and female_] The persistent idea that
man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated afterwards
(mentioned by Rashi as a piece of Haggada, and recently revived by
Schwally, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), is far
from the thought of the passage.――=28.= A benediction is here again
the source of fertility, but this time also of dominion: Gunkel regards
this as another fragment of a hymn.
* * * * *
=27.= בצלמו] LXX omitted. The curious paraphrase of Symmachus
appears to reflect the Ebionite tendency of that translator: ἐν
εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ ὄρθιον ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν (Geiger, _Jüdische
Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben_, i. 40 f.). See, however,
Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 3 f., who calls attention
to the ὄρθιον in LXX of 1 Samuel 28¹⁴, and considers this word
the source of the idea that the upright form of man is part of
the divine image. But LXX in 1 Samuel probably misread זקן as
זקף.――אֹתוֹ] _constructio ad formam_: אֹתָם _constructio ad sensum_,
אדם being collective: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 132 _g._――זכר ונקבה]
The phrase confined to Priestly-Code except Deuteronomy 4¹⁶; נ׳
alone in Jeremiah 31²¹ (a gloss?). Although the application
to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the
collective sense is established by Genesis 7¹⁶, and is to be
assumed in some other cases (Numbers 5³ etc.). On its etymology
see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et
Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_, _s.v._, and (for a different view)
Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xi. 181 f.――=28.= ויאמר להם] LXX λέγων; perhaps original.――וכבשֻׁהָ]
The only instance of a verbal suffix in this chapter: a strong
preference for expression of accusative by את with suffix
is characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 389).――הרמשת] participle
with article = relative clause: see Davidson § 99, _R._ 1. The
previous noun is defined by כל, as in verse ²¹ (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts the article).――After שמים
Peshiṭtå read ובבהמה (so Ball). LXX has for the end of the verse:
καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων [τῶν ἑρπετῶν]
τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
* * * * *
=29‒31.= The record of creation closes with another (tenth) divine
utterance, which regulates in broad and general terms the relation of
men and animals to the vegetable world. The plants are destined for
food to man and beast. The passage is not wholly intelligible apart
from 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, from which we see that its point is the restriction on the
use of animal food, particularly on the part of man. In other words,
the first stage of the world’s history――that state of things which the
Creator pronounced very good――is a state of peace and harmony in the
animal world. This is Priestly-Code’s substitute for the garden of Eden.
A distinction is made between the food of man and that of animals:
to the former (a) seeding plants (probably because the seed is
important in cultivation, and in cereals is the part eaten), and
(b) fruit-bearing trees; to the latter _all the greenness of herbage_,
_i.e._ the succulent leafy parts. The statement is not exhaustive: no
provision is made for fishes, nor is there any mention of the use of
such victuals as milk, honey, etc. Observe the difference from chapters
2. 3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as part of the
curse has herbs (עשב) assigned to him.――=31.= The account closes with
the divine verdict of approval, which here covers a survey of all that
has been made, and rises to the superlative ‘very good.’
Verses ²⁹ ᶠᐧ differ significantly in their phraseology from
the preceding sections: thus זֹרֵעַ instead of מַזְרִיעַ (¹¹ᐧ ¹²);
העץ אשר בו פרי עץ זרע זרע instead of the far more elegant עץ עשה פרי אשר זרעו בו;
the classification into beasts, birds, and reptiles (contrast
²⁴ᐧ ²⁵); נפש חיה of the inner principle of life instead of
the living being as in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁴; ירק עשב instead of דשא. These
linguistic differences are sufficient to prove literary
discontinuity of some kind. They have been pointed out by
Kraetschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 103 f.),
who adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition
of animal food to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in
verses ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. But his inference (partly endorsed by Holzinger)
that the verses are a later addition to Priestly-Code does
not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, and
must have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The
facts point rather to a distinction in the sources with which
Priestly-Code worked,――perhaps (as Gunkel thinks) the enrichment
of the creation-story by the independent and widespread myth of
the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably with one another
and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep in the human
heart――horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower animals, the
longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that on the
whole the course of things has been from good to worse――all have
contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the
idea of its poetic and ethical value.
* * * * *
=29.= נתתי] = ‘I give’; Davidson § 40 _b_; Driver _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 13.――זרע (over Athnach)]
wrongly omitted by LXX.――אכלה] found only in Priestly-Code and
Ezekiel, and always preceded by לְ. It is strictly feminine
infinitive, and perhaps always retains verbal force (see Driver
_The Journal of Philology_ xi. 217). The ordinary cognate
words for food are אֹכֶל and מַֽאֲכָל.――=30.= ולכל וגו׳ The construction
is obscure. The natural interpretation is that ³⁰ expresses
a contrast to ²⁹――the one specifying the food of _man_, the
other that of _animals_. To bring out this sense clearly it is
necessary (with Ewald al.) to insert נתתי before את־כל־ירק. The text
requires us to treat לכם יהיה לאכלה in ²⁹ as a parenthesis (Dillmann)
and את־כל־ירק as still under the regimen of the distant נתתי.――רוֹמֵשׂ]
LXX ἑρπετῷ τῷ ἕρποντι――assimilating.――נֶפֶשׁ] here used in its
primary sense of the _soul_ or animating principle (see later on
2⁷), with a marked difference from verses ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ ²⁴.――ירק עשׂב] so
9³, = י׳ דֶּשֶׁא Psalms 37². יֶרֶק (verdure) alone may include the foliage
of trees (Exodus 10¹⁵); י׳ הַשָּׂדֶה = ‘grass’ (Numbers 22⁴). The
word is rare (6 times); a still rarer form יָרָק may sometimes be
confounded with it (Isaiah 37²⁷ = 2 Kings 17²⁶?).――=31.= יום הששי]
The article with the number appears here for the first time
in the chapter. On the construction, see Driver _A Treatise on
the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209 (1), where it is treated
as the beginning of a usage prevalent in post-biblical Hebrew,
which often in a definite expression uses the article with the
adjective alone (כנסת הגדולה, etc.). Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126
_w_ (with footnote); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 465;
Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 229 f.
* * * * *
=II. 1‒3. The rest of God.=――The section contains but one idea,
expressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness of language,――the
institution of the Sabbath. It supplies an answer to the question,
Why is no work done on the last day of the week? (Gunkel). The answer
lies in the fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work
of creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and sanctity.――The
writer’s idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity is almost too realistic
for the modern mind to grasp: it is not an institution which exists or
ceases with its observance by man; the divine rest is a fact as much
as the divine working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether
man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the idea that
the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; it is an
ordinance of the kosmos like any other part of the creative operations,
and is for the good of man in precisely the same sense as the whole
creation is subservient to his welfare.
=1.= _And all their host_] The ‘host of heaven’ (צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם) is frequently
mentioned in the Old Testament, and denotes sometimes the heavenly
bodies, especially as objects of worship (Deuteronomy 4¹⁹ etc.),
sometimes the angels considered as an organised army (1 Kings 22¹⁹
etc.). The expression ‘host of the earth’ nowhere occurs; and it is
a question whether the plural suffix here is not to be explained as
a _denominatio a potiori_ (Holzinger), or as a species of attraction
(Driver). If it has any special meaning as applied to the earth,
it would be equivalent to what is elsewhere called מְלֹא הארץ (Isaiah
6³ 34¹, Deuteronomy 33¹⁶ etc.)――the _contents_ of the earth, and
is most naturally limited to those things whose creation has just
been described.¹ In any case the verse yields little support to the
view of Smend and Wellhausen, that in the name ‘Yahwe of Hosts’ the
word denotes the complex of cosmical forces (Smend, _Lehrbuch der
alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_ 201 ff.), or the demons
in which these forces were personified (Wellhausen, _Die kleinen
Propheten_ 77).――=2.= _And God finished, etc._] The duplication of
verse ¹ is harsh, and strongly suggests a composition of sources.――_on
the seventh day_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå read _sixth day_ (so also _Jubilees_, ii. 16, and Jerome,
_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_), which is accepted
as the original text by many commentaries (Ilgen, Olshausen, Budde,
al.).² But _sixth_ is so much the easier reading that one must hesitate
to give it the preference. To take the verb as pluperfect (Calvin al.)
is grammatically impossible. On Wellhausen’s explanation, see above,
page 9 f. The only remaining course is to give a purely negative sense
to the verb _finish_: _i.e._ ‘desisted from,’ ‘did not continue’
(Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver, al.). The last view
may be accepted, in spite of the absence of convincing parallels.――_and
he rested_] The idea of שָׁבַת is essentially negative: cessation of work,
not relaxation (Driver): see below. Even so, the expression is strongly
anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerating Priestly-Code’s
aversion to such representations.³――=3.= _blessed ... sanctified_] The
day is blessed and sacred in itself and from the beginning; to say that
the remark is made in view of the future institution of the Sabbath
(Driver), does not quite bring out the sense. Both verbs contain
the idea of selection and distinction (compare Sirach 36 [33] ⁷⁻⁹),
but they are not synonymous (Gunkel). A blessing is the effective
utterance of a good wish; applied to things, it means their endowment
with permanently beneficial qualities (Genesis 27²⁷, Exodus 23²⁵,
Deuteronomy 28¹²). This is the case here: the Sabbath is a constant
source of well-being to the man who recognises its true nature and
purpose. To _sanctify_ is to set apart from common things to holy uses,
or to put in a special relation to God.――_which God creatively made_]
see the footnote.――Although no closing formula for the seventh day is
given, it is contrary to the intention of the passage to think that
the rest of God means His work of providence as distinct from creation:
it is plainly a rest of one day that is thought of. It is, of course,
a still greater absurdity to suppose an interval of twenty-four hours
between the two modes of divine activity. The author did not think in
our dogmatic categories at all.
¹ Compare Nehemiah 9⁶ “the heavens, the heavens of the heavens,
and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the
seas and all that is in them.”
² Expressly mentioned as LXX’s reading in _Mechilta_: see
above, page 14, and Geiger, _l.c._ 439.
³ In another passage of Priestly-Code, Exodus 31¹⁷, the
anthropomorphism is greatly intensified: “God rested and
refreshed Himself” (literally ‘took breath’).――See Jastrow
(_American Journal of Theology_ ii. 343 ff.), who thinks
that God’s ‘resting’ meant originally “His purification
after His conquest of the forces hostile to the order of
the world,” and was a survival of the mythological idea of
the appeasement of Marduk’s anger against Ti’āmat. The verb
there used is _nâḫu_, the equivalent of Hebrew נוח, used in
Exodus 20¹¹.
The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian
usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here
(see Lotz, _Quaestiones de historia Sabbati_ [1883]; Jastrow,
_American Journal of Theology_ ii. [1898], 312 ff.; _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 592 ff.; Driver _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._, and _The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_ 34; Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten
Testaments_ § 88, 2). The main facts, however, are these: (1)
The name _šab[p]attu_ occurs some five or six times in cuneiform
records; but of these only two are of material importance
for the Sabbath problem, (a) In a syllabary (II R. 32, 16 a, b)
_šabattu_ is equated with _ûm nûḫ libbi_, which has been
conclusively shown to mean ‘day of the appeasement of the heart
(of the deity),’――in the first instance, therefore, a day of
propitiation or atonement (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_,
iv. 274 ff.; Jastrow _l.c._ 316 f.). (b) In a tablet discovered
by Pinches in 1904, the name _šapattu_ is applied to the
fifteenth day of the month (as full-moon-day?) (Pinches
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xxvi.
51 ff.; Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, lviii. 199 ff., 458 ff.). (2) The only trace of a
Babylonian _institution_ at all resembling the Hebrew Sabbath is
the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul, Marchešvan,
but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days,
and also the 19th (probably as the 7 × 7th from the beginning of
the previous month), had the character of _dies nefasti_ (‘lucky
day, unlucky day’), on which certain actions had to be avoided
by important personages (king, priest, physician) (IV R. 32 f.,
33). Now, no evidence has ever been produced that these _dies
nefasti_ bore the name _šabattu_; and the likelihood that this
was the case is distinctly lessened by the Pinches fragment,
where the name is applied to the 15th day, but not to the 7th,
although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question,
therefore, has assumed a new aspect; and Meinhold (_Sabbat und
Woche im Alten Testament_ [1905], and more recently [1909],
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxix. 81
ff.), developing a hint of Zimmern, has constructed an ingenious
hypothesis on the assumption that in Babylonian _šabattu_
denotes the day of the full moon. He points to the close
association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic
references (Amos 8⁵, Hosea 2¹³, Isaiah 1¹³, 2 Kings 4²² ᶠᐧ);
and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylon, the Sabbath
was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution
of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for
the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated
by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes
to Ezekiel; but steps towards it are found in the introduction
of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of
Deuteronomy 16⁹; compare Exodus 34²¹), and in the establishment
of the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25), which he considers to
be older than the weekly Sabbath. The theory involves great
improbabilities, and its net result seems to be to leave the
actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it without any point of contact
in Babylonian institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is
no historical connexion between the Hebrew Sabbath and the _dies
nefasti_ of the Babylonian calendar; and if such a connexion
exists, the chief difficulties remain where they have long been
felt to lie, viz., (a) in the substitution of a weekly cycle
running continuously through the calendar for a division of
each month into seven-day periods, probably regulated by the
phases of the moon; and (b) in the transformation of a day of
superstitious restrictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these
changes, it must be confessed, no convincing explanation has
yet been found. The established sanctity of the number seven,
and the decay or suppression of the lunar feasts, might be
contributory causes; but when the change took place, and whether
it was directly due to Babylonian influence, or was a parallel
development from a lunar observance more primitive than either,
cannot at present be determined. See Hehn, _Siebenzahl und
Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament_, 91 ff.,
especially 114 ff.; compare Gordon, _The Early Traditions of
Genesis_, 216 ff.
* * * * *
=1.= צבא] Literally ‘host’ or ‘army’; then ‘period of service’
(chiefly military), LXX κόσμος and Vulgate _ornatus_ look like
a confusion with צְבִי. Used of the host of heaven, Deuteronomy
4¹⁹ 17³, Isaiah 24²¹ 40²⁶, where Vulgate has in the first case
_astra_, in the others _militia_; LXX κόσμος in all.――=2.= ויכל]
For the alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine
Numbers 17²⁵, or (with מן) 1 Samuel 10¹³, Exodus 34³³ etc.――מלאכה]
the word “used regularly of the work or business forbidden on
the Sabbath (Exodus 20⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 35², Jeremiah 17²²ᐧ ²⁴ al.)” (Driver);
or on holy convocations (Exodus 12¹⁶, Leviticus 16²⁹ 23²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ,
Numbers 29⁷). It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation
or business, as Genesis 39¹¹, Jonah 1⁸.――השביעי¹] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, _The Book of
Jubilees._, _Bereshith Rabba_ הששי, given as LXX’s reading
in _Mechilta_ (compare page 14 above).――וישבת] The omission of
continued subject (אלהים) might strengthen Wellhausen’s contention
that the clause is a gloss (see page 10 above): it occurs
nowhere else in the passage except _possibly_ 1⁷. The verb
שבת (possibly connected with Aramaic _sabata_ = ‘cut off,’
or Assyrian _šabātu_ = ‘cease,’ ‘be completed’: but see _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 593 f.) appears in
Old Testament in three quite distinct senses: (a) ‘cease to
be,’ ‘come to an end’; (b) ‘desist’ (from work, etc.); (c) ‘keep
Sabbath’ (denominative). Of the last there are four undoubted
cases, all very late: Leviticus 25² 23³² 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles
36²¹. But there are five others where this meaning is at least
possible: Genesis 2²ᐧ ³, Exodus 16³⁰ 23¹² 34²¹ 31¹⁷; and of
these Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful
passages, the sense ‘desist’ (b) is found only in Hosea 7⁴, Job
32¹ (Qal); Exodus 5⁵, Joshua 22²⁵, Ezekiel 16⁴¹ 34¹⁰ (Hiphil);
of which Hosea 7⁴ (a corrupt context) and Exodus 5⁵, alone are
_possibly_ pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in
all; 9 Qal, 4 Niphal, 33 Hiphil) the sense (a) ‘come to an end’
obtains; and this usage prevails in all stages of the literature
from Amos to Daniel; the pre-exilic examples being Genesis 8²²,
Joshua 5¹²(?) (Qal); Isaiah 17³ (Niphal); Amos 8⁴, Hosea 1⁴ 2¹³,
Isaiah 16¹⁰(?) 30¹¹, Deuteronomy 32²⁶, 2 Kings 23⁵ᐧ ¹¹, Jeremiah
7³⁴ 16⁹ 36²⁹ (Hiphil). These statistics seem decisive against
Hehn’s view (_l.c._ 93 ff.) that שָׁבַת is originally a denominative
from שַׁבָּת. If all the uses are to be traced to a single
root-idea, there can be no doubt that (b) is primary. But
while a dependence of (a) on (b) is intelligible (compare the
analogous case of חָדַל), ‘desist’ from work, and ‘come to an end’
are after all very different ideas; and, looking to the immense
preponderance of the latter sense (a), especially in the early
literature, it is worth considering whether the old Hebrew verb
did not mean simply ‘come to an end,’ and whether the sense
‘desist’ was not imported into it under the influence of the
denominative use (c) of which Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ might be early
examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold
(_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1909, 100
f.), except that he ignores the distinction between ‘desist’ and
‘come to an end,’ which seems to me important.]――=3.= ברא ... לעשות]
The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because ברא could not
directly govern the substantive מלאכה. LXX has ἤρξατο ... ποιῆσαι.
* * * * *
=4a.= _These are the generations, etc._] The best sense that can be
given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to what precedes,
and render the noun by ‘origin’: ‘This is the origin of,’ etc. But
it is doubtful if תולדות can bear any such meaning, and altogether the
half-verse is in the last degree perplexing. It is in all probability
a redactional insertion.
The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic
of Priestly-Code; and in that document it invariably stands as
introduction to the section following. But in this case the next
section (2⁴ᵇ‒4²⁶) belongs to Yahwist; and if we pass over the
Yahwist passages to the next portion of Priestly-Code (chapter
5), the formula would collide with 5¹, which is evidently the
proper heading to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the
improbable hypothesis of Strack, that a part of Priestly-Code’s
narrative has been dropped, the attempt to treat 2⁴ᵃ in its
present position as a superscription must be abandoned. On this
ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen,
that the clause stood originally before 1¹, as the heading
of Priestly-Code’s account of the creation.¹ But this theory
also is open to serious objection. It involves a meaning of
תולדות which is contrary both to its etymology and the usage of
Priestly-Code (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be
assigned to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it
is always followed by genitive of the progenitor, never of the
progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which
is generated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by
which they themselves are generated (so Lagarde, _Orientalia_
ii. 38 ff., and Holzinger). And even if that difficulty could
be overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable
description of the process of creation _as conceived by
Priestly-Code_. In short, neither as superscription nor as
subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an integral
part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the
difficulty but to assume with Holzinger that the formula in this
place owes its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of
Priestly-Code by a later hand. The insertion would be suggested
by the observation that the formula divides the book of Genesis
into definite sections; while the advantage of beginning a
new section at this point would naturally occur to an editor
who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts
of the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the
continuation of the first. If that be so, he probably took
ת׳ in the sense of ‘history’ and referred אֵלֶּה to what follows.
The analogy of 5¹, Numbers 3¹ would suffice to justify the use
of the formula before the ביום of ⁴ᵇ.――It has been thought that
LXX has preserved the original form of the text: viz. זה ספר ת׳ וגו׳
(compare 5¹); the redactor having, “before inserting a section
from the other document, accidentally copied in the opening
words of 5¹, which were afterwards adapted to their present
position” (Bennett). That is improbable. It is more likely
that LXX deliberately altered the text to correspond with 5¹.
See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt; sive Veterum
Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta_, _ad
loc._; Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 4.
* * * * *
=4a.= תולדות] only in plural constructs or with suffix; and
confined to Priestly-Code, Chronicles and Ruth 4¹⁸. Formed
from Hiphil of ילד, it means properly ‘begettings’; not, however,
as noun of action, but concretely (= ‘progeny’); and this is
certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase א׳ ת׳ (only Priestly-Code
[all in Genesis except Numbers 3¹], 1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸)
means primarily “These are the descendants”; but since a _list_
of descendants is a genealogy, it is practically the same thing
if we render, “This is the genealogical register.” In the great
majority of instances (Genesis [5¹] 10¹ 11¹⁰ 11²⁷ 25¹² 36¹ᐧ ⁹,
1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸) this sense is entirely suitable;
the addition of a few historical notices is not inconsistent
with the idea of a genealogy, nor is the general character of
these sections affected by it. There are just three cases where
this meaning is inapplicable: Genesis 6⁹ 25¹⁹ 37². But it is
noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment
of a genealogy follows; and it is fair to inquire whether 37²
may not have been originally followed by a genealogy (such as
35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ or 46⁸⁻²⁷ [see Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und
die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_, 102‒109, 213‒216]) which was
afterwards displaced in the course of redaction (see page 423,
below). With that assumption we could explain every occurrence
of the formula without having recourse to the unnatural view
that the word may mean a “family history” (Gesenius-Buhl
_s.v._), or “an account of a man and his descendants”
(Brown-Driver-Briggs). The natural hypothesis would then be
that a series of תולדות formed one of the sources employed by
Priestly-Code in compiling his work: the introduction of this
genealogical document is preserved in 5¹ (so Holzinger); the
recurrent formula represents successive sections of it, and 2⁴ᵃ
is a redactional imitation. When it came to be amalgamated with
the narrative material, some dislocations took place: hence the
curious anomaly that a man’s history sometimes appears under his
own _Tôlĕdôth_, sometimes under those of his father; and it is
difficult otherwise to account for the omission of the formula
before 12¹ or for its insertion in 36⁹. On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary
view that the formula was devised by Priestly-Code to mark the
divisions of the principal work.――ב{ה}בראם] ‘in their creation’
or ‘when they were created.’ If the _literal minuscule_ has
critical significance (Tuch, Dillmann) the primary reading was
infinitive Qal (בְּבָרְאָם); and this requires to be supplemented by
אלהים as subject. It is in this form that Dillmann thinks the
clause originally stood at the beginning of Genesis. (see on 1¹).
But the omission of אלהים and the insertion of the ה _minuscule_
are no necessary consequences of the transposition of the
sentence; and the small ה may be merely an error in the
archetypal MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all
copies.
¹ On Dillmann’s modification of this theory, see above on 1¹.
* * * * *
_Babylonian and other Cosmogonies._
1. The outlines of Babylonian cosmogony have long been known
from two brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from
Berossus (3rd century B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and
preserved by Syncellus from the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib.
i.); and (2) a passage from the Neo-Platonic writer Damascius
(6th century A.D.). From these it was apparent that the biblical
account of creation is in its main conceptions Babylonian.
The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced, but
partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel
‘Chaldæan Genesis,’ unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal’s
library at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore
unnecessary to examine them in detail; but since the originals
are not very accessible to English readers, they are here
reprinted in full (with emendations after _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 488 ff.):
(1) Berossus: Γενέσθαι φησὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ τὸ πᾶν σκότος καὶ ὕδωρ
εἶναι, καὶ ἐν τούτοις ζῶα τερατώδη, καὶ ἰδιοφυεῖς [emphatic
by Richt., codex εἰδιφυεῖς] τὰς ἰδέας ἔχοντα ζωογονεῖσθαι·
ἀνθρώπους γὰρ διπτέρους γεννηθῆναι, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ τετραπτέρους
καὶ διπροσώπους· καὶ σῶμα μὲν ἔχοντας ἕν, κεφαλὰς δὲ δύο,
ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ γυναικείαν, καὶ αἰδοῖα δὲ [corrected by von
Gutschmid, codex τε], δισσὰ, ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ· καὶ ἑτέρους
ἀνθρώπους τοὺς μὲν αἰγῶν σκέλη καὶ κέρατα ἔχοντας, τοὺς δὲ ἵππου
πόδας [corrected by von Gutschmid, codex ἱππόποδας], τοὺς δὲ
τὰ ὀπίσω μὲν μέρη ἵππων, τὰ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἀνθρώπων, οὓς [ὡς? von
Gutschmid] ἱπποκενταύρους τὴν ἰδέαν εἶναι. Ζωογονηθῆναι δὲ καὶ
ταύρους ἀνθρώπων κεφαλὰς ἔχοντας καὶ κύνας τετρασωμάτους, οὐρὰς
ἰχθύος ἐκ τῶν ὄπισθεν μερῶν ἔχοντας, καὶ ἵππους κυνοκεφάλους καὶ
ἀνθρώπους, καὶ ἕτερα ζῶα κεφαλὰς μὲν καὶ σώματα ἵππων ἔχοντα,
οὐρὰς δὲ ἰχθύων· καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ζῶα παντοδαπῶν θηρίων μορφὰς ἔχοντα.
Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἰχθύας καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ ὄφεις καὶ ἄλλα ζῶα πλείονα
θαυμαστὰ καὶ παρηλλαγμένας [emphatic by von Gutschmid, codex
παρηλλαγμένα] τὰς ὄψεις ἀλλήλων ἔχοντα· ὧν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν
τῷ τοῦ Βηλου ναῷ ἀνακεῖσθαι, ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα ᾗ
ὄνομα Ὀμορκα [corrected by Scaliger, codex Ὁμορωκα] εἶναι· τοῦτο
δὲ Χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν Θαμτε [corrected by W. R. Smith, _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, vi. 339, codex Θαλατθ], Ἑλληνιστὶ δὲ
μεθερμηνεύεται θάλασσα κατὰ δὲ ἰσόψηφον σελήνη. Οὕτως δὲ τῶν
ὅλων συνεστηκότων, ἐπανελθόντα Βηλον σχίσαι τὴν γυναῖκα μέσην,
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ αὐτῆς ποιῆσαι γῆν, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἥμισυ οὐρανὸν,
καὶ τὰ ἐν [σὺν? von Gutschmid] αὐτῇ ζῶα ἀφανίσαι, ἀλληγορικῶς δέ
φησι τοῦτο πεφυσιολογῆσθαι· ὑγροῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ ζώων
ἐν αὐτῷ γεγεννημένων [A]¹ τοιῶνδε [emphatic by von Gutschmid,
codex τὸν δὲ] Βηλον, ὃν Δία μεθερμηνεύουσι, μέσον τεμόντα τὸ
σκότος χωρίσαι γῆν καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ διατάξαι τὸν
κόσμον. Τὰ δὲ ζῶα οὐκ ἐνεγκόντα τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς δύναμιν φθαρῆναι,
ἰδόντα δὲ τὸν Βηλον χώραν ἔρημον καὶ ἀκαρποφόρον [emphatic by
Gunkel, codex καρποφόρον] κελεῦσαι ἑνὶ τῶν θεῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν
ἀφελόντι ἑαυτοῦ τῷ ἀποῤῥυέντι αἵματι φυρᾶσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ
διαπλάσαι ἀνθρώπους καὶ θηρία τὰ δυνάμενα τὸν ἀέρα φέρειν.
Ἀποτελέσαι δὲ τὸν Βηλον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς
πέντε πλανήτας. Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ πολυΐστωρ Ἀλέξανδρος τὸν Βηρωσσὸν
ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ φάσκειν [B]¹ τοῦτον τὸν θεὸν ἀφελεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ ῥυὲν αἷμα τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς φυρᾶσαι τῇ γῇ, καὶ
διαπλάσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· διὸ νοερούς τε εἶναι καὶ φρονήσεως
θείας μετέχειν.
¹ The sections commencing with [A] and [B] stand in the
reverse order in the text. The transposition is due to
von Gutschmid, and seems quite necessary to bring out any
connected meaning, though there may remain a suspicion
that the two accounts of the creation of man are variants,
and that the second is interpolated. Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 134, plausibly
assigns the section from ἀλληγορικῶς to φθαρῆναι to another
recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).
(2) Damascius: Τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ἐοίκασι Βαβυλώνιοι μὲν τὴν μίαν
τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν σιγῇ παριέναι, δύο δὲ ποιεῖν Ταυθε καὶ Ἀπασων,
τὸν μὲν Ἀπασων ἄνδρα τῆς Ταυθε ποιοῦντες, ταύτην δὲ μητέρα θεῶν
ὀνομάζοντες, ἐξ ὧν μονογενῆ παῖδα γεννηθῆναι τὸν Μωυμιν, αὐτὸν
οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἐκ τῶν δυοῖν ἀρχῶν παραγόμενον. Ἐκ δὲ
τῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλην γενεὰν προελθεῖν, Λαχην [codex Δαχην] καὶ Λαχον
[codex Δαχον]. Εἶτα αὖ τρίτην ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν, Κισσαρη καὶ Ἀσσωρον,
ἐξ ὧν γενέσθαι τρεῖς, Ἀνον καὶ Ἰλλινον καὶ Ἀον· τοῦ δὲ Ἀου καὶ
Δαυκης υἱὸν γενέσθαι τὸν Βηλον, ὃν δημιουργὸν εἶναί φασιν.[B]¹
¹ The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Müller,
_Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii. 497 f.; that of
Damascius in _Damascii philosophi de primis principiis_
(edited by Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both
fragments, see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
488 ff.; G. Smith, _Chaldean Genesis_ (edited by Sayce),
pages 34 ff., 43 f. (from Cory, _Ancient Fragments_); Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 17 ff.; Nikel,
_Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 24 f., 28.
2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and
continuous comparison with Genesis 1 is the great Creation Epos
just referred to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first
fragments, many lacunæ have been filled up from subsequent
discoveries, and several duplicates have been brought to light;
and the series is seen to have consisted of seven Tablets,
entitled, from the opening phrase, _Enuma eliš_ (= ‘When
above’).¹ The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier
date than the 7th century B.C., but there are strong reasons
to believe that the originals of which these are copies are of
much greater antiquity, and may go back to 2000 B.C., while the
myth itself probably existed in writing in other forms centuries
before that. Moreover, they represent the theory of creation on
which the statements of Berossus and Damascius are based, and
they have every claim to be regarded as the authorised version
of the Babylonian cosmogony. It is here, therefore, if anywhere,
that we must look for traces of Babylonian influences on the
Hebrew conception of the origin of the world. The following
outline of the contents of the tablets is based on King’s
analysis of the epic into five originally distinct parts (_The
Seven Tablets of Creation_, page lxvii).
¹ The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in
English is given in L. W. King’s _Seven Tablets of Creation_,
volume i. (1902); with which should be compared Jensen
_Mythen und Epen_, in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1 (1900), and now (1909) Gressmann, _Altorientalische Texte
und Bilder zum Alten Testament_, i. 4 ff. See also Jensen
_Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890), 268‒301; Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ (1894) 401‒420,
and the summaries in _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 492 ff.; Lukas, _Die Grundbegriffe in den
Kosmogonien der alten Völker_ (1893), 2 ff.; Jastrow _The
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (1898) 410 ff.; Jeremias
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 132 ff.;
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, article CREATION.
i. _The Theogony._――The first twenty-one lines of Tablet I.
contain a description of the primæval chaos and the evolution of
successive generations of deities:
When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not bear a name,
And the primæval Apsu,¹ who begat them,
And chaos, Ti’āmat,² the mother of them both,――
Their waters were mingled together,
* * * * *
Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.
First Laḥmu and Laḥamu,³ then Ansar and Kisar,⁴ and lastly (as
we learn from Damascius, whose report is in accord with this
part of the tablet, and may safely be used to make up a slight
defect) the supreme triad of the Babylonian pantheon, Anu, Bel,
and Ea.⁵
¹ Damascius, Ἀπασων.
² Damascius Ταυθε, Berossus Θαμτε (emphatic, see above).
³ Damascius Λαχη and Λαχος (emphatic).
⁴ Ἀσσωρος and Κισσαρη.
⁵ Ἀνος, Ἰλλινος (In-lil = Bel), and, Ἀος.
ii. _The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea._――The powers of chaos, Apsu,
Tiamat, and a third being called Mummu (Damascius Μωυμις), take
counsel together to ‘destroy the way’ of the heavenly deities.
An illegible portion of Tablet I. must have told how Apsu and
Mummu were vanquished by Ea, leaving Tiamat still unsubdued.
In the latter part of the tablet the female monster is again
incited to rebellion by a god called Kingu, whom she chooses as
her consort, laying on his breast the ‘Tables of Destiny’ which
the heavenly gods seek to recover. She draws to her side many of
the old gods, and brings forth eleven kinds of monstrous beings
to aid her in the fight.
iii. _The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat._――Tablets II. and
III. are occupied with the consultations of the gods in view
of this new peril, resulting in the choice of Marduk as their
champion; and Tablet IV. gives a graphic description of the
conflict that ensues. On the approach of the sun-god, mounted on
his chariot and formidably armed, attended by a host of winds,
Tiamat’s helpers flee in terror, and she alone confronts the
angry deity. Marduk entangles her in his net, sends a hurricane
into her distended jaws, and finally despatches her by an arrow
shot into her body.
iv. _The account of creation_ commences near the end of Tablet
IV. After subduing the helpers of Tiamat and taking the Tables
of Destiny from Kingu, Marduk surveys the carcase, and ‘devised
a cunning plan’:
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for the heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions
(thereof),
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.¹
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep
And he founded E-šara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-šara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.
¹ Ea.
Berossus says, what is no doubt implied here, that of the other
half of Tiamat he made the earth; but whether this is meant by
the founding of E-šara, or is to be looked for in a lost part
of Tablet V., is a point in dispute (see Jensen _Die Kosmologie
der Babylonier_ 185 ff., 195 ff.; and _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 344 f.). Tablet V. opens with the creation
of the heavenly bodies:
He made the stations for the great gods;
The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he
fixed.
He ordained the year and into sections he divided it;
For the twelve months he fixed three stars.
* * * * *
The Moon-god he caused to shine forth, the night he entrusted
to him.
He appointed him, a being of the night, to determine the days;
Every month without ceasing with the crown he covered(?) him,
(saying,)
“At the beginning of the month, when thou shinest upon the
land,
Thou commandest the horns to determine six days,
And on the seventh day,” etc. etc.
The rest of Tablet V., where legible, contains nothing bearing
on the present subject; but in Tablet VI. we come to the
creation of man, which is recorded in a form corresponding to
the account of Berossus:
When Marduk heard the word of the gods,
His heart prompted him, and he devised (a cunning plan).
He opened his mouth and unto Ea (he spake),
(That which) he had conceived in his heart he imparted (unto
him):
“My blood will I take and bone will I (fashion),
I will make man, that man may ... (...)
I will create man, who shall inhabit (the earth),
That the service of the gods may be established,” etc. etc.
At the end of the tablet the gods assemble to sing the praises
of Marduk; and the last tablet is filled with a
v. _Hymn in honour of Marduk._――From this we learn that to
Marduk was ascribed the creation of vegetation and of the
‘firm earth,’ as well as those works which are described in
the legible portions of Tablets IV.‒VI.
How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with
the cosmogony of Genesis 1? (1) In both we find the general
notion of a watery chaos, and an etymological equivalence in
the names (_Ti’āmat_, _Tĕhôm_) by which it is called. It is
true that the Babylonian chaos is the subject of a double
personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat
the female principle by whose union the gods are generated.
According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 559 f.),
Apsu is the fresh, life-giving water which descends from heaven
in the rain, while Tiamat is the ‘stinking,’ salt water of the
ocean: in the beginning these were mingled (Tablet I. 5), and
by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the subsequent
narrative the rôle of Apsu is insignificant; and in the central
episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the
power of chaos, as in Hebrew _Tĕhôm_.――(2) In _Enuma eliš_ the
description of chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there
is no trace in Genesis. The Babylonian theory is essentially
monistic, the gods being conceived as emanating from a material
chaos. Lukas, indeed (_l.c._ 14 ff., 24 ff.), has tried to show
that they are represented as proceeding from a supreme spiritual
principle, Anu. But while an independent origin of deity may be
consistent with the opening lines of Tablet I., it is in direct
opposition to the statement of Damascius, and is irreconcilable
with the later parts of the series, where the gods are
repeatedly spoken of as children of Apsu and Tiamat. The
biblical conception, on the contrary, is probably dualistic
(above, pages 7, 15), and at all events the supremacy of the
spiritual principle (_Elohim_) is absolute. That a theogony
must have originally stood between verses ² and ³ of Genesis 1
(Gunkel) is more than can be safely affirmed. Gunkel thinks it
is the necessary sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end
of verse ². But he himself regards that idea as foreign to the
main narrative; and if in the original source something must
have come out of the egg, it is more likely to have been the
world itself (as in the Phœnician and Indian cosmogonies) than
a series of divine emanations.――(3) Both accounts assume, but in
very different ways, the existence of light before the creation
of the heavenly bodies. In the Babylonian legend the assumption
is disguised by the imagery of the myth: the fact that Marduk,
the god of light, is himself the demiurge, explains the omission
of light from the category of created things. In the biblical
account that motive no longer operates, and accordingly light
takes its place as the first creation of the Almighty.――(4) A
very important parallel is the conception of heaven as formed
by a separation of the waters of the primæval chaos. In _Enuma
eliš_ the _septum_ is formed from the body of Tiamat; in Genesis
it is simply a _rākî‛a_――a solid structure fashioned for the
purpose. But the common idea is one that could hardly have been
suggested except by the climatic conditions under which the
Babylonian myth is thought to have originated. Jensen has shown,
to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of
the Babylonian myth can be explained from the changes that pass
over the face of nature in the lower Euphrates valley about the
time of the vernal equinox (see _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_
307 ff.; compare Gunkel _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit_ 24 ff.; Gordon). Chaos is an idealisation of the
Babylonian winter, when the heavy rains and the overflow of the
rivers have made the vast plain like a sea, when thick mists
obscure the light, and the distinction between heaven and sea
seems to be effaced. Marduk represents the spring sun, whose
rays pierce the darkness and divide the waters, sending them
partly upwards as clouds, and partly downwards to the sea,
so that the dry land appears. The ‘hurricane,’ which plays so
important a part in the destruction of the chaos-monster, is the
spring winds that roll away the dense masses of vapour from the
surface of the earth. If this be the natural basis of the myth
of Marduk and Tiamat, it is evident that it must have originated
in a marshy alluvial region, subject to annual inundations,
like the Euphrates valley.――(5) There is, again, a close
correspondence between the accounts of the creation of the
heavenly bodies (see page 21 f.). The Babylonian is much fuller,
and more saturated with mythology: it mentions not only the
moon but the signs of the Zodiac, the planet Jupiter, and the
stars. But in the idea that the function of the luminaries is
to regulate time, and in the destination of the moon to rule
the night, we must recognise a striking resemblance between the
two cosmogonies.――(6) The last definite point of contact is the
creation of man (page 30 f.). Here, however, the resemblance
is slight, though the deliberative 1st person plural in Genesis
1²⁶ is probably a reminiscence of a dialogue like that between
Marduk and Ea in the _Enuma eliš_ narrative.――(7) With regard
to the order of the works, it is evident that there cannot
have been complete parallelism between the two accounts. In the
tablets the creation of heaven is followed naturally by that of
the stars. The arrangement of the remaining works, which must
have been mentioned in lost parts of Tablets V. and VI., is,
of course, uncertain; but the statement of Berossus suggests
that the creation of land animals followed instead of preceding
that of man. At the same time it is very significant that the
separate works themselves, apart from their order: Firmament,
Luminaries, Earth, Plants, Animals, Men,――are practically
identical in the two documents: there is even a fragment
(possibly belonging to the series) which alludes to the creation
of marine animals as a distinct class (King, _The Seven Tablets
of Creation_, lix, lxxxvi). Gordon (_Early Traditions of
Genesis_) holds that the differences of arrangement can be
reduced to the single transposition of heavenly bodies and
plants (see his table, page 51).
In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that
the cosmogony of Genesis 1 rests on a conception of the process
of creation fundamentally identical with that of the _Enuma
eliš_ tablets.
3. There is, however, another recension of the Babylonian
creation story from which the fight of the sun-god with chaos is
absent, and which for that reason possesses a certain importance
for our present purpose. It occurs as the introduction to a
bilingual magical text, first published by Pinches in 1891.¹
Once upon a time, it tells us, there were no temples for the
gods, no plants, no houses or cities, no human inhabitants:
The Deep had not been created, Eridu had not been built;
Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had
not been made.
All lands were sea (_tāmtu_).
Then arose a ‘movement in the sea’; the most ancient shrines
and cities of Babylonia were made, and divine beings created
to inhabit them. Then
Marduk laid a reed¹ on the face of the waters;
He formed dust and poured it out beside the reed,
That he might cause the gods to dwell in the habitation
of their heart’s desire.
He formed mankind; the goddess Aruru together with him
created the seed of mankind.
¹ So King; but Jeremias ‘a reed-hurdle’ (_Rohrgeflecht_);
while Jensen renders: ‘Marduk placed a canopy in front
of the waters, He created earth and heaped it up against
the canopy’――a reference to the firmament (so _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³).
Next he formed beasts, the rivers, grasses, various kinds of
animals, etc.; then, having ‘laid in a dam by the side of the
sea,’ he made reeds and trees, houses and cities, and the great
Babylonian sanctuaries. The whole description is extremely
obscure, and the translations vary widely. The main interest
of the fragment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-fact
representation of the primæval condition of things, and of
the process of world-building. Of special correspondences
with Genesis 1 there are perhaps but two: (a) the impersonal
conception of chaos implied in the appellative sense of _tāmtu_
(_Tĕhôm_) for the sea; (b) the comparison of the firmament to
a canopy, if that be the right interpretation of the phrase.
In the order of the creation of living beings it resembles more
the account in Genesis 2; but from that account it is sharply
distinguished by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast
to the arid waste of Genesis 2⁵. It is therefore inadmissible
to regard this text as a more illuminating parallel to Genesis 1
than the _Enuma eliš_ tablets. The most that can be said is that
it suggests the possibility that in Babylonia there may have
existed recensions of the creation story in which the mythical
motive of a conflict between the creator and the chaos-monster
played no part, and that the biblical narrative goes back
directly to one of these. But when we consider that the Tiamat
myth appears in both the Greek accounts of Babylonian cosmogony,
that echoes of it are found in other ancient cosmogonies,
and that in these cases its imagery is modified in accordance
with the religious ideas of the various races, the greater
probability is that the cosmogony of Genesis 1 is directly
derived from it, and that the elimination of its mythical
and polytheistic elements is due to the influence of the
pure ethical monotheism of the Old Testament.――Gunkel in
his _Schöpfung und Chaos_ was the first to call attention
to possible survivals of the creation myth in Hebrew poetry.
We find allusions to a conflict between Yahwe and a monster
personified under various names (Rahab, the Dragon, Leviathan,
etc.――but never _Tĕhôm_); and no explanation of them is so
natural as that which traces them to the idea of a struggle
between Yahwe and the power of chaos, preceding (as in the
Babylonian myth) the creation of the world. The passages,
however, are late; and we cannot be sure that they do not
express a literary interest in foreign mythology rather than
a survival of a native Hebrew myth.²
¹ _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
and Ireland_, 1891, 393 ff.; translated in King, _The
Seven Tablets of Creation_, 131 ff.; _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, 39 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 129 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 27 f.;
Sayce, _Early Israel_, 336 f. Compare the summary in _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 498.
² The chief texts are Isaiah 51⁹ ᶠᐧ, Psalms 89⁸⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Job
26¹² ᶠᐧ (Rahab); Psalms 74¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, Isaiah 27¹ (Leviathan); Job
7¹² (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion in _Schöpfung und
Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30‒111; and the criticisms of
Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 950 f., and Nikel, pages
90‒99.
4. The Phœnician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions
are given below,¹ hardly presents any instructive points of
comparison with Genesis 1. It contains, however, in each of
its recensions, the idea of the world-egg――a very widespread
cosmological speculation to which no Babylonian analogies have
been found, but which is supposed to underlie the last clause of
Genesis 1². In Sanchuniathon, the union of ‘gloomy, breath-like
Air’ with ‘turbid dark Chaos’ produces a miry watery mixture
called Μωτ, in which all things originate, and first of all
certain living beings named ‘watchers of heaven’ (צֹפֵי שָׁמַיִם). These
appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are
‘shaped _like the form of an egg_,’ i.e., probably, are arranged
in the sky in that form. In Eudemos, the first principles are
Χρόνος, Πόθος, and Ὀμίχλη: the two latter give birth to Ἀήρ and
Αὔρα, and from the union of these again proceeds ‘an _egg_.’
More striking is the expression of the idea in Mochos. Here
the union of Αἰθήρ and Ἀήρ produces Οὐλωμος (עוֹלָם), from which
proceed Χουσωρος, ‘the first opener,’ and then ‘an _egg_.’ It is
afterwards explained that the egg is the heaven, and that when
it is split in two (? by Χουσωρος) the one half forms the heaven
and the other the earth. It may introduce consistency into these
representations if we suppose that in the process of evolution
the primæval chaos (which is coextensive with the future
heaven and earth) assumes the shape of an egg, and that this is
afterwards divided into two parts, corresponding to the heaven
and the earth. The function of Χουσωρος is thus analogous to
the act of Marduk in cleaving the body of Tiamat in two. But
obviously all this throws remarkably little light on Genesis
1².――Another supposed point of contact is the resemblance
between the name Βααυ and the Hebrew בֹּהוּ. In Sanchuniathon
Βααυ is explained as night, and is said to be the wife of the
Kolpia-wind, and mother of Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος, the first pair
of mortals. It is evident that there is much confusion in this
part of the extract; and it is not unreasonably conjectured that
Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος were really the first pair of emanations,
and Kolpia and Baau the chaotic principles from which they
spring; so that they may be the cosmological equivalents of Tōhû
and Bōhû in Genesis. There is a strong probability that the name
Βααυ is connected with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 161); but
the evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically
Phœnician influences are traceable in Genesis 1².
¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited by Heinichen,
page 37 ff.; compare Orelli, _Sanchoniathonis Berytii Quae
Feruntur Fragmenta_ [1826]), gives the following account
of the cosmogony of Sanchuniathon (a Phœnician writer of
unknown date, and even of uncertain historicity) taken from
Philo Byblius:
“Τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεται ἀέρα ζοφώδη καὶ πνευματώδη,
ἢ πνοὴν ἀέρος ζοφώδους, καὶ χάος θολερὸν, ἐρεβῶδες. Ταῦτα
δὲ εἶναι ἄπειρα, καὶ διὰ πολὺν αἰῶνα μὴ ἔχειν πέρας. Ὅτε
δέ, φησιν, ἠράσθη τὸ πνεῦμα τῶν ἰδίων ἀρχῶν, καὶ ἐγένετο
σύγκρασις, ἡ πλοκὴ ἐκείνη ἐκλήθη Πόθος. Αὕτη δὲ ἀρχὴ κτίσεως
ἁπάντων· αὐτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε τὴν αὐτοῦ κτίσιν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς
αὐτοῦ συμπλοκῆς τοῦ πνεύματος, ἐγένετο Μώτ. Τοῦτό τινές
φασιν ἰλύν, οἱ δὲ, ὑδατώδους μίξεως σῆψιν. Καὶ ἐκ ταύτης
ἐγένετο πᾶσα σπορὰ κτίσεως, καὶ γένεσις τῶν ὅλων. Ἦν δέ τινα
ζῶα οὐκ ἔχοντα αἴσθησιν, ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο ζῶα νοερὰ, καὶ ἐκλήθη
Ζωφασημὶν [Ζωφησαμιμ] τοῦτ’ ἔστιν οὐρανοῦ κατόπται. Καὶ
ἀνεπλάσθη ὁμοίως [+ ὠοῦ, see Orr] σχήματι· καὶ ἐξέλαμψε Μὼτ
ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη, ἀστέρες τε καὶ ἄστρα μεγάλα” ... “Καὶ
τοῦ ἀέρος διαυχάσαντος, διὰ πύρωσιν καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ
τῆς γῆς ἐγένετο πνεύματα, καὶ νέφη, καὶ οὐρανίων ὑδάτων
μέγισται καταφοραὶ καὶ χύσεις. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ διεκρίθη, καὶ τοῦ
ἰδίου τόπου διεχωρίσθη διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πύρωσιν, καὶ πάντα
συνήντησε πάλιν ἐν ἀέρι τάδε τοῖσδε, καὶ συνέῤῥαξαν· βρονταί
τε ἀπετελέσθησαν καὶ ἀστραπαὶ, καὶ πρὸς τὸν πάταγον τῶν
βροντῶν τὰ προγεγραμμένα νοερὰ ζῶα ἐγρηγόρησεν καὶ πρὸς
τὸν ἦχον ἐπτύρη, καὶ ἐκινήθη ἔν τε γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ ἄῤῥεν
καὶ θῆλυ.” ... Ἑξῆς τούτοις ὀνόματα τῶν ἀνέμων εἰπὼν, Νότου
καὶ Βορέου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἐπιλέγει· “Ἀλλ’ οὗτοί γε πρῶτοι
ἀφιέρωσαν τὰ τῆς γῆς βλαστήματα, καὶ θεοὺς ἐνόμισαν, καὶ
προσεκύνουν ταῦτα, ἀφ’ ὧν αὐτοί τε διεγίνοντο, καὶ οἱ
ἑπόμενοι, καὶ οἱ πρὸ αὐτῶν πάντες, καὶ χοὰς καὶ ἐπιθύσεις
ἐποίουν.” Καὶ ἐπιλέγει· “Αὗται δ’ ἦσαν αἱ ἐπίνοιαι τῆς
προσκυνήσεως, ὅμοιαι τῇ αὐτῶν ἀσθενείᾳ, καὶ ψυχῆς ἀτολμίᾳ.
Εἶτά φησι γεγενῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Κολπία ἀνέμου, καὶ γυναικὸς
αὐτοῦ Βάαυ, τοῦτο δὲ νύκτα ἑρμηνεύειν, Αἰῶνα καὶ Πρωτόγονον
θνητοὺς ἄνδρας, οὕτω καλουμένους.” ... [the sequel on page
124 below].
The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle)
and a native writer Mōchos: they are preserved in the
following passage of Damascius (cap. 125; edited by Kopp,
page 385):
Σιδώνιοι δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν συγγραφέα (_i.e._ Eudemos) πρὸ
πάντων Χρόνον ὑποτίθενται καὶ Πόθον καὶ Ὀμίχλην. Πόθου δὲ
καὶ Ὀμίχλης μιγέντων ὡς δυοῖν ἀρχῶν Ἀέρα γενέσθαι καὶ Αὔραν,
Ἀέρα μὲν ἄκρατον τοῦ νοητοῦ παραδηλοῦντες, Αὔραν δὲ τὸ ἐξ
αὐτοῦ κινούμενον τοῦ νοητοῦ ζωτικὸν προτύπωμα. Πάλιν δὲ ἐκ
τούτων ἀμφοῖν ὦτον [read ὠὸν] γεννηθῆναι κατὰ τὸν νοῦν οἶμαι
τὸν νοητόν. Ὡς δὲ ἔξωθεν Εὐδήμου τὴν Φοινίκων εὑρίσκομεν
κατὰ Μῶχον μυθολογίαν, Αἰθὴρ ἦν τὸ πρῶτον καὶ Ἀὴρ αἱ
δύο αὗται ἄρχαι, ἐξ ὧν γεννᾶται Οὐλωμὸς, ὁ νοητὸς θεὸς,
αὐτὸ οἶμαι τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ νοητοῦ· ἐξ οὗ ἑαυτῷ συνελθόντος
γεννηθῆναί φησι Χουσωρὸν, ἀνοιγέα πρῶτον, εἶτα ὠόν· τοῦτον
μὲν οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν νοῦν λέγοντες, τὸν δὲ ἀνοιγέα Χουσωρὸν,
τὴν νοητὴν δύναμιν ἅτε πρώτην διακρίνασαν τὴν ἀδιάκριτον
φύσιν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα μετὰ τὰς δύο ἀρχὰς τὸ μὲν ἄκρον ἐστὶν
ἄνεμος ὁ εἷς, τὸ δὲ μέσον οἱ δύο ἄνεμοι Λίψ τε καὶ Νότος·
ποιοῦσι γάρ πως καὶ τούτους πρὸ τοῦ Οὐλωμοῦ· ὁ δὲ Οὐλωμὸς
αὐτὸς ὁ νοητὸς εἴη νοῦς, ὁ δὲ ἀνοιγεὺς, Χουσωρὸς, ἡ μετὰ
τὸ νοητὸν πρώτη τάξις, τὸ δὲ ὠὸν ὁ οὐρανός· λέγεται γὰρ
ἐξ αὐτοῦ ῥαγέντος εἰς δύο, γενέσθαι οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ, τῶν
διχοτομημάτων ἑκάτερον.
5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar
to that of Genesis 1, appears in the late book of the Bundehesh
(the Parsee Genesis), where the periods are connected with the
six annual festivals called Gahanbars, so as to form a creative
year, parallel to the week of Genesis 1. The order is: 1. Heaven;
2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals; 6. Men. We miss from
the enumeration: Light, which in Zoroastrianism is an uncreated
element; and the Heavenly bodies, which are said to belong
to an earlier creation (Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im
Altertum_, ii. 296). The late date of the Bundehesh leaves
room, of course, for the suspicion of biblical influence; but
it is thought by some that the same order can be traced in
a passage of the younger Avesta, and that it may belong to
ancient Iranian tradition (Tiele, _l.c._, and _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, vi. 244 ff.; Caland, _Theologisch
Tijdschrift_, xxiii. 179 ff.).――The most remarkable of all
known parallels to the six days’ scheme of Genesis is found
in a cosmogony attributed to the ancient Etruscans by Suidas
(_Lexicon_, _s.v._ Τυρρηνία). Here the creation is said to have
been accomplished in six periods of 1000 years, in the following
order: 1. Heaven and Earth; 2. the Firmament; 3. Sea and Water;
4. Sun and Moon; 5. Souls of Animals; 6. Man (see K. O. Müller,
_Die Etrusker_, ii. 38; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 154 f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier than the
10th century A.D., and though his information may have been
derived from ancient sources, we cannot be sure that his account
is not coloured by knowledge of the Hebrew cosmogony.
II. 4b‒III. 24.
_The Creation and Fall of Man_
(Yahwist).
The passage forms a complete and closely articulated narrative,¹ of
which the leading motive is man’s loss of his original innocence and
happiness through eating forbidden fruit, and his consequent expulsion
from the garden of Eden. The account of creation in 2⁴ᵇ ᶠᶠᐧ had
primarily, perhaps, an independent interest; yet it contains little
that is not directly subservient to the main theme developed in chapter
3. It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of ‘earth
and heaven’ (2⁴ᵇ) is assumed without being described; the narrative
springs from an early phase of thought which was interested in
the beginnings of human life and history, but had not advanced to
speculation on the origin of heaven and earth (compare Frankenberg
in Gunkel² 24). From chapter 1 it differs fundamentally both in its
conception of the primal condition of the world as an arid, waterless
waste (2⁵ ᶠᐧ: contrast 1²), and in the order of creative works: viz.
Man (⁷), Trees (⁹), Animals (¹⁸⁻²⁰), Woman (²¹⁻²³). Alike in this
arrangement and in the supplementary features――the garden (⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ),
the miraculous trees (⁹ᵇ), the appointments regarding man’s position
in the world (¹⁵⁻¹⁷), and the remarkable omissions (plants, fishes,
etc.)――it is governed by the main episode to which it leads up (chapter
3), with its account of the temptation by the serpent (¹⁻⁵), the
transgression (⁶ᐧ ⁷), the inquest (⁸⁻¹³), the sentences (¹⁴⁻¹⁹), and
the expulsion from Eden (²²⁻²⁴).
¹ Compare especially 2⁴ᵇ{β} with 3¹⁹ᐧ ²³; 2⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ ᶠᐧ with
3¹⁻⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²²; 2⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁵ with 3²³ ᶠᐧ; 2¹⁹ with 3¹ᵃᐧ ¹⁴; 2²¹⁻²³
with 3¹²; (2²⁴ with 3¹⁶ᵇ); 2²⁵} with 3⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ.
The story thus summarised is one of the most charming idylls
in literature: chapter 3 is justly described by Gunkel as the
‘pearl of Genesis.’ Its literary and æsthetic character is best
appreciated by comparison with chapter 1. Instead of the formal
precision, the schematic disposition, the stereotyped diction,
the aim at scientific classification, which distinguish the
great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by childlike
simplicity of conception, exuberant though pure imagination,
and a captivating freedom of style. Instead of lifting God far
above man and nature, this writer revels in the most exquisite
anthropomorphisms; he does not shrink from speaking of God as
walking in His garden in the cool of the day (3⁸), or making
experiments for the welfare of His first creature (2¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), or
arriving at a knowledge of man’s sin by a searching examination
(3⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), etc. While the purely mythological phase of thought
has long been outgrown, a mythical background everywhere
appears; the happy garden of God, the magic trees, the speaking
serpent, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, are all emblems derived
from a more ancient religious tradition. Yet in depth of moral
and religious insight the passage is unsurpassed in the Old
Testament. We have but to think of its delicate handling of
the question of sex, its profound psychology of temptation and
conscience, and its serious view of sin, in order to realise
the educative influence of revealed religion in the life of
ancient Israel. It has to be added that we detect here the first
note of that sombre, almost melancholy, outlook on human life
which pervades the older stratum of Genesis 1‒11. Compare the
characterisation in Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 302 ff.; Gunkel page 22 ff.
_Source._――The features just noted, together with the use of
the divine name יהוה, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs
to the Yahwistic cycle of narratives (Yahwist). Expressions
characteristic of this document are found in קדמת 2¹⁴, הפעם 2²³,
מה־זאת 3¹³, ארור 3¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, עצבון 3¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷, בעבור 3¹⁷; and (in contrast to
Priestly-Code) יצר, ‘create,’ instead of ברא, חית השדה instead of ח׳
הארץ, נשמת חיים instead of רוח ח׳ (see on 7²²); and the constant use
of accusative suffix to the verb.
_Traces of Composition._――That the literary unity of the
narrative is not perfect there are several indications, more or
less decisive. (1) The geographical section 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ is regarded
by most critics (since Ewald) as a later insertion, on the
grounds that it is out of keeping with the simplicity of the
main narrative, and seriously interrupts its sequence. The
question is whether it be merely an isolated interpolation,
or an extract from a parallel recension. If the latter be in
evidence, we know too little of its character to say that 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴
could not have belonged to it. At all events the objections
urged would apply only to ¹¹⁻¹⁴; and there is much to be said,
on this assumption, for retaining ¹⁰ (or at least ¹⁰ᵃ) as a
parallel to verse ⁶ (Holzinger).――(2) A more difficult problem
is the confusion regarding the two trees on which the fate of
man depends, a point to which attention was first directed by
Budde. According to 2⁹ᵇ the tree of life and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil grew together in the midst of the
garden, and in 2¹⁷ the second alone is made the test of the
man’s obedience. But chapter 3 (down to verse ²¹) knows of only
one tree in the midst of the garden, and that obviously (though
it is never so named) the tree of knowledge. The tree of life
plays no part in the story except in 3²²ᐧ ²⁴, and its sudden
introduction there only creates fresh embarrassment; for if this
tree also was forbidden, the writer’s silence about it in 2¹⁷
3³ is inexplicable; and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose
that in the author’s intention the boon of immortality was
placed freely within man’s reach during the period of his
probation? So far as the main narrative is concerned, the tree
of life is an irrelevance; and we shall see immediately that the
part where it does enter into the story is precisely the part
where signs of redaction or dual authorship accumulate.――(3)
The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the
twofold account of the expulsion from Eden: 3²³ᐧ ²⁴. Here ²²
and ²⁴ clearly hang together; ²⁰ and ²¹ are as clearly out
of their proper position; hence ²³ may have been the original
continuation of ¹⁹, to which it forms a natural sequel. There
is thus some reason to believe that in this instance, at any
rate, the ‘tree of life’ is not from the hand of the chief
narrator.――(4) Other and less certain duplicates are: 2⁶ ∥
2¹⁰ ⁽¹¹⁻¹⁴⁾ (see above), ⁸ᵃ ∥ ⁹ᵃ (the planting of the garden);
and ⁸ᵇ ¹⁵ᵃ (the placing of man in it); 2²³ ∥ 3²⁰ (the naming of
the woman).――(5) Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 232 ff.)
was the first to suggest that the double name יהוה אלהים (which
is all but peculiar to this section) has arisen through
amalgamation of sources. His theory in its broader aspects has
been stated on page 3, above; it is enough here to point out its
bearing on the compound name in Genesis 2 f. It is assumed that
two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which (Yahwistᵉ)
employed only אלהים, the other (Yahwistʲ) only יהוה. When these
were combined the editor harmonised them by adding אלהים to יהוה
everywhere in Yahwistʲ, and prefixing יהוה to אלהים everywhere
in Yahwistᵉ except in the colloquy between the serpent and
the woman (3¹⁻⁵), where the general name was felt to be more
appropriate.¹ The reasoning is precarious; but if it be sound,
it follows that 3¹⁻⁵ must be assigned to Yahwistᵉ; and since
these verses are part of the main narrative (that which speaks
only of the tree of knowledge), there remain for Yahwistʲ only
3²²ᐧ ²⁴, and possibly some variants and glosses in the earlier
part of the narrative.――On the whole, the facts seem to warrant
these conclusions: of the Paradise story two recensions existed;
in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of
life (so van Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 225 f.)
and possibly both trees;² the former supplied the basis of our
present narrative, and is practically complete, while the second
is so fragmentary that all attempt to reconstruct even its main
outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.
¹ So Gunkel. A still more complete explanation of this
particular point would be afforded by the somewhat intricate
original hypothesis of Budde. He suggested that the primary
narrative (Yahwist¹) in which יהוה was regularly used,
except in 3¹⁻⁵, was re-written and supplemented by Yahwist²
who substituted אלהים for יהוה; the two narratives were
subsequently amalgamated in rather mechanical fashion by
Yahwist³, with the result that wherever the divine names
differed both were retained, and where the documents agreed
אלהים alone appears (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 233 f.).
Later in the volume (471 ff.) the hypothesis is withdrawn in
favour of the view that Yahwist² contained no Paradise story
at all.――A similar explanation is given by van Doorninck
(_l.c._ 239), who thinks the retention of אלהים in 3¹⁻⁵ was
due to the redactor’s desire to avoid the imputation of
falsehood to Yahwe!
² The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed
to have obtained between the two recensions. Gunkel, who
assumes that the resemblance was very close, holds that
in Yahwistʲ probably both trees were concerned in the fall
of man. But the text gives no indication that in Yahwistʲ
the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the
fruit of a tree: other ways of procuring unlawful knowledge
are conceivable; and it is therefore possible that in this
version the tree of life alone occupied a position analogous
to that of the tree of knowledge in the other (see, further,
Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 355 f.).
4b‒7.
The creation of man.
On the somewhat involved construction of the section, see the
footnote.――=4b.= _At the time when Yahwe Elohim made, etc._] The double
name יַהְוֶה אֱלֹהִים, which is all but peculiar to Genesis 2 f., is probably
to be explained as a result of redactional operations (_v.i._), rather
than (with Reuss, Ayles, al.) as a feature of the isolated source from
which these two chapters were taken.――_earth and heaven_] The unusual
order (which is reversed by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå) appears again only in Psalms 148¹³.――=5.= _there was
as yet no bush, etc._] Or (on Dillmann’s construction) _while as yet
there was no, etc._ The rare word שִׂיחַ denotes elsewhere (21¹⁵ [Elohist],
Job. 30⁴ᐧ ⁷) a desert shrub (so Syrian, Arabic); but a wider sense is
attested by Assyrian and Phœnician. It is difficult to say whether
here it means wild as opposed to cultivated plants (Hupfeld, Gunkel),
or perennials as opposed to annuals (Holzinger).――For the earth’s
barrenness two reasons are assigned: (1) the absence of rain, and (2)
the lack of cultivation. In the East, however, the essence of husbandry
is irrigation; hence the two conditions of fertility correspond broadly
to the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast between land watered by the
Baal and that watered by human labour (Robinson, Smend, _Lectures on
the Religion of the Semites_², 96 ff.).――_to till the ground_] This,
therefore, is man’s original destiny, though afterwards it is imposed
on him as a curse,――an indication of the fusion of variant traditions.
אֲדָמָה, both here and verse ⁶, has probably the restricted sense of
‘soil,’ ‘arable land’ (compare 4¹⁴).――=6.= _but a flood_ (or _mist_,
_v.i._) _used to come up_ (periodically)] “The idea of the author
appears to be that the ground was rendered capable of cultivation by
the overflow of some great river” (Ayles).
It is certainly difficult to imagine any other purpose to be
served by the ‘flood’ than to induce fertility, for we can
hardly attribute to the writer the trivial idea that it had
simply the effect of moistening the soil for the formation of
man, etc. (Rashi, al., compare Gunkel, Cheyne, _Traditions and
Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 87). But this appears to neutralise
⁵ᵇ{α}, since rain is no longer an indispensable condition
of vegetation. Holzinger, accordingly, proposes to remove ⁶
and to treat it as a variant of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴. The meaning might be,
however, that the flood, when supplemented by human labour,
was sufficient to fertilise the _’ădāmāh_, but had, of course,
no effect on the steppes, which were dependent on rain. The
difficulty is not removed if we render ‘mist’; and the brevity
of the narrative leaves other questions unanswered; such as,
When was rain first sent on the earth? At what stage are we to
place the creation of the cereals? etc.
If the above explanation be correct, there is a confusion of
two points of view which throws an interesting light on the
origin of the story. The rain is suggested by experience of
a dry country, like Palestine. The flood, on the other hand,
is a reminiscence of the entirely different state of things
in an alluvial country like the Euphrates valley, where
husbandry depends on artificial irrigation assisted by periodic
inundations. While, therefore, there may be a Babylonian basis
to the myth, it must have taken its present shape in some drier
region, presumably in Palestine. To say that it “describes ...
the phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia,”
involves more than ‘mythic exaggeration’ (Cheyne _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 949).
* * * * *
=4b‒7.= The sudden change of style and language shows that
the transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the
middle of verse ⁴. The construction presents the same syntactic
ambiguity as 1¹⁻³ (see the note there); except, of course, that
there can be no question of taking ⁴ᵇ as an independent sentence.
We may also set aside the conjecture (Wellhausen _Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 297 f.; Kautzsch-Socin, al.) that
the clause is the conclusion of a lost sentence of Yahwist, as
inconsistent with the natural position of the time determination
in Hebrew. ⁴ᵇ must therefore be joined as protasis to what
follows; and the question is whether the apodosis commences at ⁵
(Tuch, Strack, Driver, al.), or (with ⁵ ᶠᐧ as a parenthesis) at ⁷
(Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). In syntax either view is admissible;
but the first yields the better sense. The state of things
described in ⁵ ᶠᐧ evidently lasted some time; hence it is
not correct to say that Yahwe made man at the time when He
made heaven and earth: to connect ⁷ directly with ⁴ᵇ is “to
identify a _period_ (verse ⁶) with a _point_ (verse ⁷) of
time” (Spurrell).――On the form of apodosis, see again Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78.――=4.= בְּיוֹם
always emphasises contemporaneousness of two events (compare
2¹⁷ 3⁵); the indefiniteness lies in the substantive, which often
covers a space of time (= ‘when’: Exodus 6²⁸ 32³⁴, Jeremiah
11⁴ etc.).――יהוה אלהים] in Hexateuch only Exodus 9³⁰; elsewhere 2
Samuel 7²²ᐧ ²⁵, Jonah 4⁶, Psalms 72¹⁸ 84⁹ᐧ ¹², 1 Chronicles 17¹⁶,
2 Chronicles 6⁴¹. LXX uses the expression frequently up to 9¹²,
but its usage is not uniform even in chapters 2. 3. The double
name has sometimes been explained by the supposition that an
editor added אלהים to the original יהוה in order to smooth the
transition from Priestly-Code to Yahwist, or as a hint to the
Synagogue reader to substitute אלהים for יהוה; but that is scarcely
satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory
of Budde and Gunkel, on which see page 53. Barton and Cheyne
(_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 99 f.) take it
as a compound of the same type as _Melek-Aštart_, etc., an
utterly improbable suggestion.――=5.= שיח is probably the same as
Assyrian _šiḫtu_, from √ = ‘grow high’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches
Handwörterbuch_), and hence might include trees, as rendered by
Peshiṭtå, Targum.――On עשב, see on 1¹¹. The genitive השדה, common
to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities
or houses, sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (Delitzsch,
96).――On טֶרֶם with imperfect, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _c_;
Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 27 β.
The rendering ‘before’ (LXX [one of the deviations mentioned
in Mechilta――see on 1¹] Vulgate) would imply בְּטֶרֶם, and is
wrong.――=6.= אֵד] LXX πηγή Aquila ἐπιβλυσμός, Vulgate _fons_,
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ עננא. Cheyne conjecture יְאֹר;
others עַיִן (after versions). The word has no etymology in Hebrew,
and the only other occurrence (Job 36²⁷) is even more obscure
than this. ‘Cloud’ (Targum) or ‘mist’ is a natural guess, and it
is doubtful if it be anything better. The meaning ‘flood’ comes
from Assyrian _edû_, applied to the annual overflow of a river
(Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_),――note the frequent
imperfect. Gunkel thinks it a technical semi-mythological term
of the same order as _Tĕhôm_, with which Rashi seems to connect
it; while Abraham Ibn Ezra interprets ‘cloud,’ but confounds
the word with אֵיד, ‘calamity’ (Zephaniah 1¹⁵); so Aquila, who
renders the latter by ἐπιβλυσμός in Proverbs 1²⁶, Job 30¹² (see
_Bereshith Rabba_ § 13).――On the tenses, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §
112 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_
§ 113, 4 (β).
* * * * *
=7.= _Yahwe Elōhîm moulded man_] The verb יָצַר (avoided by Priestly-Code)
is used, in the participle, of the potter; and that figure underlies
the representation. An Egyptian picture shows the god Chnum forming
human beings on the potter’s disc (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 146).――The idea of man as made of clay or earth
appears in Babylonian; but is indeed universal, and pervades the
whole Old Testament.――_breath of life_] Omit the article. The phrase
recurs only 7²² (Yahwist), where it denotes the animal life, and there
is no reason for supposing another meaning here. “Subscribere eorum
sententiæ non dubito qui de animali hominis vita locum hunc exponunt”
(Calvin).――_man became a living being_] נֶפֶשׁ here is not a constituent
of human nature, but denotes the personality as a whole.
The verse has commonly been treated as a _locus classicus_ of
Old Testament anthropology, and as determining the relations
of the three elements of human nature――flesh, soul, spirit――to
one another. It is supposed to teach that the soul (נֶפֶשׁ) arises
through the union of the universal life-principle (רוּחַ) with the
material frame (בָּשָׂר): compare _e.g._ Grüneisen, _Ahnenkultus_, 34
f. No such ideas are expressed: neither בשר nor רוח is mentioned,
while נפשׁ is not applied to a separate element of man’s being,
but to the whole man in possession of vital powers. “All that
seems in question here is just the giving of vitality to man.
There seems no allusion to man’s immaterial being, to his
spiritual element.... Vitality is communicated by God, and he
is here represented as communicating it by breathing into man’s
nostrils that breath which is the sign of life” (Davidson, _The
Theology of the Old Testament_ 194). At the same time, the fact
that God imparts his own breath to man, marks the dignity of man
above the animals: it is Yahwist’s equivalent for the ‘image of
God.’
* * * * *
=7.= אדם ... אדמה] Both words are of uncertain etymology. The
old derivation from the verb ‘be red’ (... πυῤῥόν· ἐπειδήπερ
ἀπὸ τῆς πυῤῥᾶς γῆς φυραθείσης ἐγεγόνει: Josephus _Antiquities
of the Jews_ i. 34) is generally abandoned, but none better
has been found to replace it (recent theories in Dillmann
53 f.). According to Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 722), אדם appears in Arabic
as _’ānām_ (compare Haupt, _ib._ lxi. 194). Friedrich Delitzsch’s
view, that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as
Dillmann says) to rest on the ambiguity of the German _bauen_;
but it is very near the thought of this passage: man is made
from the soil, lives by its cultivation, and returns to it at
death.――עפר] Accusative of material, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _hh_.
Gunkel regards it as a variant to האדמה from Yahwistʲ.――נפש חיה]
This appears to be the only place where the phrase is applied
to man; elsewhere to animals (1²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ etc.). נ׳, primarily
‘breath,’ denotes usually the vital principle (with various mental
connotations), and ultimately the whole being thus animated――the
person. The last is the only sense consistent with the structure
of the sentence here.
* * * * *
8‒17.
The garden of Eden.
That the planting of the garden was subsequent to the creation of man
is the undoubted meaning of the writer; the rendering _plantaverat_
(Vulgate: so Abraham Ibn Ezra) is grammatically impossible, and is
connected with a misconception of מקדם below.――_a garden in Eden_] This
is perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geographical designation) is
distinguished from the garden (compare 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ 3²³ᐧ ²⁴ 4¹⁶, Isaiah 51³,
Ezekiel 28¹³ 31⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 36³⁵, Joel 2³, Sirach 40²⁷). The common phrase
גַּן עֵדֶן would suggest to a Hebrew the idea ‘garden of delight,’ as it is
rendered by LXX (often) and Vulgate (_v.i._). There is no probability
that the proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived
by the younger Delitzsch and Schrader from Babylonian _edinu_, ‘plain,’
‘steppe,’ or ‘desert’ (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 80; _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 26 f.; _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 539); but it is a somewhat precarious
inference that the garden was conceived as an oasis in the midst of
a desert (Holzinger).――מִקֶּדֶם] ‘_in the_ (far) _East_’; _i.e._ from the
Palestinian standpoint of the author; not, of course, to be identified
with any other עֶדֶן within the geographical horizon of the Israelites
(see 2 Kings 19¹² [= Isaiah 37¹²], Ezekiel 27²³, Amos 1⁵).
Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden
appears also in Genesis 13¹⁰, Ezekiel 31⁸. Usually it is a mere
symbol of luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its
lordly trees (Ezekiel 31⁸ ᶠᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸); but in Ezekiel 28¹³ it
is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine being. Most of
the allusions are explicable as based on Genesis 2 f.; but the
imagery of Ezekiel 28 reveals a highly mythological conception
of which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the
idea be primitive Semitic (and גַּן is common to all the leading
dialects), it may originate in the sacred grove (_Hima_) “where
water and verdure are united, where the fruits of the sacred
trees are _taboo_, and the wild animals are _’anīs_, _i.e._ on
good terms with man, because they may not be frightened away”
(Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 303²; compare
_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 141; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic
Origins_¹, 96). In early times such spots of natural fertility
were the haunts of the gods or supernatural beings (_Lectures
on the Religion of the Semites_², 102 ff.). But from the wide
diffusion of the myth, and the facts pointed out on page 93 f.
below, it is plain that the conception has been enriched by
material from different quarters, and had passed through a
mythological phase before it came into the hands of the biblical
writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and
mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the
religious literature (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 195 ff.).
* * * * *
=8.= גן] LXX παράδεισος (compare פרדס, Canticles 4¹³, Ecclesiastes
2⁵, Nehemiah 2⁸: probably from Persian), and so Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå.――עֵדֶן] is regularly treated as a proper noun by
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Peshiṭtå, by Vulgate only 4¹⁶ (everywhere
else as appellative: _voluptas, deliciæ_). LXX has Ἐδεμ
only in 2⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ 4¹⁶; elsewhere τρυφή[ς], except Isaiah 51³
(παράδεισος).――מקדם] Literally ‘in front’ (on the מן see König
_Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_
ii. page 318; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 578ᵇ): in the history
books it always means ‘east’ or ‘eastward’; but in prophets
and Psalms it usually has temporal sense (‘of old’); and so
it is misunderstood here by all versions except LXX (Vulgate
_in principio_, etc.).――=9.= כל־עץ] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127
_b_.――הדעת] The use of article with infitive construct is very
rare (Davidson § 19), but is explained by the frequent use of
דעת as abstract noun. Otherwise the construction is regular, טוב ורע
being accusative, not genitive of object.――Budde (_Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound
object by the secondary predicate בתוך הגן, and thinks the original
text must have been ובתוך הגן עץ הדעח וגו׳; thus finding a confirmation of
the theory that the primary narrative knew of only one tree, and
that the tree of knowledge (page 52; so Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel,
al.). In view of the instances examined by Driver in _Hebraica_,
ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be
sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead
to the excision of the second member rather than of the first
(Kuenen _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1884, 136; van Doorninck,
_ib._, 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, _ib._ 494 ff.). A more important
point is the absence of את before the definite object. The
writer’s use of this participle is very discriminating; and
its omission suggests that ⁹ᵇ is really a nominal clause, as
rendered above. If we were to indulge in analysis of sources,
we might put ⁹ᵇ (in whole or in part) after ⁸ᵃ, and assign it to
that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly spoke of a
tree of life (3²²).
* * * * *
=9.= _all sorts of trees ... food_] The primitive vegetation is
conceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit man was to
subsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of the curse pronounced
on the ground (3¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――_and the tree of life_ (was) _in the midst_]
On Budde’s strictures on the form of the sentence, _v.i._ The intricate
question of the two trees must be reserved for separate discussion
(pages 52 f., 94); for the present form of the story both are
indispensable. The tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3²²;
compare Proverbs 3¹⁸ 11³⁰ 13¹² 15⁴; further, Ezekiel 47¹², Revelation
22²), is a widely diffused idea (see Dillmann 49; Wünsche, _Die Sagen
vom Lebensbaum und Lebenswasser_). The tree of knowledge is a more
refined conception; its property of communicating knowledge of good
and evil is, however, magical, like that of the other; a connexion
with oracular trees (Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. 85 f.;
Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_ ii. 227) is
not so probable. As to what is meant by ‘knowing good and evil,’ see
page 95 ff.
The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by
Barton (_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 92 f.) to have been
the date-palm; and this corresponds to the sacred palm in
the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu (IV R. 15*), and also to the
conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and palace-reliefs,
which is considered to be a palm combined with some species of
conifer. Compare also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of
_Gilgamesh_, _Tablets_ IV. V. For these and other Babylonian
parallels, see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
195 ff.
=10.= _a river issued_ (or _issues_) _from Eden_] The language does not
necessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside the garden (Driver,
Bennett); the verb יָצָא is used of the rise of a stream at its source
(Exodus 17⁶, Numbers 20¹¹, Judges 15¹⁹, Ezekiel 47¹, Zechariah 14⁸,
Joel 4¹⁸). Whether the participle expresses past or present time cannot
be determined.――_from thence it divides itself_] The river issues from
the garden as a single stream, then divides into four branches, which
are the four great rivers of the world. The site of Paradise, therefore,
is at the common source of the four rivers in question (page 62‒66
below). That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent it
may be with physical geography.――=11.= _Pîšôn_] The name occurs (along
with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon) in Sirach 24²⁵, but nowhere
else in Old Testament. That it was not a familiar name to the Hebrews
is shown by the topographical description which follows. On the various
speculative identifications, see Delitzsch and Dillmann, and page 64 f.
below.――_the whole land of Ḥăvîlāh_] The phraseology indicates that the
name is used with some vagueness, and considerable latitude. In 10⁷ᐧ ²⁹
25¹⁸ etc., Ḥavilah seems to be a district of Arabia (see page 202);
but we cannot be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically
coloured geography of this passage.――=12.= Two other products of the
region are specified; but neither helps to an identification of the
locality.――_bĕdōlaḥ_] a substance well known to the Israelites (Numbers
11⁷), is undoubtedly the fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks
βδέλλιον or βδέλλα. Pliny (_Naturalis Historia_, xii. 35 f.) says
the best kind grew in Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in
Arabia, India, Media, and Babylonia.――_the šōham stone_] A highly
esteemed gem (Job 28¹⁶), suitable for engraving (Exodus 28⁹ etc.),
one of the precious stones of Eden (Ezekiel 28¹³), and apparently
used in architecture (1 Chronicles 29²). From the Greek equivalents
it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the beryl (_v.i._).
According to Pliny, the latter was obtained from India, the former
from India and Arabia (_Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 76, 86).――=13.=
_Gîḥôn_] The name of a well on the East of Jerusalem (the Virgin’s
spring: 1 Kings 1³³ etc.), which Abraham Ibn Ezra strangely takes to
be meant here. In Jewish and Christian tradition it was persistently
identified with the Nile (Sirach 24²⁷; LXX of Jeremiah 2¹⁸ [where שִׁחוֹר
is translated Γηών]; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 39, and
the Fathers generally). The great difficulty of that view is that the
Nile was as well known to the Hebrews as the Euphrates, and no reason
appears either for the mysterious designation, or the vague description
appended to the name.――_land of Kûš_] Usually Ethiopia; but see on
10⁶.――=14.= _Ḥiddeḳel_] is certainly the Tigris, though the name occurs
only once again (Daniel 10⁴).――_in front of ’Aššûr_] Either between
it and the spectator, or to the east of it: the latter view is adopted
by nearly all commentaries; but the parallels are indecisive, and
the point is not absolutely settled. Geographically the former would
be more correct, since the centre of the Assyrian Empire lay East of
the Tigris. The second view can be maintained only if אַשּׁוּר be the city
which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now _Ḳal‛at Šerḳāt_ on the
West bank of the river. But that city was replaced as capital by Kalḫi
as early as 1300 B.C., and is never mentioned in Old Testament. It
is at least premature to find in this circumstance a conclusive proof
that the Paradise legend had wandered to Palestine before 1300 B.C.
(Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 347).――_Euphrates_]
The name (פְּרָת) needed no explanation to a Hebrew reader: it is the נָהָר
_par excellence_ of the Old Testament (Isaiah 8⁷ and often).
_The site of Eden._――If the explanation given above of verse
¹⁰ be correct,――and it is the only sense which the words will
naturally bear,――it is obvious that a real locality answering
to the description of Eden exists and has existed nowhere on
the face of the earth. The Euphrates and Tigris are not and
never were branches of a single stream; and the idea that two
other great rivers sprang from the same source places the whole
representation outside the sphere of real geographical knowledge.
In ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, in short, we have to do with a semi-mythical geography,
which the Hebrews no doubt believed to correspond with fact,
but which is based neither on accurate knowledge of the region
in question, nor on authentic tradition handed down from the
ancestors of the human race. Nevertheless, the question where
the Hebrew imagination located Paradise is one of great interest;
and many of the proposed solutions are of value, not only for
the light they have thrown on the details of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, but also for
the questions they raise as to the origin and character of the
Paradise-myth. This is true both of those which deny, and of
those which admit, the presence of a mythical element in the
geography of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴.
1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the
locality of Paradise, and of all the data of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, at the cost
of a somewhat unnatural exegesis of verse ¹⁰. That of Friedrich
Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_, 1881) is based partly on
the fact that North of Babylon (in the vicinity of Bagdad) the
Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles of each
other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water
through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded
as an offshoot of it. The _land_ of Eden is the plain (_edinu_)
between the two rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a
hundred miles North of Bagdad) and ‛Ana (on the Euphrates) to
the Persian Gulf; the _garden_ being one specially favoured
region from the so-called ‘isthmus’ to a little South of
Babylon. The _river_ of verse ¹⁰ is the Euphrates; Pishon is
the Pallakopas canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the
right a little above Babylon and running nearly parallel with
it to the Persian Gulf; Giḥon is the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_, another
canal running East of the Euphrates from near Babylon and
rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; Ḥiddeḳel and Euphrates
are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates
respectively, the former regarded as replenished through the
canal system from the latter. Ḥavilah is part of the great
Syrian desert lying West and South of the Euphrates; and Kush
is a name for northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the
Kaššite dynasty that once ruled there. In spite of the learning
and ingenuity with which this theory has been worked out, it
cannot clear itself of an air of artificiality at variance with
the simplicity of the passage it seeks to explain. That the
Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-stream and
one of the ‘heads’ into which it breaks up is a glaring anomaly;
while verse ¹⁴ shows that the narrator had distinctly before
his mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and
is therefore not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent
of the Euphrates. The objection that the theory confuses
rivers and canals is fairly met by the argument that the
Babylonian equivalent of נָהָר is used of canals, and also by
the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably
ancient river-beds; but the _order_ in which the rivers are
named tells heavily against the identifications. Moreover, the
expression ‘the _whole_ land of Ḥavilah’ seems to imply a much
larger tract of the earth’s surface than the small section of
desert enclosed by the Pallakopas; and to speak of the _whole_
of northern Babylonia as ‘surrounded’ by the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_ is
an abuse of language.――According to Sayce _The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 95 ff.; _A Dictionary of the
Bible_, i. 643 f.), the garden of Eden is the sacred garden of
Ea at Eridu; and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf,
on the shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches
are, in addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times
entered the Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes
(now the _Kerkha_), the sacred river of the Persians, from whose
waters alone their kings were allowed to drink (Herodotus i.
188). Besides the difficulty of supposing that the writer of
verse ¹⁰ meant to trace the streams _upwards_ towards their
source above the garden, the theory does not account for the
order in which the rivers are given; for the Pallakopas is West
of Euphrates, while the Choaspes is East of the Tigris.¹ Further,
although the description of the Persian Gulf as a ‘river’ is
fully justified by its Babylonian designation as _Nâr Marratum_
(‘Bitter River’), it has yet to be made probable that either
Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a garden as
watered by ‘bitter’ (_i.e._ salt) water.――These objections
apply with equal force to the theory of Hommel (_Aufsätze und
Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, iii. 1, page
281 ff., etc., _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing
Paradise at Eridu, in making the single stream the Persian Gulf,
and one of the four branches the Euphrates. But the three other
branches, Pishon, Giḥon, and Ḥiddeḳel, he identifies with three
North Arabian wādīs,――Wadi Dawāsir, Wadi Rummā, and Wadi Sirhān
(the last the ‘wādī of Diḳlah’ = _ḫad-deḳel_ [see on verse ¹⁴
above], the name having been afterwards _transferred_ to the
Tigris).
¹ This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson,
who identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further East
than the Kerkha. But that removes it from all connexion with
Ḥavilah, which is one of the recommendations of Sayce’s view.
2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory
solution of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears
the natural interpretation of verse ¹⁰, and take along with
it the utopian conception of four great rivers issuing from a
single source. The site of Paradise is then determined by the
imaginary common source of the two known rivers, Euphrates and
Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of the Euphrates
and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently near each
other to make the supposition of a common source possible to
ancient cosmography; and there is no difficulty in believing
that the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains
of Armenia. The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the
Giḥon. To seek them amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and
Trans-Caucasia is a hopeless quest; for a knowledge of these
rivers would imply a knowledge of the country, which must have
dispelled the notion of a common source. Van Doorninck has
suggested the Leontes and Orontes (_Theologisch Tijdschrift_,
xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that
these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris.
There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the
two great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must
have been even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and
Tigris, and might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown
region from Armenia to Turkestan.¹ The attraction of this view
is that it embraces all rivers of the first magnitude that can
have been known in western Asia (for, as we shall see, even the
Nile is not absolutely excluded); and it is no valid objection
to say that the Indian rivers were beyond the horizon of the
Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter the myth
had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no modern
writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness.
Delitzsch and Dillmann identify the Pishon with the Indus, but
follow the traditional identification of Giḥon with the Nile
(see page 61 above). But if the biblical narrator believed the
Nile to rise with Euphrates and Tigris, it is extremely likely
that he regarded its upper waters as the Indus, as Alexander
the Great did in his time;² and we might then fall back on
the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.³ But it
must be admitted that the names Ḥavilah and Kush are a serious
difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may
retain its usual Old Testament meaning if Giḥon be the upper
Nile, either as a continuation of the Indus or a separate river;
but if it be the Indus alone, Kush must be the country of the
Kaššites, conceived as extending indefinitely East of Babylonia.
Ḥavilah has to be taken as a name for India considered as an
extension of North-east Arabia, an interpretation which finds
no support in the Old Testament. At the same time, as Dillmann
observes, the language employed (‘the whole land of Ḥavilah’)
suggests some more spacious region than a limited district
of Arabia; and from the nature of the passage we can have no
certainty that the word is connected with the Ḥavilah of Genesis
10.――An interesting and independent theory, based on ancient
Babylonian geographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt.
The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been
a large (imaginary) basin of water in North Mesopotamia: the
Euphrates and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon
(suggested by the Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the _Nâr
Marratum_ (Persian Gulf) and the Red Sea, and so ‘encompasses’
the whole of Ḥavilah (Arabia); beyond this there was supposed
to be land, through which the Giḥon (suggested by the Karun) was
supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia), whence it flowed northwards
as the Nile. The theory perhaps combines more of the biblical
data in an intelligible way than any other that has been
proposed; and it seems to agree with those just considered in
placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers, to
the North of Mesopotamia.⁴
¹ Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian
rivers rise in the Caucasus (XV. 1. 13). The fact that in
mediæval Arabian geographers _Ǧeiḫun_ is a proper name of
the Oxus and the Cilician Pyramus, and an appellative of
the Araxes and the Ganges, might seem at first sight to have
a bearing on the question at issue; but its importance is
discounted by the possibility that the usage is based on
this passage, due to Jewish and Christian influences in the
Middle Ages.
² From the presence in both of crocodiles: Arrian, _Anabasis_
vi. 1, 2 f.; compare Strabo, XV. 1. 25, and the similar
notion about the Nile and Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2.
³ Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there
seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas
Indicopleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of
Nile and Indus was a fixed idea?
⁴ The summary is taken from Driver, page 59 f.; the original
article, in _Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894‒95, I have not been
able to consult.
3. It seems probable that the resources of philology and
scientific geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such
as have been described above, and that further advance towards
a solution of the problem of Paradise will be along the line of
comparative mythology. Discussions precisely similar to those
we have examined are maintained with regard to the Iranian
cosmography――whether, _e.g._, the stream Ranḥa be the Oxus
or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that Ranḥa is a
mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly equivalents
might be named (see Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_
ii. 291 f.). If we knew more of the diffusion and history of
cosmological ideas in ancient religions, we should probably find
additional reason to believe that Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ is but one of
many attempts to localise on earth a representation which is
essentially mythical. Gunkel (¹33, ²31), adopting a suggestion
of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been at the
North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the
gods: compare Ezekiel 28¹⁴), and the river to be the Milky Way,
branching out――[but does it?]――into four arms (there is some
indication that the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus
were regarded in Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of
Euphrates and Tigris: see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was
the idea in the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the
conception of the mysterious river of Paradise with its four
branches _originated_ in mythological speculation of this kind.
If this be the case, we need not be surprised if it should prove
impossible to identify Pishon and Giḥon with any known rivers:
on the other hand, the mention of the well-known Tigris and
Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth preserved
in Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ located the earthly Paradise in the unknown
northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion
is almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered
by these two rivers,――in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann,
_Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 346 f.).
* * * * *
=10.= יפרד] Frequently imperfect? So Driver, _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ §§ 30 α, 113, 4 β;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _d_ (‘always taking place afresh’),
Davidson § 54 (_b_). That seems hardly natural. Is it possible
that for once מִשָּׁם could have the effect of אָז in transporting
the mind to a point whence a new development takes place?
(Davidson § 45, _R._ 2).――רָאשִׁים] Not ‘sources’ but ‘branches’; as
Arabic _ra’s en- nahr_ (as distinct from _ra’s el-‛ain_) means
the point of divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by
Delitzsch, page 82). So Assyrian _rîš nâri_ or _rîš nâr_, of the
point of divergence (_Ausgangsort_) of a canal (Delitzsch _Wo
lag das Paradies?_ 98, 191).――=11.= האחד] See on 1⁵.――הוא הסבב] On
the determination of predicate, Davidson § 19, _R._ 3; compare
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _k_ (so verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ).――החוילה] If the
article be genuine, it shows that the name was significant
(‘sandland,’ from חוֹל?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits it here.――=12.=
וּֽזֲהב] On metheg and hataf-pathach, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10
_g_, 16 _e_, _f_; König i. § 10, 6 _e_ δ (compare 1¹⁸).――הִוא]
The first instance of this _Qrê perpetuum_ of the Pentateuch,
where the regular הִיא is found only Genesis 14² 20⁵ 38²⁵,
Leviticus 2¹⁵ 11³⁹ 13¹⁰ᐧ ²¹ 16³¹ 21⁹, Numbers 5¹³ ᶠᐧ. König
(_Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ i.
page 124 ff.) almost alone amongst modern scholars still holds
to the opinion that the epicene consonantal form is genuinely
archaic; but the verdict of philology and of Hexateuch criticism
seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error of
some scribe or school of scribes: whether proceeding from the
original _script definition_ הִא or not does not much matter (see
Driver and White’s note on Leviticus 1¹³ in _The Sacred Books of
the Old Testament_, page 25 f.).――טוב] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ + מְאֹד.――הבדלח] Of the ancient versions LXX
alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here ὁ ἄνθραξ
(red garnet), and in Numbers 11⁷ (the only other occurrence)
κρύσταλλος. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) can only be a clerical
error. That it is _not_ a gem is proved by the absence of
אבן.――אבן השהם] LXX ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (leek-green stone); other
Greek versions ὄνυξ, and so Vulgate (_onychinus_); Peshiṭtå (‡
Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בורלא. Philology has as yet thrown no
light on the word, though a connexion with Babylonian _sâmtu_
is probable. Myres (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4808 f.) makes the
interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite,
which is at once _striped_ and _green_, and that after malachite
ceased to be valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped)
and the beryl (green). Petrie, on the other hand (_A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iv. 620), thinks that in early times it was green
felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is at least
noteworthy that Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1, 405) is led on independent grounds to identify _sâmtu_ with
malachite. But is malachite found in any region that could be
plausibly identified with Ḥavilah?――=13.= גיחון] Probably from √ גיח
(Job 38⁸ 40²³) = ‘bursting forth.’――=14.= שֵׁם] LXX omitted.――חדקל]
Babylonian _Idigla_, _Diglat_, Aramaic דִּגְלַת and (‡ Syriac word),
Arabic _Diǧlat_; then Old Persian _Tigrâ_, Pehlevi _Digrat_,
Greek Τίγρις and Τίγρης. The Persian _Tigrâ_ was explained by
a popular etymology as ‘arrow-swift’ (Strabo); and similarly it
was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound of חַד,
‘sharp,’ and קַל, ‘swift,’――a view given by Rashi, and mentioned
with some scorn by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Hommel’s derivation (_The
Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 315)
from _ḫadd_, ‘wādī,’ and דִּקְלָה (= ‘wādī of Diḳlah,’ Genesis 10²⁷),
is of interest only in connexion with his peculiar theory of the
site of Paradise.――קדמת] Rendered ‘in front’ by LXX (κατέναντι),
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) and Vulgate (_contra_); as ‘eastward’
by Aquila, Symmachus (ἐξ ἀνατολῆς) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (למדנחא).
This last is also the view of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and
of most moderns. But see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxiii. 532, where the sense
‘eastward’ is decisively rejected. The other examples are 4¹⁶,
1 Samuel 13⁵, Ezekiel 39¹¹†.――פרת] Babylonian _Purâtu_, Old
Persian _Ufrâtu_, whence Greek Εὐφράτης.
* * * * *
=15.= _to till it and to guard it_] To reject this clause (Budde),
or the second member (Dillmann), as inconsistent with 3 ¹⁷ ᶠᶠ are
arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is not idle enjoyment,
but easy and pleasant work; “the highest aspiration of the Eastern
peasant” (Gunkel) being to keep a garden. The question from what the
garden had to be protected is one that should not be pressed.――=16 f.=
The belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees
(observe the difference from 1²⁹) was widespread in antiquity, and
appears in Phœnician mythology.¹ Here, however, the point lies rather
in the restriction than the permission,――in the imposition of a _taboo_
on one particular tree.――For the words _of the knowledge of good and
evil_ it has been proposed to substitute “which is in the midst of the
garden” (as 3³), on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious
property of the tree was the essence of the serpent’s temptation and
must not be anticipated (3⁵) (Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). But the
narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical tests; and,
after all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose,
viz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.――_in the
day ... die_] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to
be weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became
mortal (Jerome, al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries
and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calvin, al.). The
simple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of
the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.
¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (from Philo Byblius):
εὑρεῖν δὲ τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δενδρῶν τροφήν.
=15.= The verse is either a resumption of ⁸ᵇ after the insertion
of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too
original to be a gloss; and since there was no motive for
making an interpolation at ⁸ᵇ, the excision of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴ seems to
lead necessarily to the conclusion that two sources have been
combined.――את־האדם] LXX + ὃν ἔπλασεν (as verse ⁸).――וינּיחהו] On
the two Hiphils of נוח and their distinction in meaning, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 _ee_, and the Lexicon.――עדן] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
and most cursives render τῆς τρυφῆς: LXXᴬ and uncials omit the
word.――לעבדָהּ וגו׳] Since גן is nowhere feminine, it is better to point
לעבדֹה ולשמרֹה (see Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvi. 53).――=16.= האדם] LXX Ἀδαμ, Vulgate _ei_.
Except in verse ¹⁸, the word is regularly, but wrongly,
treated as a proper noun by these two versions from this point
onwards.――=17.= מות תמות] Symmachus θνητὸς ἔσῃ. In LXX the verbs
of this verse are all plural (as 3³ᐧ ⁴).
* * * * *
18‒25.
Creation of animals and woman.
The Creator, taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to
provide him with a suitable companion. The naïveté of the conception is
extraordinary. Not only did man exist before the beasts, but the whole
animal creation is the result of an unsuccessful experiment to find a
mate for him. Of the revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual
intercourse with the beasts (see page 91), there is not a trace.――=18.=
_a helper_] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2⁵), not of the
original, but of the present familiar conditions of human life.――כְּנֶגְדּוֹ]
(only here) literaly ‘as in front of him,’ _i.e._ _corresponding to
him_.――=19.= The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been
created, and are now brought to be named (Calvin, al. and recently
Delitzsch, Stade): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 76, _Obsolete_), and
misses the point of the passage.――_to see what he would call it_] To
watch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would recognise
in it the associate he needed,――as one watches the effect of a new
experience on a little child.――_whatever the man should call it,
that_ (was to be) _its name_] The spontaneous ejaculation of the first
man becomes to his posterity a name: such is the origin of (Hebrew)
names.――The words נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה are incapable of construction, and are to be
omitted as an explanatory gloss (Ewald, al.).――=20.= The classification
of animals is carried a step further than in ¹⁹ (domestic and wild
animals being distinguished), but is still simpler than in chapter 1.
Fishes and ‘creeping things’ are frankly omitted as inappropriate to
the situation.――=21.= It has appeared that no fresh creation ‘from
the ground’ can provide a fit companion for man: from his own body,
therefore, must his future associate be taken.――תַּרְדֵּמָה] is a hypnotic
trance, induced by supernatural agency (compare Duhm on Isaiah 29¹⁰).
The purpose here is to produce anæsthesia, with perhaps the additional
idea that the divine working cannot take place under human observation
(Dillmann, Gunkel).――_one of his ribs_] A part of his frame that
(it was thought) could easily be spared. There is doubtless a deeper
significance in the representation: it suggests “the moral and social
relation of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man,
her close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature
for ... the feelings with which each should naturally regard the
other” (Driver). The Arabs use similarly a word for ‘rib,’ saying
_hūa lizḳī_ or _hūa bilizḳī_ for ‘he is my bosom companion.’ On the
other hand, the notion that the first human being was androgynous,
and afterwards separated into man and woman (see Schwally _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), finds no countenance in the
passage.――=22.= _built up the rib ... into a woman_] So in the Egyptian
“Tale of the two brothers,” the god Chnum ‘built’ a wife for his
favourite Batau, the hieroglyphic determinative showing that the
operation was actually likened to the building of a wall (see Wiedemann,
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, Sup. 180).――=23.= By a flash of intuition
the man divines that the fair creature now brought to him is part of
himself, and names her accordingly. There is a poetic ring and rhythm
in the exclamation that breaks from him.――_This at last_] Literally,
‘This, this time’ (_v.i._): note the thrice repeated זֹאת.――_bone of
my bones, etc._] The expressions originate in the primitive notion of
kinship as resting on “participation in a common mass of flesh, blood,
and bones” (William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 273 f.: compare _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 175
f.), so that all the members of a kindred group are parts of the same
substance, whether acquired by heredity or assimilated in the processes
of nourishment (compare 29¹⁴ 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³). The
case before us, where the material identity is expressed in the manner
of woman’s creation, is unique.――_shall be called Woman_] English is
fortunate in being able to reproduce this assonance (_’Κ_, _’Iššā_)
without straining language: other translations are driven to _tours
de force_ (_e.g._ Jerome _Virago_; Luther, _Männin_). Whether even in
Hebrew it is more than an assonance is doubtful (_v.i._).――=24.= An
ætiological observation of the narrator: _This is why a man leaves ...
and cleaves ... and they become, etc._] It is not a prophecy from the
standpoint of the narrative; nor a recommendation of monogamic marriage
(as applied in Matthew 19⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Mark 10⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Corinthians 6¹⁶,
Ephesians 5³¹); it is an answer to the question, What is the meaning of
that universal instinct which impels a man to separate from his parents
and cling to his wife? It is strange that the man’s attachment to the
woman is explained here, and the woman’s to the man only in 3¹⁶.
It has been imagined that the verse presupposes the primitive
custom called _beena_ marriage, or that modification of it in
which the husband parts from his own kindred for good, and
goes to live with his wife’s kin (so Gunkel: compare _Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 87, 207); and other instances
are alleged in the patriarchal history. But this would imply
an almost incredible antiquity for the present form of the
narrative; and, moreover, the dominion of the man over the wife
assumed in 3¹⁶ᵇ is inconsistent with the conditions of _beena_
marriage. Compare Benzinger _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2675: “The
phrase ... may be an old saying dating from remote times when
the husband went to the house (tent) of the wife and joined her
clan. Still the passage may be merely the narrator’s remark;
and even if it should be an old proverb we cannot be sure that
it really carries us so far back in antiquity.”――See, however,
Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 353¹; van
Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 238 (who assigns
2²⁴ and 3¹⁶ to different recensions).
_one flesh_] If the view just mentioned could be maintained, this
phrase might be equivalent to ‘one clan’ (Leviticus 25⁴⁹); for “both in
Hebrew and Arabic ‘flesh’ is synonymous with ‘clan’ or kindred group”
(_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 274). More probably it
refers simply to the _connubium_.――=25.= _naked ... not ashamed_] The
remark is not merely an anticipation of the account given later of
the origin of clothing (3⁷, compare ²¹). It calls attention to the
difference between the original and the actual condition of man as
conceived by the writer. The consciousness of sex is the result of
eating the tree: before then our first parents had the innocence of
children, who are often seen naked in the East (Doughty, _Travels in
Arabia Deserta_, ii. 475).
Verse ²⁵ is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme
to which all that goes before is but the prelude. How long the
state of primitive innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains
to inform us. This indifference to the non-essential is as
characteristic of the popular tale as its graphic wealth of
detail in features of real interest. The omission afforded
an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity;
_Jubilees_ iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R.
Eliezer (_Bereshith Rabba_) finds that it did not last six hours.
* * * * *
=18.= אעשה] May be cohortative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _l_);
LXX, Vulgate render as 1st person plural (as 1²⁶).――עזר]
(usually ‘succour’) = ‘helper’ (_abstractum pro concreto_)
is used elsewhere chiefly of God (Deuteronomy 33⁷ᐧ ²⁶, Psalms
33²⁰ 115⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); possible exceptions are Ezekiel 12¹⁴
(if text right), Hosea 13⁹ (if emended with Wellhausen): see
Brown-Driver-Briggs.――כנגדו] LXX κατ’ αὐτόν (but verse ²⁰ ὅμοιος
αὐτῷ); Aquila ὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ; Symmachus ἀντικρὺς αὐτοῦ;
Vulgate _similis sibi_ (_ejus_, verse ²⁰); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כקיבליהּ.――=19.= _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX insert עוֹד after אלהים.――Omission of את־ before
כל־חית is remarkable in this chapter (see on verse ⁹), and is
rectified by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_.――נפש
חיה] The only construction possible would be to take לו as _dative
ethical_, and נ׳ ח׳ as direct object to יקרא; but that is contrary
to the writer’s usage, and yields a jejune sense. Even if (with
Rashi) we transpose and read ‘every living thing which the man
called [by a name], that was its name,’ the discord of gender
would be fatal, to say nothing of the addition of שֵׁם.――=20.=
ולעוף] Read with MSS LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ולכלֹ־עוף
(Ball).――וּלְאָדָם] Here the Massoretic takes Adam as a proper name.
Delitzsch, al. explain it as generic = ‘for a human being’
(Gunkel); Olshausen emends וְהָאדם. The truth is that the Massoretic
loses no opportunity presented by the _Kethîb_ of treating
אדם as _noun proper_. Point וְלָֽאָדָם.――לא מצא] Tuch, al. take God as
subject; but it may be passive expressed by indefinite subject
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_, _e_) = ‘there was not found.’――=21.=
תרדמה] LXX ἔκστασιν; Aquila καταφοράν; Symmachus κάρον; Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (‘tranquillity’); Vulgate _sopor_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
and some Greek versions (Field) have ‘sleep’ simply. The
examples of its use (15¹², 1 Samuel 26¹², Isaiah 29¹⁰, Job
4¹³ 33¹⁵, Proverbs 19¹⁵†), all except the last, confirm Duhm’s
view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the
verb (Niphal) that sense is less marked.――=23.= זאת הפעם] The
construction rendered above takes זאת as subject of the sentence
and הפעם = ‘this time,’ the article having full demonstrative
force, as in 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ 30²⁰ 46³⁰, Exodus 9²⁷ (so LXX, Symmachus,
Theodotion, Vulgate; Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). The
accents, however, unite the words in one phrase ‘this time,’
after the rather important analogy of זֶה פַעֲמַיִם (27³⁶ 43¹⁰), leaving
the subject unexpressed. This sense is followed by Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and advocated by Stade (_Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 210 ff.); but
it seems less acceptable than the other.――אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה] The old
derivation of these words from a common √ אנשׁ is generally
abandoned, אישׁ being assigned to a hypothetical √ אוּשׁ = ‘be
strong’ (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ
et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_). Arabic and Aramaic, indeed,
show quite clearly that the √ seen in the plural אֲנָשִׁים (and in
אֱנוֹשׁ) and that of (אִנְשָׁה) אשָּׁה are only apparently identical, the one
having _s_ where the other has _ṯ_. The masculine and feminine
are therefore etymologically distinct, and nothing remains but a
very strong assonance. The question whether we are to postulate
a third √ for the singular אִישׁ does not greatly concern us
here; the arguments will be found in Brown-Driver-Briggs,
_s.v._ See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xl. 740 (“Aber אִישׁ möchte ich doch bei אנשׁ
lassen”). In imitation of the assonance, Symmachus has ἄνδρις,
Vulgate _Virago_. Theodotion λῆψις, represents אֶשָּׂא, ‘I will
take’: a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by the
quotation from Origen given in Field, page 15³².――For מאיש,
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
read מֵאִישָׁהּ, which is by no means an improvement.――לֽקֳחָה־זּאת]
See Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10 _h_, 20 _c_.――=24.= והיו] Add שְׁנֵיהֶם
with LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and New Testament
citations. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has והיה
משניהם, referring to the offspring.――=25.= עֲרוּמִּים] עָרוּם ‘naked,’ to
be carefully distinguished from עָרוּם (√ ערם) ‘crafty,’ in 3¹, is
either a by-form of עֵירֹם (√ עוּר = ‘be bare’) in 3¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, or (more
probably) a different formation from √ ערה (‘be bare’). See
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.vv._――יתבששו] The Hithpael (only here)
probably expresses reciprocity (‘ashamed before one another’);
the imperfect is frequentative.
* * * * *
III. 1‒7.
The temptation.
Attention is at once directed to the quarter where the possibility of
evil already lurked amidst the happiness of Eden――the preternatural
subtlety of the serpent: _But the serpent was wily_] The wisdom of
the serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Matthew 10¹⁶: see Bochart,
_Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_
iii. 246 ff.), a belief probably founded less on observation of the
creature’s actual qualities than on the general idea of its divine
or demonic nature: πνευματικώτατον γὰρ τὸ ζῶον πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν
(Sanchuniathon, in Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10). Hence
the epithet עָרוּם might be used of it _sensu bono_ (φρόνιμος), though
the context here makes it certain that the bad sense (πανοῦργος) is
intended (see below).――_beyond any beast, etc._] The serpent, therefore,
belongs to the category of ‘beasts of the field,’ and is a creature of
Yahwe; and an effort seems to be made to maintain this view throughout
the narrative (verse ¹⁴). At the same time it is a being possessing
supernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and animated by
hostility towards God. It is this last feature which causes some
perplexity. To say that the thoughts which it instils into the mind
of the woman were on the serpent’s part not evil, but only extremely
sagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness (so
Merx, Dillmann, al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the
narrative. It is more probable that behind the sober description of the
serpent as a mere creature of Yahwe, there was an earlier form of the
legend in which he figured as a god or a demon.
The ascription of supernatural characters to the serpent
presents little difficulty even to the modern mind. The
marvellous agility of the snake, in spite of the absence
of visible motor organs, its stealthy movements, its rapid
death-dealing stroke, and its mysterious power of fascinating
other animals and even men, sufficiently account for the
superstitious regard of which it has been the object amongst
all peoples.¹ Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the
abode of a spirit, sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that
_ǧānn_ and _ġūl_ and even _Shaitān_ are given as designations
of the serpent (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 152 f.;
compare William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 120¹, 129 f., 442).² What is more surprising to us is
the fact that in the sphere of religion the serpent was usually
worshipped as a _good_ demon. Traces of this conception can be
detected in the narrative before us. The demonic character of
the serpent appears in his possession of occult divine knowledge
of the properties of the tree in the middle of the garden, and
in his use of that knowledge to seduce man from his allegiance
to his Creator. The enmity between the race of men and the race
of serpents is explained as a punishment for his successful
temptation; originally he must have been represented as a being
hostile, indeed, to God, but friendly to the woman, who tells
her the truth which the Deity withheld from man (see Gressman
_l.c._ 357). All this belongs to the background of heathen
mythology from which the materials of the narrative were drawn;
and it is the incomplete elimination of the mythological element,
under the influence of a monotheistic and ethical religion,
which makes the function of the serpent in Genesis 3 so
difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty
was solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent
of Eden was the mouthpiece or impersonation of the devil. The
idea appears first in Alexandrian Judaism in Wisdom 2²⁴ (‘by
the envy of the devil, death entered into the world’): possibly
earlier is the allusion in _Enoch_ lxix. 6, where the seduction
of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Compare _Secrets
of Enoch_ xxxi. 3 ff., _Psalms of Solomon_ 4⁹; also _Bereshith
Rabba_ 29, the name נָחָשׁ הַקַּדְמֹנִי (_Sifrê_ 138 b), and in the New
Testament, John 8⁴⁴, 2 Corinthians 11³, Romans 16²⁰, Apocalypse
12⁹ 20² (see Whitehouse, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 408
ff.). Similarly in Persian mythology the serpent Dahâka, to whose
power Yima, the ruler of the golden age, succumbs, is a creature
and incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo (_Vend._ i. 8,
xxii. 5, 6, 24; _Yaçna_ ix. 27; compare Dillmann 70). The Jewish
and Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension
of the teaching of Genesis 3, when the problem of evil came to
be apprehended in its real magnitude; but it is foreign to the
thought of the writer, although it cannot be denied that it
may have some affinity with the mythological background of his
narrative. The religious teaching of the passage knows nothing
of an evil principle _external_ to the serpent, but regards
himself as the subject of whatever occult powers he displays: he
is simply a creature of Yahwe distinguished from the rest by his
superior subtlety. The Yahwistic author does not speculate on
the ultimate origin of evil; it was enough for his purpose to
have so analysed the process of temptation that the beginning of
sin could be assigned to a source which is neither in the nature
of man nor in God. The personality of the Satan (the Adversary)
does not appear in the Old Testament till after the Exile
(Zechariah, Job, Chronicles).
¹ Compare the interesting sequel to the sentence from
Sanchuniathon quoted above: ... καὶ πυρῶδες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
παρεδόθη παρ’ ὃ καὶ τάχος ἀνυπέρβλητον διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
παρίστησι, χωρὶς ποδῶν τε καὶ χειρῶν, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν
ἔξωθεν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ λοιπὰ ζώα τὰς κινήσεις ποιεῖται· καὶ
ποικίλων σχημάτων τύπους ἀποτελεῖ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν πορείαν
ἑλικοειδεῖς ἔχει τὰς ὁρμὰς, ἐφ’ ὃ βούλεται τάχος· καὶ
πολυχρονιώτατον δέ ἐστιν, οὐ μόνον τῷ ἐκδυόμενον τὸ γῆρας
νεάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὔξησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι μείζονα πέφυκε.... Διὸ
καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον καὶ ἐν μυστηρίοις συμπαρείληπται
κτλ. (Orelli, page 44).
² Compare Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie
und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413: “Das geheimnissvolle,
dämonische Wesen der Schlange, das sie vor allen grösseren
Thieren auszeichnet, die tückische, verderbenbringende
Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem einfachen semitischen
Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne etwas
Göttliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So
finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so
ist sie im Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand
orientalischer Zauberei. So glaubte auch der Araber, die
Schlange (wie einige andere schädliche Thiere) sei kein
gewöhnliches Geschöpf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist. Schon
die Sprache drückt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit _Džānn_,
einem Worte welches mit _Džinn_ eng verwandt ist, eine
Schlangenart bezeichnet, etc.”
The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first temptation
to the more mobile temperament of the woman (Rashi, al.), and by the
skilful _innuendo_ with which he at once invites conversation and masks
his ultimate design.――_Ay, and so God has said, etc.!_] Something like
this seems to be the force of אַף כִּי (_v.i._). It is a half-interrogative,
half-reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long over
the paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome conclusion.――_Ye
shall not eat of any tree_] The range of the prohibition is purposely
exaggerated in order to provoke inquiry and criticism. The use of the
name אֱלֹהִים is commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of
Yahwist, where the name יהוה is avoided in conversation with heathen
(39⁹ etc.), or when the contrast between the divine and the human
is reflected upon (32²⁹). But Yahwist’s usage in such cases is not
uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true explanation here (see
page 53).――=2, 3.= The woman’s first experience of falsehood leads to
an eager repudiation of the serpent’s intentional calumny, in which
she emphasises the generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously
intensifies the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words:
_nor shall ye touch it_] A Jewish legend says that the serpent took
advantage of this innocent and immaterial variation by forcing her to
touch the fruit, and then arguing that as death had not followed the
touch, so it would not follow the eating (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi).
Equally futile inferences have been drawn by modern commentaries,
and the surmise that the clause is redactional (Budde _Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 241) is hypercritical.――_the tree ... midst_] See page
66 f.――=4.= _Ye shall assuredly not die_] On the syntax, _v.i._ The
serpent thus advances to an open challenge of the divine veracity, and
thence to the imputation of an unworthy motive for the command, viz.
a jealous fear on God’s part lest they should become His equals.――=5.=
_But God knoweth, etc._] And therefore has falsely threatened you
with death. The gratuitous insinuation reveals the main purpose of the
tempter, to sow the seeds of distrust towards God in the mind of the
woman.――_your eyes shall be opened_] The expression denotes a sudden
acquisition of new powers of perception through supernatural influence
(21¹⁹, Numbers 22³¹, 2 Kings 6¹⁷).――_as gods_] or ‘divine beings,’
rather than ‘as God’: the rendering ‘as angels’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra)
expresses the idea with substantial accuracy. The likeness to divinity
actually acquired is not equality with Yahwe (see Gunkel on verse
²²).――_knowing good and evil_] See page 95 ff.――“The facts are all, in
the view of the narrator, correctly stated by the serpent; he has truly
represented the mysterious virtue of the tree; knowledge really confers
equality with God (3²²); and it is also true that death does not
immediately follow the act of eating. But at the same time the serpent
insinuates a certain construction of these facts: God is envious,
inasmuch as He grudges the highest good to man:――φθονερὸν τὸ θεῖον, an
antique sentiment familiar to us from the Greeks” (Gunkel).――=6.= The
spiritual part of the temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent
is silent, leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest. The woman
looks on the tree with new eyes; she observes how attractive to taste
and sight its fruit seems, and how desirable _for obtaining insight_
(so most) or _to contemplate_ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå; so Tuch,
Gesenius, Delitzsch, Gunkel, al.). The second translation is the more
suitable――for how could she tell by sight that the fruit would impart
wisdom?――although the verb is not elsewhere used in Hebrew for mere
looking (_v.i._).――_gave also to her husband_] “The process in the
man’s case was no doubt the same as that just described, the woman
taking the place of the serpent” (Bennett). That Adam sinned with his
eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has been a common
idea both among Jews and Christians (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham
Ibn Ezra, Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention of the
narrative.――=7.= _the eyes ... opened_] The prediction of the serpent
is so far fulfilled; but the change fills them with guilty fear and
shame.――_they knew that they were naked_] The new sense of shame
is spoken of as a sort of _Werthurtheil_ passed by the awakened
intelligence on the empirical fact of being unclothed. A connexion
between sexual shame and sin (Dillmann) is not suggested by the passage,
and is besides not true to experience. But to infer from this single
effect that the forbidden fruit had aphrodisiac properties (see Barton,
_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 93 ff.; Gressmann, page 356) is a still
greater perversion of the author’s meaning; he merely gives this as an
example of the new range of knowledge acquired by eating of the tree.
It is the kind of knowledge which comes with maturity to all,――the
transition “from the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which
belongs to adult age” (Driver).――_foliage of the fig-tree_] To the
question, Why fig-leaves in particular? the natural answer is that
these, if not very suitable for the purpose, were yet the most suitable
that the flora of Palestine could suggest (Dillmann, Driver, Bennett,
al.). An allusion to the so-called fig-tree of Paradise, a native of
India (probably the plantain), is on every ground improbable;――“ein
geradezu philisterhafter Einfall” (Budde). For allegorical
interpretations of the fig-leaves, see Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_
i. 73 ff., who adds a very original and fantastic one of his own.
* * * * *
=1.= והנחש היה] The usual order of words when a new subject is
introduced, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 142 _d_; Davidson § 105.――ערום]
LXX φρονιμώτατος, Aquila, Theodotion πανοῦργος, Symmachus
πανουργότερος Vulgate _callidior_. The good sense (which appears
to be secondary, compare Arabic _‛arama_ = ‘be ill-natured’) is
confined to Proverbs; elsewhere (Job 5¹² 15⁵) it means ‘crafty,’
‘wily.’ The same distinction is observed in all forms of the √
except that in Job 5¹³ עֹרֶם has the good sense. The resemblance
to ערומים in 2²⁵ is perhaps accidental.――ויאמר LXX, Peshiṭtå +
הנחש.――אף כי] as a compound particple generally means ‘much more
(or less),’ ‘not to mention,’ etc., as in 1 Samuel 14³⁰, 1 Kings
8²⁷, Proverbs 11³¹ etc. In some cases the simple אף has this
sense, and the כי (= ‘when,’ ‘if’) introduces the following
clause (1 Samuel 23³, 2 Samuel 4¹⁰ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would be easy
to retain this sense in verse ¹ (‘How much more _when_ God
has said,’ etc.), if we might assume with many commentaries
that some previous conversation had taken place; but that is
an unwarrantable assumption. The rendering on which Driver
(Brown-Driver-Briggs) bases the ordinary meaning of אף כי――‘_’Tis
indeed that_’――requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of
the voice to yield the shade of meaning given above: ‘So it is
the case that God,’ etc.? The versions all express a question:
LXX τί ὅτι, Aquila μὴ ὅτι, Symmachus πρὸς τί, Vulgate _cur_,
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בקושטא (= ‘really’?).――לא
... מכל] = ‘not of any’: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _b_.――=2.= מפרי]
LXX מִכֹּל, Peshiṭtå מפרי כל.――=3.= ומפרי] Not ‘concerning the tree.’
There is an _anakolouthon_ at אמר אלהים, and the emphatically
placed מפרי is resumed by ממנו.――העץ] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ + הַזָּה.――תמתון] On the ending, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§§ 47 _m_, 72 _u_.――=4.= לא מות תמתון] On the unusual order, see
Davidson § 86 (_b_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _v_. It is often
explained as a negation of the threat in 2¹⁷, adopting the same
form of words; but the phrase had not been used by the woman,
and the exact words are _not_ repeated. More probably its effect
is to concentrate the emphasis on the negative participle rather
than on the verbal idea (compare Amos 9⁸, Psalms 49⁸).――=5.=
כאלהים] LXX ὡς θεοί, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כרברבין.――=6.= העץ²] LXX Vulgate
omitted.――להשכיל] LXX κατανοῆσαι, Vulgate _adspectu_, and
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) all take the verb as verb of sight;
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לאסתכלא ביה is indeterminate (see Levy, _Chaldäisches
Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim_ 163 a). In Old
Testament the word is used of mental _vision_ (insight, or
attentive consideration: Deuteronomy 32²⁹, Psalms 41², Proverbs
21¹² etc.); in New Hebrew and Aramaic it means ‘to look at,’
but only in Hithpael (Ithp.). On the other view the Hiph. is
intransitive (= ‘for acquiring wisdom’: Psalms 94⁸) rather
than causative (= ‘to impart wisdom’: Psalms 32⁸ etc.).――Gunkel
considers the clause ונחמד העץ לה׳ a variant from another
source.――ותקח] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + האשׁה.――ויאכל] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX ויאכלו.――=7.= עירמים] See on 2²⁵.――עלה]
collectively; but some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ have עֲלֵי.
* * * * *
8‒13.
The inquest.
Thus far the narrative has dealt with what may be called the
natural (magical) effects of the eating of the tree――the access of
enlightenment, and the disturbance thus introduced into the relations
of the guilty pair to each other. The ethical aspect of the offence
comes to light in their first interview with Yahwe; and this is
delineated with a skill hardly surpassed in the account of the
temptation itself.――=8.= _they heard the sound_] קוֹל used of footsteps,
as 2 Samuel 5²⁴, 1 Kings 14⁶, 2 Kings 6³²: compare Ezekiel 3¹² ᶠᐧ, Joel
2⁵.――_of Yahwe God as He walked_] The verb is used (Leviticus 26¹²,
Deuteronomy 23¹⁵, 2 Samuel 7⁶) of Yahwe’s majestic marching in the
midst of Israel; but it mars the simplicity of the representation if
(with Delitzsch) we introduce that idea here.――_in the cool_ (literally
‘at the breeze’) _of the day_] _i.e._ towards evening, when in Eastern
lands a refreshing wind springs up (compare Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶: but
_v.i._), and the master, who has kept his house or tent during the
‘heat of the day’ (18¹), can walk abroad with comfort (24⁶³). Such,
we are led to understand, was Yahwe’s daily practice; and the man and
woman had been wont to meet Him with the glad confidence of innocence.
But on this occasion they _hid themselves, etc._――=9.= _Where art
thou?_] (compare 4⁹). The question expresses ignorance; it is not
omniscience that the writer wishes to illustrate, but the more
impressive attribute of sagacity.――=10.= _I feared ... naked_] With
the instinctive cunning of a bad conscience, the man hopes to escape
complete exposure by acknowledging part of the truth; he alleges
nakedness as the ground of his fear, putting fear and shame in a false
causal connexion (Holzinger).――=11.= _Hast thou eaten, etc.?_] All
unwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret: he has shown himself
possessed of a knowledge which could only have been acquired in one
way.――=12.= The man cannot even yet bring himself to make a clean
breast of it; but with a quaint mixture of cowardice and effrontery
he throws the blame directly on the woman, and indirectly on God who
gave her to him.――=13.= The woman in like manner exculpates herself by
pleading (truly enough) that she had been deceived by the serpent.――The
whole situation is now laid bare, and nothing remains but to pronounce
sentence. No question is put to the serpent, because his evil motive
is understood: he has acted just as might have been expected of him.
Calvin says, “the _beast_ had no sense of sin, and the _devil_ no hope
of pardon.”
* * * * *
=8.= מתהלך] accusative of condition: Davidson § 70 (_a_).――לרוח היום]
LXX τὸ δειλινόν, Vulgate _ad auram post meridiem_, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ למנח יומא. On this use of לְ
(= ‘towards’), see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 6 a; and compare
8¹¹ 17²¹, Isaiah 7¹⁵, Job 24¹⁴. With רוח compare Arabic _rawāḥ_
= _tempus vespertinum_. Jewish exegesis (_Bereshith Rabba_)
and Calvin suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be meant, as is
probably the case in Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶, and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly
improbable here.――עץ] collectively, as often. LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
omitted.――=9.= איכה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 _o_. LXX supplies
‘Adam’ before, and Peshiṭtå after, the interrogative.――=10.=
שׁמעתי] LXX + περιπατοῦντος (as verse ⁸).――=11.= לבלתי] See
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _s_.――Before μὴ φαγεῖν LXX has τούτου
μόνου.――=13.= מה־זאת] So commonly with עשה; with other verbs מה־זה
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 _c_; Davidson § 7 (_c_)).
* * * * *
14‒19.
Significance of the Fall.
This section contains the key to the significance of the story of the
Fall. It is the first example of a frequently recurring motive of the
Genesis narratives, the idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in
the history of men and peoples are the working out of a doom or ‘weird’
pronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this case) by
the Almighty Himself: see 4¹⁵ 8²¹ ᶠᶠ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹² 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ 48¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ,
chapter 49; compare Numbers 23 f., Deuteronomy 33. Here certain
fixed adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced back
to a primæval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence of man’s first
transgression. See, further, page 95 below.――The form of the oracles is
poetic; but the structure is irregular, and no definite metrical scheme
can be made out.
=14, 15. The curse on the serpent= is legible, partly in its degraded
form and habits (¹⁴), and partly in the deadly feud between it and
the human race (¹⁵).――=14.= _on thy belly, etc._] The assumption
undoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not
necessarily that its organism was changed (_e.g._ by cutting off its
legs, etc. _Rabbis_). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power
of erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological
representations the serpent often appears in the upright position
(Bennett). The idea probably is that this was its original posture:
how it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.――_dust shalt
thou eat_] Compare Micah 7¹⁷, Isaiah 65²⁵. It is a prosaic explanation
to say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently
swallows a good deal of dust (Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum
opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 245; Dillmann, al.); and
a mere metaphor for humiliation (like Assyrian _ti-ka-lu ip-ra_;
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for
this passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the
Arabian notion that the _ǧinn_ eat dirt (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen
Heidentums_ 150).――_all the days of thy life_] i.e. _each_ serpent as
long as it lives, and the _race_ of serpents as long as it lasts. It
is not so certain as most commentaries seem to think that these words
exclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the
punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew
jurisprudence (9⁵, Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Leviticus 20¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). But it is quite
possible that here (as in verse ¹⁵) the archetypal serpent is conceived
as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each
member of the species.――=15.= The serpent’s attempt to establish unholy
fellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity
between them.¹――_thy seed and her seed_] The whole brood of serpents,
and the whole race of men.――_He shall bruise thee on the head, etc._]
In the first clause the subject (הוּא) is the ‘seed’ of the woman
individualised (or collectively), in the second (אַתָּה) it is the serpent
himself, acting through his ‘seed.’ The current reading of Vulgate
(_ipsa_) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis
to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the
sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former
will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the
heel. The difficulty is in the verb שׁוּף, which in the sense ‘bruise’
is inappropriate to the serpent’s mode of attack. We may speak of
a serpent _striking_ a man (as in Latin _feriri a serpente_), but
hardly of _bruising_. Hence many commentaries (following LXX al.) take
the verb as a by-form of שָׁאַף (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be
eager for,’ ‘aim at’ (Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, al.); while others
(Gunkel al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means ‘bruise’ in
the first clause, and ‘aim at’ in the second. But it may be questioned
whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Driver).
A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (_v.i._).
¹ “Fit enim arcano naturæ sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat
homo” (Calvin). Compare (with Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive
bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 250)
“quam dudum dixeras te odisse æque atque angues” (Plautus,
_Mercator_ 4); and ἐκ παιδὸς τὸν ψυχρὸν ὄφιν τὰ μάλιστα
δέδοικα (Theocritus _Idyll_ 15).
The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’
appears in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and Targum Jerome, where the verse
is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the
devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person
of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally
accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent
is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the
_ipsa_ of the Vulgate, applied the expression directly to the
Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference,
recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In
Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable
view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over
the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That
even this goes beyond the original meaning of the verse is
admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if,
from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage
can be regarded as in any sense a _Protevangelium_. Dillmann
(with whom Driver substantially agrees) finds in the words
the idea of man’s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the
‘serpent-brood’ of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of
the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation,
however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of
hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and
punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in
the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only
of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chapters
1‒11 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal
history that the “note of promise and of hope” is firmly struck.
(2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol
of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation
of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic
creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but
there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart
from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but
only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses
making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man
was contemplated. Dillmann admits that no such assurance is
expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: “a
conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.”
But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If
it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the
serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it
may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity
established between him and the human race, and that the feud
between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that
antagonism.――It is thus possible that in its primary intention
the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the
unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically
true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the
worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing
which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind;
and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object
of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history
of religion (see Gressman _l.c._ 360). The essence of the
temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the
religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and
insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment
is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has
seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that
is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have
appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the
Old Testament.――The conjecture of Gunkel, that originally the
‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been
mythological personages (compare _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology,
would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.
* * * * *
=14.= מכל] On this use of מן (= _e numero_), see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 119 _w_, and compare Exodus 19⁵, Deuteronomy 14² 33²⁴,
Judges 5²⁴ etc. Stade’s argument (_Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 209) for deleting מכל הבהמה ו,
on the ground that the serpent belongs to the category of
חית השדה but not to בהמה, is logical, but hardly convincing.――גחון]
Probably from √ גחן (Aramaic) = ‘curve’ or ‘bend’ (Delitzsch,
Brown-Driver-Briggs), occurs again only Leviticus 11⁴², of
reptiles. Vulgate renders _pectus_, LXX combines στῆθος and
κοιλία.――=15.= זֶרַע] in the sense of ‘offspring,’ is nearly always
collective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual
child (4²⁵{?} 21¹³, 1 Samuel 1¹¹) it denotes the immediate
offspring as the pledge of posterity, never a remote descendant
(see Nöldeke _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, viii. 164
ff.). The Messianic application therefore is not justified in
grammar.――הוא] the rendering _ipsa_ (Vulgate) is said not to be
found in the Fathers before Ambrose and Augustine (Zapletal,
_ATliches_, 19). Jerome at all events knew that _ipse_ should
be read.――ישופך ... תשופנו] The form שוף recurs only Job 9¹⁷, Psalms
139¹¹, and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aramaic
and New Hebrew the √ (ע״ו or ע״ע) has the primary sense of ‘rub,’
hence ‘wear down by rubbing’ = ‘crush’; in Syriac it also means
to crawl. There are a few examples of a tendency of ע״ו verbs to
strengthen themselves by insertion of א (König i. 439), and it
is often supposed that in certain passages (Ezekiel 36³, Amos
2⁷ 8⁴, Psalms 56²ᐧ ³ 57⁴) שׁוף is disguised under the by-form שׁאף.
But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are
Amos 2⁷ 8⁴, where the א may be simply _mater lectionis_ for the
_â_ of the participle (compare וְקָאם, Hosea 10¹⁴); in the other
cases the proper sense of שָׁאַף ‘pant’ or metaphor ‘long for’)
suffices. The reverse process (substitution of שוף for שאף) is
much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Job
9¹⁷, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is
thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this verse;
and Delitzsch points out that verbs of hostile _endeavour_,
as distinct from hostile achievement הכּה, רצח, etc.), are never
construed with double accusative. The gain in sense is so
doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning ‘crush.’
The old versions felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of
crushing is represented by Aquila προστρίψει, Symmachus θλίψει,
LXXᶜᵒᵈᵉˣ ᶜᵒⁱˢˡⁱⁿⁱᵃⁿᵘˢ τρίψει (see Field) and Jerome (_Quæstiones
sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) _conterere_; ‘pant
after’ by LXXᴬ ᵃˡᐧ τηρήσει[ς] (if not a mistake for τρήσει[ς] or
τειρήσει[ς]). A double sense is given by Vulgate _conteret ...
insidiaberis_, and perhaps Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); while
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ paraphrases: הוא יהא דכיר מה דעבדת ליה מלקדמין ואת תהי נטר ליה לסופא.
* * * * *
=16. The doom of the woman=: consisting in the hardships incident to
her sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth,
and the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed
the ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to
be accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.――_I
will multiply, etc._] More strictly, ‘I will cause thee to have much
suffering and pregnancy’ (see Davidson § 3, _R._ (2)). It is, of course,
not an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is
meant.――For הֵרֹנַךְ, LXX read some word meaning ‘groaning’ (_v.i._); but to
prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent
pregnancy a blessing (Gunkel) makes a too general statement. It is
better (with Holzinger) to assume a _hendiadys_: ‘the pain of thy
conception’ (as in the explanatory clause which follows).――_in pain
... children_] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in Old Testament
for the extremity of human anguish (Isaiah 21³ 13⁸, Micah 4⁹, Psalms
48⁶, and often: Exodus 1¹⁹ cannot be cited to the contrary).――_to
thy husband ... desire_] It is quite unnecessary to give up the rare
but expressive תְּשׁוּקָה of the Hebrew for the weaker תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX, etc.
(_v.i._). It is not, however, implied that the woman’s sexual desire is
stronger than the man’s (Knobel, Gunkel); the point rather is that by
the instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions
of her lot, both the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and
subjection to the man.――_while he_ (on his part) _shall rule over
thee_] The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the
verb; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the man, and so
liable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by the marriage customs
of the East. It is noteworthy that to the writer this is not the ideal
relation of the sexes (compare 2¹⁸ᐧ ²³). There is here certainly no
trace of the matriarchate or of polyandry (see on 2²⁴).
* * * * *
=16.= אל] Read וְאֶל־, with _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――הרבה ארבה] So 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. On the
irregular form of infinitive absolute, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 75 ff.――עצבון] (3¹⁷) 5²⁹† [Yahwist]). LXX λύπας (= עַצְּבוֹתֵךְ
?).――והרנך] (√ הרה): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
והריונך (Ruth 4¹³, Hosea 9¹¹). Olshausen (_Monatsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,
1870, 380) conjecture בְּהריונך, to avoid the harsh use of וְ. LXX
τὸν στεναγμόν σου probably = הגיונך; יְגוֹנַךְ (‘sorrow’) has also been
suggested (Gunkel); and צָרָתֵךְ (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). The
other versions follow Massoretic Text.――בעצב] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ בעצבון; LXX likewise repeats ἐν
λύπαις.――תשוקה] Probably connected with Arabic _šauḳ_, ‘ardent
desire’ (Rahlfs “עָנִי _und_ עָנָו,” page 71); compare שקק, Isaiah 29⁸,
Psalms 107⁹. Aquila συνάφεια, Symmachus ὁρμή. Although it
recurs only 4⁷ and Canticles 7¹¹, it is found in New Hebrew
and should not be suspected. LXX ἡ ἀποστροφή σου and Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) point to the reading תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ, preferred by many,
and defended by Nestle (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6) as
a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the
basis of LXX’s text of 2 Samuel 17³. His parallel between the
_return_ of the woman to her source (the man) and the return
of the man to _his_ source (the ground, verse ¹⁹) is perhaps
fanciful.
* * * * *
=17‒19. The man’s sentence.=――The hard, unremitting toil of the
husbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from the grudging and
intractable ground, is the standing evidence of a divine curse,
resting, not, indeed, on man himself, but on the earth for his sake.
Originally, it had provided him with all kinds of fruit good for
food,――and this is the ideal state of things; now it yields nothing
spontaneously but thorns and briars; bread to eat can only be extorted
in the sweat of the brow,――and this is a curse: formerly man had been a
gardener, now he is a _fellaḥ_. It does not appear that death itself is
part of the curse. The name death is avoided; and the fact is referred
to as part of the natural order of things,――the inevitable ‘return’ of
man to the ground whence he was taken. The question whether man would
have lived for ever if he had not sinned is one to which the narrative
furnishes no answer (Gunkel).――=17.= _And to the man_] _v.i._ The
sentence is introduced by a formal recital of the offence.――_Cursed is
the ground_] As exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing
(27²⁸ etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Isaiah 24⁶,
Jeremiah 23¹⁰), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole earth in
comparison with man’s expectations and ideals is here regarded as the
permanent effect of a curse.――_in suffering_ (bodily fatigue and mental
anxiety) _shalt thou eat_ [of] _it_] See 5²⁹. The ‘laborious work’
of the husbandman is referred to in Sirach 7¹⁵; but this is not the
prevailing feeling of the Old Testament; and the remark of Knobel, that
“agriculture was to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same
time a heavy burden,” needs qualification. It is well to be reminded
that “ancient Israel did not live constantly in the joy of the harvest
festival” (Gunkel); but none the less it would be a mistake to suppose
that it lived habitually in the mood of this passage.――=18.= _the herb
of the field_] See on 1¹¹. The creation of this order of vegetation
has not been recorded by Yahwist. Are we to suppose that it comes into
existence simply in consequence of the earth’s diminished productivity
caused by the curse? It seems implied at all events that the earth
will not yield even this, except under the compulsion of human labour
(see 2⁵).――=19.= _in the sweat of thy brow, etc._] A more expressive
repetition of the thought of ¹⁷ᵇ{β}. The phrase _eat bread_ may
mean ‘earn a livelihood’ (Amos 7¹²), but here it must be understood
literally as the immediate reward of man’s toil.――_till thou return,
etc._] hardly means more than ‘all the days of thy life’ (in verse ¹⁷).
It is not a threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no
right to say (with Dillmann) that verses ¹⁶⁻¹⁹ are simply an expansion
of the sentence of 2¹⁷. That man was by nature immortal is not taught
in this passage; and since the Tree of Life in verse ²² belongs
to another recension, there is no evidence that the main narrative
regarded even endless life as within man’s reach. The connexion of the
closing words is rather with 2⁷: man was taken from the ground, and
in the natural course will return to it again.――_and to dust, etc._]
Compare Job 10⁹ 34¹⁵, Psalms 90³ 146⁴, Ecclesiastes 3²⁰ 12⁷ etc.: ἐκ
γαίας βλαστὼν γαῖα πάλιν γέγονα.
The arrangement of the clauses in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ is not very natural,
and the repeated variations of the same idea have suggested
the hypothesis of textual corruption or fusion of sources. In
_Jubilees_ iii. 25 the passage is quoted in an abridged form,
the line ‘Cursed ... sake’ being immediately followed by ‘Thorns
... to thee,’ and ¹⁸ᵇ, being omitted. This is, of course, a
much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential; but ¹⁷ᵇ
is guaranteed by 5²⁹. Holzinger rejects ¹⁸ᵇ, and to avoid the
repetition of אכל proposes תעבדנה instead of תאכלנה in ¹⁷. Gunkel
is satisfied with verse ¹⁷ ᶠᐧ as they stand, but assigns ¹⁹ᵃ{α}
(to לחם) and ¹⁹ᵇ to another source (Yahwistʲ), as doublets
respectively of ¹⁷ᵇ{β} and ¹⁹ᵃ{β}. This is perhaps on the whole
the most satisfactory analysis.――The poetic structure of the
verses, which might be expected to clear up a question of this
kind, is too obscure to afford any guidance. Sievers, _e.g._
(II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except in verse ¹⁹, to distinguish
the rhythm from that of the narrative in which it is embedded,
and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only tentative.
* * * * *
=17.= Point וְלָאדם; there is no conceivable reason why אדם should
be a proper name here (compare 2²⁰ 3²¹).――לאמר ... ממנו] LXX
reads τούτου μόνου (see verse ¹¹) μὴ φαγεῖν, ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
ἔφαγες.――בעבורך] LXX (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου), Symmachus, Vulgate
read בַּֽעֲבָדֶךָ, Theodotion ἐν τῇ παραβάσει σου (בְּעָבְרְךָ). The phrase
is characteristic of Yahwist; out of 22 instances in the
Hexateuch, only about 3 can be assigned to Elohist (none to
Priestly-Code).――תאכלנה] The government of direct accusative seems
harsh, but is not unexampled: see Jeremiah 36¹⁶.――=18.= LXX
omits initial וְ: so Vulgate _Jubilees_.――קוץ ודרדר] Hosea 10⁸; דרדר
occurs nowhere else in Old Testament. It is still used in Syria
(_dardār_) as a general name for thistles.――=19.= זעה] (√ יזע,
_waḏa‛a_) is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; compare יָזַע, Ezekiel 44¹⁸.――לחם] LXX
_Jubilees_ לחמך.
* * * * *
20‒24.
The expulsion from Eden.
=20.= The naming of the woman can hardly have come in between the
sentence and its execution, or before there was any experience of
motherhood to suggest it. The attempts to connect the notice with the
mention of child-bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (Delitzsch al.), or with the thought
of mortality in ¹⁹ (Knobel), are forced. The most suitable position in
the present text would be before (so _Jubilees_ iii. 33) or after 4¹;
and accordingly some regard it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of
that verse. But when we consider (a) that the name _Ḥavvāh_ must in any
case be traditional, (b) that it is a proper name, whereas הָאָדָם remains
appellative throughout, and (c) that in the following verses there
are unambiguous traces of a second recension of the Paradise story,
it is reasonable to suppose that verse ²⁰ comes from that recension,
and is a parallel to the naming of the woman in 2²³, whether it stands
here in the original order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been
preserved, while there is no distinctive name for the man, suggests
that חוה is a survival from a more primitive theory of human origins in
which the first mother represented the unity of the race.――_the mother
of every living thing_] According to this derivation, חַוָּה would seem
to denote first the idea of life, and then the source of life――the
mother.¹ But the form חוה is not Hebrew, and the real meaning of the
word is not settled by the etymology here given (_v.i._).――כָּל־חַי commonly
includes all animals (8²¹ etc.), but is here restricted to mankind
(as Psalms 143², Job 30²³). Compare however, πότνια θηρῶν, ‘Lady of
wild things,’ a Greek epithet of the Earth-mother (Miss Harrison,
_Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion_ 264).――=21.= Another
detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is, of course,
not inconsistent with verse ⁷, but neither can it be said to be the
necessary sequel to that verse; most probably it is a parallel from
another source.――_coats of skin_] “The simplest and most primitive kind
of clothing in practical use” (Driver).
¹ So Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 148,
who appends the note: “Im holsteinischen Plattdeutsch
ist ‘Dat Leben’ euphemistischer Ausdruck für das pudendum
muliebre”――a meaning by the way which also attaches to
Arabic _ḥayy_ (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ 681 b).
An interesting question arises as to the connexion between this
method of clothing and the loss of pristine innocence. That
it exhibits God’s continued care for man even after the Fall
(Dillmann al.) may be true as regards the present form of the
legend; but that is hardly the original conception. In the
Phœnician legend of Usōos, the invention is connected with the
hunting of wild animals, and this again with the institution of
sacrifice: ... ὃς σκέπην τῷ σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε
συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ... ἅμα τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε
θηρίων (_Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; Orelli, page 17 f.).
Since sacrifice and the use of animal food were inseparably
associated in Semitic antiquity, it may be assumed that this is
conceived as the first departure from the Golden Age, when men
lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Similarly, William
Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 306
ff.) found in the verse the Yahwistic theory of the introduction
of the sacrifice of _domestic_ animals, which thus coincided, as
in Greek legend, with the transition from the state of innocence
to the life of agriculture.
* * * * *
=20.= חוה] LXX Εὕα [Εὔα] (in 4¹), Aquila Αὖα, Vulgate _Heva_,
Jerome _Eva_ (English _Eve_); in this verse LXX translates
Ζωή, Symmachus Ζωογόνος. The similarity of the name to the
Aramaic word for ‘serpent’ (חַוֵּי, חִוְיָא, Syriac (‡ Syriac word),
Syro-Palestinian (‡ Syriac word) [Matthew 7¹⁰]); (compare Arabic
_ḥayyat_ from _ḥauyat_ [Nöldeke]) has always been noticed, and
is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological
equivalence (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xlii. 487; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
i. 633; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154). The
ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done the
serpent’s work in tempting Adam (_Bereshith Rabba_; Philo, _De
Agricultura Noë_, 21; Clement of Alexandria _Protrepticus_ ii.
12. 1). Quite recently the philological equation has acquired
fresh significance from the discovery of the name חות on a leaden
Punic _tabella devotionis_ (described by Lidzbarski _Ephemeris_,
i. 26 ff.; see Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_,
135), of which the first line reads: “O Lady _ḤVT_, goddess,
queen...!” Lidzbarski sees in this mythological personage a
goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity; and
identifies her with the biblical Ḥavvah. Ḥavvah would thus be a
‘depotentiated’ deity, whose prototype was a Phœnician goddess
of the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and
bearing the title of ‘Mother of all living’ (see Gressman _l.c._
359 f.). Precarious as such combinations may seem, there is no
objection in principle to an explanation of the name Ḥavvah on
these lines. Besides the Ḥivvites of the Old Testament (who
were probably a serpent-tribe), Wellhausen cites examples of
Semitic princely families that traced their genealogy back to
a serpent. The substitution of human for animal ancestry, and
the transference of the animal name to the human ancestor, are
phenomena frequently observed in the transition from a lower to
a higher stage of religion. If the change took place while a law
of female descent still prevailed, the ancestry would naturally
be traced to a woman (or goddess); and when the law of male
kinship was introduced she would as naturally be identified with
the wife of the first man. It need hardly be said that all this,
while possibly throwing some light on the mythical background
of the biblical narrative, is quite apart from the religious
significance of the story of the Fall in itself.――אם כל־חי] William
Robertson Smith renders ‘mother of every _ḥayy_,’――_ḥayy_ being
the Arabic word which originally denoted a group of female
kinship. Thus “Eve is the personification of the bond of kinship
(conceived as exclusively mother-kinship), just as Adam is
simply ‘man,’ _i.e._ the personification of mankind” (_Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 208). The interpretation has
found no support.――=21.= Point לָאָדָם, as in verse ¹⁷.
* * * * *
=22‒24. The actual expulsion.=――=22.= _Behold ... one of us_] This
is no ‘ironica exprobatio’ (Calvin al.), but a serious admission that
man has snatched a divine prerogative not meant for him. The feeling
expressed (compare 11⁶) is akin to what the Greeks called the ‘envy of
the gods,’ and more remotely to the Old Testament attribute of the zeal
or jealousy of Yahwe,――His resentment of all action that encroaches
on His divinity (see page 97). In verse ⁵ the same words are put in
the mouth of the serpent with a distinct imputation of envy to God;
and it is perhaps improbable that the writer of that verse would
have justified the serpent’s insinuation, even in form, by a divine
utterance. There are several indications (_e.g._ the phrase ‘like
one of us’) that the secondary recension to which verse ²² belongs
represents a cruder form of the legend than does the main narrative;
and it is possible that it retains more of the characteristically pagan
feeling of the envy of the gods.――_in respect of knowing, etc._] Man
has not attained complete equality with God, but only God-likeness
in this one respect. Gressman’s contention that the verse is
self-contradictory (man has become like a god, and yet lacks the
immortality of a god) is therefore unfounded.――_And now, etc._] There
remains another divine attribute which man will be prompt to seize,
viz. immortality: to prevent his thus attaining complete likeness to
God he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The expression _put
forth his hand_ suggests that a single partaking of the fruit would
have conferred eternal life (Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 52);
and at least implies that it would have been an easy thing to do. The
question why man had not as yet done so is not impertinent (Delitzsch),
but inevitable; so momentous an issue could not have been left to
chance in a continuous narrative. The obvious solution is that in this
recension the Tree of Life was a (or _the_) forbidden tree, that man in
his first innocence had respected the injunction, but that now when he
knows the virtue of the tree he will not refrain from eating. It is to
be observed that it is only in this part of the story that the idea of
immortality is introduced, and that not as an essential endowment of
human nature, but as contingent on an act which would be as efficacious
after the Fall as before it.――On the _aposiopesis_ at the end of the
verse, _v.i._――=23= is clearly a doublet of ²⁴; and the latter is the
natural continuation of ²². Verse ²³ is a fitting conclusion to the
main narrative, in which it probably followed immediately on verse
¹⁹.――=24.= _He drove out the man and made [him] dwell on the east of
... [and stationed] the Cherubim, etc._] This is the reading of LXX
(_v.i._), and it gives a more natural construction than Massoretic
Text, which omits the words in brackets. On either view the assumption
is that the first abode of mankind was east of the garden. There is no
reason to suppose that the verse represents a different tradition as to
the site of Eden from 2⁸ or 2¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. It is not said in 2⁸ that it was
in the _extreme_ east, or in 2¹⁰ that it was in the extreme north; nor
is it here implied that it was further west than Palestine. The account
of the early migration of the race in 11² is quite consistent with the
supposition that mankind entered the Euphrates valley from a region
still further east.――_the Cherubim and the revolving sword-flame_]
Literally ‘the flame of the whirling sword.’ It has usually been
assumed that the sword was in the hand of one of the cherubim;
but probably it was an independent symbol, and a representation of
the lightning. Some light may be thrown on it by an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 36 f.), where
the king says that when he destroyed the fortress of Ḫunusa he made ‘a
lightning of bronze.’ The emblem appears to be otherwise unknown, but
the allusion suggests a parallel to the ‘flaming sword’ of this passage.
=The Cherubim.=――See the notes of Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver;
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 529 f., 631 ff.;
Cheyne in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 741 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 218; Haupt, _The Sacred
Books of the Old Testament_, _Numbers_, 46; _Polychrome Bible_,
181 f.; Furtwängler, in Roscher’s _Ausführliches Lexikon der
griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ article GRYPS.――The
derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a
connexion with γρύψ (_Greif_, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of
plausibility, but lacks proof. The often quoted statement of
Lenormant (_Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. 118), that _kirubu_
occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name of
the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely
disproved (see Jeremias 218).――A great part of the Old Testament
symbolism could be explained from the hypothesis that the
Cherubim were originally wind-demons, like the Harpies of
Greek mythology (Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek
Religion_ 178 ff.). The most suggestive analogy to this verse
is perhaps to be found in the winged genii often depicted by
the side of the tree of life in Babylonian art. These figures
are usually human in form with human heads, but sometimes
combine the human form with an eagle’s head, and occasionally
the human head with an animal body. They are shown in the act
of fecundating the date-palm by transferring the pollen of the
male tree to the flower of the female; and hence it has been
conjectured that they are personifications of the winds, by
whose agency the fertilisation of the palm is effected in nature
(Tylor, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xii.
383 ff.). Starting with this clue, we can readily explain (1)
the function of the Cherub as the living chariot of Yahwe, or
bearer of the Theophany, in Psalms 18¹¹ (2 Samuel 22¹¹). It is
a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe rides, just
as the Babylonian storm-god Zû was figured as a bird-deity.
The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud
is a mere conjecture based on Psalms 18¹¹ ᶠ, and has no
more intrinsic probability than that here suggested. (2) The
association of the winged figures with the Tree of Life in
Babylonian art would naturally lead to the belief that the
Cherubim were denizens of Paradise (Ezekiel 28¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶), and
guardians of the Tree (as in this passage). (3) Thence they came
to be viewed as guardians of sacred things and places generally,
like the composite figures placed at the entrances of Assyrian
temples and palaces to prevent the approach of evil spirits. To
this category belong probably in the first instance the colossal
Cherubim of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 8⁶ ᶠᐧ), and the
miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle (Exodus
25¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears
in the alternation of cherubim and _palm-trees_ in the temple
decoration (1 Kings 6²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 41¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ;; see, further, 1
Kings 7²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 26¹ᐧ ³¹). (4) The most difficult embodiment
of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel’s visions――four
composite creatures combining the features of the ox, the
lion, the man, and the eagle (Ezekiel 1⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 10¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). These may
represent primarily the ‘four winds of heaven’; but the complex
symbolism of the _Merkābāh_ shows that they have some deeper
cosmic significance. Gunkel (page 20) thinks that an older form
of the representation is preserved in Apocalypse 4⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where
the four animal types are kept distinct. These he connects
with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four
quarters of the heavens: Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in the earliest
astronomy a scorpion-_man_), and Aquila (near Aquarius). See
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 631 f.
* * * * *
=22.= כאחד] Construct before preposition; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 130 _a_.――מִמֶּנּוּ] The so-called oriental punctuation (which
distinguishes 1st plural from 3rd singular masculine suffix)
has מִמֵּנֿוּ, ‘from us’ (Baer-Delitzsch page 81). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
(יחידי בעלמא מינה) and Symmachus (ὁμοῦ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ) treat the form
as 3rd singular: compare Rashi’s paraphrase: “alone below, as
I am alone above.”――לדעת] ‘in [respect of] knowing’: gerundial
infinitive; Davidson § 93; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _o_; Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 205.――The
pregnant use of פֶּן־ (= ‘I fear lest’) is common (Genesis 19¹⁹
26⁹ 38¹¹ 44³⁴, Exodus 13¹⁷ etc.). Here it is more natural to
assume an _anakolouthon_, the clause depending on a cohortative,
converted in verse ²³ into a historic tense.――גם] LXX, Peshiṭtå
omit.――=24.= LXX καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν
ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς, καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβὶν κτλ.
= ויגרש את־האדם וישכן מקדם לגן עדן וַיָּשֶׂם את־הכרובים וגו׳. Ball rightly adopts this
text, inserting אֹתוֹ after וישכן, against Yahwist’s usage. There is
no need to supply any pronoun object whatever: see 2¹⁹ 18⁷ 38¹⁸,
1 Samuel 19¹³ etc. For the first three words Peshiṭtå has simply
(‡ Syriac word), and for וישכן (‡ Syriac word) (with the cherubim,
etc., as object).――המתהפכת] Hithpael in the sense of ‘revolve,’
Judges 7¹³, Job 37¹²; in Job 38¹⁴ it means ‘be transformed.’
* * * * *
_The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend._
1. _Ethnic parallels._――The Babylonian version of the Fall of
man (if any such existed) has not yet been discovered. There
is in the British Museum a much-debated seal-cylinder which
is often cited as evidence that a legend very similar to the
biblical narrative was current in Babylonia. It shows two
completely clothed figures seated on either side of a tree,
and each stretching out a hand toward its fruit, while a
crooked line on the left of the picture is supposed to exhibit
the serpent.¹ The engraving no doubt represents some legend
connected with the tree of life; but even if we knew that it
illustrates the first temptation, the _story_ is still wanting;
and the details of the picture show that it can have had very
little resemblance to Genesis 3.――The most that can be claimed
is that there are certain remote parallels to particular
features or ideas of Genesis 2⁴‒3²⁴, which are yet sufficiently
close to suggest that the ultimate source of the biblical
narrative is to be sought in the Babylonian mythology. Attention
should be directed to the following:――
¹ Reproduced in Smith’s _Chaldean Genesis_, 88; Delitzsch
_Babel und Bibel_ (M‘Cormack’s translation, page 48); _Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 203, etc.
Jeremias has satisfied himself that the zigzag line _is_
a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake cannot be
tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit.
(a) The _account of Creation_ in 2⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ has undoubted
resemblances to the Babylonian document described on page 47 f.,
though they are hardly such as to prove dependence. Each starts
with a vision of chaos, and in both the prior existence of
heaven and earth seems to be assumed; although the Babylonian
chaos is a waste of waters, while that of Genesis 2⁵ ᶠᐧ is based
rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see page 56 above).
The _order_ of creation, though not the same, is alike in its
promiscuous and unscientific character: in the Babylonian we
have a hopeless medley――mankind, beasts of the field, living
things of the field, Tigris and Euphrates, verdure of the
field, grass, marshes, reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep of the
fold, orchards, forests, houses, and cities, etc. etc.――but no
separate creation of woman.――The creation of _man_ from earth
moistened by the blood of a god, in another document, may be
instanced as a distant parallel to 2⁷ (pages 42, 45).
(b) The _legend of Eabani_, embedded in the Gilgameš-Epic
(Tablet I. Column ii. line 33 ff.: _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, page 120 ff.), seems to present us (it has
been thought) with a ‘type of primitive man.’ Eabani, created as
a rival to Gilgameš by the goddess Aruru from a lump of clay, is
a being of gigantic strength who is found associating with the
wild animals, living their life, and foiling all the devices
of the huntsman. Eager to capture him, Gilgameš sends with the
huntsman a harlot, by whose attractions he hopes to lure Eabani
from his savagery. Eabani yields to her charms, and is led, a
willing captive, to the life of civilisation:
When she speaks to him, her speech pleases him,
One who knows his heart he seeks, a friend.
But later in the epic, the harlot appears as the cause of his
sorrows, and Eabani curses her with all his heart. Apart from
its present setting, and considered as an independent bit of
folk-lore, it cannot be denied that the story has a certain
resemblance to Genesis 2¹⁸⁻²⁴. Only, we may be sure that if
the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be implied in
the picture of Eabani, the moral purity of the Hebrew writer
never stooped so low (see Jastrow, _American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures_, xv. 198 ff.; Stade, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 174 f.).
(c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive
of the story of the Fall are found in the myth of _Adapa and
the South-wind_, discovered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets,
and therefore known in Palestine in the 15th century B.C.
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 92‒101). Adapa, the
son of the god Ea, is endowed by him with the fulness of divine
wisdom, but denied the gift of immortality:
“Wisdom I gave him, immortality I gave him not.”
While plying the trade of a fisherman on the Persian Gulf, the
south-wind overwhelms his bark, and in revenge Adapa breaks
the wings of the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned by
Anu to appear before the assembly of the gods in heaven; and Ea
instructs him how to appease the anger of Anu. Then the gods,
disconcerted by finding a mortal in possession of their secrets,
resolve to make the best of it, and to admit him fully into
their society, by conferring on him immortality. They offer
him food of life that he may eat, and water of life that he may
drink. But Adapa had previously been deceived by Ea, who did
not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would
be offered to him would be food and water of death, and had
strictly cautioned him to refuse. He did refuse, and so missed
immortal life. Anu laments over his infatuated refusal:
“Why, Adapa! Wherefore hast thou not eaten,
not drunken, so that
Thou wilt not live...?” “Ea, my lord,
Commanded, ‘Eat not and drink not!’”
“Take him and bring him back to his earth!”
This looks almost like a travesty of the leading ideas of
Genesis 3; yet the common features are very striking. In both
we have the idea that wisdom and immortality combined constitute
equality with deity; in both we have a man securing the first
and missing the second; and in both the man is counselled in
opposite directions by supernatural voices, and acts on that
advice which is contrary to his interest. There is, of course,
the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and
immortality to man, Ea confers the first (and thus far plays
the part of the biblical serpent) but withholds the second, and
Anu is ready to bestow both. Still, it is not too much to expect
that a story like this will throw light on the mythological
antecedents of the Genesis narrative, if not directly on that
narrative itself (see below, page 94).
What is true of Babylonian affinities holds good in a lesser
degree of the ancient mythologies as a whole: everywhere we find
echoes of the Paradise myth, but nowhere a story which forms
an exact parallel to Genesis 2. 3. The Græco-Roman traditions
told of a ‘golden age,’ lost through the increasing sinfulness
of the race,――an age when the earth freely yielded its fruits,
and men lived in a happiness undisturbed by toil or care or sin
(Hesiod, _Opera et Dies_, 90‒92, 109‒120; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_
i. 89‒112, etc.); but they knew nothing of a sudden fall. Indian
and Persian mythologies told, in addition, of sacred mountains
where the gods dwelt, with bright gold and flashing gems, and
miraculous trees conferring immortality, and every imaginable
blessing; and we have seen that similar representations
were current in Babylonia. The nearest approach to definite
counterparts of the biblical narrative are found in Iranian
legends, where we read of Meshia and Meshiane, who lived at
first on fruits, but who, tempted by Ahriman, denied the good
god, lost their innocence, and practised all kinds of wickedness;
or of Yima, the ruler of the golden age, under whom there was
neither sickness nor death, nor hunger nor thirst, until (in one
tradition) he gave way to pride, and fell under the dominion of
the evil serpent Dahaka (see Dillmann page 47 ff.). But these
echoes are too faint and distant to enable us to determine the
quarter whence the original impulse proceeded, or where the myth
assumed the form in which it appears in Genesis. For answers
to these questions we are dependent mainly on the uncertain
indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features (the
name _Ḥavvah_ [page 85 f.], and elements of chapter 4) seem to
point to Phœnicia as the quarter whence this stratum of myth
entered the religion of Israel; others (the Paradise-geography)
point rather to Babylonia, or at least Mesopotamia. In the
present state of our knowledge it is a plausible conjecture
that the myth has travelled from Babylonia, and reached
Israel through the Phœnicians or the Canaanites (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 307; Gressman _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, x. 345 ff.; compare Bevan, _The Journal
of Theological Studies_, iv. 500 f.). A similar conclusion
might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea of chaos, if
the explanation given above of 2⁶ be correct: it looks as if
the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through
transference to a dry climate (see page 56). The fig-leaves of
3⁷ are certainly not Babylonian; though a single detail of that
kind cannot settle the question of origin. But until further
light comes from the monuments, all speculations on this subject
are very much in the air.
2. _The mythical substratum of the narrative._――The strongest
evidence of the non-Israelite origin of the story of the
Fall is furnished by the biblical account itself, in the many
mythological conceptions, of which traces still remain in
Genesis. “The narrative,” as Driver says, “contains features
which have unmistakable counterparts in the religious traditions
of other nations; and some of these, though they have been
accommodated to the spirit of Israel’s religion, carry
indications that they are not native to it” (_The Book of
Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 51). Amongst the features
which are at variance with the standpoint of Hebrew religion we
may put first of all the fact that the abode of Yahwe is placed,
not in Canaan or at Mount Sinai, but in the far East. The
strictly mythological background of the story emerges chiefly
in the conceptions of the garden of the gods (see page 57 f.),
the trees of life and of knowledge (page 59), the serpent (page
72 f.), Eve (page 85 f.), and the Cherubim (page 89 f.). It
is true, as has been shown, that each of these conceptions is
rooted in the most primitive ideas of Semitic religion; but it
is equally true that they have passed through a mythological
development for which the religion of Israel gave no opportunity.
Thus the association of trees and serpents in Semitic folk-lore
is illustrated by an Arabian story, which tells how, when an
untrodden thicket was burned down, the spirits of the trees made
their escape in the shape of white serpents (_Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 133); but it is quite clear that a
long interval separates that primitive superstition from the
ideas that invest the serpent and the tree in this passage.
If proof were needed, it would be found in the suggestive
combinations of the serpent and the tree in Babylonian and
Phœnician art; or in the fabled garden of the Hesperides, with
its golden fruit guarded by a dragon, always figured in artistic
representations as a huge snake coiled round the trunk of
the tree (compare Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’Histoire_, i.
93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher, _Ausführliches Lexikon
der griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ 2599 f.). How the
various elements were combined in the particular myth which lies
immediately behind the biblical narrative, it is impossible to
say; but the myth of Adapa suggests at least some elements of a
possible construction, which cannot be very far from the truth.
Obviously we have to do with a polytheistic legend, in which
rivalries and jealousies between the different deities are
almost a matter of course. The serpent is himself a demon; and
his readiness to initiate man in the knowledge of the mysterious
virtue of the forbidden tree means that he is at variance
with the other gods, or at least with the particular god who
had imposed the prohibition. The intention of the command
was to prevent man from sharing the life of the gods; and the
serpent-demon, posing as the good genius of man, defeats that
intention by revealing to man the truth (similarly Gunkel 30).
To the original heathen myth we may also attribute the idea of
the envy of the gods, which the biblical narrator hardly avoids,
and the note of weariness and melancholy, the sombre view
of life,――the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’――which is the
ground-tone of the passage.
It is impossible to determine what, in the original myth, was
the nature of the tree (or trees) which man was forbidden to eat.
Gressman (_l.c._ 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three
primitive conceptions: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, whose fruit imparts the knowledge of magic,――the only
knowledge of which it can be said that it makes man at once the
equal and the rival of the deity; (2) the tree of knowledge,
whose fruit excites the sexual appetite and destroys childlike
innocence (3⁷); (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers
immortality (3²²). The question is immensely complicated by the
existence of two recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly
inseparable as Gressman thinks. In the main recension we have
the tree of knowledge, of which man eats to his hurt, but no
hint of a tree of life. In the secondary recension there is
the tree of life (of which man does not eat), and _apparently_
the tree of knowledge of which he had eaten; but this depends
on the word גַּם in 3²², which is wanting in LXX, and may be an
interpolation. Again, the statement that knowledge of good and
evil really amounts to equality with God, is found only in the
second recension; in the other it is doubtful if the actual
effect of eating the fruit was not a cruel disappointment of
the hope held out by the serpent. How far we are entitled to
read the ideas of the one into the other is a question we cannot
answer. Eerdmans’ ingenious but improbable theory (_Theologisch
Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 504 ff.) need not here be discussed. What
is meant by knowledge of good and evil in the final form of the
narrative will be considered under the next head.
3. _The religious ideas of the passage._――Out of such crude
and seemingly unpromising material the religion of revelation
has fashioned the immortal allegory before us. We have now
to inquire what are the religious and moral truths under the
influence of which the narrative assumed its present form,
distinguishing as far as possible the ideas which it originally
conveyed from those which it suggested to more advanced
theological speculation.
(1) We observe, in the first place, that the ætiological motive
is strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of
many of the facts of universal experience,――the bond between man
and wife (2²⁴), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence
(3⁷), the use of clothing (3²¹), the instinctive antipathy to
serpents (3¹⁵). But chiefly it seeks the key to the darker side
of human existence as seen in a simple agricultural state of
society,――the hard toil of the husbandman, the birth-pangs of
the woman, and her subjection to the man. These are evils which
the author feels to be contrary to the ideal of human nature,
and to the intention of a good God. They are results of a curse
justly incurred by transgression, a curse pronounced before
history began, and shadowing, rather than crushing, human life
always and everywhere. It is doubtful if death be included in
the effects of the curse. In verse ¹⁹ it is spoken of as the
natural fate of a being made from the earth; in verse ²² it
follows from being excluded from the tree of life. Man was
capable of immortality, but not by nature immortal; and God did
not mean that he should attain immortality. The death threatened
in 2¹⁷ is immediate death; and to assume that the death which
actually ensues is the exaction of that deferred penalty, is
perhaps to go beyond the intention of the writer. Nor does it
appear that the narrative seeks to account for the origin of
sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the first sin; but it
describe it as something intelligible, not needing explanation,
not a mystery like the instinct of shame or the possession of
knowledge, which are produced by eating the fruit of the tree.
(2) Amongst other things which distinguish man’s present from
his original state, is the possession of a certain kind of
knowledge which was acquired by eating the forbidden fruit. This
brings us to the most difficult question which the narrative
presents: what is meant by the knowledge of good and evil?¹
Keeping in mind the possibility that the two recensions may
represent different conceptions, our data are these: In 3²²
knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a) implies
equality with God, (b) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually
secured by man. In the leading narrative (b) certainly holds
good (2¹⁷), but (a) and (c) are doubtful. Did the serpent speak
truth when he said that knowledge of good and evil would make
man like God? Did man actually attain such knowledge? Was the
perception of nakedness a first flash of the new divine insight
which man had coveted, or was it a bitter disenchantment and
mockery of the hopes inspired by the serpent’s words? It is
only the habit of reading the ideas of 3²² into the story of the
temptation which makes these questions seem superfluous. Let us
consider how far the various interpretations enable us to answer
them.――i. The suggestion that magical knowledge is meant may be
set aside as inadequate to either form of the biblical narrative:
magic is not godlike knowledge, nor is it the universal property
of humanity.――ii. The usual explanation identifies the knowledge
of good and evil with the moral sense, the faculty of discerning
between right and wrong. This view is ably defended by Budde
(_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly
dismissed, but yet raises serious difficulties. Could it be
said that God meant to withhold from man the power of moral
discernment? Does not the prohibition itself presuppose that man
already knew that obedience was right and disobedience sinful?
We have no right to say that the restriction was only temporary,
and that God would in other ways have bestowed on man the gift
of conscience; the narrative suggests nothing of the sort.――iii.
Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 299 ff.) holds
that the knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of
nature, and intelligence to manipulate them for human ends;
and this as a quality not so much of the individual as of
the race,――the knowledge which is the principle of human
civilisation. It is the faculty which we see at work in the
invention of clothing (3²¹ ?), in the founding of cities (4¹⁷),
in the discovery of the arts and crafts (4¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), and in the
building of the tower (11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). The undertone of condemnation
of the cultural achievements of humanity which runs through
the Yahwistic sections of chapters 1‒11 makes it probable that
the writer traced their root to the knowledge acquired by the
first transgression; and of such knowledge it might be said
that it made man like God, and that God willed to withhold it
permanently from His creatures.――iv. Against this view Gunkel
(11 f., 25 f.) urges somewhat ineptly that the myth does not
speak of arts and aptitudes which are learned by education,
but of a kind of knowledge which comes by nature, of which the
instinct of sex is a typical illustration. Knowledge of good and
evil is simply the enlargement of capacity and experience which
belongs to mature age,――ripeness of judgment, reason,――including
moral discernment, but not identical with it.――The difference
between the last two explanations is not great; and possibly
both are true. Wellhausen’s seems to me the only view that does
justice to the thought of 3²²; and if 4¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ and 11¹⁻⁹ be the
continuation of this version of the Fall, the theory has much
to recommend it. On the other hand, Gunkel’s acceptation may be
truer to the teaching of 3¹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Man’s primitive state was one
of childlike innocence and purity; and the knowledge which he
obtained by disobedience is the knowledge of life and of the
world which distinguishes the grown man from the child. If it
be objected that such knowledge is a good thing, which God could
not have forbidden to man, we may be content to fall back on
the paradox of Christ’s idea of childhood: “Except ye turn, and
become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the
kingdom of heaven.”
¹ In Old Testament usage, knowledge of good and evil marks
the difference between adulthood and childhood (Deuteronomy
1³⁹, Isaiah 7¹⁵ ᶠᐧ)), or second childhood (2 Samuel 19³⁶);
it also denotes (with different verbs) judicial discernment
of right and wrong (2 Samuel 14¹⁷, 1 Kings 3⁹), which is
an intellectual function, quite distinct from the working
of the conscience. The antithesis of good and evil may, of
course, be ethical (Amos 5¹⁴ ᶠᐧ, Isaiah 5²⁰ etc.); but it
may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful,
or wholesome and hurtful (2 Samuel 19³⁶). Hence the phrase
comes to stand for the whole range of experience,――“a
comprehensive designation of things by their two polar
attributes, according to which they interest man for his
weal or hurt”: compare 2 Samuel 14¹⁷ with ²⁰ ‘all things
that are in earth’ (Genesis 24⁵⁰ 31²⁴). Wellhausen maintains
that the non-ethical sense is fundamental, the expressions
being transferred to virtue and vice only in so far as their
consequences are advantageous or the reverse. Knowledge of
good and evil may thus mean knowledge in general,――knowing
one thing from another.
(3) The next point that claims attention is the author’s
conception of sin. Formally, sin is represented as an act
of disobedience to a positive command, imposed as a test of
fidelity; an act, therefore, which implies disloyalty to God,
and a want of the trust and confidence due from man to his
Maker. But the essence of the transgression lies deeper: God
had a reason for imposing the command, and man had a motive
for disobeying it; and the reason and motive are unambiguously
indicated. Man was tempted by the desire to be as God, and Yahwe
does not will that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the
last instance presumption,――an overstepping of the limits of
creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity.
It is true that the offence is invested with every circumstance
of extenuation,――inexperience, the absence of evil intention,
the suddenness of the temptation, and the superior subtlety
of the serpent; but sin it was nevertheless, and was justly
followed by punishment.――How far the passage foreshadows
a doctrine of hereditary sin, it is impossible to say. The
consequences of the transgression, both privative and positive,
are undoubtedly transmitted from the first pair to their
posterity; but whether the sinful tendency itself is regarded as
having become hereditary in the race, there is not evidence to
show.
(4) Lastly, what view of God does the narrative present? It
has already been pointed out that 3²² borders hard on the pagan
notion of the ‘envy’ of the godhead, a notion difficult to
reconcile with the conceptions of Old Testament religion. But
of that idea there is no trace in the main narrative of the
temptation and the Fall, except in the lying insinuation of the
serpent: the writer himself does not thus ‘charge God foolishly.’
His religious attitude is one of reverent submission to the
limitations imposed on human life by a sovereign Will, which
is determined to maintain inviolate the distinction between the
divine and the human. The attribute most conspicuously displayed
is closely akin to what the prophets called the ‘holiness’ of
God, as illustrated, _e.g._, in Isaiah 2¹² ᶠᶠᐧ. After all, the
world is God’s world and not man’s, and the Almighty is just,
as well as holy, when He frustrates the impious aspiration of
humanity after an independent footing and sphere of action in
the universe. The God of Genesis 3 is no arbitrary heathen deity,
dreading lest the sceptre of the universe should be snatched
from his hand by the soaring ambition of the race of men;
but a Being infinitely exalted above the world, stern in His
displeasure at sin, and terrible in His justice; yet benignant
and compassionate, slow to anger, and ‘repenting Him of the
evil.’ Through an intensely anthropomorphic medium we discern
the features of the God of the prophets and the Old Testament;
nay, in the analogy of human fatherhood which underlies the
description, we can trace the lineaments of the God and Father
of Jesus Christ. That is the real _Protevangelium_ which lies in
the passage: the fact that God tempers judgment with mercy, the
faith that man, though he has forfeited innocence and happiness,
is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator.
CHAPTER IV.
_Beginnings of History and Civilisation._
_Critical Analysis._――Chapter 4 consists of three easily
separable sections: (a) the story of Cain and Abel (¹⁻¹⁶), (b)
a Cainite genealogy (¹⁷⁻²⁴),¹ and (c) a fragment of a Sethite
genealogy (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶). As they lie before us, these are woven into
a consecutive history of antediluvian mankind, with a semblance
of unity sufficient to satisfy the older generation of critics.²
Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is composite,
and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of
critical problems of great intricacy.
¹ Wellhausen unites verse ¹⁶ᵇ with ¹⁷⁻²⁴.
² _e.g._ Hupfeld, _Quellen_, 126 ff.
1. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs
in verse ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and has to be disentangled from the Cain legend
(so Wellhausen, Budde); whether it can have included the whole
of that legend is a point to be considered later (page 100). We
have thus a list of Adam’s descendants through Cain, continued
in a single line for seven generations, after which it branches
into three, and then ceases. It has no explicit sequel in
Genesis; the sacred number 7 marks it as complete in itself; and
the attempts of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with
its supposed original place in the history are to be distrusted.
Its main purpose is to record the origin of various arts and
industries of civilised life; and apart from the history of Cain
there is nothing whatever to indicate that it deals with a race
of sinners, as distinct from the godly line of Seth. That this
genealogy belongs to Yahwist has hardly been questioned except
by Dillmann, who argues with some hesitation for assigning it
to Elohist, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with verses
²⁵ᐧ ²⁶. Budde (page 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria
point decidedly (if not quite unequivocally) to Yahwist;¹ and
in the absence of any certain trace of Elohist in chapters
1‒11, the strong presumption is that the genealogy represents a
stratum of the former document. The question then arises whether
it be the original continuation of chapter 3. An _essential_
connexion cannot, from the nature of the case, be affirmed.
The primitive genealogies are composed of desiccated legends,
in which each member is originally independent of the rest;
and we are not entitled to assume that an account of the Fall
necessarily attached itself to the person of the first man. If
it were certain that 3²⁰ is an integral part of one recension
of the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that
that recension was continued in 4¹, and then in 4¹⁷⁻²⁴. In the
absence of complete certainty on that point the larger question
must be left in suspense; there is, however, no difficulty in
supposing that in the earliest written collection of Hebrew
traditions the genealogy was preceded by a history of the Fall
in a version partly preserved in chapter 3. The presumption that
this was the case would, of course, be immensely strengthened if
we could suppose it to be the intention of the original writer
to describe not merely the progress of culture, but also the
rapid development of sin (so Wellhausen).
¹ יָלַד = ‘beget,’ ¹⁸; גם הוא, ²² (_in genealogies_, confined to
Yahwist, 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ 4²⁶); ושם אחיו, ²¹ (compare 10²⁵);
compare ¹⁹ with 10²⁵ etc. (Budde _l.c._).
2. The fragmentary genealogy of verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ corresponds, so
far as it goes, with the Sethite genealogy of Priestly-Code
in chapter 5. It will be shown later (page 138 f.) that the
lists of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ and 5 go back to a common original; and if the
discrepancy had been merely between Yahwist and Priestly-Code,
the obvious conclusion would be that these two documents had
followed different traditional variants of the ancient genealogy.
But how are we to account for the fact that the first three
names of Priestly-Code’s list occur also in the connexion
of Yahwist? There are four possible solutions. (1) It is
conceivable that Yahwist, not perceiving the ultimate identity
of the two genealogies, incorporated both in his document
(compare Ewald _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi.
page 4); and that the final redactor (Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ)
then curtailed the second list in view of chapter 5. This
hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see
²⁵ᵇ) the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent
of Yahwist’s narrative; now that story takes for granted
that the worship of Yahwe was practised from the beginning,
whereas ²⁶ᵇ explicitly states that it was only introduced
in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally been
conjectured that verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ are entirely redactional (Ewald,
Schrader, al.); _i.e._, that they were inserted by an editor
(Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ) to establish a connexion between the
genealogy of Yahwist and that of Priestly-Code. In favour of
this view the use of אדם (as a proper name) and of אלהים has been
cited; but again the statement of ²⁶ᵇ presents an insurmountable
difficulty. Priestly-Code has his own definite theory of
the introduction of the name יהוה (see Exodus 6² ᶠᶠᐧ), and it
is incredible that any editor influenced by him should have
invented the gratuitous statement that the name was in use from
the time of Enosh. (3) A third view is that verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ stood
originally before verse ¹ (or before verse ¹⁷), so that the
father of Cain and Abel (or of Cain alone) was not Adam but
Enosh; and that the redactor who made the transposition is
responsible also for some changes on verse ²⁵ to adapt it to its
new setting (so Stade) (see on the verse). That is, no doubt, a
plausible solution (admitted as possible by Dillmann), although
it involves operations on the structure of the genealogy
too drastic and precarious to be readily assented to. It is
difficult also to imagine any sufficient motive for the supposed
transposition. That it was made to find a connexion for the
(secondary) story of Cain and Abel is a forced suggestion. The
tendency of a redactor must have been to keep that story as
far from the beginning as possible, and that the traditional
data should have been deliberately altered so as to make it
the opening scene of human history is hardly intelligible. (4)
There remains the hypothesis that the two genealogies belong
to separate strata within the Yahwistic tradition, which had
been amalgamated by a redactor of that school (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ)
prior to the incorporation of Priestly-Code; and that the second
list was curtailed by Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ because of its
substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in chapter 5.
The harmonistic glossing of verse ²⁵ is an inevitable assumption
of any theory except (1) and (2); it must have taken place after
the insertion of the Cain and Abel episode; and on the view we
are now considering it must be attributed to Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ.
In other respects the solution is free from difficulty. The
recognition of the complex character of the source called
Yahwist is forced on us by many lines of proof; and it will
probably be found that this view of the genealogies yields a
valuable clue to the structure of the non-Priestly sections of
chapters 2‒11 (see pages 3, 134). One important consequence may
here be noted. Eve’s use of the name אלהים, and the subsequent
notice of the introduction of the name יהוה, suggest that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as
Elohist and Priestly-Code previously to Exodus 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ and Exodus
6² ᶠᶠᐧ). Hence, if it be the case that one recension of the
Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use of אלהים
(see page 53), 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ will naturally be regarded as the sequel
to that recension.
3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of verses ¹⁻¹⁶.
That it belongs to Yahwist in the wider sense is undisputed,¹
but its precise affinities within the Yahwistic cycle are
exceedingly perplexing. If the theory mentioned at the end of
the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use of the name
יהוה² would show that it was unknown to the author of verses
²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by
these verses. Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy
in which it is embedded? It certainly contains notices――such
as the introduction of agriculture and (perhaps) the origin of
sacrifice――in keeping with the idea of the genealogy; but the
length and amplitude of the narration would be without parallel
in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an obvious
incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a fugitive
unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (verse ¹⁷),
who as the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of
stable civilised life.³ Still more complicated are the relations
of the passage to the history of the Fall in chapter 3. On the
one hand, a series of material incongruities seem to show that
the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption of an already
existing population on the earth could hardly have been made
by the author of chapter 3; the free choice of occupation by
the two brothers, and Yahwe’s preference for the shepherd’s
sacrifice, ignore the representation (3¹⁹) that husbandry is
the destined lot of the race; and the curse on Cain is recorded
in terms which betray no consciousness of a primal curse resting
on the ground. It is true, on the other hand, that the literary
form of 4¹⁻¹⁶ contains striking reminiscences of that of chapter
3. The most surprising of these (4⁷ᵇ ∥ 3¹⁶ᵇ) may be set down to
textual corruption (see the note on the verse); but there are
several other turns of expression which recall the language of
the earlier narrative: compare 4⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ with 3⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷. In both
we have the same sequence of sin, investigation and punishment
(in the form of a curse), the same dramatic dialogue, and
the same power of psychological analysis. But whether these
resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship
is a question that cannot be confidently answered. There
is an indistinctness of conception in 4¹⁻¹⁶ which contrasts
unfavourably with the convincing lucidity of chapter 3, as
if the writer’s touch were less delicate, or his gift of
imaginative delineation more restricted. Such impressions are
too subjective to be greatly trusted; but, taken along with
the material differences already enumerated, they confirm the
opinion that the literary connexion between chapter 3 and 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ
is due to conscious or unconscious imitation of one writer by
another.――On the whole, the evidence points to the following
conclusion: The story of Cain and Abel existed as a popular
legend entirely independent of the traditions regarding the
infancy of the race, and having no vital relation to any part
of its present literary environment. It was incorporated in
the Yahwistic document by a writer familiar with the narrative
of the Fall, who identified the Cain of the legend with the
son of the first man, and linked the story to his name in the
genealogy. How much of the original genealogy has been preserved
it is impossible to say: any notices that belonged to it have
certainly been rewritten, and cannot now be isolated; but verse
¹ (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be assigned
to it (so Budde), possibly also ²ᵇ{β} (Cain’s occupation), and
³ᵇ (Cain’s sacrifice).――Other important questions will be best
considered in connexion with the original significance of the
legend (page 111 ff.).
¹ Compare יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶; ארור, ¹¹; לבלתי, ¹⁵; and
obsolete the resemblances to chapter 3 noted below: the
naming of the child by the mother.
² This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in
LXX. In LXXᴬ Κύριος occurs twice (³ᐧ ¹³), ὁ θεός 5 times
(¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶), and Κύριος ὁ θεός 3 times (⁶ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁵) (for
variants, see Cambridge LXX).
³ Even if we adopt Budde’s emendation of verse ¹⁷, and make
Enoch the city-founder (see on the verse), it still remains
improbable that that rôle should be assigned to the son of a
wandering nomad.
IV. 1‒16.
_Cain and Abel._
Eve bears to her husband two sons, Cain and Abel; the first becomes
a tiller of the ground, and the second a keeper of sheep (¹ᐧ ²). Each
offers to Yahwe the sacrifice appropriate to his calling; but only
the shepherd’s offering is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose
jealousy and hatred of Abel (³⁻⁵). Though warned by Yahwe (⁶ ᶠᐧ), he
yields to his evil passion and slays his brother (⁸). Yahwe pronounces
him accursed from the fertile ground, which will no longer yield
its substance to him, and he is condemned to the wandering life of
the desert (¹⁰⁻¹²). As a mitigation of his lot, Yahwe appoints him a
sign which protects him from indiscriminate vengeance (¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and he
departs into the land of Nod, east of Eden (¹⁶).
=1‒5. Birth of Cain and Abel: their occupation, and sacrifice.=――=1.=
On the naming of the child by the _mother_, see Benzinger, _Hebräische
Archäologie_² 116. It is peculiar to the oldest strata (Yahwist and
Elohist) of the Hexateuch, and is not quite consistently observed even
there (4²⁶ 5²⁹ 25²⁵ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 2²²): it may therefore be a relic of the
matriarchate which was giving place to the later custom of naming by
the father (Priestly-Code) at the time when these traditions were
taking shape.――The difficult sentence קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יַהְוֶה connects the name קַיִן
with the verb קָנָה. But קנה has two meanings in Hebrew: (a) to (create,
or) produce, and (b) to acquire; and it is not easy to determine which
is intended here.
The second idea would seem more suitable in the present
connexion, but it leads to a forced and doubtful construction
of the last two words, (a) To render אֵת ‘with the help of’
(Dillmann and most) is against all analogy. It is admitted
that את itself nowhere has this sense (in 49²⁵ the true reading
is וְאֵל, and Micah 3⁸ is at least doubtful); and the few cases
in which the synonym עִם can be so translated are not really
parallel. Both in 1 Samuel 14⁴⁵ and Daniel 11³⁹, the עם denotes
association _in the same act_, and therefore does not go beyond
the sense ‘along with.’ The analogy does not hold in this verse
if the verb means ‘acquire’; Eve could not say that she had
_acquired_ a man along with Yahwe. (b) We may, of course, assume
an error in the text and read מֵאֵת = ‘from’ (Budde al. after
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). (c) The idea that את is the sign of accusative
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, al.), and that Eve imagined she had given
birth to the divine ‘seed’ promised in 3¹⁵ (Luther, al.) may be
disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic exegesis.――If we
adopt the other meaning of קנה, the construction is perfectly
natural: _I have created_ (or _produced_) _a man with_ (the
co-operation of) _Yahwe_ (compare Rashi: “When he created me
and my husband he created us alone, but in this case we are
associated with him”). A strikingly similar phrase in the
bilingual Babylonian account of Creation (above, page 47)
suggests that the language here may be more deeply tinged with
mythology than has been generally suspected. We read that “Aruru,
together with him [Marduk], created (the) seed of mankind”:
_Aruru zí-ír a-mí-lu-ti it-ti-šu ib-ta-nu_ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 40 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_
i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of Ištar, is a mother-goddess of the
Babylonians (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
430), _i.e._, a deified ancestress, and therefore so far the
counterpart of the Hebrew חַוָּה (see on 3²⁰). The exclamation
certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have
survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which
Ḥawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity
taking part with the supreme god in the production of man.
See Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 104,
who thinks it “psychologically probable that Eve congratulated
herself on having ‘created’ a man.”――That אִישׁ is not elsewhere
used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any
interpretation (compare גָּבֶר in Job 3³); though the thought
readily occurs that the etymology would be more appropriate to
the name אֱנוֹשׁ (4²⁶) than to קַיִן.
* * * * *
=1.= והאדם ידע] A pluperfect sense (Rashi) being unsuitable,
the peculiar order of words is difficult to explain; see on
3¹, and compare 21¹. Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden
und Abhandlungen_ 239) regards it as a proof of editorial
manipulation.――The euphemistic use of ידע is peculiar to Yahwist
in the Hexateuch (7 times): Numbers 31¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ³⁵ (Priestly-Code:
compare Judges 21¹¹ᐧ ¹²) are somewhat different. Elsewhere
Judges 11³⁹ 19²²ᐧ ²⁵, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹, 1 Kings 1⁴,――all in the
older historiography, and some perhaps from the literary school
of Yahwist.――קַיִן] √ קין (Arabic _ḳāna_). In Arabic _ḳain_ means
‘smith’; = Syrian (‡ Syriac word), ‘worker in metal’ (see 4²²
5⁹). Nöldeke’s remark, that in Arabic _ḳain_ several words are
combined, is perhaps equally true of Hebrew קַיִן (_Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 130). Many critics (Wellhausen, Budde, Stade,
Holzinger, al.) take the name as eponym of the Ḳenites (קַיִן, קַינִי):
see page 113 below.――קָנִיתִי] All versions express the idea of
‘acquiring’ (ἐκτησάμην, _possedi_, etc.). The sense ‘create’
or ‘originate,’ though apparently confined to Hebrew and
subordinate even there, is established by Deuteronomy 32⁶,
Proverbs 8²², Psalms 139¹³, Genesis 14¹⁹ᐧ ²².――את] Of the
versions Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ alone can be thought to have read מֵאֵת
(מן קדם); one anonymous Greek translation (see Field) took the
word as _notional accusative_ (ἄνθρωπον κύριον); the rest vary
greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from the difficulty
of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had
a different text: LXX διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Symmachus σὺν κ., ὁ Ἑβρ.
καὶ Σύρ.: ἐν θ., Vulgate _per Deum_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).
Conjectures: Marti (_Lit. Centralbl._, 1897, xx. 641) and
Zeydner (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xviii. 120): אִישׁ אֹת יַהְוֶה = ‘the man of the Jahwe sign’ (verse ¹⁵);
Gunkel אִישׁ אָתְאַוֶּה = ‘man whom I desire.’
* * * * *
=2.= _And again she bare, etc._] The omission of the verb הָרָה is not to
be pressed as implying that the brothers were twins, although that may
very well be the meaning. The Old Testament contains no certain trace
of the widespread superstitions regarding twin-births.――The sons betake
themselves to the two fundamental pursuits of settled life: the elder
to agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle (sheep and
goats). The previous story of the Fall, in which Adam, as representing
the race, is condemned to husbandry, seems to be ignored (Gunkel).
The absence of an etymology of הֶבֶל is remarkable (but compare
verse ¹⁷), and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition
that the name was only coined afterwards in token of his brief,
fleeting existence (Dillmann). The word (= ‘breath’) might
suggest that to a Hebrew reader, but the original sense is
unknown. Gunkel regards it as the proper name of an extinct
tribe or people; Ewald, Wellhausen, al. take it to be a variant
of יָבָל, the father of nomadic shepherds (4²⁰); and Cheyne has
ingeniously combined both names with a group of Semitic words
denoting domestic animals and those who take charge of them
(_e.g._ Syrian (‡ Syriac word) = ‘herd’; Arabic _’abbāl_ =
‘camel-herd,’ etc.): the meaning would then be ‘herdsman’
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, in the interests of
Yeraḥme’el.
=3.= _An offering_] מִנְחָה, literally a present or tribute (32¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 33¹⁰
43¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 10²⁷ etc.): see below. The use of this word shows
that the ‘gift-theory’ of sacrifice (_Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 392 ff.) was fully established in the age when the narrative
originated.――_of the fruit of the ground_] “Fruit in its natural state
was offered at Carthage, and was probably admitted by the Hebrews in
ancient times.” “The Carthaginian fruit-offering consisted of a branch
bearing fruit, ... it seems to be clear that the fruit was offered at
the altar, ... and this, no doubt, is the original sense of the Hebrew
rite also” (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 221 and _note_
3). Cain’s offering is thus analogous to the first-fruits (בִּכּוּרִים:
Exodus 23¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ 34²²ᐧ ²⁶, Numbers 13²⁰ etc.) of Hebrew ritual; and it
is arbitrary to suppose that his fault lay in not selecting the best of
what he had for God.――=4.= Abel’s offering consisted of _the firstlings
of his flock, namely_ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 154 _a_, _N._ 1 (_b_))
_of their fat-pieces_] compare Numbers 18¹⁷. Certain fat portions of
the victim were in ancient ritual reserved for the deity, and might not
be eaten (1 Samuel 2¹⁶ etc.: for Levitical details, see Driver-White,
_Leviticus_, _Polychrome Bible_, pages 4, 65).――=4b, 5a.= How did Yahwe
signify His acceptance of the one offering and rejection of the other?
It is commonly answered (in accordance with Leviticus 9²⁴, 1 Kings 18³⁸
etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel’s offering
(Theodotion, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.). Others (Dillmann,
Gunkel) think more vaguely of some technical sign, _e.g._ the manner
in which the smoke ascended (Ewald, Strack); while Calvin supposes that
Cain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of God’s providence.
But these conjectures overlook the strong anthropomorphism of the
description: one might as well ask how Adam knew that he was expelled
from the garden (3²⁴). Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance
of Gideon’s sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Judges 6²¹).――_Why_ was
the one sacrifice accepted and not the other? The distinction must
lie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so nearly all
commmentaries), or (b) in the material of the sacrifice (Tuch). In
favour of (a) it is pointed out that in each case the personality
of the worshipper is mentioned before the gift. But since the reason
is not stated, it must be presumed to be one which the first hearers
would understand for themselves; and they could hardly understand that
Cain, apart from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable
to God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily perceive that
the material of Cain’s offering was not in accordance with primitive
Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see _Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², Lecture VIII.).
From the fact that the altar is not expressly mentioned, it
has been inferred that sacrifice is here regarded as belonging
to the established order of things (Stade al.). But the whole
manner of the narration suggests rather that the incident is
conceived as the initiation of sacrifice,――the first spontaneous
expression of religious feeling in cultus.¹ If that impression
be sound, it follows also that the narrative proceeds on a
_theory_ of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice
alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go
back to a stage of Hebrew ritual when vegetable offerings were
excluded; but such sacrifices must have been introduced after
the adoption of agricultural life; and it is quite conceivable
that in the early days of the settlement in Canaan the view was
maintained among the Israelites that the animal offerings of
their nomadic religion were superior to the vegetable offerings
made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this may lie (as Gunkel
thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing
to Yahwe than husbandry.
¹ It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the
institution of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of
two brothers who quarrelled (_Præparatio Evangelica_
i. 10). Kittel (_Studien zur hebräischen Archäologie und
Religionsgeschichte_ 103¹) suggests that our narrative
may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the
fire-offering and the altar.
* * * * *
=3.= מקץ ימים] _After some time_, which may be longer (1 Samuel 29³)
or shorter (24⁵⁵). To take ימים in the definite sense of ‘year’
(1 Samuel 1²¹ 2¹⁹ 20⁶ etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether
unnatural (Abraham Ibn Ezra al.).――הֵבִיא] the ritual use is well
established: Leviticus 2²ᐧ ⁸, Isaiah 1¹³, Jeremiah 17²⁶ etc.――מִנְחָה:
Arabic _minḥat_ = ‘gift,’ ‘loan’: √ _manaḥa._¹ On the uses of
the word, see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 587b.
In sacrificial terminology there are perhaps three senses to be
distinguished: (1) Sacrifice in general, conceived as a tribute
or propitiatory present to the deity, Numbers 16¹⁵, Judges 6¹⁸,
1 Samuel 2¹⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 26¹⁹, Isaiah 1¹³, Zephaniah 3¹⁰, Psalms 96⁸ etc.
(2) The conjunction of מנחה and זֶבַח 1 Samuel 2²⁹ 3¹⁴, Isaiah 19²¹,
Amos 5²⁵ etc.) may show that it denotes vegetable as distinct
from animal oblations (see _Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 217, 236). (3) In Priestly-Code and late writings
generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Exodus 30⁹,
Numbers 18⁹ etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted
meaning be the older it is difficult to say.――=4.= וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵֿהֶן]
On Metheg, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 16 _d_. We might point as
singular of the noun (חֶלְבְּהֶן, Leviticus 8¹⁶ᐧ ²⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 91 _c_); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
has _scriptio plena_ of the plural ומחלביהן.――וישע] LXX καὶ ἔπιδεν
(in verse ⁵ προσέσχεν); Aquila ἐπεκλίθη; Symmachus ἐτέρφθη;
Theodotion ἐνεπύρισεν (see above); ὁ Σύρ. εὐδόκησεν; Vulgate
_respexit_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ והות רעוא קדם יי.
There is no _exact_ parallel to the meaning here; the nearest
is Exodus 5⁹ (‘_look away_ [from their tasks] _to_’ idle
words).――=5.= חרה] in Hebrew always of _mental_ heat (anger);
LXX wrongly ἐλύπησεν; so Peshiṭtå. On impersonal construct, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _b_; compare 18³⁰ᐧ ³² 31³⁶ 34⁷, Numbers
16¹⁵ etc. The word is not used by Priestly-Code.――For נפל,
Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (literally ‘became black’).
¹ Some, however, derive it from נחה = ‘direct’; and Hommel
(_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 322) cites a Sabæan inscription where
_tanaḥḥayat_ (V conjecture) is used of offering a sacrifice
(see Lagrange, _Études_, 250). If this be correct, what was
said above about the ‘gift theory’ would fall to the ground.
* * * * *
=5b.= Cain’s feeling is a mixture of anger (_it became very hot to_
him) and dejection (_his face fell_: compare Job 29²⁴, Jeremiah 3¹²).
This does not imply that his previous state of mind had been bad
(Dillmann al.). In tracing Cain’s sin to a disturbance of his religious
relation to God, the narrator shows his profound knowledge of the human
heart.
=6‒12. Warning, murder, and sentence.=――=7.= The point of the
remonstrance obviously is that the cause of Cain’s dissatisfaction
lies in himself, but whether in his general temper or in his defective
sacrifice can no longer be made out. Every attempt to extract a meaning
from the verse is more or less of a _tour de force_, and it is nearly
certain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption
(_v.i._).――=8=. _And Cain said_] אָמַר never being quite synonymous with
דִּבֵּר, the sentence is incomplete: the missing words, _Let us go to the
field_, must be supplied from versions; see below (so Ewald, Dillmann,
Driver, al.). That Cain, as a first step towards reconciliation,
communicated to Abel the warning he had just received (Tuch al.),
is perhaps possible grammatically, but psychologically is altogether
improbable.――_the field_] the open country (see on 2⁵), where they were
safe from observation (1 Kings 11²⁹).――=9.= Yahwe opens the inquisition,
as in 3⁹, with a question, which Cain, unlike Adam, answers with a
defiant repudiation of responsibility. It is impossible to doubt that
here the writer has the earlier scene before his mind, and consciously
depicts a terrible advance in the power of sin.――=10=. _Hark! Thy
brother’s blood is crying to me, etc._] צָעַק denotes strictly the cry
for help, and specially for redress or vengeance (Exodus 22²²ᐧ ²⁶,
Judges 4³, Psalms 107 ⁶ᐧ ²⁸). The idea that blood exposed on the ground
thus clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the Old Testament
(Job 16¹⁸, Isaiah 26²¹, Ezekiel 24⁷ᐧ ⁸, 2 Kings 9²⁶): see _Lectures on
the Religion of the Semites_², 417⁵. In this passage we have more than
a mere metaphor, for it is the blood which is represented as drawing
Yahwe’s attention to the crime of Cain.――=11.= _And now cursed art
thou from_ (off) _the ground_] _i.e._, not the earth’s surface, but
the cultivated ground (compare verse ¹⁴, and see on 2⁵). To restrict
it to the soil of Palestine (Wellhausen, Stade, Holzinger) goes beyond
the necessities of the case.――_which has opened her mouth, etc._] a
personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in Isaiah 5¹⁴
(compare Numbers 16³²). The idea cannot be that the earth is a monster
greedy of blood; it seems rather akin to the primitive superstition
of a physical infection or poisoning of the soil, and through it of
the murderer, by the shed blood (see Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to
the study of Greek Religion_, 219 ff.). The ordinary Old Testament
conception is that the blood remains _uncovered_ (compare Euripides
_Electra_, 318 f.). The relation of the two notions is obscure.――=12.=
The curse ‘from off the ground’ has two sides: (1) The ground will _no
longer yield its strength_ (Job 31³⁹) to the murderer, so that even if
he wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry; and (2) he is to
be a _vagrant and wanderer in the earth_. The second is the negative
consequence of the first, and need not be regarded as a separate curse,
or a symbol of the inward unrest which springs from a guilty conscience.
* * * * *
=7.= The difficulties of the present text are “the curt and
ambiguous expression שְׂאֵת; further, the use of חַטָּאת as masculine,
then the whole tenor of the sentence, _If thou doest not
well..._; finally, the exact and yet incongruous parallelism of
the second half-verse with 3¹⁶” (Olshausen _Monatsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,
1870, 380).――As regards ⁷ᵃ, the main lines of interpretation are
these: (1) The infinitive שְׂאֵת may be complementary to תֵּיטיב as a
_relative_ verb (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120, 1), in which case שׂ׳
must have the sense of ‘offer’ sacrifice (compare 43³⁴, Ezekiel
20³¹). So (a) LXX οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς,
ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον (reading לְנַתַּח for לַפֶּתַח, and pointing the next
two words חָטָאתָ רְבַץ) = ‘Is it not so――if thou offerest rightly, but
dost not cut in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned? Be still!’ Ball
strangely follows this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious
of the fact that נַתַּח (compare Exodus 29¹⁷, Leviticus 1⁶ᐧ ¹²,
1 Kings 18²³ᐧ ³³ etc.)――for which he needlessly substitutes
בַּֽתֵּר (15¹⁰)――has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.――(b)
Somewhat similar is a view approved by Budde as “völlig
befriedigend” (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 204 f.): ‘Whether
thou make thine offering costly or not, at the door,’ etc.
[‘Whether thou offerest _correctly_ or not,’ would be the safer
rendering].――(2) The infinitive may be taken as compressed
apodosis, and תּ׳ as an independent verb = ‘do well’ (as often).
שׂ׳ might then express the idea of (a) _elevation of countenance_
(= שׂ׳ פנים: compare Job 11¹⁵ 22²⁶): ‘If thou doest well, shall there
not be lifting up?’ etc. (so Tuch, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann,
Driver, al.); or (b) _acceptance_ (שׂ׳ פ׳ as Genesis 19²¹, 2 Kings
3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ᐧ ⁹): so Aquila (ἀρέσεις), Theodotion (δεκτόν),
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate (_recipies_); or (c)
_forgiveness_ (as Genesis 50¹⁷, Exodus 32³²): so Symmachus
(ἀφήσω), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, and recently Holzinger. Of these
renderings 2 (a) or 1 (b) are perhaps the most satisfying, though
both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of sin as a wild
beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh discord of
gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking רֹבֵץ
as a noun (‘sin is at the door, a lurker’: Ewald al.), though
no doubt it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image
itself the best explanation would be that of Holzinger, who
regards רָבַץ as a technical expression for unforgiven sin (compare
Deuteronomy 29¹⁹). Jewish interpreters explain it of the evil
impulse in man (יֵצֶר הָרַע), and most Christians similarly of the
overmastering or seductive power of sin; ⁷ᵇ being regarded as a
summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.――=7b= reads smoothly
enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The
antecedent to the pronoun suffix is usually taken to be Sin
personified as a wild beast, or less commonly (Calvin al.) Abel,
the object of Cain’s envy. The word תְּשׁוּקָה is equally unsuitable,
whether it be understood of the wild beast’s eagerness for its
prey or the deference due from a younger brother to an older;
and the alternative תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX and Peshiṭtå (see on 3¹⁶) is no
better. The verbal resemblance to 3¹⁶ᵇ is itself suspicious;
a facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not
to be attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that
the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to their present
context: in Peshiṭtå the suffix are actually reversed (‡ Syriac
phrase).――The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ affords no help,
and the textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative
emendations like those of Gunkel (page 38) are of no avail.
Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 105, would
remove verse ⁷ as a gloss, and make ⁸ᵃ (reading אחי) Cain’s
answer to verse ⁶.
=8.= אָמַר, in the sense of ‘speak,’ ‘converse’ (2 Chronicles 32²⁴),
is excessively rare and late: the only instance in early Hebrew
is apparently Exodus 19²⁵, where the context has been broken by
a change of document. It might mean ‘mention’ (as 43²⁷ etc.),
but in that case the object must be indicated. Usually it is
followed, like English ‘say,’ by the actual words spoken. Hence
נֵלְכָה הַשָּׂדֶה is to be supplied with _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, but _not_ Aquila (Tuch,
Delitzsch: see the scholia in Field): a _Pisqa_ in some Hebrew
MSS, though not recognised by the Massoretic, supports this
view of the text. To emend וַיִּשְׁמֹר (Olshausen al.) or וַיָּמֶר, וַיֵּמַר
(Gesenius-Kautzsch) is less satisfactory.――=9.= אֵי] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אַיֵּה.――=10.= On the interjectional
use of קוֹל, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146 _b_; Nöldeke _Mandäische
Grammatik_ page 482.――צֹעֲקִים] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ צעק, agreeing with קוֹל (?).――=11.= אָרוּר ... מִן] pregnant
construct, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _x, y, ff._ This sense of מִן
is more accurately expressed by מֵעַל in verse ¹⁴, but is quite
common (compare especially 27³⁹). Other renderings, as _from_
(indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or
_by_, are less appropriate; and the comparison _more than_ is
impossible.――=12.= תֹסֵף] jussive form with לֹא (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 109 _d_, _h_; Davidson §§ 63, _R._ 3, 66, _R._ 6); followed
by infinitive without ל (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _m_).――נָע וָנָד]
an alliteration, as in 1². Best rendered in anonymous Greek
versions (Field): σαλευόμενος καὶ ἀκαταστατῶν; Vulgate _vagus
et profugus_; LXX (incorrectly) στένων καὶ τρέμων.
* * * * *
=13‒16. Mitigation of Cain’s punishment.=――=13.= _My punishment is
too great to be borne_] So the plea of Cain is understood by all
modern authorities. The older rendering: _my guilt is too great to be
forgiven_ (which is in some ways preferable), is abandoned because the
sequel shows that Cain’s reflexions run on the thought of suffering
and not of sin; see below.――=14=. _from Thy face I shall be hidden_]
This anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the hands
of commentaries (except Gunkel). Like that of Esau in 27³⁴, it reveals
him as one who had blindly striven for a spiritual good,――as a man
not wholly bad who had sought the favour of God with the passionate
determination of an ill-regulated nature and missed it: one to whom
banishment from the divine presence is a distinct ingredient in his
cup of misery.――_every one that findeth me, etc._] The object of Cain’s
dread is hardly the vengeance of the slain man’s kinsmen (so nearly all
commentaries); but rather the lawless state of things in the desert,
where any one’s life may be taken with impunity (Gunkel). That the
words imply a diffusion of the human race is an incongruity on either
view, and is one of many indications that the Cain of the original
story was not the son of the first man.
This expostulation of Cain, with its rapid grasp of the
situation, lights up some aspects of the historic background of
the legend. (1) It is assumed that Yahwe’s presence is confined
to the cultivated land; in other words, that He is the God of
settled life, agricultural and pastoral. To conclude, however,
that He is the God of Canaan in particular (compare 1 Samuel
26¹⁹), is perhaps an over-hasty inference. (2) The reign of
right is coextensive with Yahwe’s sphere of influence: the outer
desert is the abode of lawlessness; justice does not exist, and
human life is cheap. That Cain, the convicted murderer, should
use this plea will not appear strange if we remember the
conditions under which such narratives arose.
* * * * *
=13.= On עָוֹן (√ _ġawaʸ_ = ‘go astray’: Driver _Notes on
the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 134 f.) in the
sense of _punishment_ of sin, see the passages cited in
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3. נשא ע׳, in the sense of ‘bear
guilt,’ seems peculiar to Priestly-Code and Ezekiel; elsewhere
it means to ‘pardon iniquity’ (Exodus 34⁷, Numbers 14¹⁸, Hosea
14³, Micah 7¹⁸, Psalms 32⁵). This consideration is not decisive;
but there is something to be said for the consensus of ancient
versions (LXX ἀφεθῆναι; Vulgate _veniam merear_, etc.) in favour
of the second interpretation, which might be retained without
detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a
question.――=14.= אֹתִי] instead of suffix is unlike Yahwist. In the
next verse אֹתוֹ after infinitive was necessary to avoid confusion
between subject and object.
* * * * *
=15.= What follows must be understood as a divinely appointed
amelioration of Cain’s lot: although he is not restored to
the amenities of civilised life, Yahwe grants him a special
protection, suited to his vagrant existence, against indiscriminate
homicide.――_Whoso kills Ḳayin_ (or ‘whenever any one kills Ḳ’), _it_
(the murder) _shall be avenged sevenfold_] by the slaughter of seven
members of the murderer’s clan. See below.――_appointed a sign for
Ḳayin_] or _set a mark on Ḳ_. The former is the more obvious rendering
of the words; but the latter has analogies, and is demanded by the
context.
The idea that the sign is a pledge given once for all of the
truth of Yahwe’s promise, after the analogy of the prophetic
אוֹת, is certainly consistent with the phrase שֵׁים ... לְ: compare
_e.g._ Exodus 15²⁵, Joshua 24²⁵ with Exodus 10² etc. So some
authorities in _Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch, al.
But Exodus 4¹¹ᵃ proves that it may also be something attached
to the person of Cain (Calvin, _Bereshith Rabba_, Delitzsch, and
most); and that אוֹת may denote a mark appears from Exodus 13⁹ᐧ ¹⁶
etc. Since the sign is to serve as a warning to all and sundry
who might attempt the life of Cain, it is obvious that the
second view alone meets the requirements of the case: we must
think of something about Cain, visible to all the world, marking
him out as one whose death would be avenged sevenfold. Its
purpose is protective and not penal: that it brands him as a
murderer is a natural but mistaken idea.――It is to be observed
that in this part of the narrative _Ḳayin_ is no longer a
personal but a collective name. The clause כָל־הֹרֵג ק׳ (not מִי יַֽהֲרֹג, or
אֲשֶׁר י׳) has frequentative force (examples below), implying that the
act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe Ḳayin:
similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin-circle to which
the murderer belongs. See, further, page 112.
* * * * *
=15.= לָכֵן] οὐχ οὕτως (LXX, Symmachus, Theodotion) implies לֹא כֵן:
so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate; but this would require to be followed by
כִּי.――כָּל־הֹרֵג ק׳] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _w_; compare Exodus 12¹⁵,
Numbers 35³⁰, 1 Samuel 2¹³ 3¹¹ etc.――יֻקַּםh] The subject might be
קַיִן (as verse ²⁴) or (more probably) impersonal (Exodus 21²¹),
certainly not the murderer of Cain.――שִׁבְעָתַיִם] = ‘7 times’:
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _r_. Versions: LXX ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα
παραλύσει; Aquila ἑπταπλασίως ἐκδικηθήσεται; Symmachus ἑβδόμως
ἐκδίκησιν δώσει; Theodotion δι’ ἑβδομάδος ἐκδικήσει; Vulgate
_septuplum punietur_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
לשבעא דרין יתפרע מיניה (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech
the 7th from Adam [see on verse ²⁴]).
* * * * *
=16.= _and dwelt in the land of Nôd_] The verb יָשֶׂב is not necessarily
inconsistent with nomadic life, as Stade alleges (see Genesis
13¹², 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ etc.). It is uncertain whether the name נוֹד is
traditional (Wellhausen, Gunkel), or was coined from the participle
נָד = ‘land of wandering’ (so most); at all events it cannot be
geographically identified. If the last words קדמת עדן belong to
the original narrative, it would be natural to regard Ḳayin as
representative of the nomads of Central Asia (Knobel al.); but the
phrase may have been added by a redactor to bring the episode into
connexion with the account of the Fall.
* * * * *
=16.= נוד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נד, LXX Ναϊδ
(ניד ?) with variants (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,
page 9).――Symmachus, Theodotion, Vulgate (_habitavit profugus in
terra_) [Targum?] take the word as a participle; but the order
of words forbids this.――קדמת] see on 2¹⁴. ‘In front of Eden’ and
‘East of Eden’ would here be the same thing (3²⁴).
* * * * *
_The Origin of the Cain Legend._
The exposition of 4¹⁻¹⁶ would be incomplete without some account
of recent speculations regarding the historical or ethnological
situation out of which the legend arose. The tendency of opinion
has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the view that
the narrative “embodies the old Hebrew conception of the lawless
nomad life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer
in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who meets
him.”¹ A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly
laid, is the identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the
Ḳenites. These ideas, first propounded by Ewald,² adopted by
Wellhausen,³ and (in part) by William Robertson Smith,⁴ have
been worked up by Stade, in his instructive essay on ‘The sign
of Cain,’⁵ into a complete theory, in which what may be called
the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the significance
of every characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at
the basis of the narrative. Although the questions involved are
too numerous to be fully dealt with here, it is necessary to
consider those points in the argument which bear more directly
on the original meaning of verses ¹⁻¹⁶.
¹ Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 251.
² _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi. 5 ff.
³ _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 10 f.
⁴ _l.c._
⁵ _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_, 229‒73.
1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic
life may be regarded as certain. We have seen (page 110) that
in verse ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ the name Cain has a collective sense; and every
descriptive touch in these closing verses is characteristic
of desert life. His expulsion from the אדמה and the phrase נע ונד,
express (though not by any means necessarily,――see below) the
fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to wander
in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of civilisation.
The vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of
blood-revenge,――that ‘salutary institution’ which, in the opinion
of Burckhardt, has done more than anything else to preserve
the Bedouin tribes from mutual extermination.¹ The sign which
Yahwe puts on him is most naturally explained as the “_sharṭ_
or tribal mark which every man bore in his person, and without
which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair of a whole
stock and not of near relations alone, could hardly have been
worked.”² And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to
the operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a
settled agricultural or pastoral community with regard to the
turbulent and poverty-stricken life of the desert.
¹ _Bedouins and Wahabys_, 148.――The meaning is that the
certainty of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike
tribesmen, and renders their fiercest conflicts nearly
bloodless.
² Smith, _l.c._――It may be explained that at present the
kindred group for the purpose of the blood-feud consists
of all those whose lineage goes back to a common ancestor
in the fifth generation. There are still certain tribes,
however, who are greatly feared because they are said to
‘strike sideways’; _i.e._ they retaliate upon any member
of the murderer’s tribe whether innocent or guilty. See
Burckhardt 149 ff., 320 f.
2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as
expressing reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the
Hebrews. A disparaging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is,
no doubt, conceivable on the part of the settled Israelites
(compare Genesis 16¹²); but Cain is hardly the symbol of that
estimate. (1) The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as
‘fugitives and vagabonds in the earth’: their movements are
restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are hardly less
monotonous than the routine of husbandry.¹ (2) The full Bedouin
are breeders of camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats; and
both live mainly on the produce of their flocks and herds (see
Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff.). But to
suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is inconsistent
with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive
profession of Abel; and it is hardly conceivable that Hebrew
legend was so ignorant of the proud spirit of the full Bedouin
as to describe them as degraded agriculturists. If Cain be the
type of any permanent occupation at all, it must be one lower
than agriculture and pasturage; _i.e._ he must stand for some of
those rude tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery. (3) It is
unlikely that a rule of sevenfold revenge was generally observed
amongst Semitic nomads in Old Testament times. Among the modern
Arabs the law of the blood-feud is a life for a life: it is
only under circumstances of extreme provocation that a twofold
revenge is permissible. We are, therefore, led to think of Cain
as the impersonation of an inferior race of nomads, maintaining
a miserable existence by the chase, and practising a peculiarly
ferocious form of blood-feud.――The view thus suggested of the
fate of Cain finds a partial illustration in the picture given
by Burckhardt and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called
Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by
coarse smith-work and other gipsy labour in the Arab encampments;
they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers,
and have no property save a few asses; they are excluded from
fellowship and intermarriage with the regular Bedouin, though on
friendly terms with them; and they are the only tribes that are
free of the Arabian deserts to travel where they will, ranging
practically over the whole peninsula from Syria to Yemen. It
is, perhaps, of less significance that they sometimes speak of
themselves as decayed Bedouin, and point out the ruins of the
villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels and
flocks.² The name קַיִן, signifying ‘smith’ (page 102), would be a
suitable eponym for such degraded nomads. The one point in which
the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so circumstanced
could not afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge
indicated by verse ¹⁵.――It thus appears that the known conditions
of Arabian nomadism present no exact parallel to the figure of
Cain. To carry back the origin of the legend to pre-historic
times would destroy the _raison d’être_ of Stade’s hypothesis,
which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical
relations: at the same time it may be the only course by which
the theory can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which
it is encumbered.³
¹ Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 130.
² Burckhardt 14 f.; Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 280 ff.
³ An interesting parallel might be found in the account given
by Merker (_Die Masai_, page 306 ff.) of the smiths (_ol
kononi_) among the Masai of East Africa. Apart from the
question of the origin of the Masai, it is quite possible
that these African nomads present a truer picture of the
conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the
present day. See also Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen
und Vergleiche_ (1878), 156 ff.
3. The kernel of Stade’s argument is the attractive combination
of Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the
Ḳenites.¹ In historical times the Ḳenites appear to have been
pastoral nomads (Exodus 2¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ 3¹) frequenting the deserts south
of Judah (1 Samuel 27¹⁰ 30²⁹), and (in some of their branches)
clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner of life (Judges
4¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷ 5²⁴, Jeremiah 35⁷ compared with 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵). From
the fact that they are found associated now with Israel (Judges
1¹⁶ etc.), now with Amaleḳ (Numbers 24²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 15⁶), and
now with Midian (Numbers 10²⁹), Stade infers that they were a
numerically weak tribe of the second rank; and from the name,
that they were smiths. The latter character, however, would
imply that they were pariahs, and of that there is no evidence
whatever. Nor is there any indication that the Ḳenites exercised
a more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems
an inconsistency in Stade’s position that he regards the Ḳenites
as at once distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication
of the tribal honour, and at the same time too feeble to maintain
their independence without the aid of stronger tribes. There
is, in short, nothing to show that the Ḳenites were anything
but typical Bedouin; and all the objections to associating Cain
with the higher levels of nomadism apply with full force to his
identification with this particular tribe. When we consider,
further, that the Ḳenites are nearly everywhere on friendly
terms with Israel, and that they seem to have cherished the most
ardent attachment to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that
they should have been conceived as resting under a special curse.
¹ The tribe is called קַיִן in Numbers 24²², Judges 4¹¹; elsewhere
the gentilic קֵינִי is used (in 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵ קֵינִים).
4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Ḳenite
theory can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The
evidence on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from
verses ¹³⁻¹⁶. Stade justifies his extension of the theory to
the incident of the murder by the analogy of those temporary
alliances between Bedouin and peasants in which the settled
society purchases immunity from extortion by the payment of
a fixed tribute to the nomads (compare 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᐧ). This
relation is spoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party
figuring as the _sister_ of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of
Abel is thus resolved into the massacre of a settled pastoral
people by a Bedouin tribe which had been on terms of formal
friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly convincing. It
would amount to this: that certain nomads were punished for a
crime by being transformed into nomads: the fact that Cain was
previously a husbandman is left unexplained.――Gunkel, with more
consistency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an
actual (prehistoric) event,――the extermination of a pastoral
tribe by a neighbouring agricultural tribe, in consequence of
which the latter were driven from their settlements and lived
as outlaws in the wilderness. Such changes of fortune must
have been common in early times on the border-land between
civilisation and savagery;¹ and Gunkel’s view has the advantage
over Stade’s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual
an intelligible factor in the quarrel (see page 105 f.). But the
process of extracting history from legend is always precarious;
and in this case the motive of _individual_ blood-guilt appears
too prominent to be regarded as a secondary interest of the
narrative.
¹ Instances in Merker, _Die Masai_, pages 3, 7, 8, 14, 328,
etc.
The truth is that in the present form of the story the figure of
Cain represents a fusion of several distinct types, of which it
is difficult to single out any one as the central idea of the
legend. (1) He is the originator of agriculture (verse ²). (2)
He is the founder of sacrifice, and (as the foil to his brother
Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offerings alone are not
acceptable to Yahwe (see on verse ³). (3) He is the individual
murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the
curse, like the Orestes, Alcmæon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek
legend (verse ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ). Up to verse ¹² that motive not only is
sufficient, but is the only one naturally suggested to the mind:
the expression נָע וָנָד being merely the negative aspect of the curse
which drives him from the ground.¹ (4) Lastly, in verses ¹³⁻¹⁶
he is the representative of the nomad tribes of the desert, as
viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisation.
Ewald pointed out the significant circumstance, that at the
beginning of the ‘second age’ of the world’s history we find
the counterparts of Abel and Cain in the shepherd Jabal and
the smith Tubal-Cain (verse ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). It seems probable that some
connexion exists between the two pairs of brothers: in other
words, that the story of Cain and Abel embodies a variation
of the tradition which assigned the origin of cattle-breeding
and metal-working to two sons of Lamech. But to resolve the
composite legend into its primary elements, and assign each to
its original source, is a task obviously beyond the resources of
criticism.
¹ For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, compare
Doughty’s description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had
accidentally slain his antagonist in a wrestling match:
“None accused Aly; nevertheless the _mesquin_ fled for
his life; and he has gone ever since thus armed, lest
the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him.”
(_Travels in Arabia Deserta_ ii. 293, cited by Stade).
IV. 17‒24.
_The line of Cain._
This genealogy, unlike that of Priestly-Code in chapter 5, is not
a mere list of names, but is compiled with the view of showing the
origin of the principal arts and institutions of civilised life.¹
These are: Husbandry (verse ²; see above), city-life (¹⁷), [polygamy
(¹⁹) ?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-working (²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). The
Song of Lamech (²³ ᶠᐧ) may signalise an appalling development of the
spirit of blood-revenge, which could hardly be considered an advance
in culture; but the connexion of these verses with the genealogy
is doubtful.――It has commonly been held that the passage involves a
pessimistic estimate of human civilisation, as a record of progressive
degeneracy and increasing alienation from God. That is probably true of
the compiler who placed the section after the account of the Fall, and
incorporated the Song of Lamech, which could hardly fail to strike the
Hebrew mind as an exhibition of human depravity. In itself, however,
the genealogy contains no moral judgment on the facts recorded. The
names have no sinister significance; polygamy (though a declension
from the ideal of 2²⁴) is not generally condemned in the Old Testament
(Deuteronomy 21¹⁵); and even the song of Lamech (which is older than
the genealogy) implies no condemnation of the reckless and bloodthirsty
valour which it celebrates.――The institutions enumerated are clearly
those existing in the writer’s own day; hence the passage does
not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of development by a
cataclysm like the Flood. That the representation involves a series of
anachronisms, and is not historical, requires no proof (see Driver _The
Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 68).――On the relation of
the section to other parts of the chapter, see page 98 above: on some
further critical questions, see the concluding Note (page 122 ff.).
¹ Gunkel, however (page 47), considers the archæological
notices to be insertions in the genealogy, and treats them
as of a piece with the similar notices in 2¹⁵ 3⁷ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³.
=17. Enoch and the building of the first city.=――The question where
Cain got his wife is duly answered in _Jubilees_ iv. 1, 9: she was his
sister, and her name was _‛Âwân_. For other traditions, see Marmorstein,
‘_Die Namen der Schwestern Kains und Abels_,’ etc., _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 141 ff.――_and he became a
city-builder_] So the clause is rightly rendered by Delitzsch, Budde,
Holzinger, Gunkel, al. (compare 21²⁰ᵇ, Judges 16²¹, 2 Kings 15⁵). The
idea that he happened to be engaged in the building of a city when
his son was born would probably have been expressed otherwise, and is
itself a little unnatural.
That קַיִן is the subject of וַיְהִי only appears from the phrase
כְּשֵׁם בְּנוֹ towards the end. Budde (120 ff.) conjectures that the
original text was כִּשְׁמוֹ, making Enoch himself the builder of
the city called after him (so Holzinger). The emendation is
plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of _two_ steps in
civilisation――agriculture and city-building; and it satisfies
a natural expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should
hear what _he_ became, not what his father became after his
birth,――especially when the subject of the immediately preceding
verbs is Cain’s wife. But the difficulty of accounting for the
present text is a serious objection, the motive suggested by
Budde (123) being far-fetched and improbable.――The incongruity
between this notice and verses ¹¹⁻¹⁶ has already been mentioned
(page 100). Lenormant’s examples of the mythical connexion of
city-building with fratricide (_Les Origines de l’histoire_²,
i. 141 ff.) are not to the point; the difficulty is not that
the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More
relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes
of outlaws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling
of Rome (_Fort. Rev._ 1899, April, 650‒4). But the anomaly is
wholly due to composition of sources: the Cain of the genealogy
was neither a nomad nor a fratricide. It has been proposed
(Holzinger, Gunkel) to remove ¹⁷ᵇ as an addition to the
genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would
put city-building before cattle-rearing; but the Phœnician
tradition is full of such anachronisms, and shows how little they
influenced the reasoning of ancient genealogists.――The name חֲנוֹךְ
occurs (besides 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Chronicles 1³) as that of a Midianite
tribe in 25⁴ (1 Chronicles 1³³), and of a Reubenite clan in
46⁹ (Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³). It is also
said that חנך is a Sabæan tribal name (Gesenius-Buhl¹² _s.v._),¹
which has some importance in view of the fact that קֵינָן (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ)
is the name of a Sabæan deity. As the name of a city, the word
would suggest to the Hebrew mind the thought of ‘initiation’
(_v.i._). The city חנוך cannot be identified. The older
conjectures are given by Dillmann (page 99); Sayce (_Zeitschrift
für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 404; _Hibbert Lectures_, 185)
and Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 624; but see now _Traditions
and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 106) connect it with _Unuk_, the
ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.
¹ Omitted in 13th edition.
* * * * *
=17.= On וידע, see on verse ¹.――The verb חָנַךְ appears from Arabic
_ḥanaka_ to be a denominative from _ḥanak_ (Hebrew חֵךְ), and
means to rub the palate of a new-born child with chewed dates:
hence tropically ‘to initiate’ (Lane, _s.v._; Wellhausen _Reste
arabischen Heidentums_ 173). In Hebrew it means to ‘dedicate’
or ‘inaugurate’ a house, etc. (Deuteronomy 20⁵, 1 Kings 8⁶³:
compare חֲנֻכָּה, Numbers 7¹¹, Nehemiah 12²⁷ etc.); and also to
‘teach’ (Proverbs 22⁶). See, further, on 5¹⁸.
* * * * *
=18.= The next four generations are a blank so far as any advance in
civilisation is concerned. The only question of general interest is the
relation of the names to those of chapter 5.
On the first three names, see especially Lagarde, _Orientalia_,
ii. 33‒38; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 123‒9.――עִירָד] LXX
Γαιδαδ (= עֵידָד), Peshiṭtå עִידָר (the latter supported by Philo),
corresponds to יֶרֶד in 5¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. The initial guttural, and the want
of a Hebrew etymology, would seem to indicate עירד as the older
form which has been Hebraized in ירד; but the conclusion is not
certain. If the root be connected with Arabic _‛arada_ (which
is doubtful in view of LXX’s Γ), the idea might be either
‘fugitive’ (Dillmann al.), or ‘strength, hardness, courage’
(Budde). Sayce (_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii.
404) suggests an identification with the Chaldean city _Eridu_;
Holzinger with עֲרָד in the Negeb (Judges 1¹⁶ etc.).――The next two
names are probably (but not certainly: see Gray, _Studies in
Hebrew Proper Names_, 164 f.) compounds with אֵל. The first is
given by Massoretic Text in two forms, מְחוּיָאֵל and מְחִיָּ[י]אֵל. The
variants of LXX are reducible to three types, Μαιηλ (מחייאל),
Μαουιηλ (מחויאל), Μαλελεηλ (= מהללאל, 5¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ). Lagarde considers
the last original, though the first is the best attested.
Adopting this form, we may (with Budde) point the Hebrew מַחְיִי אֵל
or מְחַיִּי אֵל = ‘God makes me live’: so virtually Philo ἀπὸ ζωῆς θεοῦ,
and Jerome _ex vita Deus_ (cited by Lagarde). Both Massoretic
forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: ‘destroyed (or smitten)
of God’ (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Driver
_Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 14).――מְתוּשָׁאֵל is
now commonly explained by Assyrian _mutu-ša-ili_, ‘Man of God,’¹
though the relative ša presents a difficulty (Gray, _l.c._).
The true LXX reading is Μαθουσαλα (= מְתוּשֶׁלַח, 5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Μαθουσαηλ
occurs as a correction in some MSS――לֶמֶךְ] again inexplicable from
Hebrew or even Arabic. Sayce (_Hibbert Lectures_ 186) and Hommel
connect it with _Lamga_, a Babylonian name of the moon-god,
naturalised in South Arabia.²
¹ Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 262 f., Dillmann,
Budde, al. Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625. It does not
appear that _mutu-ša-ili_ occurs as an _actual_ name.
² Hommel, _Die altisraelitische überlieferung in
inschriftlicher beleuchtung_ 117 n.: “Lamga ist ein
babylonischer Beiname des Sin; daraus machten die Sabäer,
mit volksetymologischer Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka
(wahrsch. glänzen), einen Plural Almâku.”
* * * * *
=18.= On accusative אֵת with passive see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116
_a_, _b_.――יָלַד in the sense of ‘beget’ is a sure mark of the
style of Yahwist (see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
99).――מְתוּ] archaic nominative case (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_)
of an old Semitic word (also Egyptian according to Erman) מֵת =
‘man’ (male, husband, etc.): compare Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._
* * * * *
=19. The two wives of Lamech.=――No judgment is passed on Lamech’s
bigamy, and probably none was intended. The notice may be due simply
to the fact that the names of the wives happened to be preserved in the
song afterwards quoted.
Of the two female names by far the most attractive explanation
is that of Ewald (_Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_,
vi. 17), that עָדָה means Dawn (Arabic _ġadⁱⁿ_, but LXX has Ἀδα),
and צִלָּה (feminie of צֵל) Shadow,――a relic of some nature-myth
(compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² 183 f.).
Others (Holzinger) take them as actual proper names of inferior
stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech; pointing out that עדה
recurs in 36² ᶠᶠᐧ as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This
ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the
passage. For other explanations, see Dillmann page 100.
=20‒22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.=――At this point the
genealogy breaks up into three branches, introducing (as Ewald thinks)
a second age of the world. But since it is nowhere continued, all
we can say is that the three sons represent three permanent social
divisions, and (we must suppose) three modes of life that had some
special interest for the authors of the genealogy. On the significance
of this division, see at the close.――=20.= _Yābāl_, son of ‛Adah,
_became the father_ (_i.e._ originator: Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ רַב) _of tent- and
cattle-dwellers_ (_v.i._); _i.e._ of nomadic shepherds. מִקְנֶה, however,
is a wider term than צאן (verse ²), including all kinds of cattle,
and even camels and asses (Exodus 9³). The whole Bedouin life is thus
assigned to Jabal as its progenitor.――=21.= _Yûbāl_, also a son of
‛Adah, is the father of _all who handle lyre and pipe_; the oldest
and simplest musical instruments. These two occupations, representing
the bright side of human existence, have ‛Adah (the Dawn?) as their
mother; recalling the classical association of shepherds with music
(see Lenormant i. 207).――=22.= Equally suggestive is the combination
of _Tûbal-ḳáyin_, the smith, and _Na‛ămāh_ (‘pleasant’), as children
of the dark Ẓillah; compare the union of Hephæstos and Aphrodite in
Greek mythology (Dillmann al.).――The opening words of ᵃ{β} are corrupt.
We should expect: _he became the father of every artificer in brass
and iron_ (see footnote). The persistent idea that Tubal-cain was the
inventor of weapons, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, and most, which has led
to a questionable interpretation of the Song, has no foundation. He is
simply the metal-worker, an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as
a species of black-art,¹ and by Semitic nomads held in contempt.
¹ See Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_
(1878), 157.
On the names in these verses see the interesting discussion
of Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 192 ff.――The
alliterations, _Yābāl_――_Yûbāl_――_Tûbal_, are a feature of
legendary genealogies: compare Arabic Habîl and Ḳabîl, Shiddîd
and Shaddâd, Mâlik and Milkân, etc. (Lenormant. 192). יבל
(LXX Ἰωβελ -ηλ) and יובל (Ἰουβαλ) both suggest יֹבֵל (Hebrew and
Phœnician), which means primarily ‘ram,’ then ‘ram’s horn’ as
a musical instrument (Exodus 19¹³), and finally ‘joyous music’
(in the designation of the year of Jubilee). On a supposed
connexion of יבל with הֶבֶל in the sense of ‘herdsman,’ see above,
page 103.――תּוּבַל is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for
metal-working (see on 10²); and it is generally held that their
_heros eponymus_ supplies the name of the founder of metallurgy
here; but the equation is doubtful. A still more precarious
combination with a word for smith (_tumā́l_, _dubalanza_, etc.)
in Somali and other East African dialects, has been propounded
by Merker (_Die Masai_, 306). The compound תובל קין (written in
Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either ‘Tubal [the] smith’
(in which case קין [we should expect הקין] is probably a gloss), or
‘Tubal of (the family of) Cain.’¹ LXX has simply Θοβελ; but see
the footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the Τελχῖνες,
the first workers in iron and brass, and the makers of Saturn’s
scythe (Strabo, XIV. ii. 7); and the pair of brothers who,
in the Phœnician legend, were σιδήρου εὑρεταὶ καὶ τῆς τούτου
ἐργασίας.――נַֽעֲמָה (LXX Νοεμα) seems to have been a mythological
personage of some importance. A goddess of that name is known
to have been worshipped by the Phœnicians.² In Jewish tradition
she figures as the wife of Noah (_Bereshith Rabba_), as a demon,
and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of _vocal_ music
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ: compare Lagarde _Onomastica Sacra_, 180, 56:
Νοεμὶν ψάλλουσα φωνῇ οὐκ ἐν ὀργάνῳ [Nestle, _Marginalien und
Materialien_, 10]).
¹ So Ewald, who thinks the קין belongs to each of the three
names.
² Lenormant 200 f.; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im
Altertum_ i. 265; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
Cölestins_ 150.
* * * * *
=20.= ישֵׁב אֹהֶל וּמִקְנֶה] LXX οἰκούντων ἐν σκηναῖς κτηνοτρόφων, perhaps
reading אהלי מקנה as in 2 Chronicles 14¹⁵ (so Ball). Vulgate
(_atque pastorum_) takes מַקְנֶה as a participle; Peshiṭtå inserts
(‡ Syriac word), and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ומרי, before ‘cattle’;
similarly Kuenen proposed וקנה מקנה. The zeugma is somewhat hard,
but is retained by most commentaries for the sake of conformity
with verse ²¹ ᶠᐧ; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _bb_, 118 _g_.――=21.=
וְשֵׁם אָחִיו] compare 10²⁵ (Yahwist) (1 Chronicles 7¹⁶).――אבי וגו׳] LXX
καταδείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν.――כִּנּוֹר וְעוּגָב] Vulgate _cithara et
organo_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כנורא ואבובא
(∥ נבלא). See Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_², 237‒246;
Wellhausen _Psalms_ (_Polychrome Bible_), 219 f., 222 f.; Riehm,
_Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 1043 ff. The כנור is
certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (1 Samuel
16²³ etc.), probably the lyre (Greek κινύρα). The עוגב (associated
with the כנור in Job 21¹² 30³¹: elsewhere only Psalms 150⁴) is
some kind of wind instrument (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ),――a flute
or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan’s pipe (σύριγξ).――=22.= גם הוא]
_in genealogies_ (as here, 4²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ [Judges 8³¹])
is characteristic of Yahwist.――תובל קין] LXX Θοβελ· καὶ ἦν. Other
versions have the compound name, and on the whole it is probable
that καὶ ἦν is a corruption of Καιν, although the next clause
has Θοβελ alone.――לֹטֵשׁ וגו׳] LXX καὶ ἦν σφυροκόπος, χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ
καὶ σιδήρου, Vulgate _qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta
opera aer. et f_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
רבהון דכל ידעי עיבידת נ׳ וב׳. To get any kind of sense from Massoretic Text,
it is necessary either (a) to take לֹטֵשּׁ (‘sharpener’ or ‘hammerer’)
in the sense of ‘instructor’; or (b) take חֹרֵשׁ as neuter (‘a
hammerer of every cutting implement of,’ etc.); or (c) adopt the
quaint construction (mentioned by Budde 138): ‘a hammerer of all
(sorts of things),――a (successful) artificer in bronze,’ etc.!
All these are unsatisfactory; and neither the omission of כל
with LXX (Dillmann), nor the insertion of אבי before it yields
a tolerable text. Budde’s emendation (139 ff.) ויהי למך חֹרֵשׁ וגו׳ [for
קין] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his utterly
improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was originally
designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in
the words קין לטש, for which we should expect, הוא היה אבי (Olshausen,
Ball). The difficulty is to account for the present text: it
is easy to say that לטש and קין are glosses, but there is nothing
in the verse to require a gloss, and neither of these words
would naturally have been used by a Hebrew writer for that
purpose.――בַּֽרְזָל] The Semitic words for ‘iron’ (Assyrian _parzillu_,
Aramaic פַּרְזָל (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _farzil_) have no Semitic
etymology, and are probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On
the antiquity of iron in West Asia, see Ridgeway, _Early Age of
Greece_ i. 616 ff.
* * * * *
=23, 24. The song of Lamech.=――A complete poem in three distichs,
breathing the fierce implacable spirit of revenge that forms the
chief part of the Bedouin’s code of honour. It is almost universally
assumed (since Herder) that it commemorates the invention of weapons
by Tubal-cain, and is accordingly spoken of as Lamech’s ‘Sword Song.’
But the contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion
(Wellhausen); and the position in which it stands makes its connexion
with the genealogy dubious. On that point see, further, below. It is
necessary to study it independently, as a part of the ancient legend
of Lamech which may have supplied some of the material that has been
worked into the genealogy.――The verses may be rendered:
²³Adah and Zillah, hear my voice!
Wives of Lamech, attend to my word!
For I kill a man for a wound to me,
And a boy for a scar.
²⁴For Cain takes vengeance seven times,
But Lamech seventy times and seven!
=23a.= Holzinger raises the question whether the words ‘Adah and
Zillah’ belong to the song or the prose introduction; and decides
(with Vulgate) for the latter view, on the ground that in the remaining
verses the second member is shorter than the first (which is not the
case). The exordium of the song might then read:
Hear my voice, ye women of Lamech!
Attend to my word!――
the address being not to the wives of an individual chieftain, but
to the females of the tribe collectively. It appears to me that the
alteration destroys the balance of clauses, and mars the metrical
effect: besides, strict syntax would require the repetition of the
לְ.――=23b.= The meaning is that (the tribe?) Lamech habitually avenges
the slightest personal injury by the death of man or child of the
tribe to which the assailant belongs. According to the principle of the
blood-feud, אִישׁ and יֶלֶד (י׳ is not a fighting ‘youth,’――a sense it rarely
bears: 1 Kings 12⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Daniel 1⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ,――but an innocent man-child [Budde,
Holzinger]) are not the actual perpetrators of the outrage, but any
members of the same clan. The parallelism therefore is not to be taken
literally, as if Lamech selected a victim proportionate to the hurt
he had received.――=24.= Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the
fierceness of its vendetta (7 times); but the vengeance of Lamech knows
no limit (70 and 7 times).
The Song has two points of connexion with the genealogy: the
names of the two wives, and the allusion to Cain. The first
would disappear if Holzinger’s division of ²³ᵃ were accepted;
but since the ordinary view seems preferable, the coincidence
in the names goes to show that the song was known to the authors
of the genealogy and utilised in its construction. With regard
to the second, Gunkel rightly observes that glorying over an
_ancestor_ is utterly opposed to the spirit of antiquity; the
Cain referred to must be a rival contemporary tribe, whose
grim vengeance was proverbial. The comparison, therefore,
tells decidedly against the unity of the passage, and perhaps
points (as Stade thinks) to a connection between the song
and the legendary cycle from which the Cain story of ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ
emanated.――The temper of the song is not the primitive ferocity
of “a savage of the stone-age dancing over the corpse of his
victim, brandishing his flint tomahawk,” etc. (Lenormant);
its real character was first divined by Wellhausen, who, after
pointing out the baselessness of the notion that it has to do
with the invention of weapons, describes it as “eine gar keiner
besonderen Veranlassung bedürftige Prahlerei eines Stammes
(Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie die Araber sich
besonders gern ihren Weibern gegenüber als grosse Eisenfresser
rühmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech” (_Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
305). On this view the question whether it be a song of triumph
or of menace does not arise; as expressing the permanent
temper and habitual practice of a tribe, it refers alike to
the past and the future. The sense of the passage was strangely
misconceived by some early Fathers (perhaps by LXX, Vulgate),
who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated
murder committed by Lamech. The rendering of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ is
based on the idea (maintained by Kalisch) that Lamech’s purpose
was to represent his homicide as justifiable and himself as
guiltless: ‘I have not slain a man on whose account I bear guilt,
nor wounded a youth for whose sake my seed shall be cut off.
When 7 generations were suspended for Cain, shall there not be
for Lamech his son 70 and 7?’ Hence arose the fantastic Jewish
legend that the persons killed by Lamech were his ancestor Cain
and his own son Tubal-cain (Rashi al.; compare Jerome _Epistula
Hieronymi ad Damasum papam_, 125).¹――The metrical structure of
the poem is investigated by Sievers in _Metrische Studien_, i.
404 f., and ii. 12 f., 247 f. According to the earlier and more
successful analysis, the song consists of a double tetrameter,
followed by two double trimeters. Sievers’ later view is
vitiated by an attempt to fit the poem into the supposed
metrical scheme of the genealogy, and necessitates the excision
of עדה וצלה as a gloss.
¹ See, further, Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_ i.
186 ff.
Apart from verse ²³ ᶠᐧ, the most remarkable feature of the
genealogy is the division of classes represented by the three
sons of Lamech. It is difficult to understand the prominence
given to this classification of mankind into herdsmen, musicians,
and smiths, or to imagine a point of view from which it would
appear the natural climax of human development. Several recent
scholars have sought a clue in the social conditions of the
Arabian desert, where the three occupations may be said to
cover the whole area of ordinary life. Jabal, the first-born
son, stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks
and herds,¹――the _élite_ of all nomadic-living men, and the
‘flower of human culture’ (Budde 146). The two younger sons
symbolise the two avocations to which the pure nomad will not
condescend, but which are yet indispensable to his existence
or enjoyment――smith-work and music (Stade 232). The obvious
inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic
people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in
Canaan (Budde); though Holzinger considers that it embodies a
specifically Ḳenite tradition in which the eponymous hero Cain
appears as the ancestor of the race (so Gordon, _The Early
Traditions of Genesis_, 188 ff.).――Plausible as this theory is
at first sight, it is burdened with many improbabilities. If
the early Semitic nomads traced their ancestry to (peasants
and) city-dwellers, they must have had very different ideas from
their successors the Bedouin of the present day.² Moreover, the
circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a very incomplete
parallel to the classes of verses ²⁰⁻²². Though the smiths form
a distinct caste, there is no evidence that a caste of musicians
ever existed among the Arabs; and the Bedouin contempt for
professional musicians is altogether foreign to the sense of the
verses, which certainly imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal’s
art. And once more, as Stade himself insists, the outlook of the
genealogy is world-wide. Jabal is the prototype of all nomadic
herdsmen everywhere, Jubal of all musicians, and Tubal (the
Tibareni?) of all metallurgists.――It is much more probable that
the genealogy is projected from the standpoint of a settled,
civilised, and mainly agricultural community. If (with Budde)
we include verses ² and ¹⁷ᵇ, and regard it as a record of human
progress, the order of development is natural: husbandmen,
city-dwellers, wanderers [?] (shepherds, musicians, and smiths).
The three sons of Lamech represent not the highest stage of
social evolution, but three picturesque modes of life, which
strike the peasant as interesting and ornamental, but by no
means essential to the framework of society.――This conclusion is
on the whole confirmed by the striking family likeness between
the Cainite genealogy and the legendary Phœnician history
preserved by Eusebius from Philo Byblius, and said to be based
on an ancient native work by Sanchuniathon. Philo’s confused and
often inconsistent account is naturally much richer in mythical
detail than the Hebrew tradition; but the general idea is the
same: in each case we have a genealogical list of the legendary
heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and occupations
is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phœnician tradition
is the more original may be doubtful; in any case “it is
difficult,” as Driver says, “not to think that the Hebrew and
Phœnician representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle
of tradition, which in its turn may have derived at least some
of its elements from Babylonia” (_The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_ page 74).³
¹ But against this view, see page 112 above, and Meyer, _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff.
² Holzinger evades this objection by deleting verse ¹⁷ᵇ,
and reducing the genealogy to a bare list of names; but
why should the Ḳenites have interposed a whole series of
generations between their eponymous ancestor and the origin
of their own nomadic life?
³ Compare Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited
by Heinichen, page 39 ff.). The Greek text is printed in
Müller’s _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ iii. 566 f.
French translations are given by Lenormant _Les Origines
de l’histoire_ i. 536 ff., and Lagrange, _Études sur les
Religions Semitiques_¹, 362 ff. (the latter with a copious
commentary and critical introduction).――The passage in
Eusebius is much too long to be quoted in full, but the
following extracts will give some idea of its contents
and its points of similarity with Genesis: Of the two
protoplasts Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος, it is recorded εὑρεῖν δὲ
τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων τροφήν.――The second pair,
Γένος and Γενεά, dwelt in Phœnicia, and inaugurated the
worship of the sun.――Of the race of Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος were
born three mortal children, Φῶς, Πῦρ, and Φλόξ: οὗτοι ἐκ
παρατριβῆς ξύλων εὗρον πῦρ, καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν ἐδίδαξαν.――Then
followed a race of giants, of whom was born [Σα]μημροῦμος
(= שׁמי מרום) ὁ καὶ Ὑ ψουράνιος, who founded Tyre. Of him we
read: καλύβας τε ἐπινοῆσαι ἀπὸ καλάμων, καὶ θρύων, καὶ
παπύρων· στασιάσαι δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν Οὔσωον, ὃς σκέπην τῷ
σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ...
Δένδρου δὲ λαβόμενον τὸν Οὔσωον καὶ ἀποκλαδεύσαντα, πρῶτον
τολμῆσαι εἰς θάλασσαν ἐμβῆναι· ἀνιερῶσαι δὲ δύο στήλας ...
αἷμά τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε θηρίων.――The further
history of invention names (a) Ἀγρεύς and Ἁλιεύς, τοὺς
ἁλείας καὶ ἄγρας εὑρετάς; (b) ... δύο ἀδελφοὺς σιδήρου
εὑρετὰς, καὶ τῆς τούτου ἐργασίας· ὧν θάτερον τὸν Χρυσὼρ
λόγους ἀσκῆσαι, καὶ ἐπῳδὰς καὶ μαντείας; (c) Τεχνίτης
and Γήϊνος Αὐτόχθων: οὗτοι ἐπενόησαν τῷ πηλῷ τῆς πλίνθου
συμμιγνύειν φορυτὸν, καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ αὐτὰς τερσαίνειν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ στέγας ἐξεῦρον; (d) Ἀγρός and Ἀγρούηρος (or Ἀγρότης):
ἐπενόησαν δὲ οὗτοι αὐλὰς προστιθέναι τοῖς οἴκοις καὶ
περιβόλαια καὶ σπήλαια· ἐκ τούτων ἀγρόται καὶ κυνηγοί;
(e) Ἄμυνος and Μάγος: οἳ κατέδειξαν κῶμας καὶ ποίμνας;
(f) Μισώρ (מישר) and Συδύκ (צדק): οὗτοι τὴν τοῦ ἁλὸς χρῆσιν
εὗρον. (g) Of Μισώρ was born Τάαυτ, ὃς εὗρε τὴν τῶν πρώτων
στοιχείων γραφήν; and (h) of Συδύκ, the Διόσκουροι: οὗτοι,
φησὶ, πρῶτοι πλοῖον εὗρον.――After them came others οἳ καὶ
βοτάνας εὗρον, καὶ τὴν τῶν δακετῶν ἴασιν, καὶ ἐπῳδάς.――It
is impossible to doubt that some traditional elements have
been preserved in this extraordinary medley of euhemerism
and archæology, however unfavourably it may contrast with
the simplicity of the biblical record.
* * * * *
=23.= The Introduction of the song is imitated in Isaiah
28³² 32⁹; compare also Deuteronomy 32¹. The words הֶֽאֱזין and
אִמְרָה are almost exclusively poetical.――On the form שְׁמַעַן, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 46 _f_.――הָרַגְתִּי is perfect of experience
(Davidson § 40 (_c_); Driver _A Treatise on the use of the
Tenses in Hebrew_ § 12), rather than of single completed
action, or of certainty (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Budde,
al.).――כִּי is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to
attention.――לְפִצְעִי, לְחַבּוּרָתִי] On this use of לְ see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
_s.v._ 5, f.: LXX εἰς τραῦμα [μώλωπα] ἐμοί; Vulgate _in vulnus
[livorem] meum._――=24.= כִּי] again introducing the reason, which,
however, “lies not in the words immediately after כי, but in the
second part of the sentence” (Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3, c):
compare Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Jeremiah 30¹¹.――יֻקּם on accusative, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _g_. The Niphal יִקֹּם would yield a better
sense: ‘avenges himself’ (Budde, Dillmann, Holzinger).
IV. 25, 26.
_Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy._
The verses are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy (see above,
page 99), of which another fragment has fortunately been preserved in
5²⁹ (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have contained the three names
(Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of Priestly-Code, it
may be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each
consisting of ten generations. That that of Yahwist was not a dry list
of names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has
survived. The preservation of 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ is no doubt due to the important
notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (²⁶ᵇ), the redactor having
judged it more expedient in this instance to retain Yahwist’s statement
intact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching
critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary
decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in
Yahwist would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the
Yahwist document into its component strata might have run a different
course.
=25.= _And Adam knew, etc._] see on verse ¹. That יָדַע denotes properly
the _initiation_ of the conjugal relation (Budde) is very doubtful:
see 38²⁶, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹.――_And she called_] see again on verse ¹.――_God
has appointed me seed_] (the remainder of the verse is probably an
interpolation). Compare 3¹⁵. Eve’s use of אלהים is not ‘surprising’
(Dillmann); it only proves that the section is not from the same source
as verse ¹. On the other hand, it harmonises with the fact that in
3¹ ᶠᶠᐧ אלהים is used in dialogue. It is at least a plausible inference
that both passages come from one narrator, who systematically avoided
the name יהוה up to 4²⁶ (see page 100).
The verse in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a
knowledge of the Cain and Abel narrative of 4¹⁻¹⁶; but it
is doubtful if the allusions to the two older brothers can
be accepted as original (see Budde 154‒159). Some of Budde’s
arguments are strained; but it is important to observe that the
word עוד is wanting in LXX, and that the addition of אחר תחת הבל
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of
_substitution_ being quite foreign to the connotation of the
verb שׁית. The following clause כי הרגו קין reads awkwardly in the
mouth of Eve (who would naturally have said אשר ה׳ ק׳), and is
entirely superfluous on the part of the narrator. The excision
of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in
itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of
Cain in verse ¹: שת לי אלהים זרע, ‘God has appointed me seed’ (_i.e._
posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3¹⁵, where both the
significant words שׁית and זרע occur. But this explanation really
implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this
writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a
substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator
is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further
shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense
Cain has ceased to be the ‘seed’ of Eve.――As a Hebrew word
(with equivalents in Phœnician, Arabic, Syrian, Jewish-Aramaic:
compare Nöldeke _Mandäische Grammatik_ page 98) שֵׁת would mean
‘foundation’ (not _Setzling_, still less _Ersatz_); but its
real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel’s attempt (_Die
altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, page 26 ff.)
to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of
Berossus (below, page 137) involves too many doubtful equations,
and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In
Numbers 24¹⁷ שֵׁת appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text
is doubtful (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_,
219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah
may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3¹⁵, and does
not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel.
* * * * *
=25.= אָדָם] here for the first time unambiguously a proper name.
There is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the
generic to the individual sense is made by Priestly-Code only in
5¹⁻³, and is just as likely to have been made by Yahwist.――LXX
reads Εὕαν in place of עוֹד; Peshiṭtå has both words.――Before
ותלד LXX, Peshiṭtå insert וַתַּהַר.――ותקרא] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ ויקרא.――כִּי] LXX λέγουσα; so Vulgate and even
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ.
* * * * *
=26.= On the name אֱנוֹשׁ (= _Man_, and therefore in all probability the
_first_ member of an older genealogy), see below.――_Then men began to
call, etc._] Better (with LXX, etc., _v.i._): _He was the first to call
on the name of Yahwe_ (compare 9²⁰ 10⁸), _i.e._ he was the founder of
the worship of Yahwe; compare 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ 26²⁵ (all Yahwist). What
historic reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement
we cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed
when it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on the
part of a religious community (Delitzsch); and the idea that it is
connected with a growing sense of the distinction between the human
and the divine (Ewald, Delitzsch, al.) is a baseless fancy. It means
that ’Enôš was the first to invoke the Deity under this name; and
it is interesting chiefly as a reflexion, emanating from the school
of Yahwist, on the origin of the specifically Israelite name of God.
The conception is more ingenuous than that of Elohist (Exodus 3¹³⁻¹⁵)
or Priestly-Code (6³), who base the name on express revelation, and
connect it with the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.
The expression קרא בשם י׳ (literally ‘call by [means of] the name
of Yahwe’) denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation
(or rather _evocation_) of the Deity by the solemn utterance
of His name. It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a
real bond exists between the person and his name, such that the
pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on the
former.¹ The best illustration is 1 Kings 18²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the
test proposed by Elijah is _which name_――Baal or Yahwe――will
evoke a manifestation of divine energy.――The cosmopolitan
diffusion of the name יהוה, from the Babylonian or Egyptian
pantheon, though often asserted,² and in itself not incredible,
has not been proved. The association with the name of Enoš might
be explained by the supposition that the old genealogy of which
Enoš was the first link had been preserved in some ancient
centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh?).
¹ See Giesebrecht, _Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des
Gottesnamens und ihre religiongeschichtliche Grundlage_,
especially page 25 ff., 98 ff.
² W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, pages 239, 312; Delitzsch _Babel und Bibel_
[translated by M‘Cormack] page 61 f.; Bezold, _Die
Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften Und Ihre Bedeutung
Für Das Alte Testament_ etc. page 31 ff.; Oppert,
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii. 291 ff.; Daiches,
_ib._ xxii. (1908), 125 ff.; Algyogyi-Hirsch, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 355 ff.;
Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ i. 29;
Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², i. (2te Hälfte), 545 f.
Compare, further, Rogers, _Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria_ (1908), page 89 ff.
* * * * *
=26.= גם הוּא] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _h_) LXX omitted.――אֱנוֹשׁ]
like אדם, properly a collective: Enôš is a personification of
mankind. The word is rare and mostly poetic in Hebrew (especially
Job, Psalms); but is common in other Semitic dialects (Arabic,
Aramaic, Nabatean, Palmyren, Sabaean, Assyrian). Nestle’s opinion
(_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6 f.), that it is in Hebrew
an artificial formation from אֲנָשִׁים, and that the genealogy
is consequently late, has no sort of probability; the only
‘artificiality’ in Hebrew is the occasional individual use.
There is a presumption, however, that the genealogy originated
among a people to whom אנוש or its equivalent was the ordinary
name for mankind (Aramæan or Arabian).――אז הוחל] so Aquila,
Symmachus; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אז החל;
LXX οὗτος ἤλπισεν (from √ יחל) implies either זה החל or הוא ה׳; so
Vulgate (_iste coepit_) and _Jubilees_ iv. 12; Peshiṭtå has
(‡ Syriac phrase). The true text is that read by LXX, etc.;
and if the alteration of Massoretic Text was intentional
(which is possible), we may safely restore הוּא הֵחֵל after 10⁸.
The Jewish exegesis takes הוּחַל in the sense ‘was profaned,’ and
finds in the verse a notice of the introduction of idolatry
(Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.),――although the construction
is absolutely ungrammatical (Abraham Ibn Ezra).――After יהוה LXX
adds carelessly τοῦ θεοῦ.
CHAPTER V.
_The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs_
(Priestly-Code).
In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1¹‒2⁴ᵃ) and
the Flood (6⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its
chronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic
Text) at 1656 years. The _names_ are traditional, as is shown by a
comparison of the first three with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ, and of numbers 4‒9 with
4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite
genealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code,
in order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs.
But that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to
three or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the
continuation of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found
to correspond closely with those of chapter 5.――The _chronology_,
on the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention
of which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later
chronologist (see page 136 below).――What is thoroughly characteristic
of Priestly-Code is the _framework_ in which the details are set.
It consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his
first-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement
that he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.¹ The stiff
precision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set
formulæ, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat
pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school
of writers.
¹ Only in the cases of Adam (verse ³), Enoch (²²ᐧ ²⁴) and
Lamech (²⁸ᐧ ²⁹) are slight and easily explicable deviations
from the stereotyped form admitted. The section on Noah is,
of course, incomplete.
The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא, דְּמוּת, זָכָר
וּנְקֵבָה) is seen most clearly in verse ¹ᵇᐧ ², which, however, may be
partly composed of glosses based on 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ (see on the verses).
Note also תּוֹלְדֹת (¹ᵃ), צֶלֶם, דְּמוּת (³), הוֹלִיד (throughout), הִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים
(²²ᐧ ²⁴,, compare 6⁹); the syntax of the numerals (which, though
not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see
Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 134 _i_; Davidson § 37, _R._ 3); the naming
of the child by the father (³).――The one verse which stands out
in marked contrast to its environment is ²⁹, which is shown by
the occurrence of the name יהוה and the allusion to 3¹⁷ to be an
extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the
genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶.
“The aim of the writer is by means of these particulars to give a
picture of the increasing population of the earth, as also of the
duration of the first period of its history, as conceived by him, and
of the longevity which was a current element in the Hebrew conception
of primitive times” (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and
Notes_ page 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attributed to the
early patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised that the statements are
meant to be understood literally, and that the author had in his view
actual individuals. The attempts to save the historicity of the record
by supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or
(b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the
word שָׁנָה denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see
Dillmann 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no
such interpretation. It is true that “the study of science precludes
the possibility of such figures being literally correct”; but “the
comparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated
statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a
people” (Ryle, quoted by Driver page 75).
The author of Priestly-Code knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no
explanation of the ‘violence’ and ‘corruption’ with which the earth is
filled when the narrative is resumed (6¹²). It is doubtful whether he
assumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak
of wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it
unnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds
us how little _dogmatic_ importance was attached to the story of
the Fall in Old Testament times. The Priestly writers may have been
repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos
and profound moral psychology, of Genesis 3; they may also have thought
that the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently
accounted for by the known tendencies of human nature.
Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 93‒103) has endeavoured
to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory
of degeneration, according to which the first five generations
were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [=
‘descent’], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His
chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated
by Priestly-Code in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that
the Samaritan chronology (which Budde takes to be the original:
see below, page 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered,
Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.¹ Budde supports
his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are
susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable
that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have
been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true
that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into
the world.
¹ The more rapid decrease of life (in _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_) after Mahalalel ought not to be counted
as an additional argument; because it is a necessary
corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.
1, 2.
Introduction.
Consisting of a superscription (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶), followed by an account of the
creation and naming of Adam (¹ᵇᐧ ²).――=1a.= _This is the book of the
generations of Adam_] See the critical note below; and on the meaning
of תּוֹלְדֹת, see on 2⁴ᵃ.――=1b.= _When God created Man_ (or _Adam_) _he made
him in the likeness of God_] a statement introduced in view of the
transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse ³). On this
and the following clauses see, further, 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _And called
their name Adam_] _v.i._
The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In ¹ᵃ אָדָם is
presumably a proper name (as in ³ ᶠᶠᐧ), in ² it is certainly
generic (note the plural suffix), while in ¹ᵇ it is impossible
to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to
an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms
borrowed almost literally from 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where אדם is generic.
Since the only new statement is _and he called their name Adam_,
we may suppose the writer’s aim to have been to explain how אדם,
from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has
no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting
with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he
resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes
the proper name in verse ³. An original author would hardly
have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the
heading זה ספר תולדת אדם reads like the title of a _book_, suggesting
that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical
work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and
the fuller formula, as compared with the usual אלה תולדת, at least
justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of
the heading. Dillmann’s opinion, that it is a combination of
the superscription of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy with that of
Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts
point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using אדם as a
designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first
man.
* * * * *
=1.= For אדם LXX has 1º ἀνθρώπων, 2º Ἀδάμ; Vulgate conversely 1º
_Adam_, 2º _hominem_.――=2.= שְׁמָם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ שְׁמוֹ.
* * * * *
3‒5.
Adam.
Adam _begat [a son] in his likeness, etc._] (see on 1²⁶): implying, no
doubt, a transmission of the divine image (verse ¹) from Adam to all
his posterity.
* * * * *
=3.= וַיּוֹלֶד] inserted בֵּן as object (Olshausen al.). הוֹלִיד confined
to Priestly-Code in Pentateuch; Yahwist, and older writers
generally, using יָלַד both for ‘beget’ and ‘bear.’――בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ]
LXX κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴ νεἰκόνα αὐτοῦ.――avoiding
ὁμοίωσις (see the note on 1²⁶).――=4.= ויהיו ימי אדם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
inserted ἃς ἔζησε, as in verse ⁵. Peshiṭtå reads וַיְחִי אדם (but
see Ball’s note) as in verses ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ etc. But verses ³⁻⁵ contain
several deviations from the regular formula: note אשר חי in verse
⁵, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse
order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.
* * * * *
6‒20.
Seth to Jered.
The sections on =Seth=, =Enoš=, =Ḳenan=, =Mahalalel,= and =Yered=
rigidly observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed comment,
except as regards the names.
=6‒8.= _Šēth_: compare 4²⁵. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and
Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 217‒220, and Charles, _Book of
Jubilees_, 33 ff.――=9‒11.= _’Ĕnôš_: see on 4²⁶.――=12‒14.=
_Ḳênān_ is obviously a fuller form of _Ḳáyin_ in the parallel
genealogy of 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; and possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or
‘artificer’ (compare Syrian (‡ Syriac word): see on 4¹). Whether
the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no
means of judging. It is important to note that קינן or קנן is the
name of a Sabæan deity, occurring several times in inscriptions:
see Mordtmann, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
Cölestins_ 127 f., 152.――=15‒17.= _Mahălal’ēl_ (= ‘Praise of
God’) is a compound with the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מַֽהֲלָל (Proverbs 27²¹).
But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have
done here: Μαλελεηλ = מְהַלֶּלְאֵל, _i.e._ ‘Praising God.’ Proper names
compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament
(see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_
14²; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 201), but are
common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that the genealogy must
be late (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 7 f.) is not certain,
because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed
and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that
it is a corruption of _Amil-Arûru_ in the list of Berossus (see
_Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 29). מ׳
is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11⁴.――=18‒20.=
_Yéred_ (1 Chronicles 4¹⁸) would signify in Hebrew ‘Descent’;
hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to
the earth (_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 6²):
compare _Jubilees_ iv. 15; _Enoch_ vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde’s
interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether עִירָד or
יֶרֶד be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both
to an original Babylonian _‛I-yarad_ = ‘descent of fire.’
21‒24.
Enoch.
The account of =Enoch= contains three extraordinary features: (a) The
twice repeated וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים. In the Old Testament such an expression
(used also of Noah, 6⁹) signifies intimate companionship (1 Samuel
25¹⁵), and here denotes a fellowship with God morally and religiously
perfect (compare Micah 6⁸, Malachi 2⁶ [הָלַךְ]), hardly differing from the
commoner ‘walk _before_ God’ (17¹ 24⁴⁰) or ‘_after_ God’ (Deuteronomy
13⁵, 1 Kings 14⁸). We shall see, however, that originally it included
the idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (b) Instead of the
usual וֵיָּמֹת we read וְאֵינֶנּוּ כּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים; _i.e._ he was mysteriously translated
‘so as not to see death’ (Hebrews 11⁵). Though the influence of this
narrative on the idea of immortality in later ages is not to be denied
(compare Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴), it is hardly correct to speak of it as
containing a presentiment of that idea. The immortality of exceptional
men of God like Enoch and Elijah suggested no inference as to the
destiny of ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among
other nations (Gunkel). (c) His life is much the shortest of the
ante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the duration
of his life (365 years) is connected with the number of days in the
solar year; and the conjecture has been remarkably verified by the
Babylonian parallel mentioned below.
The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later
Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage
alone; everything goes to show that the record has a mythological
basis, which must have continued to be a living tradition
in Jewish circles in the time of the Apocalyptic writers. A
clue to the mystery that invests the figure of Enoch has been
discovered in Babylonian literature. The 7th name in the list
of Berossus is Evedoranchus (see _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 532),――a corruption (it seems certain) of
Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a ritual tablet from the
library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364: translated in _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 533 f.) as king of
Sippar (city of Šamaš, the sun-god), and founder of a hereditary
guild of priestly diviners. This mythical personage is described
as a ‘favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],’ and is said to have been
received into the fellowship of Šamaš and Ramman, to have been
initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and instructed
in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his
son. The points of contact with the notice in Genesis are (1)
the special relation of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (compare
the 365 of verse ²³); and (2) his peculiar intimacy with the
gods (‘walked with God’): there is, however, no mention of a
translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and earth
is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric
knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sirach 44¹⁶
he is already spoken of as אות דעת לדור ודור. Compare _Jubilees_ iv.
17 ff. (with Charles’s note _ad loc._); and see Lenormant _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 223; Charles, _Book of Enoch_ (1893),
_passim_.
* * * * *
=22.= ויתהלך――את־האלהים] LXX εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ (LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ adds καὶ
ἔζησεν Ἐνωχ), Symmachus ἀνεστρέφετο, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase),
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הליך בדחלתא דיי: Aquila and Vulgate render literally.
The article before א׳ is unusual in Priestly-Code (see 6⁹ᐧ ¹¹).
The phrase must have been taken from a traditional source, and
may retain an unobserved trace of the original polytheism (‘with
the gods’).――=23.= ויהי] Read ויהיו (MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX, etc.).――=24.= ואיננו] indicating mysterious
disappearance (37²⁹ ᶠᐧ 42¹³ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁹ [Elohist] 1 Kings 20⁴⁰); see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _m_.――לקח] LXX μετέθηκεν, Vulgate _tulit_,
but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אמית. The verb became, as Duhm (on Psalms 49¹⁶)
thinks, a technical expression for translation to a higher
existence; compare 2 Kings 2¹⁰, Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴. The Rabbinical
exegesis (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi) understood it
of removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch
which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the
Apocalyptic influence.
* * * * *
25‒32.
Methuselah to Noah.
=25‒27.= _Methuselah._――מְתוּשֶׁלַח commonly explained as ‘man of the
dart (or weapon),’ hence tropically ‘man of violence,’ which
Budde (99) regards as a deliberate variation of מתושאל (4¹⁸)
intended to suggest the wickedness of the later generations
before the Flood (see above, page 129). Lenormant (247) took
it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign of the Zodiac;
according to Hommel, it means ‘sein Mann ist das Geschoss’ (!),
and is connected with the planet Mars.¹ If the 8th name in
the list of Berossus be rightly rendered ‘man of Sin (the
moon-god),’² a more probable view would be that שֶׁלַח is a divine
proper name. Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a
corruption of _šarraḫu_, said to be an ancient name of the
moon-god³ (compare Cheyne, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625, 4412).
¹ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_
[1902], 29. Here _Amemphsinus_ is resolved into _Amel-Nisin_:
formerly (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology_, xv. [1892‒3] 245) Hommel propounded the view
now advocated by Zimmern (see next note).
² Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 532.
³ _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen
Inhalts_ ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (_l.c._) relies on the fact
that _šarḫu_ (‘all-powerful’) is an epithet of various gods
(Delitzsch _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 690 a).
* * * * *
=27.= After מתושלח LXX inserts ἃς ἔζησεν (compare verse ⁵).
* * * * *
=29.= An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech
on the birth of Noah.――_This_ (זֶה; compare זֹאת in 2²³) _shall bring us
comfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands_ [proceeding]
_from the ground, etc._] The utterance seems to breathe the same
melancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise
narrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in
character between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of
4²³ ᶠᐧ.
There is an obvious reference backwards to 3¹⁷ (compare עִצְּבוֹן,
הָאֲדָמָה――אֵֽרֲרָהּ). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which
certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech
spoke), but to Noah’s discovery of vine-culture: 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (Budde
306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and
the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the
connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence
that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different
strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann’s objection, that
a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under
the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9¹³, Psalms
104¹⁵.――In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of
the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident
of 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, the verse has considerable critical importance. It
furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic
narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.――The
fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which
suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical
structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).
=28‒31.= _Lamech._――The scheme is here interrupted by the
insertion of verse.
* * * * *
=29.= יְנַֽחֲמֵנוּ] LXX διαναπαύσει ἡμᾶς: hence Ball, Kittel יְנִיהֵנוּ.
The emendation is attractive on two grounds: (a) it yields an
easier construction with the following מן; and (b) a more correct
etymology of the name נֹח. The harshness of the etymology was felt
by Jewish authorities (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 25; compare Rashi);
and Wellhausen (_De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles
2. 4 enumerantur_ 38³) boldly suggested that נֹח in this verse
is a contracted writing of נֹחָם = ‘comforter.’――Whether נֹחַ (always
written defectively) be really connected with נוּחַ = ‘rest’ is
very uncertain. If a Hebrew name, it will naturally signify
‘rest,’ but we cannot assume that a name presumably so ancient
is to be explained from the Hebrew lexicon. The views mentioned
by Dillmann (page 116) are very questionable. Goldziher
(_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
xxiv. 207 ff.) shows that in mediæval times it was explained by
Arab writers from Arabic _nāḥa_, ‘to wail’; but that is utterly
improbable.――מַֽעֲשֶׁנוּ] Some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ have מַֽעֲשֵׂינוּ (plural); so LXX, etc.
* * * * *
=32.= The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is
explained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed
datum (7⁶ᐧ ¹¹), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah
were saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an
excessive lateness _either_ to the birth of Shem, _or_ to the birth of
Shem’s first-born.
I. _The Chronology of Chapter 5._――In this chapter we have
the first instance of systematic divergence between the three
chief recensions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the LXX. The
differences are best exhibited in tabular form as follows (after
Holzinger):
FB = Age at birth of first-born
Ad = Years lived after birth of first-born
Tot = Total age
Samaritan Year (A.M.)
Massoretic. (Jubilees). LXX. of Death.
───────────── ───────────── ───────────── ────────────────
FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot MT. Sam. LXX.
1. Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930
2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142
3. Enos 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340
4. Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535
5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690
6. Jered 162 800 962 62 785 847 162 800 962 1422 1307 1922
7. Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487
8. Methuselah 187 782 969 67 653 720 167¹ 802¹ 969 1656 1307 2256
9. Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2207
10. Noah 500 500 500
Till Flood 100 100 100
Year of Flood 1656 1307 2242
¹ So LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ. LXXᴬ and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a
later correction.
These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to
carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the
business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on
which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which
of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code.
That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that
can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of
investigation along which the solution has been sought.
1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the
remarkable relation discovered by Oppert¹ between the figures of
the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the
next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to
the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These
are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of
365¼ days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew
chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and
to have reduced it by treating each _lustrum_ (5 years) as the
equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than
a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say.
(b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,²
who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology,
the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:³
_i.e._ 26⅔ generations of 100 years, or ⅔ of a world-cycle of
4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of
calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably
traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn
of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of
Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt
are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from
the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been
propounded by Bousset (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xx. 136‒147). Working on lines marked out by
Kuenen (_Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows,
from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9³⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 10⁴⁵ ᶠᐧ, Josephus _Antiquities
of the Jews_ viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and _Assumption of Moses_,
1² 10¹², that a chronological computation current in Jewish
circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M.
3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071;
and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and
Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years).
Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in
the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis
11²⁴) it substituted (with LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed
215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian
sojourn (Exodus 12⁴⁰); and, finally, it dated the dedication of
the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6¹ LXX).
For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above.
¹ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen._, 1877, 201‒223; also his article in _Jewish
Encyclopædia_ iv. 66 f.
² See Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_
111 ff.; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶
308.
³ Made up as follows:――1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham:
see the Table on page 233) + 100 (birth of Isaac: Genesis
21⁵) + 60 (birth of Jacob: 25²⁶) + 130 (age of Jacob at
Descent to Egypt: 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸) + 430 (sojourn in Egypt: Exodus
12⁴⁰) = 2666.――The number of generations from Adam to Aaron
is actually 26, the odd ⅔ stands for Eleazar, who was of
mature age at the time of the Exodus.
These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as
to the priority of the Massoretic Text. It would obviously be
illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and
the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the
original system of Priestly-Code. The natural inference is that
both were actually in use in the first century A.D., and that
consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A
presumption in favour of Massoretic Text would be established
only if it could be shown that the numbers of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX are either dependent on
Massoretic Text, or involve no chronological scheme at all.
2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to
the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years
of Genesis 11¹⁰, we obtain from the Creation to the birth
of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that
this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of
_Jubilees_ (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we
assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12⁴⁰ to be the original reading
(as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find
that _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ counts from
the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.¹ The odd
7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we
obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly
be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three
decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the
birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by
180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360.
Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work
of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it
not possible that this was his original chronological period;
and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von
Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended
to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat
important objection to the originality of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ is, however, the disparity between
chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠ with regard to the ages at the birth of
the first-born.
¹ 1307 + 940 (see page 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40
= 3007·
3. A connexion between LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ is suggested by the fact that the first period of
LXX (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (1300 + 940 = 2240),
though it does not appear on which side the dependence is.
Most critics have been content to say that the LXX figures are
enhancements of those of Massoretic Text in order to bring the
biblical chronology somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of
Egypt or Chaldæa. That is not probable; though it does not seem
possible to discover any distinctive principle of calculation
in LXX. Klostermann (_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, v. 208‒247
[= _Der Pentateuch_ (1907) 1‒41]), who defends the priority of
LXX, finds in it a reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years;
but his results, which are sufficiently ingenious, are attained
by rather violent and arbitrary handling of the data. Thus, in
order to adjust the ante-diluvian list to his theory, he has
to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to the Flood,
and substitute the 120 years of Genesis 6³! This reduces the
reckoning of LXX to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the
Flood, we obtain 1764 = 3 × 12 × 49.
See, further, on 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (page 234 f.).
II. _The Ten Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus._――The number
_ten_ occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of
many peoples¹ as that of the kings or patriarchs who reigned or
lived in the mythical age which preceded the dawn of history.
The Babylonian form of this tradition is as yet known only from
a passage of Berossus extracted by Apollodorus and Abydenus;²
although there are allusions to it in the inscriptions which
encourage the hope that the cuneiform original may yet be
discovered.³ Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus
is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach
considerable importance to any correspondence that can be made
out between his list and the names in Genesis 5. A detailed
analysis was first published by Hommel in 1893,⁴ another was
given by Sayce in 1899.⁵ The first-named writer has subsequently
abandoned some of his earlier proposals,⁶ substituting others
which are equally tentative; and while some of his combinations
are regarded as highly problematical, others have been widely
approved.⁷
¹ Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phœnicians, Egyptians,
Chinese, etc. See Lüken, _Die Traditionen des
Menschengeschlechts oder die Uroffenbarung Gottes unter
den Heiden_, 146 ff.; Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_
i. 224 ff.
² Preserved by Eus. _Chronicon_ [edited by Schœne] i. 7 ff.,
31 f. See Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii.
499 f.
³ See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 221 f.
⁴ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xv.
243‒246.
⁵ _The Expositor Times_, 1899, 353.
⁶ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_
[1902], 23 ff.
⁷ See Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_⁸,
531 ff.; Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and
Notes_ 50 f.; Nikel, _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 164
ff.
The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are:
1. Ἄλωρος, 2. Ἀλάπαρος, 3. Ἀμήλων [Ἀμίλλαρος], 4. Ἀμμένων,
5. Μεγάλαρος [Μεγάλανος], 6. Δάωνος [Δάως], 7. Εὐεδώραχος,
8. Ἀμέμψινος, 9. Ὠτιάρτης [Read Ὠπάρτης], 10. Ξίσουθρος. Of
the suggested Babylonian equivalents put forward by Hommel, the
following are accepted as fairly well established by Jeremias
and (with the exception of number 1) by Zimmern: 1. _Aruru_ (see
page 102), 2. _Adapa_ (page 126), 3. _Amelu_ (= Man), 4. _Ummanu_
(= ‘workman’), 7. _Enmeduranki_ (page 132), 8. _Amel-Sin_ (page
133), 9. _Ubar-Tutu_ (named as father of Ut-Napištim), and
10. _Ḫasisatra_, or _Atraḫasis_ (= ‘the superlatively Wise,’――a
title applied to Ut-Napištim, the hero of the Deluge). On
comparing this selected list with the Hebrew genealogy, it
is evident that, as Zimmern remarks, the Hebrew _name_ is in
no case borrowed directly from the Babylonian. In two cases,
however, there seems to be a connexion which might be explained
by a _translation_ from the one language into the other: viz. 3.
אֱנוֹשׁ (= Man), and 4. קֵינָן (= ‘workman’); while 8 is in both series
a compound of which the first element means ‘Man.’ The parallel
between 7. חֲנוֹךְ ∥ _Enmeduranki_, has already been noted (page 132);
and the 10th name is in both cases that of the hero of the Flood.
Slight as these coincidences are, it is a mistake to minimise
their significance. When we have two parallel lists of equal
length, each terminating with the hero of the Flood, each having
the name for ‘man’ in the 3rd place and a special favourite of
the gods in the 7th, it is too much to ask us to dismiss the
correspondence as fortuitous. The historical connexion between
the two traditions is still obscure, and is complicated by the
double genealogy of chapter 4; but that a connexion exists it
seems unreasonable to deny.
III. _Relation of the Sethite and Cainite Genealogies._――The
substantial identity of the names in Genesis 4¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ with
numbers 3‒9 of chapter 5 seems to have been first pointed out
by Buttmann (_Mythologus_, i. 170 ff.) in 1828, and is now
universally recognised by scholars. A glance at the following
table shows that each name in the Cainite series corresponds to
a name in the other, which is either absolutely the same, or is
the same in meaning, or varies but slightly in form:
Illustration: (‡ Sethite versus Cainite Genealogy)
While these resemblances undoubtedly point to some common
original, the variations are not such as can be naturally
accounted for by direct borrowing of the one list from the other.
The facts that each list is composed of a perfect number, and
that with the last member the single stem divides into three
branches, rather imply that both forms were firmly established
in tradition before being incorporated in the biblical documents.
If we had to do merely with the Hebrew tradition, the easiest
supposition would perhaps be that the Cainite genealogy and the
kernel of the Sethite are variants of a single original which
might have reached Israel through different channels;¹ that the
latter had been expanded by the addition of two names at the
beginning and one at the end, so as to bring it into line with
the story of the Flood, and the Babylonian genealogy with which
it was linked. The difficulty of this hypothesis arises from
the curious circumstance that in the Berossian list of kings,
just as in the Sethite list of patriarchs, the name for ‘Man’
occupies the _third_ place. It is extremely unlikely that such
a coincidence should be accidental; and the question comes
to be whether the Assyriologists or the biblical critics can
produce the most convincing explanation of it. Now Hommel (_Die
altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 26 ff.)
argues that if the word for Man is preceded by two others, these
others must have been names of superhuman beings; and he thinks
that his interpretation of the Babylonian names bears out this
anticipation. The first, _Aruru_, is the creative earth-goddess,
and the second, _Adapa_ (= Marduk) is a sort of Logos or
Demiurge――a being intermediate between gods and men, who bears
elsewhere the title _zir amiluti_ (‘seed of mankind’) but is
not himself a man.² And the same thing must, he considers, hold
good of Adam and Seth: Adam should be read אֱדֹם, a personification
of the earth, and Seth is a mysterious semi-divine personality
who was regarded even in Jewish tradition as an incarnation of
the Messiah. If these somewhat hazardous combinations be sound,
then, of course, the inference must be accepted that the Sethite
genealogy is dependent on the Babylonian original of Berossus,
and the Cainite can be nothing but a mutilated version of it. It
is just conceivable, however, that the Babylonian list is itself
a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy, which
passed independently into Hebrew tradition.³
¹ Hommel’s view (_Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte
Testament_, 29 f.) is that the primary list was Chaldean,
that the Sethite list most nearly represents this original,
and that the Cainite springs from a modification of it under
Babylonian influence. It would be quite as plausible to
suggest that the Cainite form came through Phœnicia (see the
notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na‛amah), and the Sethite from
Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).
² But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 362.
³ Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent
of _Aruru_ was not Adam but _Ḥavvah_, as earth and
mother-goddess (see pages 85 f., 102), and that this name
stood at the head of the list. That in the process of
eliminating the mythological element Ḥavvah should in one
version become the wife, in another remain the mother, of
the first man (Adam or Enoš), is perfectly intelligible;
and an amalgamation of these views would account for the
duplication of Adam-Enos in 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ 5. The insertion of
a link (Seth-Adapa) between the divine ancestress and
the first man is a difficulty; but it might be due to a
survival of the old Semitic conception of mother and son
as associated deities (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_², 298 ff.). It is obvious that
no great importance can be attached to such guesses, which
necessarily carry us back far beyond the range of authentic
tradition.
VI. 1‒4.
_The Origin of the Nĕphîlîm._
This obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates how in the
infancy of the human race marriage alliances were believed to have been
formed by supernatural beings with mortal women (verses ¹ᐧ ²); and how
from these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods
(verse ⁴), who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is
implied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings,
intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element
of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special
interposition of Yahwe (verse ³).
The fragment belongs to the class of ætiological myths. The
belief in Nĕphîlîm is proved only by Numbers 13³³ (Elohist?);
but it is there seen to have been associated with a more widely
attested tradition of a race of giants surviving into historic
times, especially among the aboriginal populations of Canaan
(Deuteronomy 1²⁸ 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ 9², Joshua 15¹⁴, Amos 2⁹ etc.).
The question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist,
and the passage before us supplied the answer. But while the
ætiological motive may explain the retention of the fragment
in Genesis, it is not to be supposed that the myth originated
solely in this reflexion. Its pagan colouring is too pronounced
to permit of its being dissociated from two notions prevalent
in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin literature:
viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were men
of gigantic stature;¹ and (2) that marriages of the gods with
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.²
Similar ideas were current among other peoples. The Ḳoran has
frequent references to the peoples of ‛sons of Godal races noted
for their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were
attributed the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation
of rock-dwellings, and who were believed to have been destroyed
by a divine judgment.³ The legend appears also in the Phœnician
traditions of Sanchuniathon, where it is followed by an obscure
allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse which appears to have
some remote connexion with Genesis 6².⁴
¹ Homer _Iliad_ v. 302 f.; Herodotus i. 68; Pausanias i. 35.
5 f., viii. 29. 3; 32. 4; Lucretius ii. 1151; Virgil
_Aeneid_ xii. 900; Pliny, _Natural History_, vii. 73 ff. etc.
Compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 350 ff.
² Homer _Iliad_ xii. 23: ἡμιθέων γένος ἀνδρῶν; Plato,
_Cratylus_, 33: πάντες [_sc._ οἱ ἥρωες] δήπου γεγόνασιν
ἐρασθέντος ἢ θεοῦ θνητῆς ἢ θνητοῦ θεᾶς (text uncertain):
see Jowett, i. 341.
³ _Surah_ vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, lxxxix: see Sale,
_Preliminary Discourse_ § 1.
⁴ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (see page 124 above):
ἀπὸ γένους Αἰῶνος καὶ Πρωτογόνου γεννηθῆναι αὖθις παῖδας
θνητοὺς, οἷς εἶναι ὀνόματα Φὼς καὶ Πῦρ καὶ Φλόξ ... υἱοὺς
δὲ ἐγέννησαν οὗτοι _μεγέθει τε καὶ ὑπεροχῇ κρείσσονας_ ...
ἐκ τούτων, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη Σαμημροῦμος ὁ καὶ Ὑψουράνιος·
ἀπὸ μητέρων δὲ, φησὶν, ἐχρημάτιζον τῶν τότε γυναικῶν ἀνέδην
μισγομένων οἷς ἂν ἐ[ν]τύχοιεν.
That the _source_ is Yahwist is not disputed.¹ Dillmann, indeed,
following Schrader (_Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ 276),
thinks it an extract from Elohist which had passed through the
hands of Yahwist; but borrowing by the original Yahwist from
the other source is impossible, and the only positive trace of
Elohist would be the word נפילים, which in Numbers 13³³ is by some
critics assigned to Elohist. That argument would at most prove
overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.――The precise
position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions cannot
be determined. The introductory clause “when mankind began to
multiply,” etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an
account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason
why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴
or 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ (against Holzinger), though certainly not that of
Priestly-Code in chapter 5. The idea that it is a parallel
to the story of the Fall in chapter 3 (Schrader, Dillmann,
Wellhausen, Schultz) has little plausibility, though it
would be equally rash to affirm that it _presupposes_ such an
account.――The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably
due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or
later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was
objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than
was needful to account for the origin of the giants.
¹ The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except
יהוה, verse ³); but the following expressions, as well as the
structure of the sentences (in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ), are, on the whole,
characteristic of Yahwist: הֵחֵל, עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה (¹), בָּאָרָץ, הָיָה גִּבּוֹר (⁴):
see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 6 ff., 39 A.
There remains the question whether the passage was from the
first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has
been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of
its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm
that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the
Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall
see to be improbable) that the 120 years of verse ³ refer to an
impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view
were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable
that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of
the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded.
The critical probability, therefore, is that 6¹⁻⁴ belongs to a
stratum of Yahwist which knows nothing of a flood (page 2 ff.).
The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion
to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however
(_Philologus_, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ix. 134 ff.), claims to
have recovered from Greek sources a Phœnician legend of
intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some
striking affinities with Genesis 6¹⁻⁴, and which leads up to an
account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe’s combinations
I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a
late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances
the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of
the hypothetical Phœnician legend. Even, therefore, if his
speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether
the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly
by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the
divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce
the sequence of events given in Genesis. That this is not
inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins
the biblical name ΝΩ appears as that of the hero of the Deluge
(see page 180 below).
=1, 2.= The sense of these verses is perfectly clear. The _sons of
God_ (בני האלהים) are everywhere in Old Testament members (but probably
inferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some
freedom) _angels_ (_v.i._).
“The angels are not called ‘sons of God’ as if they had actually
derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor
in a less exact way, because though created they have received a
nature similar to God’s, being spirits; nor yet as if on account
of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the
family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name _Elohim_
or _sons_ (_i.e._ members of the race) _of the Elohim_ is a name
given directly to angels in contrast with men ... the name is
given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently,
they are Elohim in an inferior sense” (Davidson, _Job_,
_Cambridge Bible_, page 6).
* * * * *
=1.= וַיְהִי כִּי] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch; 26⁸ 27¹ 43²¹
44²⁴, Exodus 1²¹ 13¹⁵, Joshua 17¹³. See Budde 6. The apodosis
commences with verse ².――הֵחֵל] see Holzinger _Einleitung in den
Hexateuch_ 97.――על־פני האדמה] see _Oxford Hexateuch_ i. 187.――=2.=
בני [ה]אלהים] Job 1⁶ 2¹ 38⁷, [Daniel 3²⁵]; compare ב׳ אלים, Psalms 29¹
89⁷. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings
denoted is evident,――‘belonging to the category of the gods.’ On
this Semitic use of בן, see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_², 17; _The Prophets of Israel_² 85,
389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by LXX (οἱ ἄγγελοι [also
υἱοὶ] τοῦ θεοῦ), Theodotion, _Jubilees_ v. 1, Enoch vi. 2 ff.
(Jude ⁶, 2 Peter 2⁴), Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 73;
Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.
[Peshiṭtå transliterates (‡ Syriac phrase) as in Job 1⁶ 2¹.]
(2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another,
according to which the ‘sons of the gods’ are members of
aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank:
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (בני רברביא), Symmachus (τῶν δυναστευόντων),
_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra [Aquila (υἱοὶ τῶν
θεῶν) is explained by Jeremias as ‘_deos_ intelligens _sanctos_
sive _angelos_’]. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent
Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles’s
valuable Note, _Book of Jubilees_ 33 ff.) has been to take the
phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line
of Seth: Julius Africanus, most Fathers, Luther, Calvin, al.:
still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations
it is decisive that בנות האדם cannot have a narrower reference in
verse ² than in verse ¹; and that consequently בני ה׳ cannot denote
a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 291 ff.; the Commentary of Delitzsch
(146 ff.), Dillmann (119 f.), or Driver (82 f.). On the
eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were
a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenormant 304 ff.――ויקחו ... נשים]
= ‘marry’: 4¹⁹ 11²⁹ 25¹ 36² etc.――מכּל אשר] ‘_consisting of_ all
whom,’――the rare מן _of explication_; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._
3b (e); compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _w_²: Genesis 7²² 9¹⁰.
* * * * *
In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps
called אלהים simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility
of the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable
interpretations mentioned in the note below.――=2.= These superhuman
beings, attracted by the beauty of _the daughters of men_ (_i.e._
mortal women) _took to themselves as wives_ (strictly implying
permanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) _whomsoever they
chose_. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these
relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels; and consists
partly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly in high-handed disregard of the
rights of God’s lower creatures.――It is to be noted, in contrast with
analogous heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively
masculine.
=3.= A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a limit on the
term of man’s life.――_My spirit shall not_ [... _in_?] _man for ever_;
[...?] _he is flesh, and his days shall be 120 years_.
A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to
the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote),
and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes.
The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The
original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects
on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,――and that
opens up a wide field of speculation;¹――and possibly also an
account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty
parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all
that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the
general sense of the verse, assuming the text to be fairly
complete, and a real connexion to exist with verses ¹ᐧ ².――(i.)
Everything turns on the meaning of the word רוּחַ, of which four
interpretations have been given: (1) That רוּחִי is the Spirit
of Yahwe as an _ethical_ principle, striving against and
‘judging’ the prevalent corruption of men (as in Isaiah 63¹⁰);
so Symmachus, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Luther, al. There is nothing
to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the
verb ידון associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned.
(2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who
understands רוּחִי subjectively of the divine feeling (_Gemüt_)
excited by human sin² (similarly Rashi). (3) The commonest view
in modern times (see Dillmann) has been that רוּחַ is the divine
principle of _life_ implanted in man at creation, the tenor of
the decree being that this shall not ‘abide’³ in man eternally
or indefinitely, but only in such measure as to admit a
maximum life of 120 years. There are two difficulties in this
interpretation: (a) It has no connexion with what precedes, for
everything the verse contains would be quite as intelligible
apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to
them.⁴ (b) The following words הוא בשׂר have no meaning: as a
reason for the withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve
a _hysteron proteron_; and as an independent statement they are
(on the supposition) not true, man as actually constituted being
both flesh and spirit (2⁷). (4) The most probable sense is that
given by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 305 ff.), viz. that
רוח is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in
contrast to בָּשָׂר, which is the element proper to human nature
(compare Isaiah 31³): so Holzinger, Gunkel. The idea will then
be that the mingling of the divine and human substances brought
about by illicit sexual unions has introduced a disorder into
the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to ‘abide’ permanently,
but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.――(ii.)
We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its
natural sense of the duration of individual life (_v.i._), be
consistent with the conclusion just reached. Wellhausen himself
thinks that it is not: the fusion of the divine and human
elements would be propagated _in the race_, and could not be
checked by a shortening of the lives of individuals. The context
requires an announcement of the annihilation of the race, and
the last clause of the verse must be a mistaken gloss on the
first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a
strong reason _either_ for revising Wellhausen’s acceptation of
³ᵃ, _or_ for understanding ³ᵇ as an announcement of the Flood.
But a shortening of the term of life, though not a logical
corollary from the sin of the angels, might nevertheless be a
judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinction of the
giants within a measurable time; and indirectly impose a limit
on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have
accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings.⁵
In view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be
unwise to press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a
strain on the interpretation of either.
¹ Compare Cheyne’s imaginary restoration in _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 3391, with the reconstructed Phœnician myth of
Gruppe in _Philologus_, 1889, i. 100 ff.
² Reading לֹא יִדֹּם רוּחי, ‘shall not restrain itself’ (literally ‘be
silent’). See _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1894, 234 ff.
(= _Der Pentateuch_ [1907] 28 ff.).
³ On this traditional rendering of ידון, see the footnote, page
143.
⁴ Budde’s argument that the verse is detachable from its
present context is, therefore, perfectly sound; although his
attempt to find a place for it after 3²¹ is not so successful
(see page 3 above).
⁵ Just as in 3²²ᐧ ²⁴ man is allowed to retain the gift of
illicitly obtained knowledge, but is foiled by being denied
the boon of immortality. The same point of view appears in
11¹⁻⁹: in each case the ruling motive is the divine jealousy
of human greatness; and man’s pride is humbled by a subtle
and indirect exercise of the power of God.
* * * * *
=3.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――יָדוֹן] There are two traditional
interpretations: (a) ‘abide’: so LXX (καταμείνῃ), Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; (b) ‘judge’ (Symmachus κρινεῖ: so
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The former is perhaps nothing more than a
plausible guess at the meaning, though a variant text has been
suspected (ילון, ידור, יִכּוֹן, etc.). The latter traces the form to
the √ דין; but the etymology is doubtful, since that √ shows no
trace of medial ו in Hebrew (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 533 f.); and to call
it a jussive or intransitive form is an abuse of grammatical
language (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71 _r_). A Jewish derivation,
mentioned by Abraham Ibn Ezra and Calvin, connects the verb with
נָדָן, ‘sheath’ (1 Chronicles 21²⁷),――the body being compared to
the sheath of the spirit. The Arabic _dāna_ (medial _w_) = ‘be
humbled’ or ‘degraded,’ yields but a tolerable sense (Tuch,
Ewald, al.); the Egyptian Arabic _dāna_, which means ‘to do
a thing continually’ (Socin; see Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._), would
suit the context well, but can hardly be the same word. Vollers
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from
√ דנן, Assyrian _danânu_ = ‘be powerful’; the idea being that
the life-giving spirit shall no longer have the same force
as formerly, etc. It would be still better if the verb could
be taken as a denominative from Assyrian _dinânu_, ‘bodily
appearance,’ with the sense “shall not be embodied in man for
ever.”――בָּאָדָם] LXX ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, whence Klostermann
restores באדם הַזֶּה¹ = ‘this humanity,’ as distinguished from
that originally created,――an impossible exegesis, whose
sole advantage is that it gives a meaning to the גַּם in בְּשֶׂגַּם
(_v.i._).――לְעוֹלָם――לֹא (thus separated)] here = ‘not ... for ever,’
as Jeremiah 3¹², Lamentations 3³¹; elsewhere (Psalms 15⁵ etc.)
the phrase means ‘never.’――בְּשֶׂגָּם] so pointed in the majority of
MSS, is infinitive construct of שָׁגַג, ‘err,’ with suffix. This
sense is adopted by many (Tuch, Ewald, Budde, Holzinger, al.),
but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suffix to הָאָדָם, the
_enallage numeri_ (‘through _their_ erring _he_ is flesh’) would
be harsh, and the idea expressed unsuitable. If we refer it
to the angels, we can avoid an absurdity only by disregarding
the accents and joining the word with what precedes: ‘shall
not (abide?) in man for ever on account of their (the angels’)
erring; he is flesh, and,’ etc. The sentence is doubly bad in
point of style: the first member is overloaded at the end by
the emphatic word; and the second opens awkwardly without a
connecting participle. Moreover, it is questionable if the
idea of שׁגג (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the
connexion. Margoliouth (_Expositor_, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains
the obscure word by Aethiopian _shegā_ = ‘body’; but the
proposed rendering, ‘inasmuch as their body (or substance) is
flesh,’ is not grammatically admissible. The correct Massoretic
reading is בְּשֶׂגַּם (_i.e._ גַּם + שֶׁ + בְּ) = _inasmuch as he too_. The
objections to this are (a) that the relative שֶׁ is never found
in Pentateuch, and is very rare in the older literature (Judges
5⁷ 6¹⁷ 7¹² 8²⁶), while compounds like בְּ׳h do not appear before
Ecclesiastes (_e.g._ 2¹⁶); and (b) that the גַּם has no force,
there being nothing which serves as a contrast to הוּא. Wellhausen
observes that בְּ׳ must represent a causal particle and possibly
nothing more. The old translators, LXX (διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς)
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have been of the same
opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them attempt to
reproduce the גַּם. The conjectures of Olshausen (לָבַשׁ גַּם), Cheyne
(בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹת בָּשָׂר), and others are all beside the mark.――והיו ימיו וגו׳] The
only natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life
(so Josephus, Tuch, Ewald, and most since), a man’s יָמִים being
a standing expression for his lifetime, reckoning from his
birth (see chapter 5. 35²⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰ etc.). The older view
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Calvin,
al.: so Delitzsch, Klostermann), that the clause indicates the
interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was naturally
suggested by the present position of the passage, and
was supported by the consideration that greater ages were
subsequently attained by many of the patriarchs. But these
statements belong to Priestly-Code, and decide nothing as to
the meaning of the words in Yahwist.
¹ Already proposed by Egli (cited by Budde).
* * * * *
=4.= _The Nĕphîlîm were_ (or _arose_) _in the earth in those days_]
Who were the נְפִלִים? The name recurs only in Numbers 13³³, where
we learn that they were conceived as beings of gigantic stature,
whose descendants survived till the days of Moses and Joshua.
The circumstantial form of the sentence here (compare 12⁶ 13⁷) is
misleading, for the writer cannot have meant that the נ׳ existed
in those days apart from the alliances with the angels, and that
the result of the latter were the גִּבּוֹרִים (Lenormant, al.). The idea
undoubtedly is that this race _arose_ at that time in consequence
of the union of the divine ‘spirit’ with human ‘flesh.’――_and also
afterwards whenever_ (LXX ὡς ἂν) _the sons of the gods came in ... and
they_ (the women) _bore unto them_] That is to say, the production of
Nephîlîm was not confined to the remote period indicated by verse ¹ ᶠᐧ,
but was continued in after ages through visits of angels to mortal
wives,――a conception which certainly betrays the hand of a glossator.
It is perhaps enough to remove וְגַם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן as an interpolation, and
connect the אֲשֶׁר with בַּֽיָּמִים הָהֵם; though even then the phrasing is odd
(_v.i._).――_Those are the heroes_ (הַגִּבּוֹּרִים) _that were of old, the men
of fame_] (אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם, compare Numbers 16²). הֵמָּה has for its antecedent
not אֲשֶׁר as objective to יָֽלְדוּ (Wellhausen), but הַנְּפִלִים. There is a touch
of euhemerism in the notice (Wellhausen), the archaic and mythological
נְפִלִים being identified with the more human גִּבּוֹרִים who were renowned in
Hebrew story.
It is probable that the legend of the Nephîlîm had a wider
circulation in Hebrew tradition than could be gathered from its
curt handling by the editors of the Hexateuch. In Ezekiel 32 we
meet with the weird conception of a mighty antique race who are
the original denizens of Sheol, where they lie in state with
their swords under their heads, and are roused to a transient
interest in the newcomers who disturb their majestic repose. If
Cornill’s correction of verse ²⁷ (גבורים נְפִלִים מעולם) be sound, these
are to be identified with the Nephîlîm of our passage; and the
picture throws light on two points left obscure in Genesis:
viz., the character of the primæval giants, and the punishment
meted out to them. Ezekiel dwells on their haughty violence and
warlike prowess, and plainly intimates that for their crimes
they were consigned to Sheol, where, however, they enjoy a kind
of aristocratic dignity among the Shades. It would almost seem
as if the whole conception had been suggested by the supposed
discoveries of prehistoric skeletons of great stature, buried
with their arms beside them, like those recorded by Pausanias
(i. 35. 5 f., viii. 29. 3, 32. 4) and other ancient writers
(see William Robertson Smith in Driver A critical and exegetical
commentary on Deuteronomy 40 f.).
* * * * *
=4.= הַנְּפִלִים] LXX οἱ γίγαντες; Aquila οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες; Symmachus
οἱ βίαιοι; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא. The
etymology is uncertain (see Dillmann 123). There is no allusion
to a ‘fall’ (√ נָפַל) of angels from heaven (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Jerome¹, Rashi), or to a ‘fall’ of the world through their
action (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). A connexion with נֵפֶל,
‘abortive birth’ (from נָפַל, ‘fall dead’), is not improbable
(Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Cornill (נְפִילִים מֵעוֹלָם)
in Ezekiel 32²⁷ not only yields a striking resemblance to this
verse, but supports the idea that the נ׳ (like the רְפָאִים) were
associated with the notion of Sheol.――אחרי כן אשר] cannot mean
‘after’ (as conjunction), which would require a perfect to
follow, but only ‘afterwards, when.’ On any view, יָבֹאוּ; and וְיָלְדוּ are
frequentative tenses.――בוא אל] (as euphemism) is characteristic of
Jehovist (especially Yahwist) in Hexateuch (Budde 39, _Anm._).
Compare William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia_², 198 ff.――חַגִּבּוֹרִים] literally ‘mighty ones’ (Aquila δυνατοί;
Vulgate _potentes_; LXX, Symmachus, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ do
not distinguish from נפילים). The word is thoroughly naturalised
in Hebrew speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But passages
like Ezekiel 32¹² ᶠᶠᐧ show that it had another aspect, akin to
Arabic _ǧabbār_ (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Arabic and
Syrian equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion
(Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ i. 375 _a_; Robert Payne
Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 646).――אשר מעולם] compare עַם עוֹלָם, Ezekiel
26²⁰, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down
to Sheol.――The whole verse has the appearance of a series of
antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred
from it is that there was some traditional association of
the Nephîlîm with the incident recorded in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ. At the
same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the verse
reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential
thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks
from the direct statement that the Nephîlîm were the offspring
of the marriages of verses ¹ᐧ ², and tantalises the curiosity
of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings
then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that
they existed ‘afterwards’ as well.――Budde, who omits verse ³,
restores the original connexion with verse ¹ ᶠᐧ as follows: [והיה
כאשר] יבאו בני האלהים ... [וכן] היו הנפלים בארץ בימים ההם. Some such excellent
sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was
precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished
to avoid.
¹ “Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium.”
* * * * *
VI. 5‒IX. 29.
_Noah and the Flood._
_Analysis of the Flood-Narrative._――The section on the Flood
(6⁵‒9¹⁷) is, as has often been observed, the first example in
Genesis of a truly composite narrative; _i.e._, one in which the
compiler “instead of excerpting the entire account from a single
source, has interwoven it out of excerpts taken alternatively
from Yahwist and Priestly-Code, preserving in the process
many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking
differences of representation and phraseology” (Driver 85).
The resolution of the compound narrative into its constituent
elements in this case is justly reckoned amongst the most
brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism, and affords
a particularly instructive lesson in the art of documentary
analysis (compare the interesting exposition by Gunkel² 121 ff.).
Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along
with a summary of the criteria by which the critical operation
is guided and justified. The division generally accepted by
recent critics is as follows:
Yahwist Priestly-Code
6⁵⁻⁸
⁹⁻²²
7¹⁻⁵
⁶
⁷ᐧ (⁸ᐧ ⁹)ᐧ ¹⁰
¹¹
¹²
¹³⁻¹⁶ᵃ
¹⁶ᵇ
¹⁷ᵃ
¹⁷ᵇ
¹⁸⁻²¹
²²ᐧ ²³
7²⁴ 8¹ᐧ ²ᵃ
²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ
³ᵇ⁻⁵
⁶⁻¹²
¹³ᵃ
¹³ᵇ
¹⁴⁻¹⁹
²⁰⁻²²
9¹⁻¹⁷
The minutiæ of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be
dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given
above represents the results of Budde (to whom the finishing
touches are due: _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 248 ff.) Gunkel
and Holzinger. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he
assigns 7¹⁷ wholly to Yahwist, and 7²³ᵇ to Priestly-Code; and
Wellhausen, except with regard to 7¹⁷ (Yahwist) 8³ᐧ ¹³, which
are both assigned entirely to Priestly-Code. The divergences
of Kuenen and Cornill are almost equally slight; and indeed
the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches
of Hupfeld, Nöldeke, and Schrader.――This remarkable consensus
of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines
of evidence: (1) _Linguistic._ The key to the whole process
is, of course, the distinction between the divine names
יהוה (6⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 7¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇ 8²⁰ᐧ ²¹) and אלהים (6⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²²
7¹⁶ᵃ 8¹ᐧ ¹⁵ 9¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Besides this, a number of
characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus
Yahwist’s איש ואשתו (7²) answers to Priestly-Code’s זכר ונקבה¹ (6¹⁹
7⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹⁶); מחה (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³) to שִׁחֵת and השחית (6¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵); מות
(7²²) to גָוַע¹ (6¹⁷ 7²¹); כל־היקום (7⁴ᐧ ²³) to כל־בשר¹ (6¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 7²¹
and often); קל (8⁸ᐧ ¹¹) and שוּב (7³ᵃ) to חסר (8⁵); חרב (8¹³ᵇ) to יבש
(8¹⁴) [but see on 8¹³ᵇ]; נשמת חיים (8²²) to רוח חיים (6¹⁷); לְחַיּוֹת (7³)
to לְהַֽחֲיוֹת (6¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰); כל־ביתך (7¹) to the specific enumerations of 6¹⁸
7⁽⁷⁾ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸. (Compare the list in Holzinger _Genesis erklärt_
page 68).――(2) _Diversity of representation._ In Yahwist clean
and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the
ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7², compare 8²⁰); in
Priestly-Code one pair of every kind without distinction is
admitted (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). According to Yahwist, the cause of
the Flood is a forty-days’ rain which is to commence seven days
after the command to enter the ark (7⁴ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 8²ᵇᐧ ⁶)――the latter
passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40
days. In Priestly-Code we have (7¹¹ 8²ᵃ) a different conception
of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁴ 8³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴,
a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase
for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one
year (see page 167 ff.).――(3) _Duplicates._ The following
are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6⁵⁻⁸ ∥ 6¹¹⁻¹³
(occasion of the Flood); 7¹⁻⁵ ∥ 6¹⁷⁻²² (command to enter the
ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7⁷ ∥ 7¹³ (entering of the
ark); 7¹⁰ ∥ 7¹¹ (coming of the Flood); 7¹⁷ᵇ ∥ 7¹⁸ (increase of
the waters: floating of the ark); 7²² ᶠᐧ ∥ 7²¹ (destruction of
terrestrial life); 8²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ ∥ 8¹ ᶠᐧ (abatement of the Flood); 8¹³ᵇ
∥ 8¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (drying of the earth); 8²⁰⁻²² ∥ 9⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (promise that
the Flood shall not recur).――(4) The final confirmation of
the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but
continuous narratives, which exhibit the distinctive features
of the two great sources of the primitive history, Yahwist
and Priestly-Code. The Yahwist sections are a graphic popular
tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning
faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to
bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the
comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed
to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an
unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove
(see 8⁹) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often
breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms
are freely introduced into the conception of God (6⁶ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁶ᵇ
8²¹); and the religious institutions of the author’s time
are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.――Still more
pronounced are the characteristics of Priestly-Code in the
other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm
of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign
of the rainbow (9¹²⁻¹⁷) is retained, its æsthetic beauty has
evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and
calculated,――the size of the ark, the number of the persons and
the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of
the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical
determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real
interest of the writer is in the new departure in God’s dealings
with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,――the
modification of the original constitution of nature, 9¹⁻⁷, and
the establishment of the first of the three great covenants,
9⁸⁻¹⁷. The connexion of the former passage with Genesis 1 is
unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of
Noah’s sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and
uncleanness amongst animals.²
¹ Phrases characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code
generally.
² Traces of Priestly-Code’s general vocabulary are very
numerous. Besides some of those (marked by ¹) already
enumerated in contrast to Yahwist, we have תּוֹלְדֹת (6⁹); דֹּרֹת
(6⁹ 9¹²); הוֹלִיד (6¹⁰); הקים ברית (6¹⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷) and נתן ב׳ (9¹²);
אִתּו in enumerations (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ etc.); מין (6²⁰ 7¹⁴); רֶמֶשׂ, רָמַשׂ
(6²⁰ 7⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9²ᐧ ³); שֶׁרֶץ, שָׁרַץ (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷); לְאָכְלָה
(6²¹ 9³); בעצם היום הזה (7¹³); מאד מאד (7¹⁹); בְּ of specification
(7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶); פרה ורבה (8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷); למשפחתיהם (8¹⁹); ברית
עולם (9¹⁶).――Of the style of Yahwist the positive indications
are fewer: מצא חן (6⁸); מחה in the sense ‘destroy’ (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³)
[see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 101]; עצב
(6⁶); על־פני האדמה (7⁴ᐧ ²³ 8⁸ᐧ ⁽{?} ¹³ ᴸˣˣ⁾); בעבור (8²¹). See the
commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, etc.
The success of the critical process is due to the care and
skill with which the Redactor (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ⁺ᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ)
has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a
synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of
information that could with any plausibility be utilised for
his narrative. The sequence of Priestly-Code he appears to have
preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions.
Of Yahwist he has preserved quite enough to show that it was
originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was
naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main
document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunæ
except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6⁸
and 7¹), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8¹³ᵇ
and ²⁰). The middle part of the document, however, has been
broken up into minute fragments, and these have been placed in
position where they would least disturb the flow of narration.
Some slight transpositions have been made, and a number of
glosses have been introduced; but how far these last are due
to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we
cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely
admitted, and small discrepancies are disregarded; the only
serious discrepancy (that of the chronology) is ingeniously
surmounted by making Yahwist’s 40 days count twice, once as a
stage of the increase of the Flood (7¹²) and once as a phase
of its decrease (8⁶).¹ This compound narrative is not destitute
of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying
the literature the primary documents are obviously of first
importance. We shall therefore treat them separately.
¹ The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (_Les Origines de
l’histoire_ i. 415), that the double period occurred in the
original Yahwist, has no foundation.
_The Flood according to Yahwist._
=VI. 5‒8. The occasion of the Flood=:――Yahwe’s experience of the
deep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human nature. It is unnecessary
to suppose that a description of the deterioration of the race has
been omitted, or displaced by 6¹⁻⁴ (Holzinger). The ground of the
pessimistic estimate of human nature so forcibly expressed in verse ⁵
is rather the whole course of man’s development as hitherto related,
which is the working out of the sinful knowledge acquired by the Fall.
The fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech, the marriages with the
angels, are incidents which, if not all before the mind of the writer
of the Flood-story, at least reveal the gloomy view of the early
history which characterises the Yahwistic tradition.――=5.= _the whole
bent_ (literally ‘formation’) _of the thoughts of his heart_] It is
difficult to say whether יֵצֶר is more properly the ‘form’ impressed _on_
the mind (the disposition or character), or ‘that which is formed’ _by_
the mind (imagination and purpose――_Sinnen und Trachten_): compare 8²¹,
Deuteronomy 31²¹, Isaiah 26³ (Psalms 103¹⁴?), 1 Chronicles 28⁹ 29¹⁸;
_v.i._――=6.= The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם)
and vexation (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) because He had created man is unusually strong.
Although in the sense of mere change of purpose, the former is often
ascribed to God (Exodus 32¹⁴, Jeremiah 18⁷ᐧ ⁸ 26³ᐧ ¹³, Joel 2¹³, Jonah
3¹⁰ etc.), the cases are few where divine regret for accomplished
action is expressed (1 Samuel 15¹¹). The whole representation was felt
to be inadequate (Numbers 23¹⁹, 1 Samuel 15¹¹); yet it continued to be
used as inseparable from the religious view of history as the personal
agency of Yahwe.――=7.= God’s resolve to _blot out_ (מָחָה) the race: not
as yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.――=8.= _But
Noah had found favour, etc._] doubtless on account of his piety; but
see on 7¹. The Yahwistic narrative must have contained some previous
notice of Noah, probably at the end of a genealogy.
* * * * *
=5.= יהוה LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (so verse ⁸).――וכל־יצר וגו׳] LXX loosely:
καὶ πᾶς τις διανοεῖται (יֹצֵר?) ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐπὶ
τὰ πονηρά; Vulgate _cuncta cogitatio_. Another Greek rendering
(ὁ Ἑβρ., see Field, _ad loc._) is φυσικὸν τοῦ ἀνθ.; but in 8²¹
the same translator has τὸ πλάσμα τῆς καρ. ἀνθ. On the later
Jewish theologoumenon of the יצר הרע (the evil impulse in man, also
called יצר simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish
commentaries (Rashi on 8²¹) is found here; see Taylor, _Sayings
of Jewish Fathers_², 37, 148 ff.; Frank C. Porter, _Biblical
and Semitic Studies; critical and historical essays by the
members of the Semitic and Biblical faculty of Yale University_
(1901), 93 ff.――כל־היום] ‘continually’; see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
400 b.――=6.= יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός (so verse ⁷).――ויתעצב] Genesis 34⁷;
compare Isaiah 63¹⁰ (Piel). Rashi softens the anthropomorphism
by making the impending destruction of the creatures the
immediate object of the divine grief.――=7.= אמחה] compare
7⁴ᐧ ²³. In the full sense of ‘exterminate’ (as distinct from
‘obliterate’ [name, memory, etc.]) the verb is peculiar to
Yahwist’s account of the Flood; contrast Numbers 5²³ 34¹¹
(Priestly-Code).――The verse is strongly interpolated. The
clauses אשר בראתי and מאדם ... השמים are in the style of Priestly-Code
(compare 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9² etc.); and the latter is, besides,
an illogical specification of האדם. They are redactional glosses,
the original text being אמחה את־האדם מעל פני האדמה כי נחמתי כי עשיתים (Budde
249 ff.; Dillmann 125).――=8.= מצא חן בעיני] characteristic of, though
not absolutely confined to, Yahwist: 19¹⁹ 32⁶ 33⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ 34¹¹ 39⁴
47²⁵ etc. (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 97 f.).
* * * * *
=VII. 1‒5. Announcement of the Flood.=――The section is an almost exact
parallel to 6¹⁷⁻²² (Priestly-Code). Verse ¹ presupposes in Yahwist a
description of the building of the ark, which the redactor has omitted
in favour of the elaborate account of Priestly-Code. Not till the
work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah the purpose it is to serve:
verse ⁴ is obviously the first intimation that has been given of the
approaching deluge. The building of the ark in implicit obedience to
the divine command is thus a great test and proof of Noah’s faith;
compare Hebrews 11⁷.――=1.= _Thou and all thy house_] Yahwist’s
brevity is here far more expressive than the formal enumerations of
Priestly-Code (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸). The principle involved is the religious
solidarity of the family; its members are saved for the righteousness
of its head (compare 19¹²).――_thee have I seen (to be) righteous_
(צַדִּיק, see on 6⁹)] Budde and others take this to be a judgement based on
Noah’s obedience in building the ark; but that is hardly correct. The
verb is not מצא but ראה, which has precisely the same force as the וירא
of 6⁵. Compare also 6⁸.――=2.= _clean_ (טְהוֹר) means, practically, fit
for sacrifice and human food; the technical antithesis is טָמֵא, which,
however, is here avoided, whether purposely (Delitzsch 174) or not it
is impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once supposed (see
Tuch), a proof of Yahwist’s interest in Levitical matters, but, on the
contrary, of the naïveté of his religious conceptions. He regards it as
rooted in the nature of things, and cannot imagine a time when it was
not observed. His view is nearer the historical truth than the theory
of Priestly-Code, who traces the distinction to the positive enactments
of the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), and
consequently ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears
with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 4³ ᶠᐧ 8²⁰ 12⁷ etc.――שִׁבְעָה
שִׁבְעָה] _by sevens_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _q_); _i.e._ ‘7 (individuals)
of each kind’ (Delitzsch, Stade, al.), rather than ‘7 pairs’
(_Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),――in
spite of the following איש ואשתו. It is a plausible conjecture (Rashi,
Delitzsch, Strack) that the odd individual was a male destined for
sacrifice (8²⁰).――=3a= presents an impure text (_v.i._), and must
either be removed as a gloss (Kuenen, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.)
or supplemented with LXX (Ball, Bennett).――=3b.= _to keep seed alive,
etc._] reads better as the continuation of ² than of ³ᵃ.――=4.= With
great rhetorical effect, the reason for all these preparations――the
coming of the Flood――is reserved to the end. Yahwist knows no other
physical cause of the Deluge than the 40 days’ rain (compare verse
¹²).――=5.= Compare 6²² (Priestly-Code).
* * * * *
=1.= יהוה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå
אלהים; LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――צדיק] predicate accusative; Davidson §
76.――=2.= For שנים, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read שנים שנים,――probably correctly.――איש
ואשתו (_bis_)] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ זכר ונקבה,
assimilating Yahwist to Priestly-Code.――=3a.= The distinction to
be expected between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly
by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and Peshiṭtå,
which insert הטהור after השמים; and fully by LXX, which goes
further and adds the words καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν τῶν μὴ
καθαρῶν δύο δύο ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. Ball accepts this, thinking
the omission in Massoretic Text due to homoioteleuton. But
the phrase זכר ונקבה shows that ³ᵃ has been manipulated; and it
is on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional.
Birds _may_ be included in the הבהמה of verse ²; though Budde’s
parallels (Exodus 8¹³ ᶠᐧ 9⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵, Jeremiah 32⁴³ 33¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 36²⁹,
Psalms 36⁷) are not quite convincing.――=3b.= לְחַיּוֹת] Priestly-Code
uses Hiphil (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ).――זֶרַע] as Jeremiah 31²⁷.――=4.= לימים] On
לְ as denoting the _close_ of a term (compare verse ¹⁰), see
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ =6b.=――הַיְקוּם] a rare word (only 7²³,
Deuteronomy 11⁶), meaning ‘that which subsists’ (√ קום). LXX
ἀνάστεμα (other examples in Field, ἐξανάστασιν), Vulgate
_substantia_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). On the form see Barth,
_Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_ 181; König ii.
146; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 85 _d_.
* * * * *
=7‒10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.――Entrance into the ark and description of
the Flood.=――Yahwist’s narrative has here been taken to pieces by the
Redactor, who has fitted the fragments into a new connexion supplied
by the combined accounts of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The operation
has been performed with such care and skill that it is still possible
to restore the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive
narrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The sequence
of events is as follows: At the end of the seven days, the Flood comes
(verse ¹⁰); Noah enters the ark (⁷) and Yahwe shuts him in (¹⁶ᵇ). Forty
days’ rain ensues (¹²), and the waters rise and float the ark (¹⁷ᵇ).
All life on the earth’s surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in
the ark survive (²² ᶠᐧ).
The rearrangement here adopted (¹⁰ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᵇᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³) is
due mainly to the acute criticism of Budde (_Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 258 ff.), who has probably added the last
refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation.
Some points (_e.g._ the transposition of verses ⁷ and ¹⁰) are,
of course, more or less doubtful; others (_e.g._ ¹⁶ᵇ) are seen
to be necessary as soon as the components of Yahwist have been
isolated. The most difficult thing is to clear the text of the
glosses which inevitably accompanied the work of redaction; but
this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of
certainty and agreement amongst recent commentaries. The most
extensive interpolations are part of verse ⁷, the whole of
verses ⁸ and ⁹, and part of ²³. For details see the footnote.
* * * * *
=7.= וּבָנָיו――אִתּוֹ] The enumeration is in the manner of Priestly-Code
(obsolete also אִתּוֹ); the words either replace וכל־ביתו (as verse ¹),
or are a pure insertion;――in either case redactional.――מי המבול]
so 7¹⁰ (Yahwist), 9¹¹ (Priestly-Code) (contrast הַמּ׳ מַיִם, 6¹⁷
7⁶).――מַבּוּל] LXX κατακλυσμός; Vulgate _diluvium_; Peshiṭtå and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ טופנא (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ טובענא). The word has usually
been derived from יבל, ‘streaming’ (see Gesenius _Thesaurus
philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris
Testamenti_, Dillmann); but is more probably a foreign word
without Hebrew etymology (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 732). Delitzsch (_Wo lag das
Paradies?_ 156) proposed the derivation from Assyrian _nabâlu_,
‘destroy,’ which is accepted by König (ii. 153), Ball (page 53),
and others. The Babylonian technical equivalent is _abûbu_,
which denotes both a ‘light-flood’ and a ‘water-flood’: the
double sense has been thought to explain Priestly-Code’s addition
of מַיִם to the word (see on 6¹⁷). A transformation of the one name
into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 495¹, 546²). In Psalms
29¹⁰ מבול appears to be used in a general sense without a historic
reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm, _ad loc._). ――=8, 9=
present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and unclean
points to Yahwist; but all other features (אלהים [though a
reading יהוה seems attested by _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and MSS of LXX]; זכר ונקבה;
the undiscriminated שנים שנים; the categorical enumeration [to
which LXX adds the birds at the beginning of verse ⁸]) to
Priestly-Code. In Priestly-Code the verses are not wanted,
because they are a duplicate of ¹³⁻¹⁶: they must therefore be
assigned to an interpolator (Budde al.).
* * * * *
=10.= _At the end of the 7 days_ (compare verse ⁴)] The interval (we
may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and provisioning
the ark.――_the waters of the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל, a technical name for the
Deluge, common to both sources (_v.i._).――=7.= Noah enters the ark
_on account of the ... Flood_: hence verse ⁷ presupposes verse ¹⁰.
The same order of events is found in Priestly-Code (¹¹ᐧ ¹³) and in the
Babylonian legend: “when the lords of the darkness send at evening
a (grimy?) rain, enter into the ship and close thy door” (1. 88
f.).――=16b= (which must in any case follow immediately on verse ⁷)
contains a fine anthropomorphism, which (in spite of the Babylonian
parallel just cited) it is a pity to spoil by deleting יהוה and making
Noah the implicit subject (Klostermann _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_,
i. 717).――=12.= _forty days and forty nights_] This determination,
which in Yahwist expresses the entire duration of the Flood, seems to
have been treated by Redactor as merely a stage in the increase of the
waters (compare 8⁶). It obviously breaks the connexion of Priestly-Code.
The Babylonian deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).――=17b.=
Parallel to ¹⁸ (Priestly-Code).――=22, 23.= A singularly effective
description of the effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived
as universal.
* * * * *
=10.= On the construction of the sentence, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 164 _a_, and on verse ⁶ below.――=12.= גֶּשֶׁם] (√ _ǧasuma_ = ‘be
massive’) commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezra 10⁹,
Canticles 2¹¹): see George Adam Smith _Historical Geography
of the Holy Land_, 64.――=16b.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + τὴν
κιβωτόν.――=17b.= Since ¹⁸ belongs to Priestly-Code (ויגברו, מאד),
its duplicate ¹⁷ᵇ must be from Yahwist, where it forms a natural
continuation of ¹². ¹⁷ᵃ, on the other hand (in spite of the 40
days), must be assigned to Priestly-Code (see page 164).――=22.=
נשמת רוח חיים] is an unexampled combination, arising from confusion
of a phrase of Yahwist (נשמת חיים, 2⁷) with one of Priestly-Code
(רוח חיים, 6¹⁷ 7¹⁵). The verse being from Yahwist (compare חָרָבָה
instead of יַבָּשָׁה; מתו instead of ויגוע, ²¹), רוח is naturally the word
to be deleted.――=23a= as a whole is Yahwist (מחה, יקום, על־פני האדמה);
but the clause מאדם ... השמים seems again (compare 6⁷) to be
redactional, and the three words following must disappear with
it. ²³ᵇ might be assigned with almost equal propriety to Yahwist
or to Priestly-Code.――וַיִּמַֿח] (apocopated imperfect Qal) is a better
attested Massoretic reading than וַיִּמַּח (Niphal). It is easier,
however, to change the pointing (to Niphal) than to supply
יהוה as subject, and the sense is at least as good.――Gunkel’s
rearrangement (²³ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ᵇ) is a distinct improvement: of the
two homologous sentences, that without וְ naturally stands second.
* * * * *
=VIII. (1b?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6‒12, 13b. Subsidence of the waters.=――The
rain from heaven having ceased, the Flood gradually abates. [The ark
settles on some high mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts
and unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a dove to
ascertain the condition of the earth.
The continuity of Yahwist’s narrative has again been disturbed
by the redaction. Verse ⁶ᵃ, which in its present position has
no point of attachment in Yahwist, probably stood originally
before ²ᵇ, where it refers to the 40 days’ duration of the Flood
(Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 5). It was removed by Redactor
so as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of
the mountain-tops and the drying of the ground.――There are two
small points in which a modification of the generally accepted
division of sources might be suggested. (1) ¹ᵇ (the wind causing
the abatement of the waters) is, on account of אלהים, assigned
to Priestly-Code. But the order ¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵃ is unnatural, and
transpositions in Priestly-Code do not seem to have been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with Yahwist’s conception
of the Flood than with Priestly-Code’s; and but for the name
אלהים the half-verse might very well be assigned to Yahwist,
and inserted between ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ. (2) Verse ⁴ is also almost
universally regarded as Priestly-Code’s (see Budde 269 f.).
But this leaves a lacuna in Yahwist between ³ᵃ and ⁶ᵇ, where a
notice of the landing of the ark must have stood: on the other
hand, ⁵ᵇ makes it extremely doubtful if Priestly-Code thought
of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only objection
to assigning ⁴ to Yahwist is the chronology: if we may suppose
the chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a
later hand (see page 168), there is a great deal to be said for
the view of Hupfeld and Reuss that the remainder of the verse
belongs to Yahwist.¹――The opening passage would then read as
follows:
¹ It may be noted that in _Jubilees_ v. 28 no date is given
for the landing of the ark.
* * * * *
=3a.= הלוך ושוב] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_. LXX has misunderstood
the idiom both here and in verse ⁷.
* * * * *
=6a.= _At the end of 40 days_, =2b.= _the rain from heaven was
restrained_; =1b.= _and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over the
earth, and the waters abated._ =3a.= _And the waters went on decreasing
from off the earth_, =4.= _and the ark rested on the mountains of
Ararat_.――On the landing-place of the ark, see page 166 below.
=6b‒12.= The episode of the sending out of the birds appears in many
forms of the Deluge-tradition; notably in the Babylonian. It is here
related as an illustration of Noah’s wisdom (Gunkel). Tuch quotes from
Pliny, vi. 83 (on the Indians): “siderum in navigando nulla observatio;
septentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emittentes sæpius,
meatumque earum terram petentium comitantur.”――=7.= _He sent out a
raven_] The purpose of the action is not stated till verse ⁸; partly
for this reason, partly because the threefold experiment with the dove
is complete and more natural, the genuineness of the verse has been
questioned (Wellhausen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). Dahse, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 5 f., calls attention
to the fact that in LXXᴹ the verse is marked with the obelus. The
Babylonian account has three experiments, but with different birds
(dove, swallow, raven).――=8.= _And he sent out a dove_] perhaps
immediately; see LXX below. But if verse ⁷ be a later insertion,
we must supply _and he waited 7 days_ (see verse ¹⁰).――=9.= The
description of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed
even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and beauty of
imagination.――=10.= _Seven other days_] implying a similar statement
before either verse ⁷ or verse ⁸.――=11.= _a freshly plucked olive
leaf_] The olive does not grow at great altitudes, and was said to
flourish even under water (Tuch). But it is probable that some
forgotten mythological significance attaches to the symbol in the
Flood-legend (see Gunkel page 60). Compare the classical notices of
the olive branch as an emblem of peace: Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 116
(_Paciferaeque manu ramum prætendit olivæ_); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix.
16.――=12.= The third time the dove returns no more; and then at
last――=13b.= Noah ventures to remove the _covering_ of the ark, and
sees that the earth is dry.
* * * * *
=7.= הערב] on the article see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_; but
compare Smith’s note, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_²,
126.――LXX here supplies τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ κεκόπακεν τὸ ὕδωρ, as in
verse ⁸.――ויצא יצוא ושוב] LXX καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑ πέστρεψεν; so Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå (accepted by Ball): see on ³ᵃ.――=8.= מֵאִתּוֹ] LXX ὀπίσω
αὐτοῦ (= אַֽחֲרָיו); assuming that both birds were sent forth on
the same day.――=10.= וַיָּחֶל] compare וַיִּיָּחֶל, verse ¹² (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ has ויחל both times). Both forms are
incorrect: read in each case וַיְיַחֵל (Budde, Dillmann, al.).――=13b.=
מִכְסֵה] possibly described in Yahwist’s account of the building
of the ark. Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle
(Priestly-Code); but compare מְכַסֶּה, Ezekiel 27⁷.――חרבו] LXX ins.
τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπό.
* * * * *
=20‒22. Noah’s sacrifice.=――Yahwist’s account of the leaving of the
ark has been suppressed. Noah’s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not
of thanksgiving but (as verse ²¹ shows) of propitiation: its effect is
to move the Deity to gracious thoughts towards the new humanity. The
resemblance to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and
instructive (see page 177): the incident appears also in the Greek
and Indian legends.――=20.= _an altar_] Literally ‘slaughtering-place.’
The sacrificial institution is carried back by Yahwist to the remotest
antiquity (see on 4³ ᶠᐧ 7² ᶠᐧ), but this is the first mention of
the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see page 105 above.――עֹלֹת]
_holocausts_,――that form of sacrifice which was wholly consumed on the
altar, and which was naturally resorted to on occasions of peculiar
solemnity (_e.g._ 2 Samuel 24²⁵).――=21.= _smelled the soothing odour_]
רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (κνίση, _nidor_)¹ becomes a technical term of the Levitical
ritual, and is never mentioned elsewhere except in Priestly-Code and
Ezekiel. This, Gunkel points out, is the only place where Yahwe is
actually described as _smelling_ the sacrifice; but compare 1 Samuel
26¹⁹. It is probably a refinement of the crude eudæmonism of the
Babylonian story (see page 177 below); and it is doubtful how far
it elucidates primitive Hebrew ideas of the effect of sacrifice.
That “the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely the occasion of
this gracious purpose” (Knobel), may be sound theology, but it hardly
expresses the idea of the passage.――=21b= is a monologue (אֶל־לִבּוֹ).――כִּי יֵצֶר
וגו׳ (see on 6⁵) may be understood either as epexegetical of בַּֽעֲבוּר הָאָדָם (a
reason why Yahwe _might_ be moved to curse the ground, though he will
not [Holzinger]), or as the ground of the promise _not_ to visit the
earth with a flood any more. The latter is by far the more probable.
The emphasis is on מִנְּעֻרָיו, _from his youth_; the innate sinfulness of man
constitutes an appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured
by an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests all
progress toward better things (compare Isaiah 54⁹).――=22.= The pledge
of Yahwe’s patience with humanity is the regularity of the course of
nature, in which good and bad men are treated alike (Matthew 5⁴⁵). A
division of the year into six seasons (Rashi), or even into two halves
(Delitzsch), is not intended; the order of nature is simply indicated
by a series of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be
interrupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance closes
Yahwist’s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior resolve of
Yahwe; whereas in Priestly-Code it assumes the form of a ‘covenant’
(9¹¹),――a striking instance of the development of religious ideas in
the direction of legalism: compare Jeremiah 31³⁵ ᶠᐧ 33²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ.
¹ _Iliad_ i. 317: κνίση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ;
compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ xii. 153.
* * * * *
=20.= ליהוה] LXX τῷ θεῷ.――=21.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (_bis_).――ריח
הניחח] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)――conflate?――לְקַלֵּל] a different
verb from that used in 3¹⁷ 4¹¹ 5²⁹ (ארר). Holzinger points out
that Piel of קלל is never used with God as subject (compare
Genesis 12³); and for this and other reasons regards ²¹ᵃ as
an unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the
prophecy of 5²⁹. But ²¹ᵃ can only refer to the Flood, while
the curse of 5²⁹ belongs to the past: moreover, an interpolator
would have been careful to use the same verb. The sense given
to קִלֵּל is fully justified by the usage of Pual (Psalms 37²²,
Job 24¹⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰).――בעבור] LXX διὰ τὰ ἔργα, as 3¹⁷.――כי יצר וגו׳]
LXX ὅτι ἔγκειται ἡ διάνοια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιμελῶς κτλ. See on
6⁵.――=22.= עֹד] LXX omitted; Ball, עַד――.ישבתו] ‘come to an end’:
see on 2².
* * * * *
_The Flood according to Priestly-Code._
=VI. 9‒12. Noah’s piety; The corruption of the earth.=――=9.= _This is
the genealogy of Noah_] The formula is usually taken as the heading
of the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the Flood; but see on
9²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――Noah is characterised as _righteous_ (צַדִּיק) and _faultless_
(תָּמִים): on the construction _v.i._ There is perhaps a correspondence
between these two epithets and the description of the state of the
world which follows; צדיק being opposed to the ‘violence,’ and תמים
to the ‘corruption’ of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ. צדיק, a forensic term, denotes one
whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; תמים is sacerdotal in
its associations (Exodus 12⁵, Leviticus 1³ etc.), meaning ‘free from
defect,’ _integer_ (compare 17¹).――_in his generations_ (_v.i._)]
_i.e._ alone among his contemporaries (compare 7¹). That Noah’s
righteousness was only relative to the standard of his age is not
implied.¹――_walked with God_] see on 5²². The expression receives a
fuller significance from the Babylonian legend, where Ut-napištim, like
the Biblical Enoch, is translated to the society of the gods (page 177
below).――=11 f.= וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה] is the intentional antithesis to the וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד
of 1³¹ (Delitzsch).――_All flesh had corrupted its way_] had violated
the divinely-appointed order of creation. The result is _violence_
(חָמָס, LXX ἀδικία)――ruthless outrage perpetrated by the strong on the
weak. A “nature red in tooth and claw with ravin” is the picture which
rises before the mind of the writer; although, as has been already
remarked (page 129), the narrative of Priestly-Code contains no
explanation of the change which had thus passed over the face of the
world.
¹ So Jerome: “ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam,
sed juxta generationis suæ eum justum fuisse justitiam.”
The fundamental idea of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ is the disappearance of the
Golden Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world
established by the decree of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. The lower animals contribute
their share to the general ‘corruption’ by transgressing the
regulation of 1³⁰, and commencing to prey upon each other and
to attack man (see 9⁵): so Rashi. To restrict כל־בשר to mankind
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, Strack, Driver, Bennett al.) is therefore
unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes ‘all
living beings,’ and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in
Priestly-Code’s account of the Flood (Driver _ad loc._). In 6¹⁹
7¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ 8¹⁷ it means animals apart from man; but that in the same
connexion it should also mean mankind apart from animals is not
to be expected, and could only be allowed on clear evidence.――The
difference of standpoint between Priestly-Code and Yahwist (6⁵)
on this matter is characteristic.
* * * * *
=9.= צדיק תמים] (so Job 12⁴). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is
hardly safe to remedy it on the authority of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ותמים) and Vulgate, against LXX.
To remove צדיק as a gloss from Yahwist (7¹) (Ball) is too bold.
Perhaps the sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one
nominal and the other verbal: ‘Noah was a righteous man; perfect
was he,’ etc.――The forensic sense of צדיק given above may not
be the original: see S. A. Cook, _The Journal of Theological
Studies_, ix. 632¹, who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was ‘due’ among a definite social group, and between it and its
gods.――בְּדֹרֹתָיו] LXX ἐν τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ. The feminine plural is
highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung
in den Hexateuch_ 341); but apparently always as a _real_ plural
(series of generations): contrast the solitary use of singular
in Priestly-Code, Exodus 1⁶. Here, accordingly, it seems fair
to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of
Noah (Tuch, Wellhausen, Holzinger, al.), but of the successive
generations covered by his lifetime. The resemblance to צדיק בדור הזה
(7¹) is adduced by Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 390) as a proof of Priestly-Code’s dependence
on Yahwist.――=11.= הָאלהים] One of the few instances of
Priestly-Code’s use of the article with א׳――=12.= אלהים] LXX
Κύριος ὁ θεός.
* * * * *
=13‒16. Directions for building the ark.=――=13.= Announcement in
general terms of some vast impending catastrophe, involving _the end
of all flesh_ (all living beings, as verse ¹²).――=14‒16.= Description
of the Ark.――_An Ark_ (chest) _of gopher wood_] probably some resinous
wood. In Hebrew תֵּבָה is used only of Noah’s ark and the vessel in which
Moses was saved (Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵); the name _ark_ comes to us through
Vulgate (_arca_), where, however, it is also applied to the ark of the
testimony (Exodus 25¹⁰ etc.). The Babylonian Flood-narrative has the
ordinary word for ship (_elippu_).――The vessel is to consist internally
of _cells_ (literally ‘nests’), and is to be coated inside and out with
_bitumen_ (compare Exodus 2³). Somewhat similar details are given of
the ship of Ut-napištim (page 176). Asphalt is still lavishly applied
in the construction of the rude boats used for the transport of naphtha
on the Euphrates (see Cernik, quoted by Suess, _The Face of the Earth_,
27).――=15.= Assuming that the _cubit_ is the ordinary Hebrew cubit
of six handbreadths (about 18 inches: see Kennedy, _A Dictionary of
the Bible_, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are such as modern
shipbuilding has only recently exceeded (see Bennett 140); though it
is probably to be assumed that it was rectangular in plan and sections.
That a vessel of these proportions would float, and hold a great
deal (though it would not carry cannon!), it hardly needed the famous
experiment of the Dutchman Peter Janson in 1609‒21 to prove (see
Michaelis, _Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek_ xviii. 27
f.).――=16.= The details here are very confused and mostly obscure. The
word צֹהַר (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) is generally rendered ‘light’ or ‘opening
for light,’――either a single (square) aperture (Tuch), or “a kind of
casement running round the sides of the ark (except where interrupted
by the beams supporting the roof) a little below the roof” (Driver, so
Delitzsch, Dillmann, al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this
view; but the material arguments for it (see Dillmann 141) are weak,
and its etymological basis is doubtful (_v.i._). Others (Ewald, Gunkel,
Gesenius-Buhl al.) take it to mean the _roof_ (literally ‘back’:
Arabic _ẓahr_).¹ The clause _and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above_
is unintelligible as it stands: some suggestions are given in the
footnote.――The _door_ of the ark is to be _in its_ (longer?) _side_;
and the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories. The ship
of Ut-napištim appears to have had six decks, divided into nine
compartments (lines 61‒63).
¹ According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1, 487), the Babylonian ark had a dome-shaped roof (_muḫḫu_).
* * * * *
=13.= בָּא לְפָנַי] not (as Esther 9¹¹) ‘has come to my knowledge,’
but ‘has entered into my purpose.’ This is better than (with
Dillmann) to take קֵץ בָּא absolutely (as Amos 8²), and לפני as
‘according to my purpose.’――מִפְּנֵיהֶם] _through them_; Exodus 8²⁰ 9¹¹,
Judges 6⁶ etc.――[מַשְׁחִיתָם] את־הארץ LXX καὶ τὴν γῆν; Vulgate _cum
terra_; so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. As Olshausen says,
we should expect מֵעַל ה׳ (מֵאֵת [Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error
probably lies deeper. Ball emends מַשְׁחִית אֹתָם וִאֵת־ה׳; Budde מַשְׁחִיחָם כי [הם]
מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה׳; Gunkel וְהִנָּם מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה. Eerdmans (_Alttestamentliche
Studien_, i. 29) finds a proof of original polytheism. He
reads הִנֶנּוּ מַשְׁחִיתִם וגו׳: “we [the gods] are about to destroy the
earth.”――=14.= תֵּבָה] LXX, Peshiṭtå κιβωτὸς; ♦Targum תיבותא. The word
is the Egyptian _ṭeb(t)_ = ‘chest,’ ‘sarcophagus’ (θίβις, θίβη,
in LXX of Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵): see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_; Erman,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlvi.
123. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 272 f.), while
admitting the Egyptian etymology, suggests a connexion with
the Assyrian _ilippu ṭí-bi-tum_ (a kind of ship). I am informed
by Dr. C. H. W. Johns that while the word is written as the
determinative for ‘ship,’ it is not certain that it was
pronounced _elippu_. He thinks it possible that it covers the
word _tabû_, found in the phrase _ta-bi-e Bêl ilâni Marduk_
(Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ 699 a), which he is
inclined to explain of the processional barques of the gods. If
this conjecture be correct, we may have here the Babylonian
original of Hebrew תֵּבָה. See _Cambridge Biblical Essays_
(1909), page 37 ff.――עֲצֵי־גֹפֶר] The old translators were evidently
at a loss: LXX (ἐκ) ξύλων τετραγώνων; Vulgate _(de) lignis
lævigatis_; Jerome _ligna bituminata_: the word being ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον. Lagarde (_Semitica_ i. 64 f.; _Symmicta_ ii. 93 f.)
considered it a mistaken contraction from גָפְרִית (brimstone),
or rather a foreign word of the same form which meant
originally ‘pine-wood.’ Others (Bochart, al.) suppose it to
contain the root of κυπάρισσος, ‘cypress,’ a wood used by the
Phœnicians in shipbuilding, and by the Egyptians for sarcophagi
(Delitzsch).――קִנִּים] Lagarde’s conjecture, קנים קנים (_Onomastica
Sacra_¹, ii. 95), has been happily confirmed from Philo,
_Quaestiones in Genesis_ ii. 3 (_loculos loculos_: see Budde
255), and from a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Nestle, cited by
Holzinger). On the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_.――כֹּפֶר]
also ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, = ‘bitumen’ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ), Arabic _ḳufr_, Aramaic כופרא Assyrian _kupru_
(used in the Babylonian Flood-story). The native Hebrew word
for ‘bitumen’ is חֵמָר (11³ 14¹⁰, Exodus 2³).――=15.= אֹתָהּ] LXX
אָת־הַתֵּבָה.――=16.= צֹהַר] LXX ἐπισυνάγων (reading צֹבֵר?); all other
versions express the idea of _light_ (Aquila μεσημβρινόν,
Symmachus διαφανές, Vulgate _fenestram_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
word), ‘windows,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ניהור). They connected it (as
Aquila shows) with צָֽהֳרַיִם, ‘noon day’; but _if_ צהרים means properly
‘summit’ (see Gesenius-Buhl; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v. _),
there seems nothing in Hebrew to connect the root with the
idea of light. The meaning ‘back’ is supported by Arabic
_ẓahr_.――ואל־אמה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מלמעלה] The suffix may refer either to the צהר
(whose gender is unknown: compare König _Historisch-comparative
Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_ page 163) or to the תֵּבָה: the
latter is certainly most natural after כִּלָּה. The prevalent
explanation――that the cubit indicates either the breadth of the
light-opening, or its distance below the roof (see Dillmann)――is
mere guess-work. Budde (following Wellhausen) removes the first
three words to the end of the verse, rendering: “and according
to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)”: Dillmann objects
that this would require הָאמה. Ball reads וְאֶל־אָרְכָּהּ תְכַסֶּנָּה מל׳, “and for
its (the ark’s) whole length thou shalt cover it above”; Gunkel:
ואל־א׳ תְּגֻלֶּנָה, “and on a pivot (see Isaiah 6⁴) thou shalt make it (the
roof) revolve,”――a doubtful suggestion.
♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed
* * * * *
=17‒22. The purpose of the ark.=――Gunkel thinks that verse ¹⁷
commences a second communication to Noah; and that in the source from
which Priestly-Code drew, the construction of the ark was recorded
before its purpose was revealed (as in the parallel account of Yahwist:
see on 7¹). That, of course, is possible; but that Priestly-Code
slurred over the proof of Noah’s faith because he had no interest in
_personal_ religion can hardly be supposed. There is really nothing
to suggest that ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ are not the continuation of ¹³⁻¹⁶.――=17.=
_Behold I am about to bring the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל: see above on 7⁷
(Yahwist), and in the Note below.――=18.= _I will establish my covenant,
etc._] anticipating 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Delitzsch and Gunkel distinguish the two
covenants, taking that here referred to as a special pledge to Noah
of safety in the coming judgement; but that is contrary to the usage
of Priestly-Code, to whom the בְּרִית is always a solemn and permanent
embodiment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision
(Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 197 f.).
The entering of the ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled
by Noah _under_ the covenant, but the condition which makes the
establishment of the promised covenant possible (Holzinger).――_Thou
and thy sons, etc._] The enumeration is never omitted by Priestly-Code
except in 8¹; compare 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸: contrast Yahwist in 7¹.――=19 f.= One
pair of each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be
taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean kinds belongs
on the theory of Priestly-Code to a later dispensation――=20.= The
classification (which is repeated with slight variations in 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹
9² ᶠᐧ ¹⁰) here omits wild beasts (חַיָּה): _v.i._ on verse ¹⁹.――יָבֹאוּ does not
necessarily imply that the animals came of themselves (Rashi, Abraham
Ibn Ezra, al.), any more than תָּבִיא (verse ¹⁹) necessarily means that
Noah had to catch them.――=21.= _all food which is_ (or _may be_)
_eaten_] according to the prescriptions of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=22.= _so did
he_] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare
especially Exodus 40¹⁶ (also Exodus 7⁶ 12²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ 39³²ᐧ ⁴² ᶠᐧ, Numbers 1⁵⁴,
and often).
* * * * *
=17.= ואני הנני] compare Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi.
226.――המבול מַיִם (compare 7⁶)] The מים is certainly superfluous
grammatically, but על־הארץ is necessary to the completeness
of the sentence. LXX omits מים in 7⁶, and inserts it in
9¹¹ᵇ (Priestly-Code). Whether it be an explanatory gloss of
the unfamiliar מבול (so most), or a peculiar case of nominal
apposition (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in
Hebrew_ § 188), it is difficult to decide: on the idea that it
is meant to distinguish the water-flood from the light-flood,
see above, page 154. The pointing מִיָּם (Michaelis al.) is
objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, Priestly-Code
never speaks of the Flood as coming ‘from the sea.’ Yahwist’s
phrase is מי המבול: 7⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; compare 9¹¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code).――לְשֶׂחֵת]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, לשחית; but elision
of ה in Hiphil is unusual: some Samaritan MSS have לחשחית
(Ball).――יִגְוַע] ‘expire,’――peculiar to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch.
(compare 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49³³,――12 total in all); elsewhere
only in poetry (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
341).――=19.= הָחַי] (on anomalous pointing of article, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 35 _f_ (1)). _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ reads החיה as in 8¹⁷; and so LXX, which takes
the word in the limited sense of wild animals, reading [καὶ ἀπὸ
πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν] καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων
τῶν θηρίων] (see 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹).――שׁנים] LXX, Peshiṭtå שנים שנים as
in 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁵. So also verse ²⁰.――=20.= מכל־רמש] Inserted וְ with _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; the וְ is necessary to the sense.――LXX has כל
before each class, but Massoretic Text rightly confines it to
the heterogeneous רמש (Holzinger). For רמש האדמה, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have אשר רמש על הא׳.――=21.= לאכלה]
see on 1²⁹.――=22.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.
* * * * *
=VII. 6, 11, 13‒17a. Commencement of the Flood.=――These verses
(omitting ¹⁶ᵇ [Yahwist]) appear to form an uninterrupted section of
the Priestly narrative, following immediately on 6²².――=6.= Date of the
Flood by the year of Noah’s life. The number 600 is a Babylonian _ner_;
it has been thought that the statement rests ultimately on a Babylonian
tradition.――=11.= This remarkably precise date introduces a sort
of diary of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see
below, page 167 f. Verse ⁶, though consistent with ¹¹, is certainly
rendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that we have
here to do with a fusion of authorities within the Priestly tradition
(page 168).――_the fountains of the Great Deep_] (תְּהוֹם רַבָּה: see on 1²).
Outbursts of subterranean water are a frequent accompaniment of seismic
disturbances in the alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31‒33);
and a knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the feature
here expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas, however, it is
conceived as an eruption of the subterranean ocean on which the earth
was believed to rest (see page 17). At the same time _the windows
of heaven were opened_] allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean
to mingle with the lower. The Flood is thus a partial undoing of
the work of creation; although we cannot be certain that the Hebrew
writer looked on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose
cosmological conception with the simple representation of Yahwist, who
sees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive rain.
Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and
structure of ¹¹ᵇ: note the phrase תהום רבה (Amos 7⁴, Isaiah 51¹⁰,
Psalms 36⁷), and the _parallelismus membrorum_. He considers the
words a fragment of an older version of the legend which (like
the Babylonian) was written in poetry. A similar fragment is
found in 8².
* * * * *
=6.= On the syntax of the time-relation, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 164 _a_.――מַיִם] see 6¹⁷.――=11.= בשנת――שנה] ‘in the year of 600
years’; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _o_.――For ‘17th day’
LXX has ‘27th’; see page 167 below.――אֲרֻבֹּת השמים] 8², Malachi 3¹⁰,
= א׳ בשמים, 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹ = מִמָּרוֹם, Isaiah 24¹⁸. Apart from these
phrases the word א׳ is rare, and denotes a latticed opening,
Hosea 13³, Isaiah 60⁸, Ecclesiastes 12³. Here it can only
mean ‘sluices’; the καταράκται of LXX “unites the senses of
waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices” (Delitzsch).
* * * * *
=13.= _On that very day_] continuing verse ¹¹. The idea that all the
animals entered the ark on one day (Yahwist allows a week) has been
instanced as an example of Priestly-Code’s love of the marvellous
(Holzinger, Gunkel).――=14‒16.= See on 6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=17a.= _the Flood
came upon the earth_] as a result of the upheaval, verse ¹¹.――The
words _forty days_ are a gloss based on 7⁴ᐧ ¹² (_v.i._); the Redactor
treating Yahwist’s forty days as an episode in the longer chronology:
see on verse ¹² (Yahwist).
* * * * *
=13.= בעצם היום הזה] 17²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 12¹⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ᐧ ⁵¹, Leviticus
23¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁸, Joshua 5¹¹ (all
Priestly-Code); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
346.――שְׁלשֶׁת] irregular gender: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 97 _c_.――אִתָּם]
Better as LXX, Peshiṭtå אִתּוֹ (8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸).――=14.= הַחַיָּה] distinguishing
wild beasts from domestic (compare verse ²¹); see on 6¹⁹.――כל צפור
וגו׳] LXX omitted. Compare Ezekiel 17²³ 39⁴.――=17a.= ארבעים יום] Budde
(264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of the
gloss ([ארבע]מים) represent the genuine מַיִם of Priestly-Code (6¹⁷
7⁶). LXX adds וארבעים לילה. The half-verse cannot be assigned to
Yahwist, because it would be a mere repetition of verse ¹².
* * * * *
=18‒21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.=――While Yahwist confines
himself to what is essential――the extinction of life――and leaves
the universality of the Flood to be inferred, Priestly-Code not only
asserts its universality, but so to speak proves it, by giving the
exact height of the waters above the highest mountains.――=18, 19.=
_prevailed_] גָּבַר, literally ‘be strong’ (LXX ἐπεκράτει, Aquila
ἐνεδυναμώθη). The Flood is conceived as a contest between the water
and the dry land.――=20.= _fifteen cubits_] is just half the depth of
the ark. The statement is commonly explained in the light of 8⁴: when
the Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its depth, and
therefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was just over one of the
highest mountains; so that on the very slightest abatement of the water
it grounded! The explanation is plausible enough (on the assumption
that 8⁴ belongs to Priestly-Code); but it is quite as likely that the
choice of the number is purely arbitrary.――=24.= _150 days_] the period
of ‘prevalence’ of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (verse ¹¹):
see page 168.
* * * * *
=19.= וַיְכֻסּוּ] LXX וַיְכַסּוּ, with מַיִם as subject (better). So verse
²⁰.――=20.= גָּבְרוּ] LXX גָּבְהוּ (ὑψώθη), is preferable to Massoretic Text
(compare Psalms 103¹¹).――הֶהָרִים] LXX (and Peshiṭtå) add τὰ ὑψηλά as
in ¹⁹.――=21.= וכל האדם] here distinguished from כל־בשר.
* * * * *
=VIII. 1, 2a, 3b‒5, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.=――The judgement
being complete, God remembers the survivors in mercy. The Flood has
no sooner reached its maximum than it begins to abate (³ᵇ), and the
successive stages of the subsidence are chronicled with the precision
of a calendar.――=1.= _remembered_] in mercy, as 19²⁹ 30²² etc. The
inclusion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a
touch of nature in Priestly-Code which should not be overlooked.――=1b.=
The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest of the
cause of the Deluge (²ᵃ). It is said in defence of the present order
that the sending of the wind and the stopping of the elemental waters
are regarded as simultaneous (Dillmann); but that does not quite meet
the difficulty. See, further, page 155 above.――=3b.= _at the end of the
150 days_] (7²⁴). See the footnote.――=4.= The resting of the ark.――_on
(one of) the mountains of ’Ărārāṭ_] which are probably named as the
highest known to the Hebrews at the time of writing; just as one form
of the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek, Parnassus.
Araraṭ (Assyrian _Urarṭu_) is the North-east part of Armenia; compare
2 Kings 19³⁷ = Isaiah 37³⁸, Jeremiah 51²⁷. The name _Mount_ Araraṭ,
traditionally applied to the highest peak (Massis, Agridagh: _c._ 17,
000 feet) of the Armenian mountains, rests on a misunderstanding of
this passage.
The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully
discussed by Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² ii. 1 ff.:
compare Tuch 133‒136; Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des
Alte Testament_ 145 ff.――The district called Araraṭ or Urarṭu
is properly that named in Armenian _Ayrarat_, and is probably
identical with the country of the Alarodians of Herodotus iii.
94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying North-east of
Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on
the right (South-west) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.¹
Another tradition, represented by Berossus (page 177 below) and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ Peshiṭtå קַרְדּוּ², locates the mountain in Kurdistan,
viz. at Ǧebel Ǧûdî, which is a striking mountain South-west of
Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain.
This view is adopted in the Koran (Surah xi. 46), and has
become traditional among the Moslems.――The ‘mountain of Niṣir’
of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably
in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next
tributary to the South, the Adhem (Radânu) (Streck, _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, xv. 272). Tiele and Kosters, however
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 289), identify it with Elburz, the
sacred mountain of the Iranians (South of the Caspian Sea); and
find a trace of this name in the μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Ἀρμενίαν
Βάρις λεγόμενον indicated as the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus
Damascenus (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 95).――What
the original Hebrew tradition was, it is impossible to say. The
writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the
Babylonian, Araraṭ being here a corruption of _Hara haraiti_
(the ancient Iranian name of Elburz), which was afterwards
confused with the land of Urarṭu. Nöldeke and Holzinger think
it probable that Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ and Peshiṭtå preserve the oldest
name (Ḳardu), and that Araraṭ is a correction made when it was
discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher
than those of Kurdistan.
¹ “Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes
fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui
usque illuc extenditur.” Jerome on Isaiah 37³⁸.
² Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has both קרדוניא and ארמניא, as has Berossus.
* * * * *
=1.= The addition of LXX καὶ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ παντῶν
τῶν ἑρπετῶν is here very much in place.――וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ] The √ is rare
and late: Numbers 17²⁰ (Priestly-Code), Jeremiah 5²⁶, Esther 2¹
7¹⁰.――=3b.= מקצה חמשים] Read מקץ החמשים (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel).
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ מקץ ח׳.――=4.= For 17th
LXX has 27th (7¹¹).
* * * * *
=5.= _the tops of the mountains_] _i.e._ (as usually explained) the
other (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation would be that
the statement is made absolutely, from the viewpoint of an imaginary
spectator; in which case it is irreconcilable with verse ⁴ (compare
Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_
16 f.).――=13a, 14.= On New Year’s day the earth’s surface was
uncovered, though still moist; but not till the 27th of the 2nd month
was it _dry_ (_arefacta_: compare Jeremiah 50³⁸).
* * * * *
=5.= היו הלוך וחסור] ‘went on decreasing’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §
113 _u_); less idiomatic than ³ᵃ (Yahwist).――_Tenth_] LXX
_eleventh_.――=13a.= After שנה LXX adds לחיי נח (7¹¹).
* * * * *
=15‒19. Exit from the ark: blessing on the animals.=――=17b.= A renewal
of the benediction of 1²², which had been forfeited by the excesses
before the Flood. The corresponding blessing on man is reserved
for 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=19.= The animals leave the ark _according to their
families_,――an example of Priestly-Code’s love of order.
The _Chronology of the Flood_ presents a number of intricate
though unimportant problems.――The Dates, according to Massoretic
Text and LXX,¹ are as follows:
1. Commencement of Flood, 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day
(LXX 27th)
2. Climax (resting of ark), 600th year, 7th month, 17th day
(LXX 27th)
3. Mountain tops visible, 600th year, 10th (LXX 11th) month,
1st day
4. Waters dried up 601st year, 1st month, 1st day
5. Earth dry 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day
¹ _Jubilees_ v. 23‒32 (compare vi. 25 f.) adds several dates,
but otherwise agrees with Massoretic Text, except that it
makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives no date for the
resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on the
17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd
month.
The chief points are these: (a) In LXX the duration of the Flood
is exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and
(2) amount to 150 days (7²⁴ 8³), the basis of reckoning is
presumably the Egyptian _solar_ year (12 months of 30 days + 5
intercalated days). The 2 months’ interval between (3) and (4)
also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days of 8⁶⁻¹² (Yahwist).
In Massoretic Text the total duration is 12 months + 10 days;
hence the reckoning appears to be by _lunar_ months of _c._ 29½
days, making up a solar year of 364 days.¹――(b) The Massoretic
scheme, however, produces a discrepancy with the 150 days; for
5 lunar months fall short of that period by two or three days.
Either the original reckoning was by solar months (as in LXX),
or (what is more probable) the 150 days belong to an older
computation independent of the Calendar.² It has been surmised
that this points to a 10 months’ duration of the Flood (150
days’ increase + 150 days’ subsidence); and (Ewald, Dillmann)
that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days’ interval
between (2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the
period of subsidence.――(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar
no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The only date
that bears its significance on its face is the disappearance of
the waters on the 1st day of the year; and even this is confused
by the trivial and irrelevant distinction between the drying up
of the waters and the drying of the earth. Why the Flood began
and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or 27th day, remains,
in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.³ (d) The question
whether the months are counted from the old Hebrew New Year
in the autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian)
calendar, from the spring, has been discussed from the earliest
times, and generally decided in favour of the former view
(_Jubilees_, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 80,
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, and most).⁴ The arguments on one side
or the other have little weight. If the second autumn month
(Marchešwan) is a suitable time for the commencement of the
Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season in Palestine
and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuitable
for its close. Priestly-Code elsewhere follows the Babylonian
calendar, and there is no reason to suppose he departs from
his usual procedure here (so Tuch, Gunkel, al.).――(e) The only
issue of real interest is how much of the chronology is to
be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there be two
discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the
reckoning of Priestly-Code, and the Calendar a later adjustment
(Dillmann); or, again, the 150 days might be traditional, and
the Calendar the work of Priestly-Code himself (Gunkel). On
the former (the more probable) assumption the further question
arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The evidence is not
decisive; but the divergences of LXX from Massoretic Text seem
to prove that the chronology was still in process of development
after the formation of the Canon.――See Dahse, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is
shewn that a group of Greek MSS agree closely with _Jubilees_,
and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning
was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the
2nd month.
¹ So _Jubilees_ vi. 32. Compare Charles’s Notes, pages 54 f.
and 56 f.
² That it is a later redactional addition (Holzinger) is much
less likely.
³ King (_The Journal of Theological Studies_, v. 204 f.) points
out the probability that in the triennial cycle of Synagogue
readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story fell to be
read _about_ the 17th Iyyar. This might conceivably have
suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it
would bring down the latter to a somewhat late period), or
a modification of an original 27th (LXX), which, however,
would itself require explanation.
⁴ See Delitzsch 175 f., 183, 184; Dillmann 129 f.
* * * * *
=15.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――=17.= _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְכל־החיה; so verse ¹⁹.――הוצא]
Why Qrê substitutes in this solitary instance הַיְצֵא is not clear:
see König i. page 641.――וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ] LXX וּפְרוּ וּרְבוּ (Improved), omitting
the previous ושרצו בארץ. This is perhaps the better text: see on
9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Vulgate reads the whole as Improved.――=19.= כל־הרמש――רמש]
LXX (better) וכל־הבהמה וכל־העוף וכל הרֶפֶשׂ הרֹמֵשׂ.――למשפחתיהם] (Jeremiah 15³);
the plural of מין (Priestly-Code’s word in chapter 1) is not in
use (Holzinger).
* * * * *
=IX. 1‒7. The new world-order.=――The religious significance of the
Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the
following sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal
age of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The
original harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter
were prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the
Flood (see on 6¹¹ ᶠᐧ). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in
which the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only
two restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the
degenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the ‘life’ of an animal, and
(2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast.
The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of
the passage when they formulated the idea of the ‘Noachic
commandments,’ binding on men generally, and therefore required
of the ‘proselytes of the gate’; though they increased their
number. See Schürer, iii. 128 f.
Verses ¹⁻⁷, both in substance and expression (compare לכם יהיה לאכלה,
נתתי לכם את־כל, and especially ירק עשב), form a pendant to 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ We
have seen (page 35) that these verses are supplementary to the
cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in
relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be
an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel
(as verses ⁸⁻¹⁶ have) in Yahwist or the Babylonian narrative
(Gunkel). But that neither this nor 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ is a secondary addition
to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is
moulded as obviously on 1²²ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ as on 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. To treat 9⁴⁻⁶
as a later insertion (Holzinger) is arbitrary. On the contrary,
the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of
Priestly-Code to the ancient traditions.
=1.= An almost verbal repetition of 1²⁸. The wives of Noah and his
sons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the Old
Testament (so verse ⁸). It is perhaps also significant that here (in
contrast to 1²²) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though
not from the covenant――verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=2.= Man’s ‘dominion’
over the animals is re-established, but now in the form of _fear_ and
_dread_ (compare Deuteronomy 11²⁵) towards him on their part.――_into
your hand they are given_] conveying the power of life and death
(Leviticus 26²⁵, Deuteronomy 19¹² etc.).――=3.= The central injunction:
removal of the prohibition of animal food.――_moving thing that is
alive_] an unusually vague definition of animal life.――Observe
Priestly-Code’s resolute ignoring of the distinction between clean
and unclean animals.――=4.= The first restriction. Abstention from
eating blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained, is
a fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Leviticus 7²⁷
17¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is
constantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 33²⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). The theory
on which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 17¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴,
Deuteronomy 12²³): the blood is the life, and the life is sacred, and
must be restored to God before the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic
views of the blood are primitive and widespread; and amongst some races
formed a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.¹ All the same
it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for the ancient
Hebrew horror of eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14³² ᶠᶠᐧ²).――=5, 6.=
The second restriction: sanctity of human life. ‘Life’ is expressed
alternately by דָּם and נֶפֶשׁ.――On לנפשתיכם, _v.i._――_I will require_] exact
an account of, or equivalent for (42²², Ezekiel 33⁶, Psalms 9¹³ etc.).
That God is the avenger of blood is to Yahwist (chapter 4) a truth of
nature; to Priestly-Code it rests on a positive enactment.――_from the
hand of every beast_] see Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――=6a= is remarkable for its
assonances and the perfect symmetry of the two members: שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם | בָּאָדָם
דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ. It is possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become
proverbial (Gunkel). The ♦Targum (_v.i._) read into the text the
idea of judicial procedure; others (Tuch, al.) suppose the law of
blood-revenge to be contemplated. In reality the manner of execution
is left quite indefinite.――=6b.= The reason for the higher value set on
the life of man. On the _image of God_ see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ.――=7.= The section
closes, as it began, with the note of benediction.
¹ See _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 234 f.;
Frazer, _The Golden Bough_², i. 133 f., 352 f.; Kennedy,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1544.
² It has been thought that the offence warned against is the
barbarous African custom of eating portions of animals still
alive (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, Delitzsch, al.); but that is a
mistake.
♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed
* * * * *
=1.= LXX adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1²⁸.――=2.=
בכל――ובכל] LXX, Peshiṭtå ובכל (_bis_). The בְּ cannot be that of
specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶ etc.), since no comprehensive
category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing
the sense of על (LXX), and not altogether natural to render
‘along with’ (Dillmann).――נִתָּנוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ LXX נְתַתִּיו:――=3.= נתתי לכם את־כל] seems a slavish repetition
from 1²⁹. We should at least expect the article, which _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (הכל) supplies.――=4.=
דמו is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to בנפשו; but
LXX renders ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς, and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase),
Symmachus (οὗ σὺν ψυχῇ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) as a relative clause.――=5.=
ואך is suspicious after the preceding אך. _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (ואת־דמכם) omits.――לנפשתיכם] usually taken as
circumscription of genitive, emphasising the suffix: ‘_your_
blood, your own’――in contrast with the animals. It is better to
render ‘according to your persons,’ _i.e._ individually;――“dem
eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive Fassung des ל doch
am besten” (Delitzsch).――מיד איש אחיו] ‘from the hand of one man
that of another.’ The full expression would be מיד איש את־נפש אחיו
(Olshausen); but all languages use breviloquence in the
expression of reciprocity. The construction is hardly more
difficult than in 15¹⁰ 42²⁵ᐧ ³⁵; and an exact parallel occurs
in Zechariah 7¹⁰. See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 _c_; Budde 283 ff.
The ואחיו of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå,
Vulgate makes nonsense; LXX omits the previous ומיד האדם. It would
be better to move the Athnach so as to commence a new clause
with מיד איש.――=6.= באדם] Vulgate omitted; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בסהדין ממימר דיניא:
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ is still more explicit.――=7.= ורבו בה] Vulgate _et
implete eam_ (as verse ¹). Read ורדו בה after 1²⁸ (Nestle in Ball).
* * * * *
=8‒17. The Covenant and its Sign.=――In Priestly-Code as in Yahwist
(8²⁰⁻²²) the story of the Flood closes with an assurance that the world
shall never again be visited by such a catastrophe; and in both the
promise is absolute, not contingent on the behaviour of the creatures.
In Priestly-Code it takes the form of a covenant between God and all
flesh,――the first of two covenants by which (according to this writer)
the relations of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the
content and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the concluding note,
page 173 f.――=9.= _establish my covenant_] in fulfilment of 6¹⁸.
Priestly-Code’s formula for the inauguration of the covenant is always
הֵקִים בְּרִית or נָתַן בּ׳ (17², Numbers 25¹²) instead of the more ancient and
technical כָּרַת בּ׳.――=11.= The essence of the covenant is that the earth
shall never be devastated by a Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted
by this assurance is a difficult question, on which see page 173
below.――=12‒17.= The sign of the covenant. “In times when contracts
were not reduced to writing, it was customary, on the occasion of
solemn vows, promises, and other ‘covenant’ transactions, to appoint
a sign, that the parties might at the proper time be reminded of the
covenant, and a breach of its observance be averted. Examples in common
life: Genesis 21³⁰, compare 38¹⁷ ᶠᐧ” (Gunkel).¹ Here the sign is a
natural phenomenon――the rainbow; and the question is naturally asked
whether the rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so
Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch). That is the most obvious assumption, though
not perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and reflection
of light on which the rainbow depends actually existed before the
time of Noah is a matter of which the writer may very well have been
ignorant.――For the rest, the image hardly appears here in its original
form. The brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark
background of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man as a token
of peace and good-will from the god who has placed it there; but of
this thought the passage contains no trace: the bow is set in the cloud
by God to remind Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as
if Priestly-Code, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive
conception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his abstract
theory of the covenant with its accompanying sign. On the mythological
origin of the symbol, see below.――=14‒16.= Explanation of the
sign.――¹⁴ᵇ continues ¹⁴ᵃ: _and (when) the bow appears in the cloud_;
the apodosis commencing with ¹⁵ (against Delitzsch).――The bow seems
conceived as lodged once for all in the cloud (so Abraham Ibn Ezra),
to appear at the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind
of God.――=16.= _an everlasting covenant_] so 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹, Exodus 31¹⁶,
Leviticus 24⁸, Numbers 18¹⁹ 25¹³ (all Priestly-Code).
¹ Hence both of Priestly-Code’s covenants are confirmed by a
sign: the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by
the rainbow.
The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To
the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his
contest with the demons; among the Arabs “Kuzah shoots arrows
from his bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds” (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 311); by Homer it was
personified as Ἶρις, the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(_Iliad_ ii. 786, iii. 121; compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ i. 270
f.), but also regarded as a portent of war and storm (xi. 27 f.,
xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is the bridge between
heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation is perhaps
found in the Babylonian Creation-myth, where Marduk’s bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a
constellation. (See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 248; Dillmann 155 f.; Gunkel 138 f.; Driver
99).――These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of
the symbolism of this passage. It springs from the imagery of
the thunderstorm; the lightnings are Yahwe’s arrows; when the
storm is over, His bow (compare Habakkuk 3⁹⁻¹¹, Psalms 7¹³ ᶠᐧ)
is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign that His anger
is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of which there
are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has yet
been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient,
adaptation. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in Old
Testament (Ezekiel 1²⁸ הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם: but see Sirach
43¹¹ ᶠᐧ 50⁷), and it is pointed out (by Wellhausen, al.) that
elsewhere קֶשֶׁת always denotes the bow as a weapon, never an arc
of a circle.
With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question
theologically is whether it includes the regulations of
verses ¹⁻⁶, or is confined to the unconditional promise that
there shall no more be a flood. For the latter view there is
undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 3 f.). Verses ¹⁻⁷
and ⁸⁻¹⁷ are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of
different origin (page 169); and while the first says nothing
of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding
stipulations. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact
independent of human action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning
of the author that the promise stands sure whether the precepts
of ¹⁻⁷ be observed or not. On the other hand, it is difficult
to believe that Priestly-Code, to whom the ברית means so much,
should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of
verse ¹¹. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ברית marks
a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and
is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom
it is established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of
including the ordinances of ¹⁻⁷ in the terms of the covenant
(so Isaiah 24⁵ ᶠᐧ). Kraetzschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten
Testament_ 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition
that the idea of verses ⁸⁻¹⁷ is borrowed by Priestly-Code from
Yahwist, and represents the notion of the covenant characteristic
of that document. It is much simpler to recognise the existence
of different tendencies within the priestly school; and we
have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding
verses ¹⁻⁷ as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed
by Priestly-Code. If that be the case, it is probable that
these verses were inserted by the priestly author with the
intention of bringing under the Noachic ברית those elementary
religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding
on mankind.――On the conception of the ברית in Yahwist and
Priestly-Code, see chapters 15 and 17.
* * * * *
=10.= מכל] ‘as many as’; see on 6².――לכל חית הארץ] LXX omitted.――לְכל]
perhaps = ‘in short’: compare 23¹⁰, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §
143 _e_. The sense of ח׳ ה׳ = ‘animals’ in general, immediately
after the same expression in the sense of ‘wild animals,’ makes
the phrase suspicious (Holzinger).――=11.= מבול] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ המבול; LXX adds מַיִם.――לשחת] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ להשחית; so verse ¹⁵.――=12.=
אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + (with Peshiṭtå) אל־נח.――=13.= נתתי] hardly
historic perfect (‘I have set’), but either perfect of instant
action (‘I do set’), or perfect of certainty (‘I will set’); see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_, _m_, _n_.――=14.= בענני ענן] literally
‘when I cloud with cloud’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 52 _d_ and
117 _r_.――הקשת] LXX, Vulgate קשתי; so LXX in verse ¹⁶.――=15.=
חיה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå החיה
אשר אתכם (compare verse ¹²).――=16.= לִזְכֹּר Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
לְזֵכֶר.――בין אלהים] LXX ביני.
* * * * *
=28, 29. The death of Noah.=
The form of these verses is exactly that of the genealogy,
chapter 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of
the תולדת נח (6⁹). How much was included under that rubric? Does
it cover the whole of Priestly-Code’s narrative of the Flood (so
that תולדת is practically equivalent to ‘biography’), or does it
refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6¹⁰?
The conjecture may be hazarded that 6⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 7⁶ 9²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ formed a
section of the original book of תולדת, and that into this skeleton
the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the
priestly writers (see the notes on 2⁴ᵃ). The relation of the
assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that
of the תולדת of Terah (11²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) to the תולדת of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶). In
each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it
opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in
each case the birth of three sons, 5³² 6¹⁰); and, finally, the
second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices.
It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham
belongs to the תולדת of Terah; that is the accepted view, and
the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on page 40 f.
Fortunately the question is of no great importance.
* * * * *
=29.= ויהי, Hebrew MSS (London Polyglott) and _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהיו.
* * * * *
_The Deluge Tradition._
1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most
interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The
wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories,
and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the
biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not
unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly
historical character of the latter.¹ On the question of the
universality of the Deluge² they have, of course, no immediate
bearing, though they frequently assert it; for it could never
be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote
part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The
utmost that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge
coextensive with the primitive seat of mankind; and that the
memory of the cataclysm was carried with them by the various
branches of the race in their dispersion. But even that position,
which is still maintained by some competent writers, is attended
by difficulties which are almost insuperable. The scientific
evidence for the antiquity of man all over the world shows that
such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken place many
thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah; and that
the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time
among savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible.
The most reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here
be followed out in detail) is that the great majority of the
legends preserve the recollection of local catastrophes, such as
inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods accompanied by cyclones,
etc., of which many historical examples are on record; while
in a considerable number of cases these local legends have been
combined with features due either to the diffusion of Babylonian
culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through
Christian missionaries.³ In this note we shall confine our
attention to the group of legends most closely affiliated to
the Babylonian tradition.
¹ Andree (_Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet_, 1891),
who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories
(of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine,
and twenty-six as influenced by the Babylonian) points out,
_e.g._, that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and
central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere
in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous
and remarkable instances come from the American continent
(page 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be
considered as closed: Naville (_Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology_, 1904, 251‒257, 287‒294) claims to
have found fresh proof of an Egyptian tradition in a text
of the Book of the Dead, containing the following words:
“And further I (the god Tum) am going to deface all I have
done; this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an
inundation, as it was at the beginning” (_l.c._ page 289).
² On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of
such a hypothesis, see Driver 99 f.
³ See Andree, _l.c._ 143 ff.; Suess, _The Face of the Earth_,
i. 18‒72 _passim_ Compare the discussion by Woods in _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 17 ff.; and Driver _The Book
of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 101 ff.――Lenormant,
who once maintained the independence of the legends as
witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed
himself with more reserve, and conceded the possibility that
the Mexican and Polynesian myths might be distant echoes of
a central legend, emanating ultimately from Babylonia (_Les
Origines de l’histoire_² i. 471 f., 488 ff.).
2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is
contained in the eleventh Tablet of the Gilgameš Epic.¹ Gilgameš
has arrived at the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his
ancestor Utnapištim how he had been received into the society
of the gods. The answer is the long and exceedingly graphic
description of the Flood which occupies the bulk of the
Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at Šurippak on
the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send
the Flood (_abûbu_) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at
the council, resolved to save his favourite Utnapištim; and
contrived without overt breach of confidence to convey to him
a warning of the impending danger, commanding him to build a
ship (_elippu_) of definite dimensions for the saving of his
life. The ‘superlatively clever one’ (_Atra-ḥasis_, a name of
Utnapištim) understood the message and promised to obey; and was
furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens
for his extraordinary proceedings. The account of the
building of the ship (line 48 ff.) is even more obscure than
Genesis 6¹⁴⁻¹⁶: it is enough to say that it was divided into
compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen. The lading
of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and dependants
of Utnapištim (including artizans), with domestic and wild
animals, are then described (line 81 ff.); and last of all, in
the evening, on the appearance of a sign predicted by Šamaš the
sun-god, Utnapištim himself enters the ship, shuts his door,
and hands over the command to the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff.).
On the following morning the storm (magnificently described in
lines 97 ff.) broke; and it raged for six days and nights, till
all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to the heaven
of Anu and “cowered in terror like a dog.”
¹ Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of
Asshurbanipal’s library; published 1873‒4; and often
translated since. See _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_², 55 ff.; Jensen _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_,
368 ff.; Zimmern in Gunkel’s _Schöpfung und Chaos in
Urzeit und Endzeit_, 423 ff.; Jensen _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed
below); Ball _Light from the East_, 35 ff.; Jeremias _Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 228 ff.;
and the abridgments in Jastrow _The Religion of Babylonia
and Assyria_¹, 493 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 545 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 50 ff.
“When the seventh day came, the hurricane,
the Flood, the battle-storm was stilled,
Which had fought like a (host?) of men.
The sea became calm, the tempest was still,
the Flood ceased.
When I saw the day, no voice was heard,
And the whole of mankind was turned to clay.
When the daylight came, I prayed,
I opened a window and the light fell on my face,
I knelt, I sat, and wept,
On my nostrils my tears ran down.
I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea;
After twelve double-hours an island stood out.
At Nisir² the ship had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship....”
(line 130‒142).
² See page 166.
This brings us to the incident of the birds (146‒155):
“When the seventh day³ came
I brought out a dove and let it go.
The dove went forth and came back:
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I brought forth a swallow and let it go.
The swallow went forth and came back:
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I brought forth a raven and let it go.
The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters,
It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again.”
³ From the landing.
On this Utnapištim released all the animals; and, leaving the
ship, offered a sacrifice:
“The gods smelt the savour,
The gods smelt the goodly savour
The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer”
(160 ff.).
The deities then begin to quarrel, Ištar and Ea reproaching Bel
for his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately,
and Bel accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of
Utnapištim. Finally, Bel is appeased; and entering the ship
blesses the hero and his wife:
“‘Formerly Utnapištim was a man;
But now shall Utnapištim and his wife be like to us
the gods:
Utnapištim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the
streams.’
Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the
streams they made me dwell” (202 ff.).⁴
⁴ Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend,
in which the hero is regularly named Atra-ḥasis, have also
been deciphered. One of them, being dated in the reign of
Ammizaduga (_circa_ 1980 B.C.), is important as proving that
this recension had been reduced to writing at so early a
time; but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial
to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 288‒291). The other is a
mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea’s instructions
to Atra-ḥasis regarding the building and entering of the
ark, and the latter’s promise to comply (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, 256‒259). See _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 551 f.――The extracts from Berossus
preserved by Eusebius present the Babylonian story in a form
substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgameš Tablets,
though with some important variations in detail. See
Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. (edited by Schoene, columns 19‒24,
32‒34: compare Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii.
501 ff.).
3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient
Babylonian legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat
more obvious in the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly;
but there is enough in the common substratum of the two accounts
to show that the Hebrew tradition as a whole was derived from
Babylonia. Thus both Yahwist and Priestly-Code agree with the
Babylonian story in the general conception of the Flood as a
divine visitation, its universality (so far as the human race is
concerned), the warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and
the final pacification of the deity who had caused the Deluge.
Yahwist agrees with Babylonia in the following particulars: the
entry of the hero into the ark _after_ the premonitory rain;
the shutting of the door; the prominence of the number 7; the
episode of the birds; the sacrifice; and the effect of its
‘savour’ on the gods. Priestly-Code has also its peculiar
correspondences (though some of these may have been in Yahwist
originally): _e.g._ the precise instructions for building the
ark; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Babylonian touch);
the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the
survivors.¹ By the side of this close and marked parallelism,
the material differences on which Nickel (page 185) lays
stress――viz. as to (a) the chronology, (b) the landing-place
of the ark, (c) the _details_ of the sending out of the birds,
(d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Babylonian), and (e) the
name of the hero――sink into insignificance. They are, indeed,
sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between
the Hebrew writers and the Gilgameš Tablets; but they do not
weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known
to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of
the Israelites. And since we have seen (page 177) that the
Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time
usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible
to suppose that the Hebrew oral tradition had preserved an
independent recollection of the historical occurrence which
may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge
tradition.――The _differences_ between the two narratives are
on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis
narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional
traces of a poetic original (8²² in Yahwist, 7¹¹ᵇ 8²ᵃ in
Priestly-Code), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which
appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its
antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the
principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and
pathos of which only a few touches appear in Yahwist, and none
at all in Priestly-Code. The difference here is not wholly due
to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical
writers: it is characteristic of the Hebrew popular tale that it
shuns the ‘fine frenzy’ of the poet, and finds its appropriate
vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In
this we have an additional indication that the story was not
drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from
the lips of the common people; although in Priestly-Code it
has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory
of history peculiar to that document (page lx f.). The most
important divergences are naturally those which spring from
the religion of the Old Testament――its ethical spirit, and its
monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is
but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear
recognition in the hands of the Hebrew writers: the Flood is a
divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved
is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More
pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea.
The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious,
divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer
speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge
in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against
this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one
almighty and righteous God,――a Being capable of anger and pity,
and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings
with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies
the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams
of tradition. Thus in the Babylonian version the fact that
the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of
the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot
explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in Yahwist
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gunkel page 66).
Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is
true, at all events, that the Babylonian parallel serves as a
“measure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel,
which was powerful enough to purify and transform in such a
manner the most uncongenial and repugnant features” of the pagan
myth (_ib._); and, further, that “the Flood-story of Genesis
retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of the
world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this
pædagogic and ethical purpose” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², page 252).
¹ See more fully Driver, page 106.
4. Of other ancient legends in which some traces of the Chaldean
influence may be suspected, only a very brief account can
here be given. The _Indian_ story, to which there is a single
allusion in the Vedas, is first fully recorded in the Çatapatha
Brāhmaṇa, i. 8. 1‒10.¹ It relates how Manu, the first man,
found one day in the water with which he performed his morning
ablution a small fish, which begged him to take care of it till
it should attain its full growth, and then put it in the sea.
Manu did so, and in gratitude for its deliverance the fish
warned him of the year in which the Flood would come, promising,
if he would build a ship, to return at the appointed time and
save him. When the Flood came the fish appeared with it; Manu
attached the cable of his ship to the fish’s horn, and was thus
towed to the mountain of the north, where he landed, and whence
he gradually descended as the waters fell. In a year’s time a
woman came to him, announcing herself as his daughter, produced
from the offerings he had cast into the water; and from this
pair the human race sprang. In a later form of the tradition
(Mahābhārata, iii. 187. 2 ff.),² the Babylonian affinities are
somewhat more obvious; but even in the oldest version they are
not altogether negligible, especially when we remember that
the fish (which in the Mahābhārata is an incarnation of Brahma)
was the symbol of the god Ea.³――The _Greeks_ had several
Flood-legends, of which the most widely diffused was that of
Deukalion, best known from the account of Apollodorus (i. 7. 2
ff.).⁴ Zeus, resolved to destroy the brazen race, sends a heavy
rain, which floods the greater part of Greece, and drowns all
men except a few who escape to the mountain tops. But Deukalion,
on the advice of his father Prometheus, had prepared a chest,
loaded it with provisions, and taken refuge in it with his
wife Pyrrha. After 9 days and nights they land on Parnassus;
Deukalion sacrifices to Zeus and prays for a new race of
men: these are produced from stones which he and his wife, at
the command of the god, throw over their shoulders. The incident
of the ark seems here incongruous, since other human beings were
saved without it. It is perhaps an indication of the amalgamation
of a foreign element with local Deluge traditions.――A _Syrian_
tradition, with some surprising resemblances to Priestly-Code
in Genesis, has been preserved by the Pseudo-Lucian (_De dea
Syra_, 12, 13). The wickedness of men had become so great that
they had to be destroyed. The fountains of the earth and the
flood-gates of heaven were opened simultaneously; the whole
world was submerged, and all men perished. Only the pious
Deukalion-Sisuthros⁵ was saved with his family in a great chest,
into which as he entered all sorts of animals crowded. When the
water had disappeared, Deukalion opened the ark, erected altars,
and founded the sanctuary of Derketo at Hierapolis. The hole
in the earth which swallowed up the Flood was shown under the
temple, and was seen by the writer, who thought it not quite
big enough for the purpose. In Usener’s opinion we have here
the Chaldean legend localised at a Syrian sanctuary, there being
nothing Greek about it except the name Deukalion.――A _Phrygian_
localisation of the Semitic tradition is attested by the epithet
κιβωτός applied to the Phrygian Apameia (Kelainai) from the
time of Augustus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, etc.); and still more
remarkably by bronze coins of that city dating from the reign
of Septimius Severus. On these an open chest is represented,
bearing the inscription ΝΩΕ, in which are seen the figures of
the hero and his wife; a dove is perched on the lid of the ark,
and another is flying with a twig in its claws. To the left
the same two human figures are seen standing in the attitude
of prayer.⁶ The late date of these coins makes the hypothesis
of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence extremely
probable.――The existence of a _Phœnician_ tradition is inferred
by Usener (248 ff.) from the discovery in Etruria and Sardinia
of bronze models of ships with various kinds of animals standing
in them: one of them is said to date from the 7th century B.C.
There is no extant written record of the Phœnician legend:
on Gruppe’s reconstruction from the statements of Greek
mythographers see above, page 141.
¹ Translated by Eggeling, _Sacred Books of the East_,
xii. 216 ff. See Usener, _Die Sintfluthsagen_
(_Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, iii.), 25 ff.
² Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii.
552 ff. See Usener, 29 ff.
³ Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence
of the Indian and Semitic legends.
⁴ The earliest allusion is Pindar, _Olympian_ 9. 41 ff.
Compare Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 244‒415; Pausanias i. 40.
1, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar
modification) appears only in Plutarch _De sollertia
animalium_ 13.――Usener, 31 ff., 244 ff.
⁵ Text Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σκύθεα, which Buttmann (_Mythologus_,
i. 192) ingeniously emended to Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σισυθέα――a
modification of the Σίσιθρος of Abydenus.
⁶ See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_¹, 131, ²235.
5. There remains the question of the origin of this widespread
and evidently very popular conception of a universal Deluge.
That it embodies a common primitive tradition of an historic
event we have already seen to be improbable. If we suppose the
original story to have been elaborated in Babylonia, and to have
spread thence to other peoples, it may still be doubtful whether
we have to do “with a legend based upon facts” or “with a myth
which has assumed the form of a history.” The mythical theory
has been most fully worked out by Usener, who finds the germ
of the story in the favourite mythological image of “the god
in the chest,” representing the voyage of the sun-god across
the heavenly ocean: similar explanations were independently
propounded by Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1063 f.) and
Zimmern (_ib._ 1058 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 555). Of a somewhat different order is the
astrological theory advocated by Jeremias (249 ff.). The
Babylonian astronomers were aware that in the course of ages
the spring equinox must traverse the watery (southern) region
of the Zodiac: this, on their system, signified a submergence
of the whole universe in water; and the Deluge-myth symbolises
the safe passage of the vernal sun-god through that part of the
ecliptic.――Whatever truth there may be in these theories, it is
certain that they do not account for the concrete features of
the Chaldean legend; and if (as can hardly be denied) mythical
motives are present, it seems just as likely that they were
grafted on to a historic tradition as that the history is merely
the garb in which a solar or astral myth arrayed itself. The
most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after
all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable
and devastating flood in the Euphrates valley, as to the
physical possibility of which, it may suffice to quote the
(perhaps too literal) description of an eminent geologist: “In
the course of a seismic period of some duration the water of
the Persian Gulf was repeatedly driven by earthquake shocks over
the plain at the mouth of the Euphrates. Warned by these floods,
a prudent man, Ḥasîs-adra, _i.e._ the god-fearing philosopher,
builds a ship for the rescue of his family, and caulks it with
pitch, as is still the custom on the Euphrates. The movements
of the earth increase; he flees with his family to the ship; the
subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured plain; a great
diminution in atmospheric pressure, indicated by fearful storm
and rain, probably a true cyclone, approaches from the Persian
Gulf, and accompanies the most violent manifestations of the
seismic force. The sea sweeps in a devastating flood over the
plain, raises the rescuing vessel, washes it far inland, and
leaves it stranded on one of those Miocene foot-hills which
bound the plain of the Tigris on the north and north-east below
the confluence of the Little Zab” (Eduard Suess, _The Face of
the Earth_, i. 72). See, however, the criticism of Sollas, _The
Age of the Earth_, 316.
IX. 18‒27.
_Noah as Vine-grower: His Curse and Blessing_
(Yahwist).
Noah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as the discoverer
of the culture of the vine; and the first victim to immoderate
indulgence in its fruit. This leads on to an account of the shameless
behaviour of his youngest son, and the modesty and filial feeling of
the two elder; in consequence of which Noah pronounces a curse on
Canaan and blessings on Shem and Japheth.――The Noah of verses ²⁰⁻²⁷
almost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition from
the righteous and blameless patriarch who is the hero of the Flood.
The incident, indeed, cannot, without violating all probability, be
harmonised with the Flood-narrative at all. In the latter, Noah’s sons
are married men who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in
Priestly-Code, but the same must be presumed for Yahwist); here, on
the contrary, they are represented as minors living in the ‘tent’ with
their father; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously conceived
as an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Dillmann, Budde, al.).
The presumption, therefore, is that verses ²⁰⁻²⁷ belong to a stratum
of Yahwist which knew nothing of the Flood; and this conclusion is
confirmed by an examination of the structure of the passage.
First of all, we observe that in verse ²⁴ the offender is the
_youngest_ son of Noah, and in verse ²⁵ is named Canaan; while
Shem and Japheth are referred to as his _brothers_. True, in
verse ²² the misdeed is attributed to ‘Ham the father of Canaan’;
but the words חָם אֲבִי have all the appearance of a gloss intended
to cover the transition from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ to ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; and the clause וְחָם הוּא
אֲבִי כְנַעַן in ¹⁸ᵇ can have no other purpose. Now ¹⁸ᵃ is the close of
Yahwist’s¹ account of the Flood; and ¹⁹ points forward either
to Yahwist’s list of Nations (chapter 10), or to the dispersion
of the Tower of Babel. Verses ²⁰⁻²⁷ interrupt this connexion,
and must accordingly be assigned to a separate source. That
that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown partly by
the language (יַהְוֶה, verse ²⁶ [in spite of אֱלֹהִים in verse ²⁷]; and
וַיָּחֶל, verse ²⁰); and more especially by the connexion with 5²⁹
(see pages 3, 133 f.). It is clear, therefore, that a redactor
(Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) has here combined two Yahwistic documents, and
sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in ¹⁸ᵇ and ²².
¹ Compare נָֽפְצָה with 10¹⁸ 11⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹; and כָּל־הָאָרֶץ (= the population
of the earth) with 11¹ᐧ ⁹ (Budde); שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹחַ with 10²⁹ 22²³
25⁴ (Holzinger).
=18, 19.= Connecting verses (see above).――Noah’s sons are here for the
first time named in Yahwist, in harmony, however, with the repeated
notices of Priestly-Code (5³² 6¹⁰ 7¹³). On the names see on chapter 10
(page 195 f.).――=20.= _Noah the husbandman was the first who planted a
vineyard_]――a fresh advance in human civilisation. The allusion to Noah
as _the_ husbandman is perplexing. If the text be right (_v.i._), it
implies a previous account of him as addicted to (perhaps the inventor
of) agriculture, which now in his hands advances to the more refined
stage of vine-growing. See the note on page 185.
Amongst other peoples this discovery was frequently attributed
to a god (Dionysus among the Greeks, Osiris among the Egyptians),
intoxication being regarded as a divine inspiration. The
orgiastic character of the religion of the Canaanites makes it
probable that the same view prevailed amongst them; and it has
even been suggested that the Noah of this passage was originally
a Canaanitish wine-god (see Niebuhr, _Geschichte des ebräischen
Zeitalters_, 36 ff.). The native religion of Israel (like that
of Mohammed) viewed this form of indulgence with abhorrence; and
under strong religious enthusiasm the use of fermented drinks
was entirely avoided (the Nazirites, Samson, the Rechabites).
This feeling is reflected in the narrative before us, where
Noah is represented as experiencing in his own person the
full degradation to which his discovery had opened the way. It
exhibits the repugnance of a healthy-minded race towards the
excesses of a debased civilisation.――Since the vine is said to
be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus (see Delitzsch, Dillmann),
it has naturally been proposed to connect the story with the
landing of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the passage
has nothing to do with the Deluge-tradition; and it is more
probable that it is an independent legend, originating amidst
Palestinian surroundings.
* * * * *
=19.= נפצה כל־הארץ] ‘the whole (population of the) earth was
scattered.’ For the construction compare 10⁵.――נָֽפְצָה] hardly
contracted Niphal from √ פצץ [= פוץ] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67
_dd_); but from √ נפץ, whether this be a secondary formation
from √ פוץ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 465 f.), or an independent word
(Brown-Driver-Briggs, 659). Compare 1 Samuel 13¹¹, Isaiah
11¹² 33³.――=20.= ויחל וגו׳] compare 4²⁶ 6¹ 10⁸ 11⁶ 44¹² (Yahwist)
41⁵⁴ (Elohist). The rendering ‘Noah commenced as a husbandman’
(Davidson § 83, _R._ 2) is impossible on account of the article
(contrast 1 Samuel 3²): to insert להיות (Ball) does not get
rid of the difficulty. The construction with ו construct,
instead of infinitive, is very unusual (Ezra 3⁸); hence Cheyne
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3426²), following Kuenen (_Theologisch
Tijdschrift_, xviii. 147), proposes לַֽחֲרשׁ for אִישׁ: ‘Noah was the
first to plough the ground.’ That reading would be fatal to
any connexion of the section with Genesis 3, unless we suppose
a distinction between עבד (manual tillage) and חרשׁ. Strangely
enough, Rashi (on 5²⁹) repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah
invented the ploughshare; but this is probably a conjecture
based on a comparison of 3¹⁷ with 5²⁹.¹
¹ So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication.
* * * * *
=21.= _uncovered himself_] the same result of drunkenness in Habakkuk
2¹⁵, Lamentations 4²¹.――=22.= There is no reason to think (with
Holzinger and Gunkel) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than the
_Schadenfreude_ implied in the words. Hebrew morality called for the
utmost delicacy in such matters, like that evinced by Shem and Japheth
in verse ²³――=24.= בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן cannot mean ‘his _younger_ son’ (LXX, Vulgate)
(_i.e._ as compared with Shem); still less ‘his contemptible son’
(Rashi); or Ham’s youngest (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The conclusion is not
to be evaded that the writer follows a peculiar genealogical scheme in
which Canaan is the youngest son of Noah.――=25‒27.= Noah’s curse and
blessings must be presumed to have been legible in the destinies of
his reputed descendants at the time when the legend took shape (compare
27²⁸ ᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ 49) (on the fulfilment see the concluding note, page 186
f.). The dominant feature is the curse on Canaan, which not only stands
first, but is repeated in the blessings on the two brothers.――=25.= The
descendants of Canaan are doomed to perpetual enslavement to the other
two branches of the human family.――_a servant of servants_] means
‘the meanest slave’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _i_).――_to his brethren_]
not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear from the
following verses) to Shem and Japheth.――=26.= _Blessed be Yahwe the
God of Shem_] The idea thus expressed is not satisfactory. To ‘bless’
Yahwe means no more than to praise Him; and an ascription of praise to
Yahwe is only in an oblique sense a blessing on Shem, inasmuch as it
assumes a religious primacy of the Shemites in having Yahwe for their
God. Budde (294 f.) proposed to omit אֱלֹהֵי and read בְּרוּךְ יַהְוֶה שֵׁם: _Blessed
of Yahwe be Shem_ (compare 24³¹ 26²⁹ [both Yahwist]). Dillmann’s
objection, that this does not express wherein the blessing consists,
applies with quite as much force to the received text. Perhaps a
better emendation is that of Graetz בָּרֵךְ י׳ אָֽהֳלֵי שֵׁ (יְבָרֵךְ would be still more
acceptable): _[May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem_; see the next
verse.――=27.= _May God expand_ (יַפְתְּ) _Yepheth_: a play on the name (יֶפֶת).
The use of the generic אלהים implies that the proper name יהוה was the
peculiar property of the Shemites.――_and may he dwell_] or _that he
may dwell_. The subject can hardly be God (_Jubilees_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ,
_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Nöldeke, al.), which
would convey no blessing to Japheth; the wish refers most naturally
to Japheth, though it is impossible to decide whether the expression
‘dwell in the tents of’ denotes friendly intercourse (so most) or
forcible dispossession (Gunkel). For the latter sense compare Psalms
78⁵⁵, 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰.――A Messianic reference to the ingathering
of the Gentiles into the Jewish or Christian fold (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Fathers, Delitzsch, al.) is foreign to the thought of the passage:
see further below.
The question of the origin and significance of this remarkable
narrative has to be approached from two distinct points of
view.――I. In one aspect it is a culture-myth, of which the
central motive is the discovery of wine. Here, however, it
is necessary to distinguish between the original idea of the
story and its significance in the connexion of the Yahwistic
document. Read in its own light, as an independent fragment
of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from
nomadic to agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and
vine-grower, is a tent-dweller (verse ²¹); and this mode of life
is continued by his oldest and favoured son Shem (²⁷). Further,
the identification of husbandry and vine culture points to a
situation in which the simpler forms of agriculture had been
supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Such a situation
existed in Palestine when it was occupied by the Hebrews. The
sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs by conquest
to the Canaanitish civilisation escaped the protracted evolution
of vine-growing from primitive tillage, and stepped into the
possession of the farm and the vineyard at once. From this point
of view the story of Noah’s drunkenness expresses the healthy
recoil of primitive Semitic morality from the licentious habits
engendered by a civilisation of which a salient feature was
the enjoyment and abuse of wine. Canaan is the prototype of the
population which had succumbed to these enervating influences,
and is doomed by its vices to enslavement at the hands of
hardier and more virtuous races.――In the setting in which it
is placed by the Yahwist the incident acquires a profounder
and more tragic significance. The key to this secondary
interpretation is the prophecy of Lamech in 5²⁹, which brings it
into close connexion with the account of the Fall in chapter 3
(page 133). Noah’s discovery is there represented as an advance
or refinement on the tillage of the ground to which man was
sentenced in consequence of his first transgression. And the
oracle of Lamech appears to show that the invention of wine is
conceived as a _relief from the curse_. How far it is looked
on as a divinely approved mode of alleviating the monotony of
toil is hard to decide. The moderate use of wine is certainly
not condemned in the Old Testament: on the other hand, it is
impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is exhibited,
and the subsequent behaviour of his youngest son, are meant to
convey an emphatic warning against the moral dangers attending
this new step in human development, and the degeneration to
which it may lead.
II. In the narrative, however, the cultural motive is crossed
by an ethnographic problem, which is still more difficult to
unravel. Who are the peoples represented by the names Shem,
Japheth, and Canaan? Three points may be regarded as settled:
that Shem is that family to which the Hebrews reckoned
themselves; that Canaan stands for the pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of Palestine; and that the servitude of Canaan to
Shem at least _includes_ the subjugation of the Canaanites by
Israel in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this everything
is uncertain. The older view, which explains Shem and Japheth
in terms of the Table of Nations (chapter 10),――_i.e._ as
corresponding roughly to what we call the Semitic and Aryan
races,――has always had difficulty in discovering a historic
situation combining Japhetic dominion over the Canaanites with
a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.¹ To understand the
latter of an ideal brotherhood or religious bond between the two
races brings us no nearer a solution, unless we take the passage
as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity; and even then
it fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Dillmann, who
explains the figure as expressing the more kindly feeling of the
Hebrew towards these races, as compared with the Canaanites).――A
number of critics, starting from the assumption that the oracles
reflect the circumstances and aspirations of the age when
the Yahwistic document originated, take Shem as simply a name
for Israel, and identify Japheth either with the Philistines
(Wellhausen, Meyer) or the Phœnicians (Budde, Stade, Holzinger).
But that the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of
the Philistines at their own expense is incredible; and as for
the Phœnicians, though their colonial expansion might have been
viewed with complacency in Israel, there is no proof that an
occupation of Israelitish territory on their part either took
place, or would have been approved by the national sentiment
under the monarchy. The alienation of a portion of Galilee to
the Tyrians (1 Kings 9¹¹⁻¹³) (Budde) is an event little likely
to have been idealised in Hebrew legend. The difficulties of
this theory are so great that Bertholet has proposed to recast
the narrative with the omission of Japheth, leaving Shem and
Canaan as types of the racial antipathy between the Hebrews and
Canaanites: the figure of Japheth, and the blessing on him, he
supposes to have been introduced after the time of Alexander
the Great, as an expression of the friendly feeling of the Jews
for their Hellenic conquerors.²――Gunkel’s explanation, which
is put forward with all reserve, breaks ground in an opposite
direction. Canaan, he suggests, may here represent the great wave
of Semitic migration which (according to some recent theories)
had swept over the whole of Western Asia (_circa_ 2250 B.C.),
leaving its traces in Babylonia, in Phœnicia, perhaps even in
Asia Minor,³ and of which the later Canaanites of Palestine were
the sediment. Shem is the Hebræo-Aramaic family, which appears
on the stage of history after 1500 B.C., and no doubt took
possession of territory previously occupied by Canaanites. It
is here represented as still in the nomadic condition. Japheth
stands for the Hittites, who in that age were moving down from
the north, and establishing their power partly at the cost of
both Canaanites and Arameans. This theory hardly explains the
peculiar contempt and hatred expressed towards Canaan; and
it is a somewhat serious objection to it that in 10¹⁵ (which
Gunkel assigns to the same source as 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ) Heth is the _son_
of Canaan. A better defined background would be the struggle
for the mastery of Syria in the 14th century B.C.⁴ If, as many
Assyriologists think probable, the Ḥabiri of the Tel-Amarna
Letters be the עִבְרִים of the Old Testament,――_i.e._ the original
Hebrew stock to which Israel belonged,――it would be natural to
find in Shem the representative of these invaders; for in 10²¹
(Yahwist) Shem is described as ‘the father of all the sons of
Eber.’ Japheth would then be one or other of the peoples who,
in concert with the Ḥabiri, were then seeking a foothold in the
country, possibly the Suti or the Amurri, less probably (for
the reason mentioned above) the Hittites.――These surmises must
be taken for what they are worth. Further light on that remote
period of history may yet clear up the circumstances in which
the story of Noah and his sons originated; but unless the names
Shem and Japheth should be actually discovered in some historic
connexion, the happiest conjectures can never effect a solution
of the problem.
¹ As regards the former, the expulsion of Phœnician colonists
from the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks
(Dillmann) could never have been described as enslavement
(see Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. 311 f.); and the
capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage,
etc. (Delitzsch), are events certainly beyond the horizon of
the writer,――unless, indeed, we adopt Bertholet’s suggestion
(see above), that verse ²⁷ is very late. For the latter,
Dillmann hints at an absorption of Japhetic peoples in the
Semitic world-empires; but that would rather be a dwelling
of Shem in the tents of Japheth.
² See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_ 14 f.; Budde
_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 325 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des
Volkes Israel_, i. 109; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹,
i. p. 214; Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der
Juden zu den fremden_, 76 f. Meyer’s later theory (_Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 220 f.), that Japheth (=
Egyptian _Kefti_?) stands for the whole body of northern
invaders in the 12th century, to whom the Philistines
belonged, does not diminish the improbability that such a
prophecy should have originated under the monarchy.
³ See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. page 212 ff.;
Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 37,
130, 134; Peiser, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. page
viii.
⁴ Already suggested by Bennett (page 158), who, however, is
inclined to identify the Ḥabiri with Japheth.
* * * * *
=22.= ויַּגֵּד] LXX prefered καὶ ἐξελθών.――=23.= הַשֵּׁמְלָה] On the article,
see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_. That it was _the_ שׂ׳ which
Canaan had previously taken away, and that this notice was
deliberately omitted by Yahwist (Gunkel), is certainly not to
be inferred. The שׂ׳ is the upper garment, which was also used
for sleeping in (Exodus 22²⁶ etc.).――=24.= וַיִּיקֶץ] on the irregular
seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 70 _n_.――=26.= לָמוֹ may stand
either for לָהֶם (collective) or לוֹ: see Note 3 in Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 103 _f_. The latter is the more natural here. Olshausen
(_Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, June 1870, 382) proposed to omit
²⁶ᵇ, substituting ²⁷ᵃ{β} (וישכן――שם), and retain ²⁷ᵇ with reflexive
of plural suffix to אֶחָיו. LXX has αὐτοῦ in ²⁶ᵇ and αὐτῶν in
²⁷ᵇ.――=27.= יַפְתְּ] LXX πλατύναι, Vulgate _dilatet_, etc. The √ פתה
in the sense ‘be spacious’ is extremely rare in Hebrew (Proverbs
20¹⁹ [?24²⁸]), and the accepted rendering not beyond challenge.
Nöldeke (_Bibel-Lexicon_, iii. 191) denies the geographical
sense, and explains the word from the frequent Semitic figure
of spaciousness for prosperity. This would almost require us to
take the subject of the following clause to be God (_v.s._).
* * * * *
CHAPTER X.
_The Table of Peoples_
(Priestly-Code and Yahwist).
In its present form, the chapter is a redactional composition, in which
are interwoven two (if not three) successive attempts to classify the
known peoples of the world, and to exhibit their origin and mutual
relationships in the form of a genealogical tree.
_Analysis._――The separation of the two main sources is due
to the lucid and convincing analysis of Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 6 ff.). The hand of Priestly-Code is easily
recognised in the superscription (¹ᵃ אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת), and the methodical
uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening
and closing formulæ. The headings of the three sections are: בְּנֵי
יֶפֶת (²), וּבְנֵי חָם (⁶), and בְּנֵי שֵׁם (²²); the respective conclusions are
found in ⁵ᐧ (mutilated) ²⁰ᐧ ³¹, verse ³² being a final summary.
This framework, however, contains several continuous sections
which obviously belong to Yahwist. (a) ⁸⁻¹²; the account of
Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by Priestly-Code among the
sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong
contrast to Priestly-Code: note also יָלַד; instead of הוֹלִיד (⁸),
יהוה (⁹). (b) ¹³ ᶠᐧ: the sons of Mizraim (_verb_ יָלַד). (c) ¹⁵⁻¹⁹:
the Canaanites (יָלַד). (d) ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰: the Shemites (יֻלַּד ²¹ᐧ ²⁵;
יָלַד ²⁶).――Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold
introduction to Shem (²¹ ∥ ²²), and the discrepancy between ⁷
and ²⁸ ᶠᐧ regarding חֲוִילָה and שְׁבָא. The documents, therefore, assort
themselves as follows:
Priestly-Code: ¹ᵃ; ²⁻⁵; ⁶ ᶠᐧ ²⁰; ²² ᶠᐧ ³¹; ³².
Yahwist: ¹ᵇ (?); ⁸⁻¹²; ¹³ ᶠᐧ; ¹⁵⁻¹⁹; ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰.
Verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ and ²⁴ are regarded by Wellhausen and most
subsequent writers as interpolations: see the notes. The
framework of Priestly-Code is made the basis of the Table;
and so far as appears that document has been preserved in its
original order. In Yahwist the genealogy of Shem (²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰)
is probably complete; that of Ham (¹³ ᶠᐧ ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) is certainly
curtailed; while every trace of Japheth has been obliterated
(see, however, page 208). Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand
in their original order, we have no means of determining.
The analysis has been carried a step further by Gunkel (² 74 f.),
who first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic
Table, and its connexion with the two recensions of Yahwist
which appear in chapter 9. He agrees with Wellhausen, Dillmann,
al. that 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ forms the transition from the story of the Flood
to a list of nations which is partly represented in chapter 10;
10¹ᵇ being the immediate continuation of 9¹⁹ in that recension
of Yahwist (Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ). But he tries to show that
9²⁰⁻²⁷ was also followed by a Table of Nations, and that
to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in chapter 10 belong
(⁸ᐧ ¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁹ = Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ). This conclusion is
reached by a somewhat subtle examination of verse ²¹ and verses
¹⁵⁻¹⁹. In verse ²¹ Shem is the ‘elder brother of Japheth,’ which
seems to imply that Japheth was the _second_ son of Noah as in
9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but
Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between
¹⁵ and ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹. In ¹⁹ the northern limit of the Canaanites is
Ẓidon, whereas in ¹⁵ Canaan includes the Ḥittites, and has
therefore the wider geographical sense which Gunkel postulates
for 9²⁰⁻²⁷ (see page 186 above). He also calls attention to
the difference in language between the eponymous כְּנַעַן in ¹⁵ and
the gentilic הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי in ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹, and considers that this was a
characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these
premises the further dissection of the Table follows easily
enough. Verses ⁸⁻¹² may be assigned to Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ because
of the peculiar use of הֵחֵל in ⁸ (compare 9²⁰ 4²⁶). verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ
must in any case be Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ, because it is inconceivable
that Egypt should ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan;
²⁵⁻²⁹ follow ²¹ (Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ). Verse ³⁰ is assigned to
Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ solely on account of its resemblance to ¹⁹. It
cannot be denied that these arguments (which are put forward
with reserve) have considerable cumulative force; and the theory
may be correct. At the same time it must be remembered (1) that
the distinction between a wider and a narrower geographical
conception of Canaan remains a brilliant speculation, which is
not absolutely required either by 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ or 10¹⁵; and (2) that
there is nothing to show that the story of Noah, the vine-grower,
was followed by a Table of Nations at all. A genealogy connecting
Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that document; but a
writer who knows nothing of the Flood, and to whom Noah was not
the head of a new humanity, had no obvious motive for attaching
an ethnographic survey to the name of that patriarch. Further
criticism may be reserved for the notes.
The names in the Table are throughout eponymous: that is to say,
each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its
name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing
its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor.
From this it was an easy step to translate the supposed affinities
of the various peoples into the family relations of father, son,
brother, etc., between the eponymous ancestors; while the origin
of the existing ethnic groups was held to be accounted for by the
expansion and partition of the family. This vivid and concrete mode of
representation, though it was prevalent in antiquity, was inevitably
suggested by one of the commonest idioms of Semitic speech, according
to which the individual members of a tribe or people were spoken of as
‘sons’ or ‘daughters’ of the collective entity to which they belonged.
It may be added that (as in the case of the Arabian tribal genealogies)
the usage could only have sprung up in an age when the patriarchal
type of the family and the rule of male descent were firmly established
(see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_²,
3 ff.).
That this is the principle on which the Tables are constructed
appears from a slight examination of the names, and is
universally admitted. With the exception of Nimrod, all the
names that can be identified are those of peoples and tribes
(Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.) or countries (Miẓraim, Ḥavilah,
etc.――in most cases it is impossible to say whether land or
people is meant) or cities (Zidon); some are _gentilicia_
(Jebusite, Ḥivvite, etc.); and some are actually retained
in the plural (Rodanim, Ludim, etc.). Where the distinctions
between national and geographical designations, between singular,
plural, and collective names, are thus effaced, the only common
denominator to which the terms can be reduced is that of the
eponymous ancestor. It was the universal custom of antiquity in
such matters to invent a legendary founder of a city or state;¹
and it is idle to imagine any other explanation of the names
before us.――It is, of course, another question how far the
Hebrew ethnographers believed in the analogy on which their
system rested, and how far they used it simply as a convenient
method of expressing racial or political relations. When a
writer speaks of Lydians, Lybians, Philistines, etc., as ‘sons’
of Egypt, or ‘the Jebusite,’ ‘the Amorite,’ ‘the Arvadite’ as
‘sons’ of Canaan, it is difficult to think, _e.g._, that he
believed the Lydians to be descended from a man named ‘Lydians’
(לוּדִים), or the Amorites from one called ‘the Amorite’ (הָֽאֱמֹרִי); and
we may begin to suspect that the whole system of eponyms is a
conventional symbolism which was as transparent to its authors
as it is to us.² That, however, would be a hasty and probably
mistaken inference. The instances cited are exceptional,――they
occur mostly in two groups, of which one (¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ) is interpolated,
and the other (¹³ ᶠᐧ) may very well be secondary too; and over
against them we have to set not only the names of Noah, Shem,
etc., but also Nimrod, who is certainly an individual hero,
and yet is said to have been ‘begotten’ by the eponymous Kush
(Gunkel). The bulk of the names lend themselves to the one view
as readily as to the other; but on the whole it is safer to
assume that, in the mind of the genealogist, they stand for real
individuals, from whom the different nations were believed to be
descended.
¹ “An exactly parallel instance ... is afforded by the ancient
Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes; the
principal subdivisions were the Dorians, the Æolians, the
Ionians, and the Achæans; and accordingly the Greeks traced
their descent from a supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who
had three sons, Dorus and Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of
the Dorians and Æolians, and Xuthus, from whose two sons,
Ion and Achæus, the Ionians and Achæans were respectively
supposed to be descended” (Driver 112).
² See Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1 ff.
The geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted; but is
considerably wider in Priestly-Code than in Yahwist.¹ Yahwist’s survey
extends from the Hittites and Phœnicians in the North to Egypt and
southern Arabia in the South; on the Elohist he knows Babylonia and
Assyria and perhaps the Kašši, and on the West the Libyans and the
south coast of Asia Minor.² Priestly-Code includes in addition Asia
Minor, Armenia, and Media on the North and North-east, Elam on the
East, Nubia in the South, and the whole Mediterranean coast on the
West. The world outside these limits is ignored, for the simple reason
that the writers were not aware of its existence. But even within the
area thus circumscribed there are remarkable omissions, some of which
defy reasonable explanation.
¹ Judging, that is, from the extracts of Yahwist that are
preserved.
² _Kaphtorim_ (verse ¹⁴): according to others the island of
Crete.
The nearer neighbours and kinsmen of Israel (Moabites,
Ishmaelites, Edomites, etc.) are naturally reserved for the
times when they broke off from the parent stem. It would appear,
further, that as a rule only contemporary peoples are included
in the lists; extinct races and nationalities like the Rephaim,
Zuzim, etc., and possibly the Amalekites, being deliberately
passed over; while, of course, peoples that had not yet played
any important part in history are ignored. None of these
considerations, however, accounts for the apparent omission
of the Babylonians in Priestly-Code,――a fact which has perhaps
never been thoroughly explained (see page 205).
From what has just been said it ought to be possible to form
some conclusion as to the age in which the lists were drawn
up. For Priestly-Code the _terminus a quo_ is the 8th century,
when the Cimmerian and Scythian hordes (² ᶠᐧ) first make their
appearance south of the Caucasus: the absence of the Minæans
among the Arabian peoples, if it has any significance, would
point to the same period (see page 203). A lower limit may with
less certainty be found in the circumstance that the names פָּרַם
and עֲרָב, עֲרָבִי (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jeremiah
and Ezekiel) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly
List is pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the
Priestly-Code (5th century), but one perhaps two centuries
earlier (so Gunkel). Hommel’s opinion (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_ 314 ff.), that the Table
contains the earliest ethnological ideas of the Hebrews fresh
from Arabia, and that its “Grundstock” goes back to Mosaic
times and even the 3rd millennium B.C., is reached by arbitrary
excisions and alterations of the names, and by unwarranted
inferences from those which are left¹ (see Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 252).――The lists of
Yahwist, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of
date. The South Arabian tribes (²⁵⁻³⁰) might have been known
as early as the age of Solomon (Brown, _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
ii. 1699),――they might even have been known earlier,――but
that does not tell us when they were systematically tabulated.
The (interpolated) list of Canaanites (¹⁶⁻¹⁸) is assigned by
Jeremias (_l.c._ 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser III.; but
since a considerable percentage of the names occurs in the
Tel-Amarna letters (_v.i._), the grounds of that determination
are not apparent. With regard to the section on Nimrod (⁸⁻¹²),
all that can fairly be said is that it is probably later than
the Kaššite conquest of Babylonia: how much later, we cannot
tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the description of
the Assyrian cities, see page 212.――There are, besides, two
special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty
into all these investigations. (a) Since only two names (שְׁבָא
and חֲוִילָה) are really duplicated in Priestly-Code and Yahwist,²
we may suppose that the redactor has as a general practice
omitted names from one source which he gives in the other; and
we cannot be quite sure whether the omission has been made in
Priestly-Code or in Yahwist. (b) According to Jewish tradition,
the total number of names is 70; and again the suspicion arises
that names may have been added or deleted so as to bring out
that result.³
¹ It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable
agreement between the geographical horizon of Priestly-Code
in Genesis 10 and that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Of the
34 names of nations in Priestly-Code’s Table, 22 occur
in Ezekiel and 14 in the _book_ of Jeremiah; it has to
be remembered, however, that a large part of the book of
Jeremiah is later than that prophet. Ezekiel has perhaps
6 names which might have been expected in Priestly-Code
if they had been known (עֲרָב, כַּשְׂדִּים, קוֹעַ, שׁוֹעַ, פָּרַס, פְּקוֹד), and
Jeremiah (book) has 5 (עֲרָבִ[י], כַּשְׂדּים, פָּרַס, פְּקוֹד, מִנִּי). The
statistics certainly do not bear out the assertion that
Priestly-Code compiled his list from these two books between
538 and 526 B.C. (see Dillmann page 166); they rather
suggest that while the general outlook was similar, the
knowledge of the outer world was in some directions more
precise in the time of Ezekiel than in the Table.
² אַשּׁוּר, כּוּשׁ, מִצְרַיִם and כְּנַעַן do not count, because they are so
introduced that the two documents supplement one another.
³ For the official enumeration see Zunz, _Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_², 207; Steinschneider,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
iv. 150 f.; Krauss, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ff.); compare Poznański,
_ib._ 1904, 302.
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common to Priestly-Code
and Yahwist, and to both recensions of Yahwist if there were two
(above, page 188 f.). It is probable, also, though not certain, that
each of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse order of birth:
Japheth――Ham――Shem; or Canaan――Japheth――Shem (see verse ²¹). The basis
of the classification may not have been ethnological in any sense;
it may have been originally suggested by the tradition that Noah had
just three sons, in accordance with a frequently observed tendency to
close a genealogy with three names (4¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 5³² 11²⁶ etc.). Still, the
classification must follow some ethnographic principle, and we have
to consider what that principle is. The more obvious distinctions of
_colour_, _language_, and _race_ are easily seen to be inapplicable.
The ancient Egyptian division of foreigners into Negroes
(black), Asiatics (light brown), and Libyans (white) is as much
geographical as chromatic (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 32);
but in any case the survey of Genesis 10 excludes the true
negroes, and differences of colour amongst the peoples included
could not have been sufficiently marked to form a basis of
classification. It is certainly noteworthy that the Egyptian
monuments represent the Egyptians, Kōš, Punt, and Phœnicians
(Priestly-Code’s Hamites) as dark brown (Dillmann 167); but the
characteristic was not shared by the offshoots of Kush in Arabia;
and a colour line between Shem and Japheth could never have been
drawn.――The test of _language_ also breaks down. The perception
of linguistic affinities on a wide scale is a modern scientific
attainment, beyond the apprehension of an antique people, to
whom as a rule all foreign tongues were alike ‘barbarous.’ So
we find that the most of Priestly-Code’s Hamites (the Canaanites
and nearly all the Kushites) are Semitic-speaking peoples,
while the language of Elam among the sons of Shem belongs to an
entirely different family; and Greek was certainly not spoken
in the regions assigned to sons of Javan.――Of _race_, except
in so far as it is evidenced by language, modern science knows
very little; and attempts have been made to show that where
the linguistic criterion fails the Table follows authentic
ethnological traditions: _e.g._ that the Canaanites came from
the Red Sea coast and were really related to the Cushites; or
that Babylonia was actually colonised from central Africa, etc.
But none of these speculations can be substantiated; and the
theory that true racial affinity is the main principle of the
Table has to be abandoned. Thus, while most of the Japhetic
peoples are Indo-European, and nearly all the Shemitic are
Semites in the modern sense, the correspondence is no closer
than follows necessarily from the geographic arrangement to be
described presently. The Hamitic group, on the other hand, is
destitute alike of linguistic and ethnological unity.――Similarly,
when Yahwist assigns Phœnicians and Hittites (perhaps also
Egyptians) to one ethnic group, it is plain that he is not
guided by a sound ethnological tradition. His Shemites are,
indeed, all of Semitic speech; what his Japhetic peoples may
have been we cannot conjecture (see page 188).
So far as Priestly-Code is concerned, the main principle is undoubtedly
_geographical_: Japheth representing the North and West, Ham the South,
and Shem the East. Canaan is the solitary exception, which proves
the rule (see pge 201 f.). The same law appears (so far as can be
ascertained) to govern the distribution of the subordinate groups;
although too many of the names are uncertain to make this absolutely
clear. There is very little ground for the statement that the
geographical idea is disturbed here and there by considerations of
a historical or political order.
The exact delimitation of the three regions is, of course,
more or less arbitrary: Media _might_ have been reckoned to
the Eastern group, or Elam to the Southern; but the actual
arrangement is just as natural, and there is no need to
postulate the influence of ethnology in the one case or of
political relations in the other. Lûd would be a glaring
exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is
probably not the case (page 206). The Mediterranean coasts and
islands are appropriately enough assigned to Javan, the most
westerly of the sons of Japheth. It can only be the assumption
that Shem represents a _middle zone_ between North and South
that makes the position of Kittîm appear anomalous to Dillmann.
Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is
doubtful; page 199), it must, on the view here taken, be
assigned to Japheth. It is true that in Yahwist traces of
politico-historical grouping do appear (אַשּׁוּר and בָּבֶל in ⁸⁻¹²;
כַּפתֹּרִים, פְּלִשְׁתִּים in ¹³ ᶠᐧ).――As to the order within the principal
groups (of Priestly-Code), it is impossible to lay down any
strict rule. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 326)
holds that it always proceeds from the remoter to the nearer
nations; but though that may be true in the main, it cannot
be rigorously carried through, nor can it be safely used as an
argument for or against a particular identification.
The defects of the Table, from the standpoint of modern ethnology,
are now sufficiently apparent. As a scientific account of the origin
of the races of mankind, it is disqualified by its assumption that
nations are formed through the expansion and genealogical division
of families; and still more by the erroneous idea that the historic
peoples of the old world were fixed within three or at most four
generations from the common ancestor of the race. History shows that
nationalities are for the most part political units, formed by the
dissolution and re-combination of older peoples and tribes; and it
is known that the great nations of antiquity were preceded by a long
succession of social aggregates, whose very names have perished.
Whether a single family has ever, under any circumstances, increased
until it became a tribe and then a nation, is an abstract question
which it is idle to discuss: it is enough that the nations here
enumerated did not arise in that way, but through a process analogous
to that by which the English nation was welded together out of the
heterogeneous elements of which it is known to be composed.――As a
historical document, on the other hand, the chapter is of the highest
importance: first, as the most systematic record of the political
geography of the Hebrews at different stages of their history; and
second, as expressing the profound consciousness of the unity of
mankind, and the religious primacy of Israel, by which the Old
Testament writers were animated. Its insertion at this point, where
it forms the transition from primitive tradition to the history of the
chosen people, has a significance, as well as a literary propriety,
which cannot be mistaken (Dillmann 164; Gunkel 77; Driver 114).
The Table is repeated in 1 Chronicles 1⁴⁻²³ with various
omissions and textual variations. The list is still further
abridged in LXX of 1 Chronicles, which omits ¹³⁻¹⁸ᵃ and all
names after Arpachshad in ²².――On the extensive literature on
the chapter, see especially the commentaries of Tuch (159 f.)
and Dillmann (170 f.). See also the map at the end of _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_.
_The Table of Priestly-Code._
=1a. Superscription.=――_Shēm_, _Ḥām_, and _Yepheth_] compare 5³²
(Priestly-Code), 9¹⁸ (Yahwist).
On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can
be reported. שֵׁם is supposed by some to be the Hebrew word for
‘name,’ applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first
instance as בְּנֵי שֵׁם = ‘men of name’ or ‘distinction’――the titled
or noble race (compare ὀνομαστός): “perhaps nothing more than
the ruling caste in opposition to the aborigines.” So Wellhausen
(_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 14), who compares the name ‘Aryan,’
and contrasts בני בלי שם (Job 30⁸); compare Budde _Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 328 f.; al. Gunkel (73) mentions a speculation of
Jensen that שׁם is the Babylonian _šumu_, in the sense of ‘eldest
son,’ who perpetuates the father’s _name_.
חָם must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the
earlier כְּנַעַן as the name of Noah’s third son (page 182). The
change is easily explicable from the extension of geographical
knowledge, which made it impossible any longer to regard the
father of the Canaanites as the ancestor of one-third of the
human race; but the origin of the name has still to be accounted
for. As a Hebrew word it might mean ‘hot’ (Joshua 9¹², Job 37¹⁷):
hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of the south
(Lepsius, al.; compare _Jubilees_ viii. 30: “the land of Ham is
hot”). Again, since in some late Psalms (78⁵¹ 105²³ᐧ ²⁷ 106²²)
חם is a poetic designation of Egypt, it has been plausibly
connected with the native _keme_ or _chemi_ = ‘black,’ with
reference to the black soil of the Nile valley (Bochart, Ebers,
Budde, 323 ff.).¹ A less probable theory is that of Glaser,
cited by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 48), who identifies it with Egyptian _‛amu_,
a collective name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived
by Müller (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_,
123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang.
¹ Compare the rare word חוּם, ‘black,’ 30³² ᶠᶠᐧ
יֶפֶת is connected in 9²⁷ with √ פתה, and no better etymology
has been proposed. Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 2330)
compares the theophorous personal name _Yapti-‛Addu_ in
Tel-Amarna Tablets, and thinks it a modification of יִפְתַּח־אֵל,
‘God opens.’ But the form פתה (_pitû_) with the probable
sense of ‘open’ also occurs in the Tablet (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from √ יפה
(beautiful), favoured by Budde (358 ff.), in allusion to
the beauty of the Phœnician cities, is very improbable.
The resemblance to the Greek _Iapetos_ was pointed out by
Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking. Ἰάπετος was the father of
Prometheus, and therefore (through Deukalion) of post-diluvian
mankind. The identification is approved by Weizsäcker (Roscher’s
_Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie_
ii. 55 ff.), who holds that Ἰάπετος, having no Greek etymology,
may be borrowed from the Semites (compare Lenormant ii. 173‒193).
See, further, Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 221.
A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by
Winckler in _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_,
vi. 170 ff.
=2‒5. The Japhetic or Northern Peoples=: fourteen in number, chiefly
concentrated in Asia Minor and Armenia, but extending on either side
to the Caspian and the shores of the Atlantic. It will be seen that
though the enumeration is not ethnological in principle, yet most of
the peoples named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family.
=Japheth.=
1. Gomer.
2. Ashkenaz.
3. Riphath.
4. Togarmah.
5. Magog.
6. Madai.
7. Javan.
8. Elishah.
9. Tarshish.
10. Kittim.
11. Rodanim.
12. Tubal.
13. Meshech.
14. Tiras.
(1) גֹּמֶר (LXX Γαμερ): named along with Togarmah as a confederate
of Gog in Ezekiel 38⁶, is identified with the Galatians by
Joshua, but is really the _Gamir_ of the Assyrian inscription,
the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest reference to the
Κιμμέριοι (_Odyssey_ xi. 13 ff.) reveals them as a northern
people, dwelling on the shores of the Northern Sea. Their
irruption into Asia Minor, by way of the Caucasus, is
circumstantially narrated by Herodotus (i. 15, 103, iv. 11 f.),
whose account is in its main features confirmed by the Assyrian
monuments. There the _Gimirrai_ first appear towards the end of
the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of Urarṭu (see
Johns, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xvii.
223 f., 226). Thence they seem to have moved westwards into Asia
Minor, where (in the reign of Sennacherib) they overthrew the
Phrygian Empire, and later (under Asshur-bani-pal, _circa_ 657)
the Lydian Empire of Gyges (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.
173‒7). This last effort seems to have exhausted their strength,
and soon afterwards they vanish from history.¹ A trace of their
shortlived ascendancy remained in _Gamir_, the Armenian name
for Cappadocia;² but the probability is that the land was named
after the people, and not _vice versâ_; and it is not safe to
assume that by גֹּמֶר Priestly-Code meant Cappadocia. It is more
likely that the name is primarily ethnic, and denotes the common
stock of which the three following peoples were branches.
¹ Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 484‒496;
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 76 f.,
101 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 253.
² Compare Eusebius _Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ (edited
by Aucher) i. page 95² (_Gimmeri_ = Cappadocians), and ii.
page 12 (Γόμερ, ἐξ οὗ Καππάδοκες).
(2) אַשְׁכְּנַז (Ἀσχαναζ): Jeremiah 51²⁷, after Ararat and Minni.¹
It has been usual (Bochart, al.) to connect the name with the
Ascania of _Iliad_ ii. 863, xiii. 793; and to suppose this
was a region of Phrygia and Bithynia indicated by a river,
two lakes, and other localities bearing the old name.² Recent
Assyriologists, however, find in it the _Ašguza_³ of the
monuments,――a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled
in the vicinity of lake Urumia, and are probably identical with
the Scythians of Herodotus i. 103, 106. Since they are first
mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might readily appear to a Hebrew
writer to be a younger people than the Cimmerians. See Winckler
_ll.cc._; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
259 f.
¹ Assyrian _Mannai_, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned
along with Ašguza in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.
129, 147.
² Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 254) instances Ashken as
an Armenian proper name; and the inscription μὴν Ἄσκηνος on
Græco-Phrygian coins.
³ Whether the Hebrew word is a clerical error for אַשְׁכּוּז
(Winckler, Jeremias), or the Assyrian, a modification of
_Ašgunza_, the Assyriologists may decide (see Schmidt,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4330 f.).
(3) רִיפַת (Ῥιφαθ, Ἐριφαθ: but 1 Chronicles 1⁶ דִּיפַת): otherwise
unknown. According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians.
Bochart and Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255) put it
further west, near the Bosphorus, on the ground of a remote
resemblance in name to the river Ῥήβαζ and the district Ῥηβαντία.
Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4114) favours the transposition
of Halevy (פירת), and compares _Bit Burutaš_, mentioned by Sargon
along with the Muški and Tabali (Schrader _Keilinschriften und
Geschichtsforschung_, 176).
(4) תֹּגַרְמָה (Θεργαμα, Θοργαμα) = בית תוגרמה, Ezekiel 38⁶ 27¹⁴: in the
latter passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Josephus
identifies with the Phrygians. The name is traditionally
associated with Armenia, Thorgom being regarded as the mythical
ancestor of the Armenians; but that legend is probably derived
from LXX of this passage (Lagarde _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255
ff.; _Symmicta_ i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equivalent
_Til-Garimmu_ (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246; _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 260; al.), a city on
the frontier of the Tabali mentioned by Sargon and Sennacherib,
is not convincing; even though the _Til-_ should be a fictitious
Assyrian etymology (Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² ii.
410).
(5) מָגוֹג (Μαγωγ): Ezekiel 38² 39⁶. The generally accepted
identification with the Scythians dates from Joshua and Jeremiah,
but perhaps reflects only a vague impression that the name is a
comprehensive designation of the barbarous races of the north,
somewhat like the _Umman-manda_ of the Assyrians. In one of
the Tel-Amarna letters (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 5),
a land _Ga-ga_ is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the
author differentiated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc.,
does not appear. The name מגוג is altogether obscure. That it
is derived from גּוֹג = Gyges, king of Lydia (Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_¹, i. page 558), is most improbable; and the
suggestion that it is a corruption of Assyrian _Mât Gôg_ (_Mât
Gagaia_),¹ must also be received with some caution.
¹ Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246 f.; Streck, _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, 321; Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the
Verdict of the Monuments_², 125.
(6) מָדַי (Μαδαι): the common Hebrew name for Media and the Medes;
2 Kings 17⁶ 18¹¹, Isaiah 13¹⁷ 21², Jeremiah 25²⁵ 51¹¹ᐧ ²⁸, Esther
1³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ 10², Daniel 8²⁰ 9¹ [11¹] (Assyrian _Madai_). The
formation of the Median Empire must have taken place about the
middle of the 7th century, but the existence of the people in
their later seats (East of the Zagros mountains and South of
the Caspian Sea) appears to be traceable in the monuments back
to the 9th century. They are thus the earliest branch of the
Aryan family to make their mark in Asiatic history. See Meyer
_Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. § 422 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 100 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 254.
(7) יָוָן (Ἰωυαν) is the Greek Ἰάϝων-ονες, and denotes primarily
the Greek settlements in Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian:
Ezekiel 27¹³, Isaiah 66¹⁹. After Alexander the Great it was
extended to the Hellenes generally: Joel 4⁶, Zechariah 9¹³,
Daniel 8²¹ 10²⁰ 11². In Assyrian _Yamanai_ is said to be used
but once (by Sargon, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 43);
but the Persian _Yauna_ occurs, with the same double reference,
from the time of Darius (compare Æschylus _The Persians_ 176,
562). Whether the word here includes the European Greeks cannot
be positively determined.¹――The ‘sons’ of Javan are (verse ⁴) to
be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots known
to the Hebrew as commercial colonies of the Phœnicians (on which
see Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3736 f.). Very few of them,
however, can be confidently identified.
¹ Against the theory of a second יָוָן in Arabia (which in any
case would not affect the interpretation of this passage),
see Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_
125‒142. Compare, further, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 255.
(8) אֱלִישָׁה (Ἐλισα, Ἐλισσα) is mentioned only in Ezekiel 27⁷
(אִיֵּי א׳) as a place supplying Tyre with purple. The older
verbal identifications with the Αἰολεῖς (Josephus, Jerome; so
Delitzsch), Ἑλλάς (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), Ἠλίς, etc., are valueless;
and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage,
because of _Elissa_, the name of the legendary foundress of the
city (Stade, Winckler, Jeremias, al.); others (Dillmann al.)
southern Italy with Sicily.¹ The most attractive solution is
that first proposed by Conder (Palestine Exploration Fund:
_Quarterly Statements._, 1892, 45; compare 1904, 170), and
widely accepted, that the _Alašia_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets
is meant (see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 80‒92). This
is now generally recognised as the name of Cyprus, of which
the Tyrian purple was a product:² see below on כתּים. Jensen now
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 507) places אלישה beyond
the Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it
with the Elysium of the Greeks.
¹ Compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ on Ezekiel 27⁷ ממדינת איטליא; and Eusebius
_Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ ii. page 13: Ἐλισσὰ, ἐξ
οὗ Σικελοί + et Athenienses [Armenian].
² See Müller, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 257 ff.;
_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288 ff.; Jensen
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 379 f.; Jastrow _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 80 b.
(9) תַּרְשִׁישׁ (Θαρσις) is identified (since Bochart) with Ταρτησσός
(Tartesos), the Phœnician mining and trading station in the
South of Spain;¹ and no other theory is nearly so plausible.
The Old Testament Tarshish was rich in minerals (Jeremiah 10⁹,
Ezekiel 27¹²), was a Tyrian colony (Isaiah 23¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁰), and a
remote coast-land reached by sea (Isaiah 66¹⁹, Jonah 1³ 4²,
Psalms 72¹⁰); and to distinguish the Tarshish of these passages
from that of Genesis 10 (Delitzsch, Jastrow, al.), or to
consider the latter a doublet of תירס (Cheyne, Müller), are but
counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia
(Josephus, Jerome, al.); but this in Semitic is תרז (_Tarzi_).
Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 445 f.;
Müller, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 291.
¹ Herodotus i. 163, iv. 152; Strabo, iii. 151; Pliny
_Naturalis Historia_, iii. 7, iv. 120, etc.
(10) כִּתִּים (Κητιοι, Κιτιοι)] compare Jeremiah 2¹⁰, Ezekiel 27⁶,
Isaiah 23¹ᐧ ¹², Daniel 11³⁰, 1 Maccabees 1¹ 8⁵, Numbers 24²⁴.
Against the prevalent view that it denotes primarily the island
of Cyprus, so called from its chief city Κίτιον (Larnaka),
Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 422¹; compare
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 128) argues that
neither the island nor its capital¹ is so named in any ancient
document, and that the older biblical references demand a site
further West. The application to the Macedonians (1 Maccabees)
he describes as one of those false identifications common in
the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is endorsed by
Müller (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288) and Jeremias
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 261): they
suggest South Italy, mainly on the authority of Daniel 11³⁰. The
question is obviously bound up with the identity of אלישה――Alašia
(_v.s._).
¹ The city, however, is called כתי in Phœnician inscriptions
and coins from the 4th century B.C. downwards; see Cooke,
_A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_, pages 56, 66?,
78, 352.
(11) דֹּדָנִים or רוֹדָנִים (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
LXX [Ῥοδιοι] and 1 Chronicles 1⁷)] a name omitted by Josephus.
If LXX be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (compare
_Iliad_ ii. 654 f.): the singular is perhaps disguised in
the corrupt דדן of Ezekiel 27¹⁵ (compare LXX). The Massoretic
Text has been explained of the Dardanians (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Delitzsch, al.), “properly a people of Asia Minor, not far from
the Lycians” (Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1123). Winckler
(_l.c._) proposes דרנים, the Dorians; and Müller ד(ו)ננים, Egyptian
_Da-nô-na_ = Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Da-nu-na_ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, v. 277), on the West coast of Asia Minor.
(12) תֻּבַל (Θοβελ)] and
(13) מֶשֶׁךְ (Μοσοχ)] are mentioned together in Ezekiel 27¹³
(as exporting slaves and copper), 32²⁶ (a warlike people of
antiquity), 38² ᶠᐧ 39¹ (in the army of Gog), Isaiah 66¹⁹ (LXX);
משך alone in Psalms 120⁵. Josephus arbitrarily identifies them
with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively; but since
Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the Τιβαρηνοί
and Μόσχοι, first mentioned in Herodotus iii. 94 as belonging
to the 19th satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing
a contingent to the host of Xerxes (compare Strabo, XI. ii. 14,
16). Equally obvious is their identity with the _Tabali_ and
_Muški_ of the Assyrian Monuments, where the latter appear as
early as Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), and the former under
Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 838),――both as formidable military
states. In Sargon’s inscriptions they appear together;¹ and
during this whole period their territory evidently extended much
further South and West than in Græco-Roman times. These stubborn
little nationalities, which so tenaciously maintained their
identity, are regarded by Winckler and Jeremias as remnants
of the old Hittite population which were gradually driven
(probably by the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district
South-east of the Black Sea.
¹ See _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 18 f., 64 f., 142 f.,
ii. 40 f., 56 f.; and Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 250 f.
(14) תִּירָס (Θειρας)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost
unanimously taken by the ancients (Jerome, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Jerome, etc.; and so Bochartus, al.) to be the Thracians
(Θρᾶκ-ες); but the superficial resemblance vanishes when the
nominative ending ς is removed. Tuch was the first to suggest
the Τυρσ-ηνιοί, a race of Pelasgian pirates, who left many
traces of their ancient prowess in the islands and coasts of the
Ægean, and who were doubtless identical with the E-_trus_-cans
of Italy.¹ This brilliant conjecture has since been confirmed by
the discovery of the name _Turuša_ amongst the seafaring peoples
who invaded Egypt in the reign of Merneptah (Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_¹, i. § 260; W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 356 ff.).
¹ Thucydides iv. 109; Herodotus i. 57, 94; Strabo, V. ii. 2,
iii. 5: other references in Tuch _ad loc._
* * * * *
=5.= The subscription to the first division of the Table is not
quite in order. We miss the formula אלה בני יפת (compare verses ²⁰ᐧ
³¹), which is here necessary to the sense, and must be inserted,
not (with Wellhausen) at the beginning of the verse, but
immediately before בארצתם. The clause מאלה――הגוים is then seen to
belong to verse ⁴, and to mean that the Mediterranean coasts
were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied by
sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one
time Phœnician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the
writer confused the Ionians with Phœnicians. He may be thinking
of the native population of regions known to Israel through
the Phœnicians, or of the Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising
enterprise is now believed to be of earlier date than the
Phœnician (Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3736 f.).――נפרדו]
construed like נפצה in 9¹⁹ (Yahwist); contrast 10³².――איי הגוים]
only again Zephaniah 2¹¹. Should we read איי הים (Isaiah 11¹¹ 24¹⁵,
Esther 10¹)? אִי (for אֱוִי, perhaps from √ _’awaʸ_, “betake oneself”)
seems to be a seafarer’s word denoting the place one makes for
(for shelter, etc.); hence both “coast” and “island” (the latter
also in Phœnician). In Hebrew the plural came to be used of
distant lands in general (Isaiah 41¹ᐧ ⁵ 42⁴ 51⁵ etc., Jeremiah
31¹⁰ etc.)
* * * * *
=6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group=: in Africa and South Arabia,
but including the Canaanites of Palestine.
=Ḥam.=
1. Kush.
5. Ṣeba.
6. Ḥavilah.
7. Ṣabtah.
8. Ra‛mah.
10. Sheba.
11. Dedan.
9. Ṣabtekah.
2. Miẓraim.
3. Puṭ.
4. Canaan.
(1) כּוּשׁ (LXX Χους, but elsewhere, Αἰθίοπ-ες, -ία)] the land
and people South of Egypt (Nubia),――the Ethiopians of the
Greeks, the _Kôš_ of the Egyptian monuments:¹ compare Isaiah
18¹, Jeremiah 13²³, Ezekiel 29¹⁰, Zephaniah 3¹⁰ etc. Assyrian
_Kusu_ occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscriptions
of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal; and only four passages of
Esarhaddon are claimed by Winckler for the hypothesis of a south
Arabian _Kusu_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
144). There is no reason to doubt that in this verse the African
Kush is meant. That the ‘sons’ of Kush include Arabian peoples
is quite naturally explained by the assumption that the writer
believed these Arabs to be of African descent. As a matter of
fact, intercourse, involving intermixture of blood, has at all
times been common between the two shores of the Red Sea; and
indeed the opinion that Africa was the original cradle of the
Semites has still a measure of scientific support (see Barton,
_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 6 ff., 24).――See, further, on
verse ⁸ (page 207 f.).
¹ See Steindorff, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 593 f.
(2) מִצְרַים (Μεσραιν)] the Hebrew form of the common Semitic name
of Egypt (Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Miṣṣari_, _Miṣri_, _Mašri_,
_Mizirri_; Assyrian [from 8th and 7th century] _Muṣur_;
Babylonian _Miṣir_; Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase); Arabic _Miṣr_).
Etymology and meaning are uncertain: Hommel’s suggestion
(_Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ 530; compare Winckler
_Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 25) that it is an Assyrian
appellative = ‘frontier,’ is little probable. The dual form of
Hebrew is usually explained by the constant distinction in the
native inscriptions between Upper and Lower Egypt, though מצרַיִם is
found in connexions (Isaiah 11¹¹, Jeremiah 44¹⁵) which limit it
to Lower Egypt; and many scholars now deny that the termination
is a real dual (Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. § 42, An.;
Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
xlviii. 439).――On the vexed question of a North Arabian _Muṣri_,
it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be passages of Old
Testament where that view is plausible, but this is not one of
them; and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Egypt and
Arabia on the part of Old Testament writers is a nightmare which
it is high time to be quit of.
(3) פּוּט (Φουδ, but elsewhere Λιβυες)] mentioned 6 times
(including LXX of Isaiah 66¹⁹) in Old Testament, as a warlike
people furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt (Nahum 3⁹, Jeremiah 46⁹,
Ezekiel 30⁵) or Tyre (Ezekiel 27¹⁰) or the host of Gog (38⁵),
and frequently associated with כּוּשׁ and לוּד. The prevalent view
has been that the Lybians, on the North coast of Africa West
of Egypt, are meant (LXX, Josephus al.), although Nahum 3⁹
and probably Ezekiel 30⁵ (LXX) show that the two peoples were
distinguished. Another identification, first proposed by Ebers,
has recently been strongly advocated: viz. with the _Pwnt_ of
Egyptian monuments, comprising ‘the whole African coast of the
Red Sea’ (W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 114 ff., and _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 176
f.; Jeremias 263 f.). The only serious objection to this theory
is the order in which the name occurs, which suggests a place
further north than Egypt (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_,
x. 325 ff.).
(4) כְּנַעַן (Χανααν)] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants
of Palestine, is primarily a geographical designation. The
etymology is doubtful; but the sense ‘lowland’ has still the
best claim to acceptance (see, however, Moore, _Proceedings
[Journal] of the American Oriental Society_, 1890, lxvii ff.).
In Egyptian monuments the name, in the form _pa-Ka-n-‛sand-land_
is the article), is applied to the strip of coast from Phœnicia
to the neighbourhood of Gaza; but the ethnographic derivative
extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria (Müller, _Asien
und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 205 ff.). Similarly
in Tel-Amarna Tablets _Kinaḫḫi_, _Kinaḫna_, etc., stand for
Palestine proper (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
181), or (according to Jastrow _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 641)
the northern part of the seacoast.――The fact that Canaan, in
spite of its geographical situation and the close affinity of
its language with Hebrew, is reckoned to the Hamites is not to
be explained by the tradition (Herodotus i. 1, vii. 89, etc.)
that the Phœnicians came originally from the Red Sea; for that
probably implies no more than that they were connected with the
Babylonians (Ἐρυθρὴ Θάλασσα = the Persian Gulf). Neither is it
altogether natural to suppose that Canaan is thus placed because
it had for a long time been a political dependency of Egypt: in
that case, as Dillmann observes, we should have expected Canaan
to figure as a son of Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel
belonged to entirely different branches of the human family
is rooted in the circumstances that gave rise to the blessing
and curse of Noah in chapter 9. When, with the extension of
geographical knowledge, it became necessary to assign the
Canaanites to a larger group (page 187 above), it was inevitable
that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as
possible.
Of the descendants of Kush (verse ⁷) a large proportion――all,
indeed, that can be safely identified――are found in Arabia.
Whether this means that Kushites had crossed the Red Sea,
or that Arabia and Africa were supposed to be a continuous
continent, in which the Red Sea formed an inland lake (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 137, 144), it is
perhaps impossible to decide.
(5) סְבָא (Σαβα)] Isaiah 43³ 45¹⁴, Psalms 72¹⁰; usually taken
to be Meröe¹ (between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature
attributed to the people in Isaiah 45¹⁴ (but compare 18²ᐧ ⁷) is
in favour of this view; but it has nothing else to recommend it.
Dillmann al. prefer the Saba referred to by Strabo (XVI. iv. 8,
10; compare Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7 f.) on the African side of the Red
Sea (South of Suakim). Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 265) considers the word as the more correct
variant to שׁבא (see below).
¹ Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 249. In i. 134 f. he
seems to confuse סבא and שׁבא.
(6) חֲוִילָה (Εὑ[ε]ιλα[τ])] often (since Bochart) explained as
‘sand-land’ (from חוֹל); named in verse ²⁹ (Yahwist) as a
Joḳṭanite people, and in 25¹⁸ (also Yahwist) as the eastern
limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems impossible to harmonise
these indications. The last is probably the most ancient, and
points to a district in North Arabia, not too far to the East.
We may conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract
of loose red sand (_nefūd_) which stretches North of Teima and
South of el-Ǧōf. This is precisely where we should look for the
Χαυλοταῖοι whom Eratosthenes (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2) mentions
(next to the Nabateans) as the second of three tribes on the
route from Egypt to Babylon; and Pliny (vi. 157) gives Domata
(= Dûmāh = el-Ǧōf: see page 353) as a town of the _Avalitæ_. The
name might easily be extended to other sandy regions of Arabia,
(perhaps especially to the great sand desert in the southern
interior): of some more southerly district it must be used
both here and verse ²⁹ (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from
the Joktanite ח׳, and to identify the former with the Ἀβαλῖται,
etc., on the African coast near Bab-el-mandeb, is quite
unnecessary. On the other hand, it is impossible to place either
of these so far Nprth as the head of the Persian Gulf (Glaser)
or the East-North-east part of the Syrian desert (Friedrich
Delitzsch). Nothing can be made of Genesis 2¹¹; and in 1 Samuel
15⁷ (the only other occurrence) the text is probably corrupt.
(7) סַבְתָּה (Σαβαθα)] not identified. Possibly Σάβατα, Sabota,
the capital of Ḥaḍramaut (see on verse ²⁶) (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2;
Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 155, xii. 63),――though in
Sabæan this is written שבות (see Osiander, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xix. 253; Hommel
_Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 119); or the Σάφθα of Ptolemy vi.
7. 30, an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) West of
El-Ḳaṭīf.
(8) רַעְמָה (Ῥεγμα or Ῥεγχμα)] coupled with שׁבא (? and חוילה) in
Ezekiel 27²² as a tribe trading in spices, precious stones,
and gold. It is doubtless the רעֿמה (_Raǧmat_) of a Minæan
inscription,¹ which speaks of an attack by the hosts of Saba
and Ḥaulân on a Minæan caravan _en route_ between Ma‛ân and
Ra‛mat. This again may be connected with the Ῥαμμανῖται of
Strabo (XVI. iv. 24) North of Ḥaḍramaut. The identification with
the Ῥεγ[α]μα πόλις (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptolemy
vi. 7. 14 (Bochartus al.; so Glaser) is difficult because of its
remoteness from Sheba and Dedan (_v.i._), and also because this
appears on the inscription as _Rǧmt_ (Glaser, 252).
¹ Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Hommel _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_
103) = Glaser, 1155: translated by Müller, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxx. 121 f., and
Hommel _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen
Inhalts_, 322, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 249 f.
(9) סַבְתְּכָא (Σαβακαθα)] unknown. Σαμυδάκη in Carmania¹ (Ptolemy. vi.
8. 7 f., 11) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically.
Jeremias suggests that the word is a duplicate of סַבְתָּה.
¹ Bochartus: so Glaser, ii. 252; but see his virtual
withdrawal on page 404.
(10) שְׁבָא (Σαβα)] (properly, as inscriptions show, סבא: see Number
5 above) is assigned in verse ²⁹ to the Joḳṭanites, and in 25³
to the Ḳetureans. It is the Old Testament name of the people
known to the classical geographers as Sabæans, the founders
of a great commercial state in South-west Arabia, with its
metropolis at _Marib_ (Mariaba), some 45 miles due East of San’a,
the present capital of Yemen (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2, 19; Pliny,
_Naturalis Historia_, vi. 154 f., etc.). “They were the centre
of an old South Arabian civilisation, regarding the former
existence of which the Sabæan inscriptions and architectural
monuments supply ample evidence” (Dillmann 182). Their history
is still obscure. The native inscriptions commence about 700
B.C.; and, a little earlier, Sabæan princes (not kings)¹ appear
on Assyrian monuments as paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser IV.
(B.C. 738) and Sargon (B.C. 715).² It would seem that about that
time (probably with the help of the Assyrians) they overthrew
the older Minæan Empire, and established themselves on its
ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do not appear
to have consolidated their power in North Arabia, though their
inscriptions have been found as far North as el-Ǧōf. To the
Hebrews, Sheba was a ‘far country’ (Jeremiah 6²⁰, Joel 4⁸),
famous for gold, frankincense, and precious stones (1 Kings
10¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Isaiah 60⁶, Jeremiah 6²⁰, Ezekiel 27²², Psalms 72¹⁵):
in all these passages, as well as Psalms 72¹⁰, Job 6¹⁹, the
reference to the southern Sabæans is clear. On the other hand,
the association with Dedan (25³, Ezekiel 38¹³ and here) favours
a more northern locality; in Job 1¹⁵ they appear as Bedouin of
the northern desert; and the Assyrian references appear to imply
a northerly situation. Since it is undesirable to assume the
existence of two separate peoples, it is tempting to suppose
that the passage last quoted preserve the tradition of an
earlier time, before the conquest of the Minæans had led to a
settlement in Yemen. Verse ²⁸ (Yahwist), however, presupposes
the southern settlement.³
¹ It is important that neither in their own nor in the
Assyrian inscriptions are the earliest rulers spoken of as
_kings_.
² Compare _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21, 55.
³ See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. § 403; Glaser,
ii. 399 ff.; Sprenger, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xliv. 501 ff.; Margoliouth,
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 133, iv. 479 ff.; Hommel
_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 77 ff., and in _Explorations in Bible Lands
during the 19th century_, 728 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_³, 148 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 265.
(11) דְּדָן (Δαδαν, Δεδαν; but elsewhere Δαιδαν, etc.)] a merchant
tribe mentioned along with Sheba in 25³ (= 1 Chronicles 1³²)
and Ezekiel 38¹³; with Tema (the modern _Teima_, _c._ 230 miles
North of Medina) in Isaiah 21¹³, Jeremiah 25²³, and LXX of
Genesis 25³; and in Jeremiah 49⁸, Ezekiel 25¹³ as a neighbour
of Edom. All this points to a region in the North of Arabia; and
as the only other reference (Ezekiel 27²⁰)――in 27¹⁵ the text is
corrupt――is consistent with this, there is no need to postulate
another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Bochartus al.) or anywhere
else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites “in the
neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Hiǧr, extending perhaps
beyond Teima,”――a region intersected by the trade-routes from
all parts of Arabia (see the map in _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
iv. 5160); and where the name is probably perpetuated in the
ruins of Daidan, West of Teima (Dillmann). The name occurs both
in Minæan and Sabæan inscriptions (Glaser, 397 ff.; Müller,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxx.
122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers.――The older
tradition of Yahwist (25³) recognises a closer kinship of the
Israelites with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Joḳshan
and descendants of Abraham through Ḳeturah (_v. ad loc._). (An
intermediate stage seems represented by 10²⁵⁻²⁹, where South
Arabia is assigned to the descendants of ‛Eber). Priestly-Code
follows the steps of 25³ by bracketing the two tribes as sons of
Ra‛mah: whether he knew them as comparatively recent offshoots
of the Kushite stock is not so certain.
=22, 23, 31. The Shemitic or Eastern Group.=――With the doubtful
exception of לוּד (see below) the nations here mentioned all lie on the
East of Palestine, and are probably arranged in geographical order from
South-east to North-west, till they join hands with the Japhethites.
=Shem.=
1. Elam.
2. Asshur.
3. Arpachshad.
4. Lud.
5. Aram.
6. Uẓ.
7. Ḥul.
8. Gether.
9. Mash.
(1) עֵילָם (Αἰλαμ)] Assyrian _Elamtu_,¹ the name of “the great
plain East of the lower Tigris and North of the Persian Gulf,
together with the mountainous region enclosing it on the North
and East” (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 320), corresponding
to the later Elymäis or Susiana. The district round Susa was
in very early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic
settlers ruled by viceroys of the Babylonian kings; about
2280 the Anzanite element (of a different race and speaking a
different language) gained the upper hand, and even established
a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that time onwards Elam was
a powerful monarchy, playing an important part in the politics
of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed by
Assurbanipal.² The reason for including this non-Semitic race
among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political.
The other Old Testament references are Genesis 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Isaiah
11¹² 21² 22⁶, Jeremiah 25²⁵ 49³⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 32²⁴, Daniel 8².
¹ Commonly explained as ‘highland’ (Schrader, Delitzsch
_Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ etc.), but according to Jensen
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 170², xi. 351) =
‘front-land,’ _i.e._ ‘East land.’
² See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, _Textes
elamites-semitiques_ (1900), pages ix‒xv [= volume ii. of
de Morgan, _Delegation en Perse: Memoires_]. Compare Sayce,
_The Expository Times._, xiii. 65.
(2) אַשּׁוּר] Assyria. See below on verse ¹¹ (page 211).
(3) אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד (Ἀρφαξαδ)] identified by Bochartus with the
Ἀῤῥαπαχῖτις which Ptolemy (vi. 1. 2) describes as the province
of Assyria next to Armenia,――the mountainous region round
the sources of the Upper Zab, between lakes Van and Urumia,
still called in Kurdish _Albâk_. This name appears in Assyrian
as Arapḫa (Arbaḫa, etc.),¹ and on Egyptian monuments of the
18th dynasty as _’Ararpaḫa_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 278 f.). Geographically nothing
could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty
is that the last syllable שׁד is left unaccounted for. Josephus
recognised in the last three letters the name of the Chaldeans
(כֶּשֶׂד),² and several attempts have been made to explain the
first element of the word in accordance with this hint. (a) The
best is perhaps that of Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 318),³
resolving the word into two proper names: ארפך or ארפח (= Assyrian
_Arbaḫa_) and כֶּשֶׂד,――the latter here introducing a second trio
of sons of Shem. On this view the Arpakšad of verse ²⁴ 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
must be an error (for כשׂד?) caused by the textual corruption
here. (b) An older conjecture, approved by Gesenius (_Thesaurus
philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris
Testamenti_), Knobel, al., compares the ארפ with Arabic _’urfat_
(= ‘boundary’),⁴ Ethiopian _arfat_ (= ‘wall’); ארף כשד would thus
be the ‘wall (or boundary) of Kesed.’ (c) Hommel _The Ancient
Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 212, 294‒8)
takes the middle syllable _pa_ to be the Egyptian article,
reading _’Ur-pa-Kesed_ = Ur of the Chaldees (11²⁸),――an
improbable suggestion. (d) Delitzsch. (_Wo lag das Paradies?_
255 f.) and Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xv. 256)
interpret the word as _arba-kišādu_ = ‘[Land of the] four
quarters (or shores),’ after the analogy of a common designation
of Babylonia in royal titles.――These theories are partly
prompted by the observation that otherwise Chaldea is passed
over in the Table of Priestly-Code,――a surprising omission,
no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The
question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed
in 22²². The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the
Chaldeans in the South of Babylonia is admitted by Driver (page
223); and if there was another Kesed near Ḥarran, the fact must
be taken account of in speculating about the meaning of Arpakšad.
¹ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89;
compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 124 f.
² Ἀρφαξάδης δὲ τοὺς νῦν Χαλδαίους καλουμένους Ἀρφαξαδαίους
ὠνόμασεν ἄρξας αὐτῶν: _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 144.
³ A different conjecture in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3644;
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 178.
⁴ Note Tuch’s objections, page 205.
(4) לוּד (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לד, LXX
Λουδ)] usually understood of the Lydians (Josephus, Bochartus,
al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a
people in the extreme West of Asia Minor comes to be numbered
among the Shemites. An African people, such as appears to
be contemplated in verse ¹³, would be equally out of place
here. A suggestion of Jensen’s deserves consideration: that
לוד is the _Lubdu_,――a province lying “between the upper
Tigris and the Euphrates, North of Mt. Masius and its western
extension,”――mentioned in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 4
(line 9 from below, read _Lu-up-di_), 177 (along with Arrapḫa),
199. See Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 47; Streck,
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 168; Jeremias 276. In the
remaining references (Isaiah 66¹⁹, Jeremiah 46⁹, Ezekiel 27¹⁰
30⁵), the Lydians of Asia Minor might be meant,――in the last
three as mercenaries in the service of Egypt or Tyre.
(5) אֲרָם (Ἀραμ, Ἀραμων)] a collective designation of the Semitic
peoples speaking ‘Aramaic’ dialects,¹ so far as known to the
Hebrews (Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 276 ff.). The actual
diffusion of that family of Semites was wider than appears from
the Old Testament, which uses the name only of the districts
to the North-east of Palestine (Damascus especially) and
Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however,
were really the chief centres of Aramæan culture and influence.
In Assyrian the _Armaiu_ (_Aramu, Arimu, Arumu_) are first
named by Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100) as dwelling in
the steppes of Mesopotamia (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
i. 33); and Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 857) encountered them in
the same region (_ib._ 165). But if Winckler be right (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f., 36), they
are referred to under the name _Aḫlāmi_ from a much earlier
date (Tel-Amarna Tablets; Ramman-nirari I. [_circa_ 1325];
Ašur-rîš-îši [_circa_ 1150]: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Winckler regards the second half of
the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramæan
nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and
Syria.
¹ οὓς Ἕλληνες Σύρους προσαγορεύουσιν――as Josephus correctly
explains.
In 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ the words ובני ארם (verse ²³) are omitted, the
four following names being treated as sons of Shem:
(6) עוּץ (Ὠς, Οὐζ)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22²¹ (Ὠξ,
Ὠζ) is classed as the firstborn of Naḥor: therefore presumably
somewhere North-east of Palestine in the direction of Ḥarran.
The conjectural identifications are hardly worth repeating.
The other Biblical occurrences of the name are difficult to
harmonise. The Uz of Job 1¹ (Αὐσιτις), and the Ḥorite tribe
mentioned in Genesis 36²⁰, point to a South-east situation,
bordering on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit
Lamentations 4²¹, Jeremiah 25²⁰ (הָעוּץ!), though in both these
passages the reading is doubtful. It is suggested by William
Robertson Smith (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 61)
and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 146) that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian god _‛Auḍ_; and by the
former scholar that the Old Testament עוּץ denotes a number
of scattered tribes worshipping that deity (similarly Budde
_Das Buch Hiob_ ix.‒xi.; but, on the other side, see Nöldeke
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl.
183 f.).
(7) חוּל (Οὑλ)] Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259) identifies
with a district in the neighbourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by
Asshur-nasir-pal. The word (_ḥu-li-ia_), however, is there read
by Peiser as an appellative = ‘desert’ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, i. 86 f., 110 f.); and no other conjecture is even
plausible.
(8) גֶּתֶר is quite unknown.
(9) מַשׁ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ משא, LXX
Μοσοχ, in accord with 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ Massoretic Text מֵשֶׁךְ)]
perhaps connected with Mons Masius,――τὸ Μάσιον ὄρος of Ptolemy
(v. 18. 2) and Strabo (XI. xiv. 2),――a mountain range North
of Nisibis now called Ṭûr-‛Abdîn or Ḳeraǧa Dagh (Bochartus,
Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259, Dillmann, al.). The
uncertainty of the text and the fact that the Assyrian monuments
use a different name render the identification precarious.
Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 567) suggests
the mountain _Māšu_ of Gilgameš IX. ii. 1 f., which he
supposes to be Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. The _Mât Maš_ of
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 221, which has been adduced
as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read _mad-bar_ (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 191²; compare Jensen
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 364).
=31, 32.= Priestly-Code’s closing formula for the Shemites (³¹); and
his subscription to the whole Table (³²).
_The Table of Yahwist._
=IX. 18a, X. 1b. Introduction.= See pages 182, 188.
A slight discontinuity in verse ¹ makes it probable that ¹ᵇ
is inserted from Yahwist. If so, it would stand most naturally
after 9¹⁸ᵃ (Dillmann), not after ¹⁹. It seems to me that ¹⁹
is rather the Yahwistic parallel to 10³² (Priestly-Code), and
formed originally the conclusion of Yahwist’s Table (compare the
_closing_ formulæ, 10²⁹ 22²³ 25⁴).
=8‒12. Nimrod and his empire.=――The section deals with the foundation
of the Babylonio-Assyrian Empire, whose legendary hero, Nimrod, is
described as a son of Kush (see below). Unlike the other names in the
chapter, Nimrod is not a people, but an individual,――a _Gibbôr_ or
despot, famous as the originator of the idea of the military state,
based on arbitrary force.――=8.= The statement that _he was the first
to become a Gibbôr on the earth_ implies a different conception from
6⁴. There, the Gibbôrîm are identified with the semi-divine Nephîlîm:
here, the Gibbôr is a man, whose personal prowess and energy raise
him above the common level of humanity. The word expresses the idea of
violent, tyrannical power, like Arabic _ǧabbār_.
If the כּוּשׁ of verse ⁶ ᶠᐧ be Ethiopia (see page 200 f.), it
follows that in the view of the redactor the earliest dynasty
in the Euphrates valley was founded by immigrants from Africa.
That interpretation was accepted even by Tuch; but it is opposed
to all we know of the early history of Babylonia, and it is
extremely improbable that it represents a Hebrew tradition. The
assumption of a South Arabian Kûsh would relieve the difficulty;
for it is generally agreed that the _Semitic_ population of
Babylonia――which goes back as far as monumental evidence carries
us――actually came from Arabia; but it is entirely opposed
to the ethnography of Yahwist, who peoples South Arabia with
descendants of Shem (²¹ᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ). It is therefore not unlikely
that, as many Assyriologists think,¹ Yahwist’s כּוּשׁ is quite
independent of the Hamitic Kûsh of Priestly-Code, and denotes
the _Kaš_ or _Kaššu_, a people who conquered Babylonia in the
18th century, and set up a dynasty (the 3rd) which reigned there
for 600 years² (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
21). It is conceivable that in consequence of so prolonged a
supremacy, Kaš might have become a name for Babylonia, and that
Yahwist’s knowledge of its history did not extend farther back
than the Kaššite dynasty. Since there is no reason to suppose
that Yahwist regarded Kaš as Hamitic, it is quite possible that
the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.
¹ See Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 51‒55; Schrader _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 87 f.; Winckler
_Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_, 146 ff.; Jensen
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 340‒2; Sayce, _The
Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 148
ff., etc.
² Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by
Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 87). They
are thought to be identical with the Κοσσαῖοι of the Greeks
(Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17 f.; Arrian, _Anabasis_ vii.
15; Diodorus, xvii. 111, xix. 19, etc.); and probably also
with the Κίσσιοι of Herodotus vii. 62, 86, etc. (compare v.
49, 52, vi. 119). Compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_
31, 124, 127 ff.; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, § 129;
Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, 78 ff.;
Schrader _Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung_, 176 f.;
Oppert, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 421 ff.; Jensen
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
l. 244 f., etc.
* * * * *
=8.= נִמְרֹד (Νεβρωδ)] The Hebrew naturally connects the name with
the √ מרד = ‘rebel’ (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.): see below, page
209.――הוּא הֵחֵל לִ׳] ‘he was the first to become’; see on 4²⁶ 9²⁰.
* * * * *
=9.= Nimrod was not only a great tyrant and ruler of men, but _a
hero of the chase_ (גִּבּוֹר צַיִד). The verse breaks the connexion between ⁸
and ¹⁰, and is probably an interpolation (Dillmann al.); although, as
Delitzsch remarks, the union of a passion for the chase with warlike
prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype of the Assyrian monarchs,――an
observation amply illustrated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on
the monuments.――_Therefore it is said_] introducing a current proverb;
compare 1 Samuel 19²⁴ with 10¹²; Genesis 22¹⁴ etc. “When the Hebrews
wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they spoke of him
as ‘like Nimrod’” (Driver).――The expression לִפְנֵי יהוה doubtless belongs
to the proverb: the precise meaning is obscure (_v.i._).
A perfectly convincing Assyriological prototype of the figure
of Nimrod has not as yet been discovered. The derivation of the
name from Marduk, the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon,
first propounded by Sayce, and adopted with modifications
by Wellhausen,¹ still commends itself to some Assyriologists
(Pinches, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 552 f.; compare _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 581); but the material
points of contact between the two personages seem too vague
to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with
Nazi-Maruttaš, a late (_circa_ 1350) and apparently not very
successful king of the Kaššite dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht,
Sayce, al.), is also unsatisfying: the supposition that that
particular king was so well known in Palestine as to eclipse
all his predecessors, and take rank as the founder of Babylonian
civilisation, is improbable. The nearest analogy is that of
Gilgameš,² the legendary tyrant of Erech (see verse ¹⁰), whose
adventures are recorded in the famous series of Tablets of which
the Deluge story occupies the eleventh (see page 175 above,
and _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 566 ff.).
Gilgameš is a true Gibbôr――“two parts deity and one part
humanity”――he builds the walls of Erech with forced labour, and
his subjects groan under his tyranny, until they cry to Aruru
to create a rival who might draw off some of his superabundant
energy (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 117, 119). Among
his exploits, and those of his companion Ea-bani, contests with
beasts and monsters figure prominently; and he is supposed to
be the hero so often represented on seals and palace-reliefs in
victorious combat with a lion (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 266 f.). It is true that the parallel
is incomplete; and (what is more important) that the name
Nimrod remains unexplained. The expectation that the phonetic
reading of the ideographic _GIŠ. ṬU. BAR_ might prove to be the
Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Nimrod, would seem to have
been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct
pronunciation as Gilgameš (but see Jeremias _l.c._). Still,
enough general resemblance remains to warrant the belief that
the original of the biblical Nimrod belongs to the sphere of
Babylonian mythology. A striking parallel to the visit of
Gilgameš to his father Ut-napištim occurs in a late Nimrod
legend, preserved in the Syrian _Schatzhöhle_ (see Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 146²; Lidzbarski
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 15). On the theory which
connects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tuch _ad loc._;
Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 395 f.; _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 581²; and on the late Jewish and
Mohammedan legends generally, Seligsohn, _Jewish Encyclopædia_,
ix. 309 ff.
¹ Sayce (_Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_,
ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equivalent of
Marduk, _Amar-ud_, from which he thought _Nimrudu_ would
be a regular (Assyrian) Niphal form. Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 309 f.) explains the נ as an Aramaic
imperfect preformative to the √ מרד, a corruption from
Mard-uk which took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia,
through whom the myth reached the Hebrews.
² So Smith-Sayce, _Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 176 ff.;
Jeremias _Isdubar-Nimrod._
* * * * *
=9.= While Dillmann regards the verse as an interpolation from
oral tradition, Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 390 ff.)
assigns it to his Yahwist¹, and finds a place for it between 6⁴
and 11¹,――a precarious suggestion.――יהוה¹] LXX + τοῦ θεοῦ.――לִפְנֵי י׳]
‘before Yahwe.’ The phrase is variously explained: (1) ‘unique,’
like לאלהים in Jonah 3³ (Dillmann al.); (2) ‘in the estimation
of Yahwe’ (compare 2 Kings 5¹ etc.); (3) ‘in despite of Yahwe’
(Budde); (4) ‘with the assistance of Yahwe’――the name of some
god of the chase having stood in the original myth (Gunkel);
(5) ‘in the constant presence of Yahwe’――an allusion to the
constellation Orion (Holzinger). The last view is possible in ⁹ᵇ,
but hardly in ᵃ, because of the היה. A sober exegesis will prefer
(1) or (2).
* * * * *
=10.= _The nucleus of his empire was Babylon ... in the land of
Shin‛ar_] It is not said that Nimrod founded these four cities
(contrast verse ¹¹). The rise of the great cities of Babylonia was not
only much older than the Kaššite dynasty, but probably preceded the
establishment of any central government; and the peculiar form of the
expression here may be due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four
cities, two can be absolutely identified; the third is known by name,
but cannot be located; and the last is altogether uncertain.
בָּבֶל (Βαβυλών)] the Hebrew form of the native _Bāb-ili_ = ‘gate of
God’ or ‘the gods’ (though this may be only a popular etymology).
The political supremacy of the city, whose origin is unknown,
dates from the expulsion of the Elamites by Ḥammurabi, the
sixth king of its first dynasty (_circa_ 2100 B.C.); and for
2000 years it remained the chief centre of ancient Oriental
civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the Euphrates,
about fifty miles due South of Baghdad.
אֶרֶךְ (Ὀρεχ)] the Babylonian _Uruk_ or _Arku_, now _Warka_, also on
the Euphrates, about 100 miles South-east of Babylon. It was the
city of Gilgameš (_v.s._).
אַכַּד (Ἀρχαδ: compare דַּמֶּשֶׂק and דַּרְמֶשֶׂק)] The name (_Akkad_) frequently
occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase ‘Šumer and
Akkad,’ = South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also
mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
iii. 170 ff.), though its site is uncertain. Its identity with
the Agadé of Sargon I. (_circa_ 3800 B.C.), which was formerly
suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.
Delitzsch and Zimmern suppose that it was close to Sippar
on the Euphrates, in the latitude of Baghdad (see _Wo lag
das Paradies?_ 209 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 422², 423⁸; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 270).
כַּלְנֵה (Χαλαννη)] Not to be confused with the כלנה of Amos 6² (= כַּלְנוֹ,
Isaiah 10⁹), which was in North Syria. The Babylonian Kalne has
not yet been discovered. Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225)
takes it to be the ideogram _Kul-unu_ (pronounced _Zirlahu_),
of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jensen (_Theologische
Litteraturzeitung_ 1895, 510) asserts that the real
pronunciation was _Kullab(a)_, and proposes to read so here
(כֻּלָּבָה).
שִׁנְעָר (Σεν[ν]ααρ)] apparently the old Hebrew name for Babylonia
proper (11² 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Joshua 7²¹, Isaiah 11¹¹, Zechariah 5¹¹,
Daniel 1²), afterwards ארץ כשדים or simply [א׳] בבל. That it is the
same as Šumer (_south_ Babylonia: _v.s._) is improbable. More
plausible is the identification with the _Šanḫar_ of Tel-Amarna
Tablets (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 83) = Egyptian
_Sangara_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 279); though Winckler (_Altorientalische
Forschungen_, i. 240, 399; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 31) puts it North of the Taurus. _Ǧebel Sinǧar_ (ὁ
Σιγγαρος ὄρος: Ptolemy v. 18. 2), West of Nineveh, is much too
far north for the biblical Shin‛ar, unless the name had wandered.
=11, 12.= The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.――_From that land
he_ (Nimrod, _v.i._) _went out to Assyria_]――where he built four new
cities. That the great Assyrian cities were not really built by one
king or at one period is certain; nevertheless the statement has a
certain historic value, inasmuch as the whole religion, culture, and
political organisation of Assyria were derived from the southern state.
It is also noteworthy that the rise of the Assyrian power dates from
the decline of Babylonia under the Kaššite kings (_Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 21). In Micah 5⁵ Assyria is described as the
‘land of Nimrod.’
That אַשּׁוּר is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, North
of the Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now _Ḳal‛at
Šerkāt_, about halfway between the mouths of the two Zabs), is
plain from the context, and the contrast to שנער in verse ¹⁰.
נִינְוֵה] (Assyrian _Ninua_, _Ninâ_, LXX Νινευη [-ι]) the foremost
city of Assyria, was a royal residence from at the latest the
time of Aššur-bel-kalu, son of Tiglath-pileser I. (11th century);
but did not apparently become the political capital till the
reign of Sennacherib (Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und
Assyriens_, 146). Its site is now marked by the ruined mounds of
_Nebī Yūnus_ (with a village named _Nunia_) and _Kuyunjiḳ_, both
on the East side of the Tigris opposite Mosul (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 11,
88‒138).
רְחֹבֹת עִיר (Ῥοωβὼς πόλιν)] has in Hebrew appellative significance
= ‘broad places of a city’ (Vulgate _plateas civitatis_).
A similar phrase on Assyrian monuments, _rêbit Ninâ_, is
understood to mean ‘suburb of Nineveh’; and it has been supposed
that ר׳ ע׳ is a translation of this designation into Hebrew. As
to the position of this ‘suburb’ authorities differ. Delitzsch
(_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on
the North or North-east side of Nineveh, towards Dûr-Sargon (the
modern Khorsabad); and Johns (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4029)
even identifies it with the latter (compare _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on the other hand, places it
at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as a sort of _tête
du pont_ (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
273). No _proper_ name at all resembling this is known in the
neighbourhood of Nineveh.
כֶּלַח (Χαλαχ, Καλαχ) is the Assyrian _Kalḫu_ or _Kalaḫ_, which
excavations have proved to be the modern _Nimrûd_, at the mouth
of the Upper Zab, 20 miles South of Nineveh (Hilprecht _l.c._
111 f.). Built by Shalmaneser I. (_circa_ 1300), it replaced
Aššur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay, and
was restored by Aššur-nasir-pal (883‒59) (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, i. 117). From that time till Sargon, it seems to
have continued the royal residence.
רֶסֶן (Δασεμ, Δαση, etc.)] Perhaps = _Riš-îni_ (‘fountain-head’),
an extremely common place-name in Semitic countries; but its
site is unknown. A Syrian tradition placed it at the ruins of
Khorsabad, ‘a parasang above Nineveh,’ where a _Rās ’ul-‛Ain_ is
said still to be found (G. Hoffmann in Nestle, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lviii. 158 ff.). This
is doubtless the Riš-ini of Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 117); but its identity with רסן is phonetically
questionable, and topographically impossible, on account of the
definition ‘between Nineveh and Kelaḥ.’
The clause הוא העיר הגדלה is almost universally, but very improbably,
taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to
be regarded as a single city. Schrader (_Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_², 99 f.) is responsible for the statement
that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was extended
to include the whole complex of cities between the Zab and the
Tigris; but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments
contain no trace of such an idea (_Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 75⁴; Gunkel² 78; compare Johns, _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii.
3; compare Jonah 3³ ᶠᐧ) must proceed on some such notion; and
it is possible that that might have induced a late interpolator
to insert the sentence here. But if the words be a gloss, it
is more probable that it springs from the העיר הגדולה of Jonah 1²,
which was put in the margin opposite נִינְוֵה, and crept into the
text in the wrong place (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 273).¹
¹ With the above hypothesis, Schrader’s argument that, since
Nineveh is here used in the restricted sense, the passage
must be of earlier date than Sennacherib, falls to the
ground. From the writer’s silence regarding Aššur, the
ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he lived
after 1300; and from the omission of Sargon’s new residence
Dûr-Sargon, it is _probable_ that he wrote before 722. But
the latter argument is not decisive, since Kelaḥ and Nineveh
(the only names that can be positively identified) were both
flourishing cities down to the fall of the Empire.
* * * * *
=11.= יָצָא אַשּׁוּר] ‘he went out to Asshur’ (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Calvin,
and all moderns). The rendering ‘Asshur went out’ (LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, al.) is grammatically correct,
and gives a good sense (compare Isaiah 23¹³). But (1) ראשית
(verse ¹⁰) requires an antithesis (see on 1¹); and (2) in Micah
5⁵ Nimrod is the hero of Assyria.
* * * * *
=13, 14.――The sons of Mizraim.=――These doubtless all represent parts
or (supposed) dependencies of Egypt; although of the eight names not
more than two can be certainly identified.――On מִצְרַיִם = Egypt, see verse
⁶.――Since Mizraim could hardly have been reckoned a son of Canaan, the
section (if documentary) must be an extract from that Yahwistic source
to which 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ belong (see page 188 f.).
(1) לוּדים (Λουδιειμ: 1 Chronicles 1¹¹ לודיים)] Not the Lydians of
Asia Minor (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion; but (if
the text be correct) some unknown people of North-east Africa
(see on verse ²², page 206). The prevalent view of recent
scholars is that the word is a mistake for לוּבִים, the Lybians.
See Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 141;
Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 115
f.; _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, v. 475; al.
(2) עֲנָמִים (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עינמים; LXX
Αἰν-[Ἐν-]εμετιειμ[ν])] Müller reads כנמים or (after LXX) כנמתים;
_i.e._ the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of _Knmt_ in the
Libyan desert (_Wāḥāt el-Khāriǧah_).¹ For older conjectures see
Dillmann.
¹ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ v. 471 ff.――It should be
explained that this dissertation, frequently cited above,
proceeds on the bold assumption that almost the best known
name in the section (פַּתְרֻסִים, ¹⁴) is an interpolation. When
this ‘cuckoo’s egg’ is ejected, the author finds that the
‘sons’ of Egypt are all dependencies or foreign possessions,
and are to be sought _outside_ the Nile valley. The theory
does not seem to have found much favour from Egyptologists
or others.
(3) לְהָבִים (Λαβιειμ)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the
((לוּב) לוּבִים) of Nahum 3⁹, Daniel 11⁴³, 2 Chronicles 12³ 16⁸,
[Ezekiel 30⁵?]. Müller thinks it a variant of לוּדִים (1).
(4) נַפְתֻּחִים (Νεφθαλιειμ)] Müller proposes פתנחים = _P-to-n-‛ḥe_,
‘cowland,’――the name of the Oasis of _Farāfra_. But there is
a strong presumption that, as the next name stands for Upper
Egypt, this will be a designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman
(_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, x.
118 f.), who reads פתמחים = _p-t-maḥī_, ‘the north-land,’――at
all periods the native name of Lower Egypt. More recently
Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ ix. 276 ff.)
recognises in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without
textual change _Na-patûh_ = ‘the people of the Delta.’
(5) פַּתְרֻסִים (Πατροσωνιειμ)] the inhabitants of פַּתְרוֹס (Isaiah 11¹¹,
Jeremiah 44¹ᐧ ¹⁵, Ezekiel 30¹⁴), _i.e._ Upper Egypt: _P-to-reši_
= ‘south-land’ (Assyrian _paturisi_): see Erman, _l.c._
(6) כַּסְלֻחִים (Χασμωνιείμ)] Doubtful conjectures in Dillmann. Müller
restores with help of LXX נסמנים, which he identifies with the
Νασαμῶνες of Herodotus ii. 32, iv. 172, 182, 190,――a powerful
tribe of nomad Lybians, near the Oasis of Amon. Sayce has
read the name _Kasluhat_ on the inscription of Ombos (see on
_Kaphtorim_, below); _Man_, 1903, No. 77.
(7) פְּלִשְׁתִּים (Φυλιστιειμ)] The Philistines are here spoken of as
an offshoot of the Kaslûḥîm,――a statement scarcely intelligible
in the light of other passages (Jeremiah 47⁴, Amos 9⁷; compare
Deuteronomy 2²³), according to which the Philistines came from
_Kaphtōr_. The clause אֲשׁר יָֽצְאוּ מִשָּׁם פּ׳ is therefore in all probability
a marginal gloss meant to come after כפתרים.――The Philistines are
mentioned in the Egyptian monuments, under the name _Purašati_,
as the leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign
of Ramses III. (_circa_ 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by
land and sea from the coasts of Asia Minor and the islands of
the Ægean; and the Philistines established themselves on the
South coast of Palestine so firmly that, though nearly all
traces of their language and civilisation have disappeared,
their name has clung to the country ever since. See Müller,
_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 387‒90, and
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, v. 2 ff.;
Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3713 ff.
(8) כַּפְתֹּרִים (Χαφθοριειμ)] _Kaphtōr_ (Deuteronomy 2²³, Amos 9⁷,
Jeremiah 47⁴) has usually been taken for the island of Crete
(see Dillmann), mainly because of the repeated association of
כְּרֵתִים (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the Philistine territory
(1 Samuel 30¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 25¹⁶, Zephaniah 2⁵). There are
convincing reasons for connecting it with _Keftiu_ (properly
‘the country _behind_’), an old Egyptian name for the ‘lands of
the Great Ring’ (the Eastern Mediterranean), or the ‘isles of
the Great Green,’ _i.e._ South-west Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete,
and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the North-west of Egypt (see
Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 337,
344‒53, 387 ff.; and more fully H. R. Hall in _Annual of the
British School at Athens_, 1901‒2, pages 162‒6). The precise
phonetic equivalent _Kptār_ has been found on a late mural
decoration at Ombos (Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the
Verdict of the Monuments_⁶, 173; _The Early History of the
Hebrews_, 291; Müller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1900, 5 ff.). “_Keftiu_ is the old Egyptian name
of Caphtor (Crete), _Keptar_ a Ptolemaic doublet of it, taken
over when the original meaning of _Keftiu_ had been forgotten,
and the name had been erroneously applied to Phœnicia” (Hall,
_Man_, November, 1903, No. 92, page 162 ff.). In _Orientalische
Litteraturzeitung_, M. questions the originality of the name in
this passage: so also Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 275.¹
¹ Verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ present so many peculiar features――the regular
use of the plural, the great preponderance of quadriliteral
names, all vocalised alike――that we can hardly help
suspecting that they are a secondary addition to the Table,
written from specially intimate acquaintance with the
(later?) Egyptian geography.
=15‒19. The Canaanites.=――The peoples assigned to the Canaanitish group
are (1) the Phœnicians (צִידֹן), (2) the Ḥittites (חֵת), and (3) a number of
petty communities perhaps summed up in the phrase מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי in ¹⁸ᵇ. It
is surprising to find the great northern nation of the Ḥittites classed
as a subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed to have
in view offshoots of that empire, which survived as small enclaves in
Palestine proper; but that explanation does not account for the marked
prominence given to Ḥeth over the little Canaanite kingships. On the
other hand, one hesitates to adopt Gunkel’s theory that כנען is here
used in a wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the
Ḥittite empire (page 187). There is evidence, however, of a strong
settlement of Ḥittites near Ḥermon (see below), and it is conceivable
that these were classed as Canaanites and so inserted here.
Critically, the verses are difficult. Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 15) and others remove ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ as a gloss: because
(a) the boundaries laid down in ¹⁹ are exceeded in ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ, and
(b) the mention of a _subsequent_ dispersion of Canaanites (¹⁸ᵇ)
has no meaning after ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ. That is perhaps the most reasonable
view to take; but even so ¹⁸ᵇ does not read quite naturally
after ¹⁵; and what could have induced a glossator to insert four
of the most northerly Phœnician cities, passing by those best
known to the Hebrews? Is it possible that the last five names
were originally given as sons of Heth, and the previous four as
sons of Zidon? ¹⁸ᵇ might mean that the Canaanite clans emanated
from Phœnicia, and were _afterwards_ ‘dispersed’ over the region
defined by ¹⁹.――The change from כנען in ¹⁵ to הכנעני in ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ is
hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gunkel).
צִידֹן] The oldest of the Phœnician cities; now Ṣaidā, nearly 30
miles South of the promontory of Beirūt. Here, however, the name
is the eponym of the Ẓidonians (צִידֹנִים), as the Phœnicians were
frequently called, not only in the Old Testament (Judges 18⁷ 3³,
1 Kings 5²⁰ 16³¹ etc.) and Homer (_Iliad_ vi. 290 f., etc.), but
on the Assyrian monuments, and even by the Phœnicians themselves
(Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4504).
חֵת (τὸν Χετταῖον)] elsewhere only in the phrases בְּנֵי ח׳, בְּנוֹת ח׳
(chapter 23 _passim_ 25¹⁰ 27⁴⁶ᵇ 49³² [all Priestly-Code]);
other writers speak of חִתִּי[ם]. The Ḥittites (Egyptian _Ḫeta_,
Assyrian _Ḫatti_) were a northern non-Semitic people, who under
unknown circumstances established themselves in Cappadocia.
They appear to have invaded Babylonia at the close of the First
dynasty (_circa_ 1930 B.C.) (King, _Chronicles concerning early
Babylonian kings_, page 72 f.). Not long after the time of
Thothmes III. (1501‒1447), they are found in North Syria. With
the weakening of the Egyptian supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period,
they pressed further South, occupying the Orontes valley, and
threatening the Phœnician coast-cities. The indecisive campaigns
of Ramses II. seem to have checked their southward movement.
In Assyrian records they do not appear till the reign of
Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), when they seem to have held
the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with
Carchemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries
of intermittent warfare, they were finally incorporated in
the Assyrian Empire by Sargon II. (_circa_ 717). See Paton,
_The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 104 ff.――The Old
Testament allusions to the Ḥittites are extremely confusing,
and cannot be fully discussed here: see on 15¹⁹⁻²¹ 23³. Besides
the Palestinian Ḥittites (whose connexion with the people just
spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an extensive
Ḥittite country to the North of Palestine (2 Samuel 24⁶
[LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ], 1 Kings 10²⁹, 2 Kings 7⁶ al.). The most important
fact for the present purpose is the definite location of
Ḥittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of Hermon (Joshua
11³ [LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ] and Judges 3³ [as amended by Meyer al.]), compare
Judges 1²⁶?). It does not appear what grounds Moore (_Judges_
82) has for the statement that these Ḥittites were Semitic.
There is certainly no justification for treating (with Jastrow
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2094) חֵת in this verse as a gloss.
The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which
constantly recur in enumerations of the aborigines of Palestine,
and seldom elsewhere.
(1) הַיְבוּסִי] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Joshua 15⁸
18²⁸, Judges 19¹⁰, 2 Samuel 5⁶⁻⁹ etc.
(2) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] An important politico-geographical name in the
Egyptian and cuneiform documents (Egyptian _Amor_, etc.,
Assyrian _Amurru_). In the Tel-Amarna Tablets the ‘land
of Amurru’ denotes the Lebanon region behind the Phœnician
coast-territory. Its princes Abd-Aširta and Aziru were then
the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the
north, conducting successful operations against several of
the Phœnician cities. It has been supposed that subsequently
to these events the Amorites pressed southwards, and founded
kingdoms in Palestine both East and West of the Jordan (Numbers
21¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Joshua 24⁸ etc.); though Müller has pointed out some
difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (_Asien und Europa
nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 230 f.).――In the Old Testament
there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name
to ‘highlanders’ (Numbers 13²⁹, Deuteronomy 1⁷), but this is
more than neutralised by other passages (Judges 1³⁴). The most
significant fact is that Elohist (followed by D) employs the
term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine
generally (compare Amos 2⁹ ᶠᐧ), whom Yahwist describes as
Canaanites. Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite
domination, it is difficult to suggest an explanation of
Elohist’s usage, unless we can take it as a survival of the old
Babylonian name Amurru (or at least its ideographic equivalent
_MAR. TU_) for Palestine, Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria.――See,
further, Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels
in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 51‒54, _Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_³, 178 ff.; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 122 ff.; Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 341; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 344
ff.; Driver _Deuteronomy_ 11 f., _Genesis_ 125 f.; Sayce, _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 84 f.; Paton, _The Early History of
Syria and Palestine_ 25‒46, 115 ff., 147 f.; Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_², 1. ii. § 396.
(3) ה ַגִּרְגָּשִׁי] only mentioned in enumerations (15²¹, Deuteronomy 7¹,
Joshua 3¹⁰ 24¹¹, Nehemiah 9⁸) without indication of locality.
גרגש, גרגשים, גדגשי occur as proper names on Punic inscriptions.
(Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 405₄,
622₄_{f.}, 673₃; _Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik_ i. 36,
308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with New Testament Γέργεσα.
(4) הַחִוִּי (τὸν Εὑαῖον)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the
neighbourhood of Shechem (34²) and Gibeon (Joshua 9⁷); in Judges
3³, where they are spoken of in the North, הַחִתִּי should be read,
and in Joshua 11³ Hittites and Hivvites should be transposed in
accordance with LXXᴮ. The name has been explained by Gesenius
(_Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ
Veteris Testamenti_) and others as meaning ‘dwellers in חַוֹּת’
(Bedouin encampments: compare Numbers 32⁴¹); but that is
improbable in the case of a people long settled in Palestine
(Moore). Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154)
more plausibly connects it with חַוָּה = ‘serpent’ (see on 3²⁰),
surmising that the Hivvites were a snake-clan. Compare Lagarde,
_Onomastica Sacra_, 187, 174, line 97 (Εὑαῖοι σκολιοὶ ὡς ἐπὶ
ὄφεις).
The 5 remaining names are formed from names of _cities_, 4 in
the extreme North of Phœnicia, and the last in Cœle-Syria.
(5) הָעַרְקִי (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הערוקי, LXX
τὸν Ἀρουκαῖον)] is from the city Ἄρκη ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ (Josephus
_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 138), the ruins of which, still
bearing the name _Tell ‛Arḳa_, are found on the coast about
12 miles North-east of Tripolis. It is mentioned by Thothmes
III. (in the form _‛r-ka-n-tu_: see _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 247 f.), and in Tel-Amarna letters
(_Irkata_: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 171, etc.); also
by Shalmaneser II. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 173;
along with Arvad and Sianu, _below_), and Tiglath-pileser IV.
(_ib._ ii. 29; along with Ṣimirra and Sianu).
(6) הַסִּינִי (τὸν Ἁσενναῖον)] inhabitants of סִיָּן, Assyrian _Sianu_
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, _ll.cc._). Jerome (_Quæstiones
sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) says it was not far from
‛Arḳa, but adds that only the name remained in his day. The site
is unknown: see Cooke, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4644 f.
(7) הָאַרְוָדִי (τὸν Ἀράδιον)] ’Arwad (Ezekiel 27⁸ᐧ ¹¹) was the most
northerly of the Phœnician cities, built on a small island
(Strabo, XVI. ii. 13; _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 109)
about 35 miles North of Tripolis (now _Ruād_). It is named
frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in
ancient times, in Egyptian inscriptions (_Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 186 f.), on Tel-Amarna Tablets,
and by Assyrian kings from Tiglath-pileser I. to Asshurbanipal
(_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 104 f.;
Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281); see also Herodotus
vii. 98.
(8) הַצְּמָרִי (τὸν Σαμαραῖον)] Six miles South of Ruād, the modern
village of _Ṣumra_ preserves the name of this city: Egyptian
_Ṣamar_; Tel-Amarna Tablets _Ṣumur_; Assyrian _Ṣimirra_;
Greek Σιμυρα. See Strabo, XVI. ii. 12; _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 187; _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_², 105; Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281 f.
(9) הַחֲמָתִי (τὸν Ἁμαθί)] from the well-known Ḥamath on the Orontes;
now _Ḥamā_.
The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in verse ¹⁹ is very
obscure. It describes two sides of a triangle, from Ẓidon on
the North to Gaza or Gerar in the South-west; and from thence
to a point near the South end of the Dead Sea. The terminus לֶשֶׂע
(LXX Δασα) is, however, unknown. The traditional identification
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome) with Καλλιῤῥόη, near the North end
of the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, _Biblia
Hebraica_ (very improbably), suggests בֶּלַע (14²). Wellhausen
(_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 15) reads לֵשָׁה or לֵשָׁם (Joshua 19⁴⁷ לֶשֶׁם) = ‘to
Dan’ (לַיִשׁ), the conventional _northern_ limit of Canaan,――thus
completing the East side of the triangle.――Gerar were certainly
further South than Gaza (see on 20¹); hence we cannot read
‘_as far as_ (_v.i._) Gerar, up to Gaza,’ while the rendering
‘_in the direction of_ Gerar, as far as Gaza,’ would only be
intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza.
Most probably עַד־עַזָּה is a gloss (Gunkel al.).――On the situation
of Sodom, etc., see on chapter 19.――On any construction of
the verse the northern cities of ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ are excluded.――_The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has an entirely different
text: מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת ועד הים האחרון,――an amalgam of 15¹⁸ and
Deuteronomy 11²⁴.
* * * * *
=15.= בְּכֹרוֹ] compare 22²¹ (Yahwist).――=18.= אַחַר] adverb of time, as
18⁵ 24⁵⁵ 30²¹ etc. = אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 29 f.――נָפֹצוּ]
Niphal from √ פוץ; see on 9¹⁹: compare 11⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹.――מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי] can
hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phœnician
colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
ii. 1698 f.).――=19.= בֹּֽאֲכָה] ‘as one comes’ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 144 _h_) might be taken as ‘in the direction of’ (so Dillmann,
Driver, al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in
which the expression differs from עַד־בּֽוֹאֲךָ = ‘as far as’ (compare
10³⁰ 13¹⁰ 25¹⁸ [all Yahwist], 1 Samuel 15⁷ with Judges 6⁴ 11³³,
1 Samuel 17⁵², 2 Samuel 5²⁵, 1 Kings 18⁴⁶).――עַד־עַזָּה] LXX καὶ Γάζαν.
* * * * *
=21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites.=――The genealogy of Shem in Yahwist
resolves itself entirely into a classification of the peoples whose
origin was traced to ‛Eber. These fall into two main branches:
the descendants of Peleg (who are not here enumerated), and the
Yoḳṭanites or South Arabian tribes. Shem is thus nothing more than
the representative of the unity of the widely scattered Hebraic
stock: Shemite and ‘Hebrew’ are convertible terms. This recognition
of the ethnological affinity of the northern and southern Semites is a
remarkable contrast to Priestly-Code, who assigns the South Arabians to
Ḥam,――the family with which Israel had least desire to be associated.
עֵבֶר is the eponym of עִבְרִים (Hebrews), the name by which the
Israelites are often designated in distinction from other
peoples, down to the time of Saul¹ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 2 b:
the passages are cited in Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._). It is
strange at first sight that while the בני עבר of verse ²¹ include
all Shemites known to Yahwist, the gentilic word is historically
restricted to Israelites. The difficulty is perhaps removed
by the still disputed, but now widely accepted, theory that
_Ḫabiri_ in the Tel-Amarna letters is the cuneiform equivalent
of the Old Testament עִבְרִים. The equation presents no philological
difficulty: Assyrian _ḫ_ often represents a foreign ע; and
Eerdmans’ statement (_Alttestamentliche Studien_, ii. 64), that
the sign _ḫa_ never stands for עִ (if true) is worthless, for
_Ḫa-za-ḳi-ya-u_ = חִזקיהו shows that Assyrian _a_ may become in the
Old Testament _i_, and this is all that it is necessary to prove.
The historical objections vanish if the Ḫabiri be identified,
not with the Israelitish invaders after the Exodus, but with
an earlier immigration of Semitic nomads into Palestine,
amongst whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The chief
uncertainty arises from the fact that the phonetic writing
_Ḫa-bi-ri_ occurs only in a limited group of letters,――those of
‛Abd-ḫiba of Jerusalem (179, 180 [182], 183, 185). The ideogram
_SA. GAS_ (‘robbers’) in other letters is conjectured to
have the same value, but this is not absolutely demonstrated.
Assuming that Winckler and others are right in equating the two,
the Ḫabiri are in evidence over the whole country, occasionally
as auxiliaries of the Egyptian government, but chiefly as its
foes. The inference is very plausible that they were the roving
Bedouin element of the population, as opposed to the settled
inhabitants,――presumably a branch of the great Aramæan invasion
which was then overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above,
page 206; compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii.
90 ff., _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 196 ff.;
Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 111 ff.).
There is thus a strong probability that עברים was originally
the name of a group of tribes which invaded Palestine in
the 15th century B.C., and that it was afterwards applied
to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the
immigrants.――Etymologically, the word has usually been
interpreted as meaning ‘those from beyond’ the river (compare
עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר, Joshua 24² ᶠᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and on that assumption, the river
is certainly not the Tigris (Delitzsch), and almost certainly
not the Jordan (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade), but (in accordance
with prevailing tradition) _the_ נהר of the Old Testament, the
Euphrates, ‘beyond’ which lay Ḥarran, the city whence Abraham
set out. Hommel’s view (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as
illustrated by the Monuments_, 252 ff.) has no probability
(compare Driver 139²). The verb עבר, however, does not
necessarily mean to ‘cross’ (a stream); it sometimes means
simply to ‘traverse’ a region (Jeremiah 2⁶); and in this
sense Spiegelberg has recently (1907) revived an attractive
conjecture of Goldziher (_Mythos_, page 66), that עברים signifies
‘wanderers’――nomads (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ x.
618 ff.).²
¹ After 1 Samuel it occurs only Deuteronomy 15¹², Jeremiah
34⁹ᐧ ¹⁴, Jonah 1⁹. But see the cogent criticisms of
Weinheimer in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, 1909, 275 ff., who propounds the view
that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.
² In Egyptian texts from Thothmes III. to Ramses IV., the
word _‛Apuriu_ (_‛Apriu_) occurs as the name of a foreign
population in Egypt; and had been identified by Chabas with
the Hebrews of the Old Testament. The identification has
been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed cogent;
but has recently been revived by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew
Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 259), and (with
arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (_Bibel und
Ägypten: Abraham und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_, 1904, 146
ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to _Ḫabiri_, and
the new facts brought to light by the Tel-Amarna Tablets,
the hypothesis certainly deserves to be reconsidered
(compare Eerdmans, _l.c._ 52 ff., or _The Expositor_, 1909,
ii. 197 ff.).
=21.= _The father of all the sons of ‛Ēber_] The writer has apparently
borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants of Eber which he
was at a loss to connect with the name of Shem. Hence he avoids the
direct assertion that Shem begat Eber, and bridges over the gap by
the vague hint that Shem and Eber stand for the same ethnological
abstraction.――_the elder brother of Yepheth_] The Hebrew can mean
nothing else (_v.i._). The difficulty is to account for the selection
of Japheth for comparison with Shem, the oldest member of the family.
Unless the clause be a gloss, the most obvious inference is that the
genealogy of Japheth had immediately preceded; whether because in the
Table of Yahwist the sequence of age was broken (Budde 305 f.), or
because Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Dillmann).
The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gunkel, who
finds in the remark an indication that this Table followed the order:
Canaan――Japheth――Shem (see page 188).――=24= is an interpolation (based
on 11¹²⁻¹⁴) intended to harmonise Yahwist with Priestly-Code. It
cannot be the continuation of ²¹ as it stands (since we have not been
informed who Arpakšad was), and still less in the form suggested below.
It is also obviously inconsistent with the plan of Priestly-Code’s
Table, which deals with nations and not with individual genealogies
(note also יָלַד instead of הוֹלִיד).
* * * * *
=21.= It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is
extremely likely that the introduction to the section on Shem
in. Yahwist would require modification to prevent contradiction
with verse ²² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code). Then, the omission of the
logical subject to יֻלַּד is suspicious. The Pual of this verb never
dispenses with the subject nor does the Hophal; the Niphal does
so once (Genesis 17¹⁷ [Priestly-Code]); but there the ellipsis
is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact of birth.
Further, a הוּא is required as subject of the clause אבי וגו׳. The
impression is produced that originally עֵבֶר was expressly named
as the son of Shem, and that the words הוא אבי וגו׳ referred to him
(perhaps ולשם יֻלַּד את־ע֑בר הוא אבי וגו׳). Considering the importance of the
name, the tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly
possible to retain the clause אחי וגו׳; and to delete it as a gloss
(although it has been proposed by others: see _Oxford Hexateuch_)
I admit to be difficult, just because of the obscurity of the
expression.――גם הוא] compare 4²⁶.――אחי יפת הגדול] Vulgate correctly
_fratre Yahwist majore_. The Massoretic accentuation perhaps
favours the grammatically impossible rendering of LXX (ἀδελφῷ
Ἰαφεθ τοῦ μείζονος), Symmachus, al.; which implies that Japheth
was the oldest of Noah’s sons,――a notion extorted from the
chronology of 11¹⁰ coupled with 5³² 7¹¹ (see Rashi, Abraham
Ibn Ezra). It is equally inadmissible (with Abraham Ibn Ezra)
to take הגדול absolutely (= Japheth the great). See Budde 304
ff.――=24.= את־שלח] LXX prefers את־קינן וקינן ילד.
* * * * *
=25.= The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and Southern
Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to Aramæans and Arabs: we
may compare with Jastrow (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 82 a) the
customary division of Arabia into _Šām_ (Syria) and _Yemen_. The older
branch, to which the Israelites belonged, is not traced in detail: we
may assume that a Yahwistic genealogy (∥ to 11¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ [Priestly-Code])
existed, showing the descent of Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered
notices (19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 25¹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.) we can form an idea of the
way in which the northern and central districts were peopled by that
family of ‘Hebrews.’――On פֶּלֶג, see below.――_For in his days the earth
was divided_ (נִפְלְגָה)] a popular etymology naturally suggested by the
root, which in Hebrew (as in Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) expresses the
idea of ‘division’ (compare the verb in Psalms 55¹⁰, Job 38²⁵).
There is no very strong reason to suppose that the dispersion (פלוגתא,
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ etc.) of the Tower of Babel is referred to; it is
possible that some other tradition regarding the distribution of
nations is followed (_e.g._ _Jubilees_ viii. 8 ff.), or that the
allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoḳṭanites from their
northern kinsmen.
פֶּלֶג (Φαλεκ, Φαλεγ, Φαλεχ)] as a common noun means ‘watercourse’
or artificial canal (Assyrian _palgu_): Isaiah 30²⁵, Psalms
1³ 65¹⁰, Job 29⁶ etc. Hence it has been thought that the
name originally denoted some region intersected by irrigating
channels or canals, such as Babylonia itself. Of geographical
identifications there are several which are sufficiently
plausible: _Phalga_ in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the
Chaboras and the Euphrates (Knobel); _’el-Falǧ_, a district
in North-east Arabia near the head of the Persian Gulf
(Lagarde _Orientalia_ ii. 50); _’el-Aflāǧ_ South of Ǧebel
Tuwaiḳ in central Arabia (Hommel _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222²).
יָקְטָן (Ἰεκταν)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer
(Goldziher _Der Mythos bei den Hebräern_, page 67) from √
_ḳaṭana_ = ‘be settled.’ The Arab genealogists identified him
with _Ḳaḥtān_, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who was
(or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 743). On the
modern stock of ’el-Ḳaḥṭan, and its sinister reputation in the
more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see Doughty, _Travels in
Arabia Deserta_ i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.
* * * * *
=25.= יֻלַּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדו;
but שְׁנֵי בָנִים is possibly accusative after passive, as 4¹⁸ etc.
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 _a_, _b_)――האחד――אחיו] similarly 22²¹
(Yahwist).
* * * * *
=26‒30.= The sons of Yoḳṭan number 13, but in LXX (see on עובל below)
only 12, which may be the original number. The few names that can be
satisfactorily identified (_Sheleph, Ḥaẓarmaweth, Sheba, Ḥavilah_)
point to South Arabia as the home of these tribes.
(1) אַלְמוֹדָד (Ἐλμωδαδ)] unknown. The אל is variously explained
as the Arabic article (but this is not Sabæan), as _’Ēl_ =
‘God, ’ and as _’āl_ = ‘family’; and מודד as a derivative of the
verb for ‘love’ (_wadda_), equivalent to Hebrew יָדִיד (Winckler
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, vi. 169);
compare Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_,
ii. 425; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 67.
(2) שֶׁלֶף (Σαλεφ)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabæan
inscriptions, and also by Arabic geographers: see Hommel
_Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 70; Osiander in _Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xi. 153 ff.,
perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers. Cognate
place-names are said to be still common in South Arabia (Glaser).
(3) חֲצַרְמָוֶת (Ἁσαρμωθ)] The modern province of _Ḥaḍramaut_, on
the South coast, East of Yemen. The name appears in Sabæan
inscriptions of 5th and 6th centuries A.D., and is slightly
disguised in the Χατραμωτῖται of Strabo (XVI. iv. 2), the
_Chatramotitæ_ of Pliny, vi. 154 (_Atramitæ_, vi. 155, xii. 52?).
(4) יֶרַח (Ἰαραδ)] uncertain. The attempts at identification
proceed on the appellative sense of the word (= ‘moon’), but are
devoid of plausibility (see Dillmann).
(5) הֲדוֹרָם (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדורם, LXX
Ὁδορρα)] likewise unknown. A place called _Dauram_ close to
Ṣan‛a has been suggested: the name is found in Sabæan (Glaser,
426, 435).
(6) אוּזָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ איזל, LXX
Αἰζηλ)] mentioned by Ezekiel (27¹⁹: read מֵאוּזָל) as a place whence
iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to be the
same as _’Azāl_, which Arabic tradition declares to be the
old name of Ṣan’a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427,
434, etc.) disputes the tradition, and locates ’Ûzāl in the
neighbourhood of Medina.¹
¹ In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is
worthy of attention that the account of Asshurbanipal’s
expedition against the Nabatæans (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three
places, _Ḥurarina_, _Yarki_, and _Azalla_, which could not,
of course, be as far South as Yemen, but might be as far as
the region of Medina. In spite of the phonetic differences,
the resemblance to Hadoram, Yeraḥ, and ’Ûzāl is noteworthy.
See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff.
(7) דִּקְלָה (Δεκλα)] Probably the Arabic and Aramaic word (_daḳal_,
דקלא, (‡ Syriac word)) for ‘date-palm,’ and therefore the name of
some noted palm-bearing oasis ofArabia. Glaser (_Mittheilungen
der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1897, 438) and Hommel
(_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen ar abistisch-semitologischen
Inhalts_, 282 f.) identify it with the Φοινικων of Procopius,
and the modern _Ǧōf es-Sirhān_, 30° North latitude (as far North
as the head of the Red Sea).
(8) עוֹבָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and
1 Chronicles 1²² עֵיבָל, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ Γαιβαλ)] supposed to be the
word _‛Abil_, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser,
427). The name is omitted by many MSS of LXX, also by LXXᴮ in
1 Chronicles 1²² (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,
10), where some Hebrew MSS and Peshiṭtå have עובל.
(9) אֲבִימָאֵל (Ἀβιμεηλ)] apparently a tribal name (= ‘father is God’),
of genuine Sabæan formation (compare אבמעתֿתר, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 18), not
hitherto identified.
(10) שְׁבָא] see on verse ⁷ (page 203). The general connexion
suggests that the Sabæans are already established in Yemen;
although, if ’Ûzāl be as far North as Medina, the inference
is perhaps not quite certain.
(11) אוֹפִר (Οὐφειρ)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing
country (Isaiah 13¹², Psalms 45¹⁰, Job 22²⁴ 28¹⁶, 1 Chronicles
29⁴ [Sirach 7¹⁸]), visited by the ships of Solomon and Hiram,
which brought home not only gold and silver and precious stones,
but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks (1 Kings 9²⁸
10¹¹ᐧ ²²; compare 22⁴⁹). Whether this familiarity with the name
implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be
questioned; but it can hardly be doubted that the author of
the Yahwistic Table believed it to be in Arabia; and although
no name at all resembling Ophir has as yet been discovered in
Arabia, that remains the most probable view (see Glaser,
_Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_, ii. 357‒83).
Of other identifications the most important are: _Abhira_ in
India, East of the mouths of the Indus (Lassen); (2) the Sofala
coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which remains of extensive
gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe in 1871: the
ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native African
origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th century A.D. (see
D. Randall-Maciver, _Mediæval Rhodesia_ [1906]); (3) _Apir_
(originally _Hapir_), an old name for the ruling race in Elam,
and for the coast of the Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Hommel
_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,
236⁴; Hüsing, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 367 ff.;
Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
l. 246). If we could suppose the name transferred to the
opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would
satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree
in particular with Glaser’s localisation. For a discussion of
the various theories, see the excellent summary by Cheyne in
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3513 ff.; Price, _A Dictionary of
the Bible_, iii. 626 ff.; and Driver _The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_² XXVI. f., 131.
(12) חֲוִילָה] see page 202.
(13) יוֹבָב (Ἰωβαβ)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare
the Sabæan name _Yuhaibab_.
The limits (probably from North to South) of the Yoḳṭanite
territory are specified in verse ³⁰; but a satisfactory
explanation is impossible owing to the uncertainty of the
three names mentioned in it (Dillmann).――מֵשָׁא (Μασσηε) has been
supposed to be _Mesene_ ((‡ Syriac word), _Maisān_), within the
Delta of the Euphrates-Tigris (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 823;
Tuch); but the antiquity of this name is not established.
Dillmann, following LXX, reads מַשָּׂא (see on 25¹⁴) in North Arabia.
This as northern limit would just include Diḳlah, if Glaser’s
identification, given above, be correct.――סְפָרָה (Σωφηρα) is
generally acknowledged to be _Ẓafār_ in the South of Arabia.
There were two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen,
North of Aden; the other (now pronounced _’Iṣfār_ or _’Isfār_)
on the coast of Mahra, near Mirbāt. The latter was the capital
of the Himyarite kings (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 968;
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 437; _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is a matter of little
consequence.――הַר הַקֶּדֶם] It is difficult to say whether this is
an apposition to מוֹשָׁבָם (Tuch al.), or a definition of ספר, or is
a continuation of the line beyond ספר. On the first view the
‘mountain’ might be the highlands of central Arabia (_Neǧd_);
the second is recommended by the fact that the _eastern_ Ẓafār
lies at the foot of a high mountain, well adapted to serve as
a landmark. The third view is not assisted by rendering בֹּאֲכָה ‘in
the direction of’ (see on verse ¹⁹); for in any case Ẓafār must
have been the terminus in a southern direction. The commonly
received opinion is that הר הקדם is the name of the Frankincense
Mountain between Ḥaḍramaut and Mahra (see Dillmann).
* * * * *
=26.= Some MSS have חצר־מות, as if = ‘court of death.’
* * * * *
XI. 1‒9.
_The Tower of Babel_
(Yahwist).
A mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of the primitive
unity of mankind into separate communities, distinguished and isolated
by differences of language. The story reflects at the same time
the impression made on Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of
Babylonian civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an
undivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the existing
disunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on the presumptuous
impiety which inspired these early manifestations of human genius and
enterprise.
Gunkel has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct
but kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (compare יהוה,
♦verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹), and have been blended with remarkable skill.
One has crystallised round the name ‘Babel,’ and its leading
motive is the “confusion” of tongues; the other around the
memory of some ruined tower, which tradition connected with
the “dispersion” of the race. Gunkel’s division will be best
exhibited by the following continuous translations:
♦ removed duplicate “9”
A. The Babel-Recension: (¹) _And B. The Tower-Recension: ... (²)
it was, when all the earth had _And when they broke up from
one speech and one vocabulary,_ the East, they found a plain in
(³ᵃ) _that they said to one the land of Shin‛ar, and settled
another, Come! Let us make there._ [And they said, Let us
bricks and burn them thoroughly._ build] (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _a tower, with
(⁴ᵃ{α, γ}) _And they said, Come! its top reaching to heaven, lest
Let us build us a city, and make we disperse over the face of
ourselves a name._ (⁶ᵃ{α}) _And the whole earth._ (³ᵇ) _And they
Yahwe said, Behold it is one had brick for stone and asphalt
people, and all of one language._ for mortar._ (⁵) _And Yahwe came
(⁷) _Come! Let us go down and down to see the tower which the
confound there their language, sons of men had built._ [And
so that they may not understand He said ...] (⁶ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _and this
one another’s speech,_ (⁸ᵇ) _and is but the beginning of their
that they may cease to build the enterprise; and now nothing
city._ (⁹ᵃ) _Therefore is its will be impracticable to them
name called ‘Babel’ (Confusion), which they purpose to do._ (8a)
for there Yahwe confused the _So Yahwe scattered them over
speech of the whole earth._ the face of the whole earth._
[?Therefore the name of the tower
was called ‘Pîẓ’ (Dispersion),
for] (⁹ᵇ) _from thence Yahwe
dispersed them over the face of
the whole earth._
It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the
soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies
itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort
themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt
the awkward duplicate (⁸ᵃ ∥ ⁹ᵇ) with which B closes. Gunkel’s
bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological
play on the name of the tower (פִּיץ or פּוּץ) certainly removes
the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the
tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.¹ Against
this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the
absence of demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even
in B; the facts that only a single phrase (אָת־הָעִיר וְ in verse ⁵)
requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one
transposition (³ᵇ); and the facility with which nearly all the
numerous doublets (³ᵃ ∥ ³ᵇ; ⁴ᵃ{γ} ∥ ⁴ᵇ; וַיֵּרֶד (⁵) ∥ נֵֽרְדָה (⁷); ⁶ᵃ{α},
{β} ∥ ⁶ᵃ{γ}ᵇ; ⁹ᵃ ∥ ⁸ᵃ ⁺ ⁹ᵇ) can be definitely assigned to the
one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the
difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in ⁵ and ⁷,
from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been
deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style,
and some general differences of conception between the two
strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may
be reserved for the notes.
¹ In _Jubilees_ x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from
the city, is “Overthrow” (καταστροφή).
The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the
Ethnographic Table of chapter 10, and is indeed fundamentally
irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived
as the result of the natural increase and partition of the
family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant
(compare ללשנתם, etc., in Priestly-Code, 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹). Here, on
the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition
of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either
a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow
genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to
assign the passage to that section of Yahwist (if there be one)
which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.); although it must be said that
the idea here is little less at variance with the classification
by professions of 4²⁰⁻²² than with chapter 10. The truth is that
the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily
hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in
historical sequence.
1‒4.
The Building of the City and the Tower.
(Compare the translation given above.) =1, 2.= The expression
suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and wide over the
earth, though forming one great nation (עַם, verse ⁶), united by
a common language. In B, on the other hand, it is still a body of
nomads, moving all together in search of a habitation (verse ²;
compare בְּנֵי הָאָדָה, verse ⁵).――_broke up from the East_] _v.i._――_a plain_]
the Euphrates-Tigris valley; where Babylon κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ
(Herodotus i. 178).――_the land of Shin‛ar_] see on 10¹⁰.――=3a.= With
great naïveté, the (city-) legend describes first the invention of
bricks, and then (verse ⁴) as an afterthought the project of building
with them. The bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see page
47 above) speaks of a time when “no brick was laid, no brick-mould
(_nalbantu_) formed”: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 38
f., 360.――=3b= shows that the legend has taken shape amongst a people
familiar with stone-masonry. Compare the construction of the walls
of Babylon as described by Herodotus (i. 179).¹ The accuracy of the
notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Babylonian houses and
temples (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 279)――=4.=
_With its top reaching to heaven_] The expression is not hyperbolical
(as Deuteronomy 1²⁸), but represents the serious purpose of the
builders to raise their work to the height of the dwelling-place of
the gods (_Jubilees_ x. 19, etc.).
¹ Compare Josephus _Against Apion_ i. 139, 149; Diodorus.
ii. 9; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxv. 51.
The most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary was its
_zikkurat_,――a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces,
from the centre of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine
at the top (Herodotus i. 181 f.: see Jastrow _The Religion of
Babylonia and Assyria_, 615‒22). These structures appear to
have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the
7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators
between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a
meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded
as the entrance to heaven (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 616 f.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 52 f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more
than mere hyperbole when it is said of these _zikkurats_ that
the top was made to reach heaven (see page 228 f. below); and,
on the other hand, the resemblance between the language of the
inscriptions and that of Genesis is too striking to be dismissed
as accidental. That the tower of Genesis 11 is a Babylonian
_zikkurat_ is obvious on every ground; and we may readily
suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of
is preserved in the legend; although to the purer faith of the
Hebrews it savoured only of human pride and presumption.――The
idea of storming heaven and making war on the gods, which
is suggested by some late forms of the legend (compare Homer
_Odyssey_ xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt foreign to the passage.
* * * * *
1. וַיְהִי is not verbal predicate to כל־הארץ, but merely introduces
the circumstantial sentence, as in 15¹⁷ 42³⁵ etc. (Davidson §
141 and _R._¹). Such a sentence is usually followed by וְהִנֵּה, but
see 1 Kings 13²⁰. It may certainly be doubted if it could be
followed by another ויהי with infinitive clause (verse ²); and
this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gunkel’s analysis.――If
there be any distinction between שָׂפָה and דְּבָרִים, the former may
refer to the pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary
(Dillmann), or (Gunkel) ש׳ to language as a whole, and ד׳ to its
individual elements.――דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים] ‘a single set of vocables’; LXX
φωνὴ μία (+ πᾶσιν = לְכֻלָּם, as verse ⁶). Elsewhere (27⁴⁴ 29²⁰ [with
יָמִים]) אחדים means ‘single’ in the sense of ‘few’; in Ezekiel 37¹⁷
the text is uncertain (see Cornill).――On the juxtaposition of
subject and predicate in the nominal sentence, see Davidson
§ 29 (_e_).――=2.= בְּנָסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם] rendered as above by LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Nearly all moderns prefer ‘as they
wandered in the east’ or ‘eastward’; justifying the translation
by 13¹¹, which is the only place where מקדם means ‘eastward’
with a verb of motion. That מק׳ _never_ means ‘from the east’
is at least a hazardous assertion in view of Isaiah 2⁶ 9¹¹. נסע
(compare Assyrian _nisû_, ‘remove,’ ‘depart,’ etc.) is a nomadic
term, meaning ‘pluck up [tent-pegs]’ (Isaiah 33²⁰); hence ‘break
up the camp’ or ‘start on a journey’ (Genesis 33¹² 35⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹
37¹⁷ etc.); and, with the _possible_ exception of Jeremiah 31²³
(but _not_ Genesis 12⁹), there is no case where this primary
idea is lost sight of. Being essentially a verb of departure,
it is more naturally followed by a determination of the
starting-point than of the direction or the goal (but see 33¹⁷);
and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption that the
cradle of the race was further East than Babylonia (see 2⁸; and
compare Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_
246, and _n._ 43).――בִּקְעָה] (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic
_baḳ‛at_) in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Deuteronomy
34³, Zechariah 12¹¹, Isaiah 40⁴, etc.). The derivation from √
בקע, ‘split,’ is questioned by Barth (_Etymologische Studien
zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 2), but
is probable nevertheless.――=3.= הָבָה] imperative of √ יהב, used
interjectionally (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _o_), as in verses
⁴ᐧ ⁷ 38¹⁶, Exodus 1¹⁰ (all Yahwist), is given by Gunkel as a
stylistic mark of the recension A (Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ?). Contrast
the verbal use 29²¹ 30¹ (both Elohist), 47¹⁵, and plural (הָבוּ)
47¹⁶, Deuteronomy 1¹³ 32³, Joshua 18⁴. On the whole, the two
uses are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively; see
Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 98 f.――נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים] Exodus
5⁷ᐧ ¹⁴. So in Assyrian _labânu libittu_ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 48, etc.), although _libittu_ is used only
of the _un_burned, sun-dried brick. See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvi. 181;
Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
ii. 70.――לִשְׂרֵפָה] dative of product (Dillmann); שׂ׳ = ‘burnt
mass’ (compare Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 51²⁵).――חֵמָר (14¹⁰,
Exodus 2³)] the native Hebrew name for bitumen (see on
6¹⁴).――חֹמֶר] (note the play on words) is strictly ‘clay,’ used
in Palestine as mortar.――=4.= וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם] בְּ of contact, as in נָגַע בְּ
(Delitzsch).――וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה――שֵׁם] ‘acquire lasting renown’; compare 2
Samuel 8¹³, Jeremiah 32²⁰, Nehemiah 9¹⁰. The suggestion that שֵׁם
here has the sense of ‘monument,’ though defended by Delitzsch,
Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 375²), al. (compare
Siegfried-Stade _s.v._), has no sufficient justification in
usage. In Isaiah 55¹³ 56⁵ (compare 2 Samuel 18¹⁸), as well
as the amended text of 2 Samuel 8¹³ (see Driver _Notes on the
Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 217 f.), the ordinary sense
suffices.――נָפוּץ] the word, accusative to Gunkel, is distinctive
of the recension B: compare verses ⁸ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇ.
* * * * *
=4b.= _Lest we disperse_] The tower was to be at once a symbol of the
unity of the race, and a centre and rallying-point, visible all over
the earth (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The idea is missed by LXX, Vulgate and
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which render ‘_ere_ we be dispersed.’
5‒9.
Yahwe’s Interposition.
The turning-point in the development of the story occurs at verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶,
where the descent of Yahwe is _twice_ mentioned, in a way which shows
some discontinuity of narration.――On heaven as the dwelling-place of
Yahwe, compare 28¹² ᶠᐧ, Exodus 19¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 34⁵ 24¹⁰, 1 Kings 22¹⁹, 2 Kings
2¹¹; and with verse ⁵ compare 18²¹, Exodus 3⁸.
On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of
Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 274 ff.)
seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension
has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most
characteristic incidents. In verse ⁵ the name Yahwe has been
substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to
inspect the latest human enterprise; verse ⁶ is his report
to the heavenly council on his return; and verse ⁷ the plan
of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main
objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost
necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such
as no Hebrew writer is likely to have bestowed on a document
so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Babylonian
original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the
elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the
course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of
the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.――On Gunkel’s
theory the difficulty disappears.
=6.= _This is but the beginning, etc._] The reference is not merely to
the completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be
undertaken in the future.――=9.= _Babel_] LXX rightly Σύγχυσις; _v.i._
* * * * *
=6.=――הֵן עַם אֶחָד וגו׳] incomplete interjectional sentence
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 147 _b_).――זֶה הַֽחִלָּם לַֽעֲשׂוֹת] literally
‘this is their beginning to act.’ On the pointing הַֽח׳, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _w_.――לֹא יִבָּצֵר――יָֽזְמוּ] imitated in Job
42².――בצר] literally ‘be inaccessible’ (compare Isaiah 22¹⁰,
Jeremiah 51⁵³); hence ‘impracticable.’――יָֽזְמוּ] contrast for יָזֹמּוּ
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _dd_).――=7.= נרדה וגו׳] LXX retains the
plural in spite of the alleged reading in _Mechilta_ ארדה אבלה
(see page 14 above).――נָֽבְלָה] (see last note): from √ בלל =
‘mix’ (not ‘divide,’ as Peshiṭtå [(‡ Syriac word)]).――אֲשֶׁר לֹא]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 165 _b_.――שׁמע] = ‘understand’: 42²³,
Deuteronomy 28⁴⁹, Isaiah 33¹⁹, Jeremiah 5¹⁵ etc.――=8.= It is
perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to
point וְיֶחְדְּלוּ (jussive of purpose: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _f_),
continuing the direct address of ⁷ᵇ.――העיר] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ prefers את, and (with LXX) adds
ואת־המגדל.――=9.= קָרָא] ‘_one_ called’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144
_d_).――בָּבֶל] ‘mxture’ or ‘confusion.’ The name is obviously
treated as a contraction from בַּֽלְבֵּל, a form not found in Hebrew,
but occurring in Aramaic (compare Peshiṭtå verse ⁹, and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ verse ⁷) and Arabic. On the Babylonian etymology
of the name, see 10¹⁰.――=9b.=――יהוה] LXX + ὁ θεός.
* * * * *
_Origin and Diffusion of the Legends._
1. The double legend is a product of naïve reflexion on such
facts of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of
a common language, and its consequent inability to bend its
united energies to the accomplishment of some enduring memorial
of human greatness. The contrast between this condition of
things and the ideal unity of the race at its origin haunted
the mind with a sense of fate and discomfiture, and prompted
the questions, When, and where, and for what reason, was this
doom imposed on men? The answer naturally assumed the legendary
form, the concrete features of the representation being supplied
by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements of
civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one
hand the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages,
its cosmopolitan population, and its proud boast of antiquity,
suggested the idea that here was the very fountainhead of the
confusion of tongues; and this idea, wrapped up in a popular
etymology of the name of the city, formed the nucleus of the
first of the two legends contained in the passage. On the other
hand, the spectacle of some ruined or unfinished Temple-tower
(_zikkurat_), built by a vast expenditure of human toil,
and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (page 226),
appealed to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work,
obviously intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point
for the whole human race. In each case mankind had measured
its strength against the decree of the gods above; and the gods
had taken their revenge by reducing mankind to the condition of
impotent disunion in which it now is.
It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the
official religion of Babylonia. They originated rather in the
unsophisticated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated
into the country, and formed their own notions about the wonders
they beheld there: the etymology of the name Babel (= _Balbēl_)
suggests an Aramæan origin (Cheyne, Gunkel). The stories
travelled from land to land, till they reached Israel, where,
divested of their cruder polytheistic elements, they became the
vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly of human pride, and
the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men.
It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the
numerous Babylonian _zikkurats_ gave rise to the legend of
the Dispersion. The most famous of these edifices were those
of E-sagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon,¹ and of E-zida,
the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the opposite bank of the
river (see Tiele, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 179‒190).
The former bore the (Sumerian) name _E-temen-an-ki_ (= ‘house
of the foundations of heaven and earth’). It was restored
by Nabo-polassar, who says that before him it had become
“dilapidated and ruined,” and that he was commanded by Marduk to
“lay its foundations firm in the breast of the underworld, and
_make its top equal to heaven_” (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
iii. 2. 5). The latter expression recurs in an inscription
of Nebuchadnezzar (_Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, iii. 548) with reference to the same
_zikkurat_, and is thought by Gunkel (² 86) to have been
characteristic of E-temen-an-ki; but that is doubtful, since
similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser I. of the towers
of the temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to
fall gradually into disrepair for 641 years before his time
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 43). The _zikkurat_ of
E-zida was called _E-ur-imin-an-ki_ (‘house of the seven stages
(?) of heaven and earth’); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us,
in an inscription found at its four corners, that it had been
built by a former king, and raised to a height of 42 cubits;
its top, however, had not been set up, and it had fallen into
disrepair (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 53, 55). The
temple of Borsippa is entombed in _Birs Nimrûd_――a huge ruined
mound still rising 153 feet above the plain (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 13, 30
f.)――which local (and Jewish) tradition identifies with the
tower of Genesis 11. This view has been accepted by many modern
scholars (see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 412), by others it is
rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was
not _in_ but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are
separated, there is nothing to connect the tower specially with
the _city_ of Babylon; and it would seem to be mainly a question
which of the two was the more imposing ruin at the time when the
legend originated. It is possible that neither was meant. At Uru
(Ur of the Chaldees) there was a smaller _zikkurat_ (about 70
feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating from the time of Ur-bau
(_circa_ 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabuna’id tells
us he rebuilt on the old foundation “with asphalt and bricks”
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 95; _Explorations in
Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 173 ff.). The notice is
interesting, because, according to one tradition, which is no
doubt ancient, though it cannot be proved to be Yahwistic, this
city was the starting-point of the Hebrew migration (see below,
page 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of the Hebrews
came from Ur, it may very well have been the _zikkurat_ of that
place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the
Dispersion.
¹ On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, _The
Expositor_, 1909, ii. page 91 ff.
2. In regard to its _religious content_, the narrative occupies
the same standpoint as 3²⁰ᐧ ²² and 6¹⁻³. Its central idea is
the effort of the restless, scheming, soaring human mind to
transcend its divinely appointed limitations: it “emphasises
Yahwe’s supremacy over the world; it teaches how the
self-exaltation of man is checked by God; and it shows how the
distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language,
are elements in His providential plan for the development and
progress of humanity” (Driver). The pagan notion of the envy of
the gods,――their fear lest human greatness should subvert the
order of the world,――no doubt emerges in a more pronounced form
than in any other passage. Yet the essential conception is not
mere paganism, but finds an obvious point of contact in one
aspect of the prophetic theology: see Isaiah 2¹²⁻¹⁷. To say that
the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for
us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the
Old Testament thought of God, as well as to evince a lack of
sympathy with one of the profoundest instincts of early religion.
Crude in form as the legend is, it embodies a truth of permanent
validity――the futility and emptiness of human effort divorced
from the acknowledgment and service of God: hæc perpetua mundi
dementia est, neglecto cœlo immortalitatem quærere in terra, ubi
nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calvin).
3. _Parallels._――No Babylonian version of the story has been
discovered; and for the reason given above (page 226) it is
extremely unlikely that anything resembling the biblical form
of it will ever be found there.¹ In Greek mythology there are
dim traces of a legend ascribing the diversities of language
to an act of the gods, whether as a punishment on the creatures
for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo, _De Confusione
Linguarum_), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable
of Hyginus.² But while these myths are no doubt independent of
Jewish influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative
is too slight to suggest a common origin. It is only in the
literature of the Hellenistic period that we find real parallels
to the story of the Tower of Babel; and these agree so closely
with the biblical account that it is extremely doubtful if they
embody any separate tradition.³ The difference to which most
importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phraseology
(‘the gods’) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,
Abydenus); but the polytheism is only in the language, and is
probably nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising
of the scriptural narrative. Other differences――such as the
identification of the tower-builders with the race of giants
(the Nephîlîm of 6⁴?), and the destruction of the tower by a
storm――are easily explicable as accretions to the legend of
Genesis.⁴ The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid of
Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,⁵ has a special
interest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the
Mexican pyramids and the Babylonian _zikkurats_. If this fact
could be accepted as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then
no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and
its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume
a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not
quite certain.
¹ The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, _The
Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 163 ff. (compare _The Higher
Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 153 f.), and
supposed to contain obscure allusions to the building of a
tower in Babylon, its overthrow by a god during the night,
and a confusion of speech, has since been shown to contain
nothing of the sort: see King, _Creation Tablets_, i. 219 f.;
Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
286.
² “Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est
... id est nationes distribuit, tum discordia inter mortales
esse cœpit, _quod Jovi placitum non est_.”
³ Compare Sibylline Oracles iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, _Apokryphen
und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments_, 187); Alexander
Polyhistor (Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. 23 [edited by Schoene]);
Abydenus (_ib._ i. 33); Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_
i. 118; Eupolemos (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17);
and _Book of Jubilees_ x. 18‒27. The lines of the Sibyl (iii.
99 f.) may be quoted as a typical example of this class of
legends:
ὁμόφωνοι δ’ ἦσαν ἅπαντες
καὶ βούλοντ’ ἀναβῆναι εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα.
αὐτίκα δ’ ἀθάνατος μεγάλην ἐπέθηκεν ἀνάγκην
πνεύμασιν· αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ’ ἄνεμοι μέγαν ὕψοθι πύργον
ῥίψαν, καὶ θνητοῖσιν ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοις ἔριν ὦρσαν·
τοὔνεκά τοι Βαβυλῶνα βροτοὶ πόλει οὔνομ’ ἔθεντο.
⁴ So Gunkel² 88 f. On the other side, compare Gruppe,
_Griechische Culte und Mythen_, i. 677 ff.; Stade
_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 277 f.;
Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
383 ff.
⁵ _Vues des Cordilleres_ (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff.
XI. 10‒26.
_The Genealogy of Shem_
(Priestly-Code).
Another section of the _Tôlĕdôth_, spanning the interval between the
Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of
Priestly-Code’s genealogies next to chapter 5; with which it agrees
in form, except that in Massoretic Text the framework is lightened by
omitting the total duration of each patriarch’s life. In _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ this is consistently supplied; while LXX
merely adds to Massoretic Text the statement καὶ ἀπέθανεν. The number
of generations in Massoretic Text is 9, but in LXX 10, corresponding
with chapter 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these
few are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to North-west
Mesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race.
In LXX the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān
between Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 10²⁴). That this is a secondary
alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in
1 Chronicles 1¹⁸ᐧ ²⁴ LXX; (b) Ḳênān already occurs in the former
genealogy (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those
of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name
(Budde 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tuch, Delitzsch); but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence
between the lists of chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ An indication of
the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the
repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once as the father, and again
as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, _Die chronologischen Systeme
im Alten Testament und bei Josephus_, 7 ff.). It is not
improbable that here, as in chapter 5 (corresponding with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ),
Priestly-Code has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy,
of which a fragment may have been preserved in verses ²⁸⁻³⁰.
Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 9, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names
left of Priestly-Code’s list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on
10²¹ᐧ ²⁴) and the first Nāḥôr are omitted (Abraham counting as
the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy
lying behind chapter 5 was 7-membered; and Yahwist’s parallel to
11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ could not in any case be the continuation of 4¹⁶⁻²².
=10.= אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד] see on 10²². He is here obviously the oldest son
of Shem; which does not _necessarily_ involve a contradiction
with chapter 10, the arrangement there being dictated by
geographical considerations. Hommel (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222¹), maintaining his
theory that Arpakšad = Ur-Kasdîm, comes to the absurd conclusion
that in the original list it was not the name of Shem’s son,
but of his birthplace: ‘Shem _from_ Arpakshad’!――שְׁנָתַיִם אַהַר הַמַּבּוּל] The
discrepancy between this statement and the chronology of 5³² 7¹¹
9²⁸ ᶠᐧ is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arithmetical
calculations (Rashi al.), or by the assumption that in the other
passages round numbers are used (Tuch, Delitzsch). The clause
is evidently a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose
of making the birth of Arpakšad, rather than the Flood, the
commencement of a new era. It fits in admirably with the scheme
of the Book of Jubilees, which gives an integral number of
year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpakšad, and
from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see page 234
below).――=12.= שֶׁלַח (Σαλα)] probably the same word which forms a
component of מְתוּשֶׁלַח (5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), and therefore originally a divine
name. This need not exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the
name of a deity being frequently transferred to his worshippers
or their territory. A place _Ṣalaḥ_ or _Salaḥ_ in Mesopotamia
is instanced by Knobel (Dillmann). Others regard it as a
descriptive name = ‘offshoot’ or ‘dismissal’; but very
improbably.――=14.= עֵבֶר] see on 10²¹.――=16.= פֶּלֶג] 10²⁵. Hommel
(_l.c._) combines the two names and takes the compound as a
notice of Shelaḥ’s birthplace: ‘Shelaḥ _from_ Eber-peleg’ =
Eber-hannāhār, the region West of the lower Euphrates (see
pages 218, 220 above).――=18.= רְעוּ (Ῥαγαυ)] unknown; certainly
not (‡ Syriac word) (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from
רְעוּאֵל (36⁴, Exodus 2¹⁸ etc.: so Hommel); and Mez considers it a
divine name. An Aramæan tribe _Ru’ua_ is frequently mentioned in
Assyrian inscriptions as dwellers on the banks of the Euphrates
and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Delitzsch _Wo lag das
Paradies?_ 238 ff.).――=20.= שְׂרוּג (Σερουχ)] a well-known city and
district about half-way between Carchemish and Ḥarran, mentioned
by Syrian and Arabic writers under the name _Saruǧ_. The name
(_Saruǧi_) also occurs several times in the census of the
district round Ḥarran (7th century B.C.), published by Johns
under the title of _An Assyrian Domesday Book_: see pages 29,
30, 43, 48, 68.――=22.= נָחוֹר (Ναχωρ)] is in Yahwist the brother of
Abraham (22²⁰; compare Joshua 24²); in Priestly-Code he is both
the grandfather and the brother (11²⁶). The name must have been
that of an important Aramæan tribe settled in or around Ḥarran
(27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴). Johns compares the place-name _Til-Naḥiri_ in
the neighbourhood of Saruǧi; also the personal names _Naḥirî_
and _Naḥarâu_ found in Assyrian Deeds (_l.c._ 71; _Assyrian
Deeds_, iii. 127; compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 477 f.). As a divine name Ναχαρ is mentioned along
with other Aramæan deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage
(_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 477); and Jensen
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 300) has called attention
to the theophorous name (‡ Syriac phrase) in the ‘Doctrine of
Addai,’ as possibly a corruption of (‡ Syriac phrase).――=24.=
תֶּרַח (Θαῤῥα)] is instanced by William Robertson Smith¹ as a totem
clan-name; (‡ Syriac word) (?) being the Syrian and _turâḥû_ the
Assyrian word for ‘wild goat.’ Similarly Delitzsch (_Prolegomena
eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten
Testament_ 80), who also refers tentatively to _Til-ša-turâḥi_,
the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran.
Knobel compares a place _Tharrana_, South of Edessa (Dillmann);
Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 70; _Hittiter und
Armenier_, 150 ff. [especially 154]) is inclined to identify
Teraḥ with the Hittite and North Syrian god (or goddess)
_Tarḫu_, Ταρκο, etc. (compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 484).――=26.= Peshiṭtå reads 75 instead of 70.
¹ _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_¹, 220 (afterwards
abandoned). Compare Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167 f.: “sicher
unmöglich.”
_The Chronology._――The following Table shows the variations
of the three chief recensions (Massoretic Text, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, and LXX), together with the
chronology of the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts
company with the Samaritan, and follows a system peculiar to
itself (see page 134 ff. above):
MT. │ Sam. │ LXX. │ Jub.
1st │ 1st │ 1st │ 1st
Son After │ Son After Total │ Son After │ Son
─── ───── │ ─── ───── ───── │ ─── ───── │ ───
1. Shem 100 500 │ 100 500 600 │ 100 500 │ 102?
2. Arpakšad 35 403 │ 135 303 438 │ 135 430 │ 66?
Καιναν │ 130 │ 330 57 │
3. Shelaḥ 30 403 │ 130 303 433 │ 130 330 │ 71
4. Eber 34 430 │ 134 270 404 │ 134 370 │ 64
5. Peleg 30 209 │ 130 109 239 │ 130 │
│ [L.│ 134] 209 │ 61
6. Reu 32 207 │ 132 107 239 │ 132 207 │ 59
7. Serug 30 200 │ 130 100 230 │ 130 200 │ 57
8. Nāḥôr 29 119 │ 79 69 148 │ 79 129 │
│ │ [L. 125] │ 62
9. Teraḥ 70 135 │ 70 75 145 │ 70 135 │ 70
─── ───── │──── ───── ───── │──── ───── │ ───
390 │1040 │1170 │ 669
From Flood │ [L. 1174] │
(or birth │ │ │
of Arp.) │ │ │
to b. of │ │ │
Abr. 290 │ 940 │1070 │ 567
The three versions plainly rest on a common basis, and it is
not easy to decide in favour of the priority of any one of them.
On the application to this period of the general chronological
theories described on page 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much.
Klostermann maintains his scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis
of LXX, (a) by allowing a year for the Flood; (b) by adopting
the reading of Peshiṭtå, 75 instead of 70, in the case of Teraḥ;
and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for 79 as the
age of Naḥor at the birth of Teraḥ. This makes from the Flood
to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2 × 12 × 49. By an equally
arbitrary combination of data of Massoretic Text and LXX a
similar period of 1176 years is then made out from the birth
of Abraham to the Dedication of the Temple.――The seemingly
eccentric scheme of _Jubilees_ shows clear indications of a
reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpakšad is said
(vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may
conclude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the 102nd year of
Shem. This gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation
to the birth of Arpakšad, followed by another of 81 (567 ÷ 7) to
the birth of Abraham. We observe further that the earlier period
embraces 11 generations with an average of exactly 17 year-weeks,
and the later 9 generations with an average of exactly 9: _i.e._,
as nearly as possible one-half: the author accordingly must
have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age of
paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly
been.
[It is possible that the key to the various systems has been
discovered by A. Bosse, whose paper¹ became known to me only
while these sheets were passing through the press. His main
results are as follows: (1) In Massoretic Text he finds two
distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons by generations
of 40 years, its _termini_ being the birth of Shem and the end
of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Teraḥ is excluded entirely,
and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arpakšad
are ignored. This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of
Abraham 320 (8 × 40) years; thence to birth of Jacob 160
(4 × 40); to Exodus 560 (14 × 40); to _founding_ of Temple
480 (12 × 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000 (50 × 40).
This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bochartus
concedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200
(30 × 40) years from the birth of Abraham to the founding of the
Temple, may be of earlier origin.――(b) The other scheme, with
which we are more immediately concerned, operates with a Great
Month of 260 years (260 = the number of weeks in a five-years’
_lustrum_). Its period is a Great Year from the Creation to the
_dedication_ of the Temple, and its reckoning includes Teraḥ in
the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpakšad. This
gives 1556 years to birth of Shem + 390 (birth of Abraham) + 75
(migration of Abraham) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus)
+ 480 (founding of Temple) + 20 (_dedication_ of temple) = 3166.
Now 3166 = 12 × 260 + 46. The odd 46 years are thus accounted
for: the chronologist was accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning
by months of 30 days, and a solar year of 365¼ days, requiring
the interposition of 5¼ days each year; and the 46 years are
the equivalent of these 5¼ days in the system here followed.
(For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5¼ days = (5¼ × 260) / 30 =
(21 × 26) / (4 × 3) = (7 × 13) / 2 = 45½ [say 46] _years_.) The
first third of this Great Year ends with the birth of Noah 1056
= 4 × 260 + 16 (⅓ of 46). The second third _nearly_ coincides
with the birth of Jacob; but here there is a discrepancy of
5 years, which Bochartus accounts for by the assumption that
the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the
case of Jacob been allowed to remain in the text.――(2) LXX
reckons with a Great Month of 355 years (the number of days
in the _lunar_ year), and a Great Year of 12 × 355 = 4260
years from the Creation to the _founding_ of the Temple, made
up as follows: 2142 + 1173² + 75 + 215 + 215 + 440³ = 4260.
Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.――(3) _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ returns to the earlier Hebrew
reckoning by generations, its _terminus ad quem_ being the
measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the _Samaritan
Chronicle_ published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after
the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215
+ 215 + 42 (desert wandering)⁴ + 13 (measurement of Gerizim)
= 2807 = 70 × 40 + 7.⁵――(4) The Book of _Jubilees_ counts by
Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest
of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to
Canaan) = 2450 = 50 × 49.]
¹ _Die chronologischen Systeme im Alten Testament und
bei Josephus_ (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2).
² Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and
the birth of Arpakšad.
³ See 1 Kings.6¹ (LXX).
⁴ After Joshua 5⁶ (LXX).
⁵ The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see page 136). One
cannot help surmising that the final 13 was _originally_
intended to get rid of it, though the textual data do not
enable us now to bring out a round number.
XI. 27‒32.
_The Genealogy of Teraḥ_
(Priestly-Code and Yahwist).
The verses are of mixed authorship; and form, both in Priestly-Code and
Yahwist, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In Priestly-Code
(²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²), genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration
of the Teraḥites from Ur-Kasdîm to Ḥarran, to which 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ may be the
immediate sequel. The insertion from Yahwist (²⁸⁻³⁰) finds an equally
suitable continuation in 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is very probably the conclusion
of Yahwist’s lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding
context of Yahwist is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty
of the tradition which makes Ur-Kasdîm the home of the ancestors of the
Hebrews (see concluding note, page 239).
On the _analysis_, compare especially Budde _Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 414 ff.――Verses ²⁷ and ³² belong quite obviously
to Priestly-Code; and ³¹, from its diffuse style and close
resemblance to Priestly-Code’s regular manner in recording
the patriarchal migrations (12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶: see Hupfeld _Die
Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 19 f.),
may be confidently assigned to the same source. ²⁸ᵃ presents
nothing distinctive of either document; but in ²⁸ᵇ ארץ מולדת is
peculiar to Jehovist (see the footnote on the verse). ²⁹ is
Yahwist because presupposed in 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; and its continuation
(³⁰) brings as an additional criterion the word עֲקָרָה (compare
25²¹ 29³¹), which is never used by Priestly-Code.――The extract
from Yahwist is supplementary to Priestly-Code, and it might
be argued that at least ²⁸ᵃ was necessary in the latter source
to explain why Loṭ and not Haran went with Teraḥ. Budde points
out in answer (page 420) that with still greater urgency we
desiderate an explanation of the fact that Nāḥôr was left behind:
if the one fact is left unexplained, so _a fortiori_ might the
other.
The formula וְאֵלָּה תֹּלְדוֹת does not occur again till 25¹²; and it is
very widely held that in verse ²⁷ it stands as the heading of
the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the life of Abraham.
That is wholly improbable. It is likely enough that a heading
(א׳ ת׳ אברהם) has been somewhere omitted (so Wellhausen, Budde,
Holzinger, al.); but the truth is that from this point onwards
no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the
formula. The hypothesis that an originally independent book of
Tôledôth has been broken up and dislocated by the redaction,
is as plausible a solution as any that can be thought of. See,
further, on 25¹⁹.
=27.= On the name _Abram_, see on 17⁵; on _Nāḥôr_, verse ²²
above.――_Haran begat Loṭ_] A statement to the same effect must have
been found in Yahwist (see 12⁴ᵃ). Haran has no significance in the
tradition except as expressing the relationship of Lôṭ, Milkah, and
Yiṣkah within the Hebraic group.
That הרן is formed from חָרָן (_v.i._) by a softening of the initial
guttural (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 313)
is an improbable conjecture (see Budde 443²). The name occurs
elsewhere only in בֵּית־ה׳ (Numbers 32³⁶: compare בֵּית־הָרָם, Joshua
13²⁷)¹ in the tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that הָרָן
was the name of a deity worshipped among the peoples represented
by Lot (Mez: compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_,
ii. 499).――The name לוֹט is also etymologically obscure (? Arabic
_lāṭ_ = ‘cleave to’). A connexion with the Ḥorite clan לוֹטָן in
Genesis 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹ is probable.
¹ Though Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 499)
contends that both names are corruptions of חורנים.
=28.= The premature death of Haran (which became the nucleus of some
fantastic Jewish legends) took place _in the land of his nativity_;
_i.e._, according to the present text, _Ur of the Chaldees_, where
his grave was shown down to the time of Josephus (_Antiquities of the
Jews_ i. 151; Eusebius. _Onomasticon_, 285, 50 ff.).
אוּר כַּשְׂדּים (verse ³¹ 15⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷: LXX χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων) is now
almost universally identified with the ancient South Babylonian
city of _Uru_, whose remains have been discovered in the mounds
of _’el-Muḳayyar_, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 25
miles South-east from Erech and 125 from Babylon (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 172 ff.).
The evidence for this view is very strong. Uru is the only city
of the name known from Assyriology (although the addition of the
genitive כשדים suggests that others were known to the Israelites:
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 125 _h_): it was situated in the properly
Chaldæan territory, was a city of great importance and vast
antiquity, and (like Ḥarran, with which it is here connected)
was a chief centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 129 ff.). The
only circumstance that creates serious misgiving is that the
prevalent tradition of Genesis points to the North-east as the
direction whence the patriarchs migrated to Canaan (see below);
and this has led to attempts to find a northern Ur connected
probably with the Mesopotamian Chaldæans of 22²² (see Kittel,
_Geschichte Der Hebräer_ i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition
identifies it with Edessa (_Urhåi_, _Urfa_). It is generally
recognised, however, that these considerations are insufficient
to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.――כַּשְׂדִּים] = Babylonian
_Kašdu_, Assyrian _Kaldu_ (Χαλδ-αίοι), is the name of a group
of Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramæans,
who are found settled to the South-east of Babylonia, round the
shore of the Persian Gulf. In the 11th century or earlier they
are believed to have penetrated Babylonia, at first as roving,
pastoral nomads (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
22 ff.), but ultimately giving their name to the country, and
founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.――By the ancients כשדים
was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nicolaus of Damascus in
Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 152; Eupolemos in Eusebius
_Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17; Jerome, al.); but amongst the
Jews אוּר came to be regarded as an appellative = ‘fire’ (_in igne
Chaldæorum_, which Jerome accepts, though he rejects the legends
that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of the
later Haggadic fables about the ‘fire’ in which Haran met an
untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by
order of Nimrod (_Jubilees_ xii. 12‒14; Jerome _Quæstiones sive
Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
_Bereshith Rabba_ § 38, Rashi).
* * * * *
=28.= עַל־פְּנֵי] is _coram_ (LXX ἐνώπιον), rather than _ante_
(Vulgate: so Tuch), or ‘in the lifetime of’ (Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word)); compare Numbers 3⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs
and Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._ אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ――.פָּנִים so 24⁷ (Yahwist), 31¹³
(Elohist); compare Jeremiah 22¹⁰ 46¹⁶, Ezekiel 23¹⁵, Ruth 2¹¹. A
commoner phrase in Pentateuch is אר׳ ומו׳, 12¹ 24⁴ 31³ 32¹⁰, Numbers
10³⁰ (all Yahwist). From the way in which the two expressions
alternate, it is probable that they are equivalent; and since מ׳
alone certainly means ‘kindred’ (43⁷ [Yahwist], compare Esther
2¹⁰ᐧ ²⁰ 8⁶), it is better to render ‘land of one’s parentage’
than ‘land in which one was born’ [Peshiṭtå here and 12¹]
(compare Budde 419²). Priestly-Code has the word, but only in
the sense of ‘progeny’ (48⁶, Leviticus 18⁹ [H]).
* * * * *
=29.= While we are told that Nāḥôr’s wife was his brother’s daughter,
it is surprising that nothing is said of the parentage of Sarai.
According to Elohist (20¹²), she was Abraham’s half-sister; but this
does not entitle us to suppose that words expressing this relationship
have been omitted from the text of Yahwist (Ewald). It would seem,
however, that tradition represented marriage between near relations
as the rule among the Teraḥites (20¹² 24³ ᶠᶠᐧ 29¹⁹).
With regard to the names, שָׂרַי seems to be an archaic form of
שָׂרָה = ‘princess’ (see on 17¹⁵), while מִלְכָּה means ‘queen.’ In
Babylonian the relations are reversed, _šarratu_ being the queen
and _malkatu_ the princess. It cannot be a mere coincidence
that these two names correspond to two personages belonging
to the pantheon of Ḥarran, where Šarratu was a title of the
moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title of Ištar,
also worshipped there (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi.
299 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 364 f.).
It is needless to say that these associations, if they existed,
are forgotten in the Hebrew legend.――If, as is not improbable,
the tradition contains ethnographic reminiscences, verse ²⁸ ᶠᐧ
express (1) the dissolution of an older tribal group, Haran;
(2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Loṭ) through
the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption
of another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.――Of יִסְכָּה nothing is
known. The Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another
name (implied in Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 151;
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.) is
worthless. Ewald’s conjecture that she was the wife of Loṭ is
plausible, but baseless.
* * * * *
=29.= וַיִּקַּח] singular, according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146
_f_.――=30.= עקרה] as 25²¹ 29³¹ (Yahwist); not in Priestly-Code
(see 16¹ᵃ).――וָלָד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילד.
Only again as Kethîb of Or. MSS in 2 Samuel 6²³. It is possibly
here a scribal error, which eventually influenced the other
passages.
* * * * *
=31, 32.= The migration from Ur-Kasdîm to Canaan is accomplished in
two stages. Teraḥ, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts the
expedition as far as Ḥarran, where he dies. The obvious implication is
that after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12⁵); although
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ alone gives a chronology
consistent with this view (_v. supra_). Nāḥôr, we are left to infer,
remained behind in Ur-Kasdîm; and in the subsequent narratives
Priestly-Code (in opposition to Yahwist) seems carefully to avoid
any suggestion of a connexion between Nāḥôr and the city of Ḥarran.
חָרָן (with virtually doubled ר: compare LXX Χαρραν; Greek Κάῤῥαι;
Latin _Carræ_, _Charra_; Assyrian _Ḫarrânu_; Syrian and Arabic
_Ḥarrān_) was an important centre of the caravan trade in
North-west Mesopotamia, 60 miles East of Carchemish, situated
near the Baliḫ, 70 miles due North from its confluence with
the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in Old Testament (12⁴ ᶠᐧ
[Priestly-Code], 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴ [Yahwist], 2 Kings 19¹², Ezekiel
27²³†), and now ruined, it was a city of great antiquity, and
retained its commercial importance in classical and mediæval
times. The name in Assyrian appears to be susceptible of
several interpretations――‘way,’ ‘caravan’ (Tel-Amarna Tablets),
‘joint-stock enterprise’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_
_s.v._, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 29²)――any
one of which might denote its commercially advantageous position
at the parting of the route to Damascus from the main highway
between Nineveh and Carchemish. Ḥarran was also (along with
Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who had there a temple,
_E-ḫul-ḫul_, described by Nabuna’id as “from remote days” a
“dwelling of the joy of his (Sin’s) heart” (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 97), and who was known in North-west
Asia as the “Lord of Ḥarran” (Zinjirli inscription: compare
Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 444,
_An._). See, further, Mez, _Geschichte der Stadt Ḥarrân in
Mesopotamien_; Tomkins, _Times of Abraham_, 55 ff. etc. This
double connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion
is the most plausible argument advanced by those who hold the
mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god.
It will be observed that while both Priestly-Code and Yahwist
(in the present text) make Ur-Kasdîm the starting-point of the
Abrahamic migration, Yahwist has no allusion to a journey from
Ur to Ḥarran. His language is perfectly consistent either (a)
with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b) with the view
that the real starting-point was Ḥarran, and that באור כשדים is
here a gloss intended to harmonise Yahwist and Priestly-Code.
Now, there is a group of passages in Yahwist which, taken
together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of Ḥarran,
and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land.
In 24⁴ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, the place of Abraham’s nativity is Aram-Naharaim,
and specially the ‘city of Nāḥôr’; while a comparison with 27⁴³
28¹⁰ 29⁴ leaves no doubt that the ‘city of Nāḥôr’ was Ḥarran.
Priestly-Code, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his
theory of a double migration with a halt at Ḥarran; and the
persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from
Nāḥôr (25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) is a proof that the omission of Nāḥôr
from the party that left Ur was intentional (Budde 421 ff.).
It is evident, then, that we have to do with a divergence in
the patriarchal tradition; and the only uncertainty is with
regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of
Priestly-Code, though consistently maintained, is not natural;
for (1) all the antecedents (11¹⁰⁻²⁶) point to Mesopotamia as
the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first
from Ur and then from Ḥarran, has itself the appearance of a
compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest
solution would be to suppose that both the references to
Ur-Kasdîm in Yahwist (11²⁸ 15⁷) are interpolations, and that
Priestly-Code had another tradition which he harmonised with
that of Yahwist by the expedient just mentioned (so Wellhausen,
Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver, al.). Budde holds that both traditions
were represented in different strata of Yahwist (Yahwist¹ Ḥarran,
Yahwist² Ur), and tries to show that the latter is a probable
concomitant of the Yahwistic account of the Flood. In that he
can hardly be said to be successful; and he is influenced by the
consideration that apart from such a discrepancy in his sources
Priestly-Code could never have thought of the circuitous route
from Ur to Canaan by way of Ḥarran. That argument has little
weight with those who are prepared to believe that Priestly-Code
had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to
know from Yahwist and Elohist.¹ In itself, the hypothesis of
a dual tradition within the school of Yahwist is perfectly
reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Budde’s close
reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other
indications. The view of Wellhausen is on the whole the more
acceptable.
¹ The suggestion has, of course, been made (Winckler
_Altorientalische Forschungen_ i. 98 ff.; Paton, _The Early
History of Syria and Palestine_ 42) that Elohist is the
source of the Ur-Kasdîm tradition; but in view of Joshua
24² that is not probable.
* * * * *
=31.= כלתו] כַּלָּה (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _kannat_) means
both ‘spouse’ and ‘daughter-in-law’: in Syrian and Arabic also
‘sister-in-law,’――a fact adduced by William Robertson Smith as a
relic of Baal polyandry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_²,
161, 209¹).――ויצאו אתם] gives no sense. Read with _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτούς) Vulgate,
וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתָם, or Peshiṭtå, וַיֵּצֵא אִתָּם.――=32.= יְמֵי־תֶרַח] LXX + Χαῤῥάν.
* * * * *
THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
CHAPTERS XII‒XXV. 18.
_Critical Note._――In this section of Genesis the broad lines
of demarcation between Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code are
so clear that there is seldom a serious diversity of opinion
among critics. The real difficulties of the analysis concern the
composition of the Yahwistic narrative, and the relation of its
component parts to Elohist and Priestly-Code respectively. These
questions have been brought to the front by the commentary of
Gunkel, who has made it probable that the Yahwistic document
contains two main strata, one (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) fixing Abraham’s
residence at Hebron, and the other (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) regarding
him as a denizen of the Negeb.
1. The kernel of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ is a cycle of legends in which
the fortunes of Abraham and Lot are interlinked: viz. 12¹⁻⁸;
13²ᐧ ⁵⁻¹⁸; 18; 19¹⁻²⁸; 19³⁰⁻³⁸. If these passages are read
continuously, they form an orderly narrative, tracing the march
of Abraham and Lot from Ḥarran through Shechem to Bethel, where
they separate; thence Abraham proceeds to Hebron, but is again
brought into ideal contact with Lot by visits of angels to each
in turn; this leads up to the salvation of Lot from the fate of
Sodom, his flight to the mountains, and the origin of the two
peoples supposed to be descended from him. In this sequence
12⁹‒13¹ is (as will be more fully shown later) an interruption.
Earlier critics had attempted to get rid of the discontinuity
either by seeking a suitable connexion for 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ at a
subsequent stage of Yahwist’s narrative, or by treating it as
a redactional expansion. But neither expedient is satisfactory,
and the suggestion that it comes from a separate source is
preferable on several grounds. Now 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is distinguished
from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, not only by the absence of Lot, but by the
implication that Abraham’s home was in the Negeb, and perhaps
by a less idealised conception of the patriarch’s character.
These characteristics reappear in chapter 16, which, as breaking
the connexion of chapter 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned
to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. (To this source Gunkel also assigns the
Yahwistic component of chapter 15; but that chapter shows so
many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have belonged
to either of the primary sources.)――After chapter 19, the hand
of Yahwist appears in the accounts of Isaac’s birth (21¹⁻⁷*)
and Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech (21²²⁻³⁴*): the latter is
probably Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (on account of the Negeb), while the
former shows slight discrepancies with the prediction of chapter
18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign
it also to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. With regard to chapter 24, it
is impossible to say whether it belongs to Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: we assign it provisionally to the latter.¹ The
bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two
parallel series as follows:
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ: 12¹⁻⁸*; 13²⁻¹⁸*; 18¹⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ; 19¹⁻²⁸;
19³⁰⁻³⁸;
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: 12⁹‒13¹; 16; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 24*.²
The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are chapter 15*
(see above); and the two genealogies, 22²⁰⁻²⁴ and 25¹⁻⁶, both
inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other
passages (13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 18¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸) which appear to
have been added during the redaction (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ or
Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ) will be examined in special notes _ad locc._
¹ Gunkel analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to
each source. The question is discussed in the Note, pages
340 f., where the opinion is hazarded that the subordinate
source may be Elohist, in which case the other would
naturally be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.
² It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis
of the Yahwistic portions of chapters 1‒11 (pages 2‒4). In
each case Yahwist appears as a complex document, formed by
the amalgamation of prior collections of traditions; and
the question naturally arises whether any of the component
narratives can be traced from the one period into the
other. It is impossible to prove that this is the case;
but certain affinities of thought and expression suggest
that Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in the biography of Abraham may be the
continuation of Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ in the primitive history.
Both use the phrase ‘call by the name of Yahwe’ (4²⁶ 12⁸
[13⁴], [but compare 21³³ (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ))]); and the
optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of
Noah (9²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ. Have we here fragments of a work whose theme
was the history of the Yahwe-religion, from its commencement
with Enosh to its establishment in the leading sanctuaries
of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 12⁷ (Shechem), 12⁸
(Bethel), 13¹⁸ (Hebron), 26²⁵ (Beersheba).
2. The hand of Elohist is recognised in the following sections:
15*; 20; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21⁸⁻²¹; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 22¹⁻¹⁹ (24*?). Gunkel has
pointed out that where Yahwist and Elohist run parallel to one
another, Elohist’s ♦affinities are always with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ
and never with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (compare the variants 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ ∥ 20;
16 ∥ 21⁸⁻²¹; and the compositions in 21¹⁻⁷ and 21²²⁻³⁴). This,
of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that
Elohist, like Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the
scene of Abraham’s history. But it is remarkable that in chapter
26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to Elohist and
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These
are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb
traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that
Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.
♦ “affinites” replaced with “affinities”
Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative
hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend,
which has some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it
must be held with great reserve. The tradition crystallised
mainly at two great religious centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The
Beersheba narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic
and an Elohistic, of which (it may be added) the second is
ethically and religiously on a higher level than the first.
These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (see on chaapter 26). The
Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent to the narratives
which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with its sanctuary
Beersheba; hence the writer of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who attaches
himself to this tradition, excludes the Beersheba stories from
his biography of Abraham, but finds a place for some of them in
the history of Isaac.
3. The account of Priestly-Code (12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α};
16¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵; 17; 19²⁹; 21¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵇ⁻⁵; 23; 25⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ; 25¹²⁻¹⁷) consists
mostly of a skeleton biography based on the older documents,
and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole _raison d’être_
of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which the
various incidents are fitted: that it fills some gaps in the
history (birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an
accident of the redaction. Priestly-Code’s affinities are
chiefly with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, with whom he shares the idea that
Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the sections
peculiar to Priestly-Code, chapter 17 is parallel to 15, and
25¹²⁻¹⁷ has probably replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of
Ishmael. Chapter 23 stands alone as presumably an instance where
Priestly-Code has preserved an altogether independent tradition.
Chapter 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of
the recognised sources of the Pentateuch, and has accordingly
been omitted from the above survey. The question of its origin
is discussed on pages 271 ff. below.
CHAPTERS XII. XIII.
_The migrations of Abram_
(Yahwist and Priestly-Code).
Leaving his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram enters Canaan and
erects altars at Shechem and Bethel (12¹⁻⁸). From Bethel he migrates
to the Negeb, and thence, under stress of famine, to Egypt; where by
a false representation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife’s
honour (12⁹‒13¹). Laden with wealth, he returns to Bethel, where an
amicable separation from his nephew Lot leaves him in sole possession
of the promise of the land (13²⁻¹⁷). Abram journeys southward and
settles in Hebron (¹⁸).
_Analysis._――The slender thread of Priestly-Code’s narrative is
represented by 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α}: note the date in 12⁴ᵇ;
the form of 12⁵; רָכַשׁ, רְכוּשׁ, 12⁵ 13⁶; נֶפֶשׁ, ‘person,’ 12⁵; אָרָץ כְּנַעַן,
12⁵ 13¹²; נָשָׂא, 13⁶; עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר, 13¹²; and see on the verses below.
These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events between
the exodus from Ḥarran and the parting of Abram and Lot. With
a slight and inherently plausible transposition (12⁵ᐧ ⁴ᵇ; Budde
page 432) they might pass for the immediate continuation of 11³²,
if we can suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted
by Priestly-Code (see Gunkel 231).――The rest of the passage
is Yahwistic throughout: observe the consistent use of יהוה;
the reference to Paradise, 13¹⁰; the anticipation of chapter
19 in 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹³; and the following expressions: מוֹלֶדֶת, 12¹;
נִבְרַךְ בְּ, 12³; כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָֽאֲדָמָה, 12³; הִנֵּה נָא, נָא, 12¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 13⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁴; בַּֽעֲבוּר,
12¹³ᐧ ¹⁶; מַה־זֹּאת ע׳, 12¹⁸; כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן, 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹. It falls naturally
into three sections: (a) 12¹⁻⁴ᵃᐧ ⁶⁻⁸; (b) 12¹⁰‒13¹; (c)
13²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ ¹²ᵇ{β}⁻¹⁸; 12⁹ and 13³ᐧ ⁴ being redactional links
(Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) uniting b to a on the one side and c on the
other. The purely mechanical connexion of b with a and c was
first shown by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 24 f.).¹ The
removal of b restores the direct and natural sequence of c upon
a, and gets rid of the redactor’s artificial theory of a double
visit to Bethel with a series of aimless wanderings between. In
the main narrative Abram’s journey is continuously southward,
from Shechem to Bethel (where the separation from Lot takes
place), and thence to his permanent abode in Hebron. In the
inserted episode (b), Abram simply moves down to Egypt from his
home in the Negeb and back again.――As to the _origin_ of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰,
see page 251 below.
¹ So Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.
=XII. 1‒8. The journey to Canaan and the promise of the Land.=――=1.=
The opening verse strikes a note peculiarly characteristic of the
story of Abram――the trial of faith. There is intentional pathos in
the lingering description of the things he is to leave: _thy land, thy
kindred, and thy father’s house_; and a corresponding significance in
the vagueness with which the goal is indicated: _to a land which I will
show thee_. Obedience under such conditions marks Abram as the hero
of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew piety (Hebrews 11⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=2, 3.= The
blessings here promised express the aspirations of the age in which
the narrative originated, and reveal the people’s consciousness of
its exceptional destiny among the nations of the world. They breathe
the spirit of optimism which is on the whole characteristic of the
Yahwistic treatment of the _national_ legends, as contrasted with the
primitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chapters 2‒11, whose sombre
tone is only once (9²⁶ ᶠᐧ) relieved by a similar gleam of hope.――_and
will make thy name great_] It has been noticed that the order in which
the names of the patriarchs emerge in the prophetic literature is the
reverse of that in Genesis, and that Abraham is first mentioned in
Ezekiel 33²⁴. The inference has been drawn that the figure of Abraham
represents a late development of the patriarchal legends (compare
Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 317 f.). But from this
promise we may fairly conclude that even in the pre-prophetic period
the name of Abraham was famous in Israel, and that in this particular
the religious ideas of the people are not fully reflected in prophecy
(1 Kings 18³⁶ has also to be considered).――The antiquity of the name
is now placed beyond doubt by an archæological discovery made by Erman
in 1888, but first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list
of places conquered by Sheshonk I., the contemporary of Rehoboam, there
is mentioned _pa-ḫu-q-ru-’a ’a- ba-ra-m_ = חקל אברם, ‘Field of Abram.’
It has not been identified; but from its place in the list it must
have been in the South of Palestine (see Breasted, _American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, xxi. 35 f.; and compare Meyer,
_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 266).¹――_and be thou a
blessing_ (compare Zechariah 8¹³)] Rather: _and it_ (the name) _shall
be a blessing_ (point וְהָיָה, _v.i._) _i.e._ ‘a name to bless by,’ in the
sense explained by ³ᵇ.――=3b= has generally been rendered _through thee
shall all the families of the earth be blessed_] _i.e._ the blessings
of true religion shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his
descendants (so all Versions; compare Sirach 44²¹, Acts 3²⁵, Galatians
3⁸). The better translation, however, is that of Rashi, adopted by
most modern commentaries: _by thee shall all ... bless themselves_]
the idea being that in invoking blessings on themselves or others they
will use such words as ‘God make thee like Abram,’ etc. (see 48²⁰,
Isaiah 65¹⁶, Psalms 72¹⁷; and the opposite, Jeremiah 29²²). “So the
ancient mind expressed its admiration of a man’s prosperity” (Gunkel).
The clause is thus an expansion of ²ᵇ: the name of Abram will pass
into a formula of benediction, because he himself and his seed will be
as it were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is discussed
below.――=4a.= The mention of Lot (see on 11²⁷) establishes a literary
connexion with the Lot narratives of chapters 13. 19.――=5.= is
Priestly-Code’s parallel to ⁴ᵃ (_v.i._); the last sentence supplying
an obvious gap in Yahwist’s narrative.――_and they came, etc._]. This
time (contrast 11³¹) the goal is actually reached. On the probable
route from Ḥarran to Canaan, see Driver 146, 300 ff.――=6, 7.= Arrived
at Shechem, Abram receives, through a theophany, the first intimation
that he has reached the goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take
possession of the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for
His worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in Yahwist there
is no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars: see
page l.
¹ See, further, pages 292 f. below.
The original motive of this and similar legends is to explain
the sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite
manifestations of God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of
worship on their part. The rule is that the legitimacy of a
sanctuary for Israel is established by a theophany (Exodus 20²⁴
[Elohist]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries were far
older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity
from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in verse ⁶
in the use of the word מָקוֹם, which has there the technical
sense of ‘sacred place,’ as in 22⁴ 28¹¹ 35¹ (LXX), Exodus 3⁵,
1 Samuel 7¹⁶ (LXX ἡγιασμένοις), Jeremiah 7¹² (compare Arabic
_maḳām_).――Shechem is the first and most northerly of four
sanctuaries――the others being Bethel, Hebron (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ),
and Beersheba (Elohist, Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ)――connected with the
name of Abraham. The name (_Skmm_, with plural termination)¹
occurs in an Egyptian inscription as early as the 12th dynasty.
It was an important place in the Tel-Amarna period (see
Steuernagel, _Einwanderung_, 120 f.; Knudtzon, _Beiträge zur
Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, iv. 127),
and figures prominently in Old Testament legend and history.
On its situation (the modern _Nābulūs_) between Mts. Ebal and
Gerizim, see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4437 f.――The אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה
(= ‘oracle-giving terebinth’) was evidently an ancient
sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore
a survival of primitive tree-worship.² Besides Deuteronomy
11³⁰ (a difficult passage, see Driver _ad loc._, and von
Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 107 ff.), it seems to be
mentioned as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names:
הָאֵלָה, הָאַלָּה, (a mere difference of pointing, _v.i._), Genesis 35⁴,
Joshua 24²⁶; אֵלוֹן מְעוֹנְנִים (‘terebinth of soothsayers’), Judges 9³⁷;
and א׳ מֻצָּב (‘terebinth of the pillar’ [הַמַּצֵּבָה]) Judges 9⁶. The tree
is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of
Beersheba, 21³³),――an additional indication that Abram was not
originally the patron or _welī_ of the shrine. The sacred stone
under the tree (the מֻצָּב of Judges 9⁶?) was believed to have
been set up by Joshua (Joshua 24²⁶). The sanctuary of Shechem
was also associated with Jacob (33¹⁸ 35⁴), and especially with
Joseph, who was buried there (Joshua 24³²), and whose grave is
still shown near the village of Balâṭa (_ballûṭ_ = ‘oak’): see
von Gall, 117.
¹ It is possible that this (שׁכמם) is the oldest form in Hebrew
also; since LXX often has the plural Σίκιμα (33¹⁸ 35⁴ᐧ ⁵
etc.).
² “Where a tree is connected with a _welī_ it was probably
the original object of honour” (Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic
Religion to-day_¹ 91). On the obtaining of oracles from
trees, see William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion
of the Semites_², 195. Compare Judges 4⁵, 2 Samuel 5²⁴; and
the oak of Zeus at Dodona.――Duhm’s brilliant generalisation
(_Isaiah_¹, 13 f.), that Abraham was traditionally
associated with sacred trees, Isaac and Ishmael with sacred
wells, and Jacob with sacred stones, though not literally
accurate, has sufficient truth to be suggestive; and may
possibly correspond to some vague impression of the popular
mind in Israel.
* * * * *
=1.= לֶךְ־לְךָ (22² [Elohist]; compare Canticles 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹³)] see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _s_.――On מוֹלֶדֶת (LXX συγγενεία)
see 11²⁸.――=2.= וֶֽהְיֵה בְּרָכָה] imperative expressing consequence
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _i_) is here questionable, because
the preceding verbs are simple futures. The pointing as
consecutive perfect (וְהָיָה) was suggested by Giesebrecht
(_Die Alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre
religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage_, 15); see Gunkel _ad v._――=3.=
מְקַלֶּלְךָ] singular; but the plural of some MSS, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå (־ֶיךָ),
is more probable; compare 27²⁹, Numbers 24⁹.――וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ] LXX καὶ
εὐλογηθήσονται ἐν σοί, and so all versions. The rendering
depends on the grammatical question whether the Niphal has
passive or reflexive sense. This form of the verb does not
occur except in the parallels 18¹⁸ (with בּוֹ) and 28¹⁴ (בְּךָ――וּבְזַרְעֲךָ).
In 22¹⁸ 26⁴ it is replaced by Hithpael, which is, of course,
reflexive, and must be translated ‘bless themselves’; the
renderings ‘feel themselves blessed’ (Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin,
Strack), or ‘wish themselves blessed’ (Delitzsch) are doubtful
compromises. These passages, however, belong to secondary
strata of Yahwist (as does also 18¹⁸, and perhaps 28¹⁴), and
are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12³. But it is
significant that the Pual, which is the proper passive of בֵּרַךְ,
is consistently avoided; and the presumption appears to be
distinctly in favour of the sense given in the text above. The
idea is well expressed by Rashi: וזהו פשוטו אדם אומר לבנו תהא כאברהם וכן כל ונברכו בך
שבמקרא וזה מוכיח בך יברך ישראל לאמר ישימך אלהים כאפרים וכמנשה (Genesis 48²⁰).――=4.=
וַיֵּלֶךְ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (= וַיַּעַשׂ), adopted by Ball.――=5.=
The parallel to ⁴ᵃ in the distinctive form (see on 11³¹)
and phraseology of Priestly-Code. The verb רָכַשׁ is peculiar
to Priestly-Code (31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶); רְכוּשׁ is a word of the later
language, found in Priestly-Code (7 times), in Genesis 14
(5 times) and as a gloss in 15¹⁴; in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel
(15 times): see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 347.
It is supposed to denote primarily ‘riding beasts,’ like Hebrew
רֶכֶשׁ, Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), רִכְשָׁא Assyrian _rukušu_ (Haupt,
_Hebraica_, iii. 110); then property in general.――נֶפֶשׁ] in the
sense of ‘person’ is also practically confined to Priestly-Code
in Hexateuch (Holzinger 345).――עָשׂוּ] = ‘acquired,’ as 31¹,
Deuteronomy 8¹⁷, Jeremiah 17¹¹ etc. The idea of ‘proselytising’
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is rightly characterised by Rashi
as Haggada.――אָרָץ כְּנַעַן] “ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen für
Priestly-Code” (Holzinger 340). In Jehovist כנען appears never
to be used in its geographical sense except in the story of
Joseph (42. 44‒47. 50⁵) and Joshua 24³.――וַיָּבֹאוּ――כְּנַעַן] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
omitted, probably from homoioteleuton.――=6.= בָּאָרֶץ¹] so
LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ, but LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, read לְאָרְכָּהּ (13¹⁷).――For מוֹרֶה, Symmachus
and Peshiṭtå read מַמְרֵא. The _convallem illustrem_ of Vulgate
is an amalgamation of LXX (τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν [מָרוֹם?])
and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מישרי מודה = ‘plains of Moreh’); the latter
is probably accounted for by aversion to the idolatrous
associations of the sacred tree. Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has מישר דהוו מיירי;
on which see Levy, _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim
und Midraschim_ 33. The absence of the article (contrast גִּבְעַת הַמּוֹרָה,
Judges 7¹) seems to show that the word is used as a proper
noun――אֵלוֹן] unlike its Aramaic equivalents (‡ Syriac word), אִילָן),
which mean tree in general, is never used generically, but
always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In the versions
‘oak’ and ‘terebinth’ are used somewhat indiscriminately (see
von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 24 ff.) for four Hebrew
words: אֵלוֹן, אַלּוֹן, אֵלָה, אַלָּה, (only Joshua 24²⁶). The theory has been
advanced that the forms with _ê_ are alone correct; that they
are derivatives from אֵל, ‘god,’ and denote originally the ‘sacred
tree’ without distinction of species.¹ The אַלּוֹן of Genesis 35⁸
is called a palm in Judges 4⁵, and אֵילִם (plural of אֵלָה?) (Exodus
15²⁷ etc.) derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the
Massoretic tradition may not be uniformly reliable, אֵלָה and אַלּוֹן
appear to be distinguished in Hosea 4¹³, Isaiah 6¹³ (Dillmann);
and the existence of a form אַלּוֹן is confirmed by _allânu_, which
is said to be an Assyrian tree-name (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 36 b).
It is probable from Zechariah 11², Ezekiel 27⁶ etc., that
אַלּוֹן is the oak. With regard to the other names no convincing
theory can be formed, but a connexion with אֵל (_ĭlu_) is at best
precarious.――=6b.= is probably a gloss: compare 13⁷ᵇ.――=7.= וַיֹּאמֶר]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå add לוֹ.――הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו] so 35¹ (Elohist).
¹ Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 234; Stade
_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 455; von Gall, _l.c._;
compare Schwally, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899,
356.
* * * * *
=8.= Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and _spread his tent_ (26²⁵ 33¹⁹
35²¹) near _Bethel_, about 20 miles from Shechem; there he built a
second altar, and _called by the name of Yahwe_; see on 4²⁶. Luther’s
rendering: ‘predigte den Namen des Herrn,’ is absolutely without
exegetical warrant; and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda,
of which Abram was the Mahdi (Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 328), is a modern invention unsupported by a
particle of historical evidence. It is noticeable that no theophany is
recorded here, perhaps because the definite consecration of Bethel was
ascribed to Jacob (chapater 28).――Here the parting from Lot took place
(chapter 13).
On Bethel (_Beitīn_), see on 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 35⁷; compare Joshua 7².
Dillmann distinguishes the site of Abram’s altar (East of Bethel
and West of ‛Ai) from that of Jacob’s pillar, which he takes
to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural view is that
the local sanctuary lay East of the city (so Gunkel), perhaps
at _Burǧ Beitīn_, the traditional scene of Abram’s encampment
(George Adam Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 552).――On the
somewhat uncertain situation of הָעַי (always with article = עַיָּה,
Nehemiah 11³¹, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸; and עַיַּת, Isaiah 10²⁸), see Buhl,
_Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 177.
* * * * *
=8.= וַיַּעְתֵּק] introductory Hiphil as 26²² (Yahwist).
* * * * *
=XII. 9‒XIII. 1.――Abram in Egypt.=――The first of three variants of
what must have been a very popular story in ancient Israel (compare 20.
26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). Whether the original hero was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell;
but a comparison of the three parallels shows that certain primitive
features of the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage
before us: note the entire absence of the extenuating circumstances
introduced into the other accounts,――the whole subject being treated
with a frank realism which seems to take us down to the bed-rock of
Hebrew folklore.――=9.= _to the Negeb_] The ‘dry’ region between the
Judæan highland and the wilderness of _et-Tīh_, extending from 10 or
12 miles North of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Ḳadesh (_v.i._).
It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-breeding Bedouin, and
the remains of buildings and irrigation works prove that it was once
much more extensively cultivated than at present.――=10.= _the famine
was severe_ (literally ‘heavy’)] emphasising the fact that the visit
to Egypt was compulsory. The Nile valley, on account of its great
fertility and its independence of the annual rainfall, was the natural
resort of Asiatics in times of scarcity; and this under primitive
conditions involved an actual sojourn in the country. The admission of
Semites to the rich pastures of Egypt is both described and depicted
in the monuments (see Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 16).¹
The purchase of corn for home consumption (42¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was possible
as a temporary expedient at a somewhat more advanced stage of
culture.――=11‒13.= The speech of Abram to his wife is an instructive
revelation of social and moral sentiment in early Israel. The Hebrew
women are fairer than all others, and are sure to be coveted by
foreigners; but the marriage bond is so sacred that even a foreigner,
in order to possess the wife, will kill the husband first. Hence the
dilemma with which Abram is confronted: if Sarai is known as his wife,
her life will be safe, but he will probably be slain; if she passes
as his sister, her honour will be endangered, but his advantage will
be served. In such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to
sacrifice herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free moral
agent: Abram’s proposal is not a command but a deferential request.
Lastly, it is assumed that in the circumstances lying is excusable.
There is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish
cowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code
to which the narrative appealed.――=14, 15.= The stratagem succeeds
beyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the courtiers, and
is brought into Pharaoh’s harem. The incident is characteristic of
Oriental despotisms generally: Ebers (_Ägypten und die Bücher Moses_,
262 f.) cites from the d’Orbiney papyrus an example of the zeal
of Egyptian officials in matters of this kind.――=16.= _he treated
Abram well, etc._] compare verse ¹³. This feature of the _reward_
is a standing element of the tradition; but in chapter 20 it is
only bestowed after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in
26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ its connexion with the incident is loosened.
¹ Compare _Authority and Archæology_, page 59; _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, ii. 531ᵇ (note ‡), 774ᵇ.
The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs:
20¹⁴ 24³⁵ 30⁴³ 32¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (compare Job 1³ 42¹²), and were perhaps
regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram’s
subsequent wealth. The animals mentioned were all known in
ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the camel, which is
neither represented nor named in the monuments before the Greek
period.¹ This, Müller supposes, was due to a religious scruple;
but, of course, the difficulty remains of thinking that a
religiously unclean animal should have been bred in Egypt, or
have been gifted by Pharaoh to Abram. The order also――slaves
between he-asses and she-asses――is strange; the explanation
(Holzinger, Gunkel) that the slaves were intermediate in value
between these animals is jejune, and is, besides, contradicted
by 24³⁵ 30⁴³. It is possible that אֲתֹנֹת וּגְמַלִּים has been added at
the end by a glossator; but see 24³⁵ 30⁴³, and compare _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ below.
¹ Compare Exodus 9³ (Yahwist); and see Sayce, _The Early
History of the Hebrews_, 169 (the notice unhistorical);
Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 493. Ebers’ statement as
to the name is corrected by Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 142, _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
i. 634.
* * * * *
=9.= הָלוֹךְ וְנָסוֹעַ] Davidson § 86, _R._ 4; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_.
The idea of continuous journeying lies not in נסוע (see on 11²),
but in הלוך (compare Judges 14⁹).――הַנֶּגְבָּה] LXX ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ: Aquila
νότονδε: Symmachus εἰς νότον. The word, from a √ meaning ‘dry,’
occurs as a proper name of South Palestine (_Ngb_) in a document
of the reign of Thothmes III. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 148; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 1). Its use to denote the
South direction is rare in Jehovist, and apparently confined
to later additions (13¹⁴ 28¹⁴, Joshua 18⁵). The geographical
limits of the region can, of course, only be roughly determined,
chiefly from the list of its cities in Joshua 15²¹⁻³²: on this,
and its physical characteristics, see Cheyne _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 3374 ff.; Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, ii. 351 f.
(1871).――=10.= לָגוּר שָׁם (Jeremiah 42¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ)] properly ‘dwell as a
client or protected guest’ (גֵּר = Arabic _ǧār_: compare _The Old
Testament in the Jewish Church_², 342¹). The words, however,
are often used in the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15¹³,
Jeremiah 14⁸), and this may be the case here.――=11.= הִנֵּה־נָא] 16²
18²⁷ᐧ ³¹ 19²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ 27² (all Yahwist). The free use of נָא (_c._ 40
times in Genesis) is very characteristic of Yahwist (Holzinger
_Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 110).――=13.= אֲחֹתִי אַתְּ] _oratio
obliqua_ without כִּי, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _a_. LXX, on
the contrary, ὅτι ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ εἰμί.――בִּגְלַל] In Hexateuch only
30²⁷ 39⁵ (Yahwist) and 3 times in Deuteronomy: elsewhere 4
times.――=15.= פַּרְעֹה] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in
Old Testament except Shishak (1 Kings 14²⁵) and Sevé (2 Kings
17⁴). It corresponds exactly to Egyptian _Per‛o_ (‘Great House’),
denoting originally the palace or court, and is not applied to
the person of the king earlier than the 18th dynasty (Erman,
_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 58; Griffith, _A Dictionary of the
Bible_, iii. 819; Müller _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3687).
It is needless to go further in search of an etymology, though
Renouf, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_,
xv. 421, may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the
“Pir‛u king of Muṣuri” mentioned by Sargon (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected by Cheyne
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3164, and _Traditions and Beliefs
of Ancient Israel_, 223; compare Winckler _Mittheilungen der
vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii. 2 ff.). Even supposing it
proved that this is the proper name of a North Arabian prince,
the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon;
and it is inconceivable that the Hebrew designation for the
kings of Egypt should have been determined by an isolated and
accidental resemblance to a native word.――=16.= After וּבָקָר _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts מקנה כבד מאד, and
puts וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחֹת before וַֽחֲמֹרִים.
* * * * *
=17.= The story reaches its climax. Yahwe interposes at the extreme
moment to save Sarai and avert calamity from the patriarchal house. It
is noteworthy that Yahwe’s intervention is here purely providential:
in 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ it takes the form of a personal communication, while in
the attenuated version of 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ it has become superfluous and is
omitted.――_smote with great plagues_] severe bodily maladies; compare
20¹⁷, Exodus 11¹, Psalms 39¹¹ etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of
his sickness we are left to conjecture; Josephus (_Antiquities of the
Jews_ i. 164 f.) pretty nearly exhausts the possibilities of the case
when he mentions sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation
of Sarai. Gunkel is probably right in suggesting that something
has been omitted between ¹⁷ and ¹⁸.――=18, 19.= To the vigorous
expostulation of the Pharaoh, Abram is unable to reply. The narrator
evidently feels that morally the heathen king is in the right; and
the zest with which the story was related was not quite so unalloyed
by ethical reflexions as Gunkel (151) would have us believe. The idea
of God, however, is imperfectly moralised; Yahwe’s providence puts
in the wrong the man who is justified at the bar of human conscience;
He is not here the absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by the
prophets (Amos 3²).――=20.= _Pharaoh gave men charge concerning Abram_]
_i.e._ provided him with an escort (שִׁלַּח as 18¹⁶ 31²⁷). The thought of
ignominious expulsion is far from the writer’s mind; the purpose of
the escort is to see that no further injury is done to the patriarch
or his wife (Abraham Ibn Ezra), bringing fresh judgements on the
realm.――=XIII. 1.= The narrative closes with the return of Abram to
his home in the Negeb (compare 12⁹).
_Source of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰._――It has already been pointed out (page 242
f.) that, though the section breaks the connexion of the main
narrative, it is Yahwistic in style; and the question of its
origin relates only to its place within the general cycle of
Yahwistic tradition. Three views are possible: that it is (1)
a secondary expansion of Yahwist by a later hand (Wellhausen);
(2) a misplaced chapter of Yahwist’s main narrative belonging
properly to a subsequent stage of the history; or (3)
an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic collection (Gunkel,
[Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ]). To (1) and (2) there are distinct
objections: (a) the style and moral tone of the narrative, which
are those of racy popular legend, and produce the impression of
great antiquity; (b) the absence from the character of Abram of
those ideal features which are prominent in the main narrative,
and which later ages tended to exaggerate (_e.g._ chapter 14);
especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram is not at Hebron
but in the Negeb. Gunkel’s theory, which is not open to these
objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis
of Yahwist.
* * * * *
=17.= וַיְנַגַּע] The Piel only of smiting with disease: 2 Kings
15⁵, 2 Chronicles 26²⁰ (Pual Psalms 73⁵).――גְּדֹלִים] LXX + καὶ
πονηροῖς.――וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ] possibly a gloss from 20¹⁷ ᶠᐧ (Kautzsch-Socin
al.); see on 2⁹.――=19.= וָאֶקַּח] ‘so that I took’; Driver _A
Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 74 α, § 116,
_Obsolete_ 2.――אִשְׁתְּךָ] LXX + לְפָנֶיךָ.――=20.= _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX add at the end וְלוֹט עִמּוֹ, as in Massoretic
Text of 13¹: the phrase is interpolated in both places.
* * * * *
=2‒18. Separation of Abram and Lot.=――=2, 5, 7.= The great wealth
of the two patriarchs leads to bickering among their retainers. The
situation reflects the relations of tribes rather than of private
families, quarrels about pastures and watering-places being a common
feature of nomadic life and a frequent cause of separation: compare
21²⁵ 26²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _Silver and gold_] 24³⁵ 20¹⁶ 23¹⁶.――=5.= Lot’s
substance, on the other hand, is purely nomadic: _flocks, herds,
and tents_. The last word appears to have the sense of ‘people,’
‘families’; compare Arabic _’ahl_, Sabæan אהל (Müller, _Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 341; Hommel
_Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 121).――=3, 4.= A redactional addition
(page 243), bringing the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional
scene of the separation.――=6.= Priestly-Code’s account of the parting:
compare 36⁷. It has often been noticed that he makes no mention of a
quarrel; just as Yahwist says nothing of the straitness of the land
(_v.i._)――=8, 9.= The thought of strife between relatives (אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים)
is intolerable to Abram, who, though the older man, renounces his
rights for the sake of an amicable settlement. The narrator has finely
conceived the magnanimity which springs from fellowship with God. The
peaceable disposition ascribed to the patriarchs is characteristic
of the old narratives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham
and Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.――=10, 11a,
12bβ=. Lot’s choice.――_lifted up his eyes and saw, etc._] The _Burǧ
Beitīn_ (page 247), a few minutes South-east from the village, is
described as “one of the great view-points of Palestine” (George Adam
Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 552), from which the Jordan valley and
the North end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible.――_the whole Oval of
the Jordan_] compare Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on
Deuteronomy_ 421 f.
כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן (only here and 1 Kings 7⁴⁶ = 2 Chronicles 4¹⁷), or חַכִּכָּר
simply (verse ¹² 19¹⁷ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 34³, 2 Samuel 18²³),
is not (as Dillmann 230) the whole of the ‛Arābāh from the Lake
of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the Jordan
valley towards its South end, defined in Deuteronomy 34³ as
‘the plain of Jericho’ (see _Historical Geography of the Holy
Land_, 505 ff.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 112).
The northern limit is indeterminate; the southern depends on the
site of Zoar (verse ¹⁰), whether North or South of the Dead Sea.
It is thus not quite certain whether the term includes the Dead
Sea basin; and on this hangs the much more important question
whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the time
to which the narrative refers. That is certainly the impression
produced by the language of verse ¹⁰. Apart from the assumption
of a radical transformation of the physical features of the
region, the words _before Yahwe destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah_
have no significance. As a mere note of time they would merely
show the connexion of the story with chapter 19, and might very
well be a gloss (Olshausen, Dillmann). See below, pages 273
f.――_Ẓô‛ar_ is the South limit of the _Kikkār_, and, if situated
at the South end of the Lake (as is most probable), would not be
seen from Bethel.
* * * * *
=3.= לְמַסָּעָיו] simply ‘by stages’; not by the _same_ stages by which
he had come (LXX, Vulgate, Rashi): compare Exodus 17¹ 40³⁶ᐧ ³⁸
etc.――=5.= אֹהָלִים (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 93 _r_, 23 _h_)] LXXᴬ
κτήνη, probably Greek corruption of σκηναί (so many MSS).――=6.=
נָשָׂא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נשאה――better.
Compare 36⁷ (Priestly-Code).――=6bβ= is by some (Kautzsch-Socin,
Holzinger) assigned to Yahwist, but on insufficient grounds
(compare Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer
Zusammensetzung_ 21 f.)――=7b.= ישֵּׁב] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ ישבים.――הַפְּרִזִּי] The name is coupled with הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי in 34³⁰,
Judges 1⁴ᐧ ⁵ (Yahwist), and often appears in enumerations of the
pre-Israelite inhabitants (15²⁰ etc.). If, as is probable, it
be connected with פְּרָזִי (Deuteronomy 3⁵, 1 Samuel 6¹⁸, Esther 9¹⁹),
פְּרָזוֹת (Ezekiel 38¹¹, Zechariah 2⁸, Esther 9¹⁹), it would mean
‘hamlet-dwellers’ as distinguished from Canaanites, occupying
fortified cities (see on הַחִוִּי, 10¹⁷). That the Priestly-Code
were remnants of a _pre_-Canaanite population is hardly to be
inferred from the omission of the name in 10¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, or from its
association with the Rephaim in Joshua 17¹⁵: this last notice
is wanting in LXXᴬᴮ and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, _Judges_
17).――=9.= הֲלֹא] LXX, Peshiṭtå וְהִנֵּה.――הַיָּמִין――הַשְּׂמֹאל] Ball suggests
the pointing הַשְׂמְאֵל, הֵימֵין (infinitives absolute). _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads אם השמאלה והימינה ואם הימינה
השמאלה.――=10.= כֻּלָּהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
כלו; LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ omitted.――מַשְׁקֶה] in the sense of ‘watered region’
only again Ezekiel 45¹⁵ (where the text is corrupt) and Sirach
39²³. Should we read מָשְׁקָה?――בֹּּֽאֲכָה] see 10¹⁹.――צֹעַר] Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) = Tanis (צֹעַן) in Egypt (Numbers 13²², Isaiah
19¹¹ᐧ ¹³ etc.), which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an
error caused by the preceding מִצְרַיִם.――=11.= מִקֶּדֶם (compare 11²)]
LXX ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, Vulgate _ab oriente_. But the only possible
sense here is ‘eastward’; hence Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische
Reden und Abhandlungen_, 292) and Gunkel emend to קֵדְמָה.――=11b=,
in spite of its resemblance to ⁹ᵃ{β}, must be assigned to
Priestly-Code, being necessary to the completeness of that
account, and because it disturbs the connexion of ¹¹ᵃ with
¹²ᵇ{β}.
* * * * *
♦_like the land of Egypt_] coming after _like the garden of Yahwe_
(2¹⁰⁻¹⁴; compare Isaiah 51³) it is an anti-climax, which might be
excused (as Dillmann thinks) because the first comparison was pitched
too high. But the last half of the verse seems greatly overloaded, and
it is not improbable that both לִפְנֵי――עֲמֹרָה and כא׳ מ׳ are to be removed as
glosses.――On the luxuriant fertility and abundant water-supply of the
district, see _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 483 f.; Buhl,
39; Seetzen, _Reisen_, i. 417.――=11a.= _Lot departed eastward_] see
on 11² and the footnote _infra_.――=12bβ=. The immediate continuation
(in Yahwist) of ¹¹ᵃ: _and moved his tent up to Sodom_] the intervening
words being from Priestly-Code (compare עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר instead of כּ׳ הַיַּרְדֵּן).――=13.=
This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom is another anticipation of
chapter 19; but it is introduced here with great effect as showing
how Lot had over-reached himself by his selfish conduct.――=14‒17.= The
promise of the land is now confirmed to Abram.――=14.= _Lift up thine
eyes, etc._] the contrast to Lot’s self-interested glance (verse ¹⁰),
while Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had
unconsciously chosen the good part.――=15.= It is very doubtful if the
עַד עוֹלָם can be considered (with Dillmann) a new element of the promise as
compared with 12⁷.――=16.= _the dust of the earth_] 28¹⁴.
♦ Probable missing text in book.
This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (¹⁴⁻¹⁷) is
somewhat of a contrast to the simple promises of 12²ᐧ ⁷; and has
affinities with a series of passages which appear to represent a
later phase of religious reflexion (see on chapter 15, page 284).
Other reasons are adduced for thinking that ¹⁴⁻¹⁷ are the work
of a younger hand than the original Yahwist. (a) It is not the
habit of Yahwist to cite divine oracles without a specification
of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place
(but see 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). (b) The conception of Abram as wandering over
the land is not that of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who fixes his permanent
dwelling-place at Hebron. (c) While Bethel commands a view of
the Jordan valley, it affords no wide prospect of the land as
a whole. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 25 f.) admits that
these ‘general impressions’ are not such as to procure universal
assent. In point of fact they are rather overstated; and
Dillmann’s answers may satisfy those who refuse to carry
critical operations further than is absolutely necessary.
Nevertheless, Wellhausen’s impression is probably correct, and
has commended itself to Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.¹
The verses may be omitted not only without injury to the context,
but with the obvious advantage of bringing out the reference
of ¹⁸ to ¹² ᶠᐧ. The redactor has rightly seized the point of the
story, which is that by his selfish choice Lot left Abram the
sole heir of Canaan.
¹ The only point on which it is impossible to follow
Wellhausen is his assumption that Hebron is the fixed
residence of Abram in _all_ strata of Yahwist, and that the
notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgamation
of Elohist (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron)
with Yahwist. There was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic
legends, in which he is represented as living in the Negeb
(see already on 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ). So far as mere literary criticism
goes, there is no reason why the addition should not be
prior to Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ.
* * * * *
=16.= אֲשֶׁר] = ‘so that’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 166 _b_).――=17.= LXX
adds at end καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,――approved by Ball.
* * * * *
=18.= Abram moves his tent to the _terebinth(s) of Mamre_, in Hebron,
and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In the main narrative of
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ the statement was immediately followed by chapter 18;
and it is possible that the theophany recorded at the beginning of
that chapter is that which marked the place as holy (see on 12⁷).
The site of the tree (or trees, _v.i._) is not known. There was
a Terebinth of Abraham about 15 stadia from Hebron, which was
the scene of mixed heathen and Christian worship, suppressed
by order of Constantine (Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_,
ii. 4). Josephus (_War of the Jews_, iv. 533) mentions a very
large terebinth said to have existed ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως μέχρι
νῦν, 6 stadia from the city. In spite of the discrepancy as to
distance, it is probable that these are to be identified; and
that the site was the _Ḥarām Rāmet el-Ḫalīl_, 2 miles North of
Hebron. The difficulty in accepting this, the oldest accessible,
tradition is that the distance is inconsistent with the
statement that the sanctuary was _in_ Hebron. And if we suppose
the ancient Hebron to have been at _er-Rāme_ in the vicinity of
the _Ḥarām_, this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of
Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic.
The present ‘Oak of Abraham,’ about 2 miles North-west, is as
old as the 16th century. See Robinson, _Biblical Researches in
Palestine_, i. 216; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 160,
162; Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³
138, 142; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 224 f.; von
Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 52.
* * * * *
=18.= אֵלֹנַי מַמְרֵא (14¹³ 18¹)] see on 12⁶. LXX τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρήν.
Peshiṭtå also reads the singular, which may be right, though
18⁴ cannot be cited in support of it. In Yahwist, Mamre is said
to be _in_ Hebron, in Priestly-Code (where the tree is never
mentioned) it is a name of Hebron, and in 14¹³ᐧ ²⁴ it becomes the
name of an Amorite chief, the owner of the trees. So Peshiṭtå
here, as shown by the addition of (‡ Syriac word).
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIV.
_Abram’s Victory over Four Kings._
While Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings in the Jordan
valley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer of Elam brought from the
East a great punitive expedition, in which no fewer than four powerful
monarchs took part. A successful campaign――the course of which is
traced in detail――ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a
pitched battle in what is now the Dead Sea basin, followed by the
sack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (¹⁻¹²). Abram, with a handful
of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to Dan, routs them in a
night attack, and rescues the captives, including Lot (¹³⁻¹⁶). On his
homeward journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses
him in the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes (¹⁸⁻²⁰);
and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil Abram rejects
with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity (¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴).――Such is
in brief the content of this strange and perplexing chapter, in its
present form and setting. It is obvious that the first half is merely
introductory, and that the purpose of the whole is to illustrate
the singular dignity of Abram’s position among the potentates of the
earth. Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take
the field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and considerate
of others in the hour of victory, reverential towards the name and
representative of the true God, he moves as a ‘great prince’ amongst
his contemporaries, combining the highest earthly success with a
certain detachment and unworldliness of character.――Whether the picture
be historically true or not――a question reserved for a concluding
note――it is unfair to deny to it nobility of conception; and it is
perhaps an exaggeration to assert that it stands in absolute and
unrelieved opposition to all we elsewhere read of Abram. The story
does not give the impression that Abram forfeits the character of
‘Muslim and prophet’ (Wellhausen) even when he assumes the rôle of
a warrior.
_Literary character._――Many features of the chapter show that
it has had a peculiar literary history. (a) The _vocabulary_,
though exhibiting sporadic affinities with Priestly-Code (רְכוּשׁ,
¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹; יְלִיד בַּֽיִת, ¹⁴; נֶפֶשׁ [= ‘person’], ²¹) or Elohist (האמרי,
⁷ᐧ ¹³; בִּלְעָדַי, ²⁴), contains several expressions which are either
unique or rare (see the footnotes): חָנִיךְ, ¹⁴; (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον);
הֵרִיק, ¹⁴; הַפָּלִיט, ¹³; קֹנֶה, אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, ¹⁸⁻²⁰ᐧ ²²; מִגֵּן, ²⁰; מָרַד, ⁴.¹――(b) The
numerous antiquarian _glosses_ and _archaic_ names, suggesting
the use of an ancient document, have no parallel except in
Deuteronomy 2¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ²⁰⁻²³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴; and even these are not
quite of the same character. (c) The _annalistic_ official style,
specially noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or
simulated; in either case it marks the passage sharply off from
the narratives by which it is surrounded.――That the chapter
as it stands cannot be assigned to any of the three sources of
Genesis is now universally acknowledged, and need not be further
argued here. Some writers postulate the existence of a literary
kernel which may either (1) have originated in one of the
schools Yahwist or Elohist,² or (2) have passed through their
hands.³ In neither form can the theory be made at all plausible.
The treatment of documentary material supposed by (1) is
unexampled in Genesis; and those who suggest it have to produce
some sufficient reason why a narrative of (say) Elohist required
to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be sure, no
experience of how Elohist or Yahwist would have edited an old
cuneiform document if it had fallen into their hands,――they
were collectors of oral tradition, not manipulators of official
records,――but we may presume that if the story would not bear
telling in the vivid style that went to the hearts of the
people, these writers would have left it alone. The objections
to Priestly-Code’s authorship are equally strong, the style
and subject being alike foreign to the well-marked character of
the Priestly narration. Chapter xiv. is therefore an isolated
boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch, a fact which
certainly invites examination of its origin, but is not in
itself an evidence of high antiquity.
¹ The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even
in the translation of LXX, which has some unusual renderings:
ἵππος for רְכוּשׁ, ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ (nowhere else in Old Testament);
φάραγξ for עֵמֶק, ³ (not again in Pentateuch: twice in Joshua
and 4 times in Book of Isaiah); περάτης (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) for
עִבְרִי, ¹³,――though this might be explained by the unexpected
occurrence of the gentilic in this connexion (Aquila
περαΐτης).
² So Dillmann, Kittel (_Geschichte der Hebräer_, i. 124,
158 ff.), and (with reserve) Holzinger, all of whom think
of Elohist as the most likely source.
³ So Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,
ii. 26‒48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform
document of legendary and mythical character, which was
worked over first by Elohist and then by Yahwist (see below,
page 272).
=1‒4. The revolt of the five kings.=――=1.= The four names (see below)
do double duty,――as genitve after בִּימֵי and as subject to עָשׂוּ מ׳――a faulty
syntax which a good writer would have avoided (_v.i._). The suggestion
that the first two names are genitive and the last two subject,¹ has
the advantage of putting _Kĕdorlā‘omer_, the head of the expedition
(⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in
the Hebrew text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from
participation in the campaign (against ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), it necessitates a
series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.――=2.= The group
of five cities (_Pentapolis_, Wisdom 10⁶) is thought to be the result
of an amalgamation of originally independent traditions.
¹ Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,
ii. 27, 30; Peiser, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1897, 308 ff.; approved by Gunkel.
In chapter 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as
destroyed (19²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ [18²⁰]; so 13¹⁰, Isaiah 1⁹ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 23¹⁴
etc.) and Zoar (19¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) as spared. Admah and Ẓeboim are named
alone in Hosea 11⁸, in a manner hardly consistent with the idea
that they were involved in the same catastrophe as Sodom and
Gomorrah. The only passages besides this where the four are
associated are 10¹⁹ and Deuteronomy 29²², although ‘neighbour
cities’ of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in Jeremiah
49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Ezekiel 16⁴⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ. If, as seems probable, there were
two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original
tradition Admah and Ẓeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see
Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 66 f.).――The old name of Zoar, בֶּלַע
(Destruction?), appears nowhere else.
The four names in verse ¹ are undoubtedly historical, although
the monumental evidence is less conclusive than is often
represented. (1) אַמְרָפֶל (Ἀμαρφαλ) is thought to be a faulty
transcription of _Ḫammurabi_ (_Ammurab[p]i_), the name of
the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who put an end
to the Elamite domination and united the whole country under
his own sway (_circa_ 2100 B.C.).¹ The final ל presents a
difficulty which has never been satisfactorily explained; but
the equivalence is widely recognised by Assyriologists.² It
is, however, questioned by Jensen³, absolutely rejected by
Bezold,⁴ and pronounced ‘problematical’ by Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_², I. ii. 551.――(On שִׁנְעָר, see 10¹⁰.)――(2) אַרְיוֹךְ
(compare Daniel 2¹⁴, Judith 1⁶), it seems, is now satisfactorily
identified with _Eri-agu_, the Sumerian equivalent of _Arad-Sin_,
a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother,
Rîm-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by Ḫammurabi in the 31st
year of the latter’s reign (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite
Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907
(_Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften_ 210 f.;
compare King, _Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_,
volume i. 68²; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. page
550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and
Schrader’s attempt to identify Rîm-Sin with Arioch,⁵ though
accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious
Assyriologists, _e.g._ Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (_op.
cit._ 27, 56), and Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 367). The objections do not hold against the
equation _Arioch_ = _Eriagu_ = _Arad-Sin_, provided Arad-Sin be
kept distinct from Rîm-Sin. The discovery by Pinches⁶ in 1892
of the name _Eri-[E]aku_ or _Eri-Ekua_ stands on a somewhat
different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are
admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th century B.C.); the
identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by
King; ⁷ who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled
a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and
that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as
either of the well-known contemporaries of Ḫammurabi. The real
significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on
these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining
names of the verse are _supposed_ to occur.――(3) כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר
(Χοδολλογομορ) unquestionably stands for _Kudur-lagamar_, a
genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known
Elamite divinity _Lagamar_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 485), preceded by a word which appears
as a component of theophorous Elamite names (_Kudur-mabug_,
_Kudur-Nanḫundi_, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if
the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The
“sensational” announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it
(_Ku-dur-nu-uḫ-ga-mar_) in a letter of Ḫammurabi to Sinidinnam,
king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation
of King (_op. cit._ xxv‒xxxix. Compare also Delitzsch
_Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_,
iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches
fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam
whose name, it was thought, might be read _Kudur-laḫ-mal_ or
_Kudur-laḫ-gu-mal_.⁸ The first element (Kudur) is no doubt right,
but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.⁹
There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question,
whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi.¹⁰ (4)
תִּדְעָל (LXXᴱᴸ Θαργαλ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)) was identified
by Pinches with a “_Tu-ud-ḫul-a_, son of _Gaz_ ...,” who is
named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schrader
_Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance
to Tid‛al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those
who find ’Ariok and Kedorla‛omer in the same document; there is,
however, no indication that _Tudḫula_ was a king, or that he was
contemporary with Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, _op. cit._).――גּוֹיִם
can hardly be the usual word for ‘nations’ (LXX, Vulgate,
Targum), either as an indefinite expression (Tuch) or as a
“verschämtes _et cetera_” (Holzinger). We seem to require a
proper name (Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word)); and many accept
the suggestion of Rawlinson, that _Guti_ (a people North of the
Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם is an
attempt to render the common Babylonian title _šar kiššati_.
¹ See Introduction pages xiv f.
² See Schrader _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen
Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff.
³ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
1896, 252.
⁴ _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften_, etc., 1904,
pages 26, 54.
⁵ _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1894, xv. 279 ff.
⁶ See his _Old Testament in the light_, etc., 223 ff.; compare
Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 181 ff.; and Sayce’s amended translation in
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1906,
193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff.
⁷ _Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi_, i. page liii.
Jensen, Peiser, and Bezold also pronounce against the
identification.
⁸ This reading is questioned by King; see liv‒lvi, or the
extract in Driver _Genesis_, _Addenda_ on page 157 _n_.
Sayce now (_l.c._ page 194 ff.) proposes to read
_Kudur-lakhkha-mal_; but the reading appears to be purely
conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing
can be built upon it.
⁹ _e.g._ by King, Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 486¹), Peiser (who reads it _Kudur-tur-bit_,
_l.c._ 310), Jensen, Bezold, al.
¹⁰ There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a
king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not
actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of
Arad-Sin and Rîm-Sin) in the time of Ḫammurabi; but in
our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not
be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Driver,
_Genesis_⁷, _Addenda_ xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of
G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this
chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that
any fresh _facts_ have come to light to make the guess more
convincing than it was when first propounded.
The royal names in verse ² are of a different character from
those of verse ¹. Several circumstances suggest that they are
fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to
all four (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_ § 42, Rashi); and
even modern scholars like Tuch and Nöldeke recognise in the
first two a play on the words רַע (evil) and רֶשֶׂע (wickedness).
And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative
pairs, or that each king’s name contains exactly as many letters
as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a)
that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any
conclusions based on the Hebrew (see the footnote); (b) the
namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have
had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) _Sanibu_
occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser IV. (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 294,
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21). These considerations
do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list
produces. Since the names are not repeated in verse ⁸, it is
quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of
course (on that view), unhistorical.――בֶּלַע is elsewhere a royal
name (36³²).
* * * * *
=1.= בִּימֵי] LXX ἐν βασιλείᾳ; Vulgate _in illo tempore_, reading all
the names in the nominative. LXX has the first in genitive and
the rest nominative; LXXᴬ further inserts καί between the second
and third. The reading of the Sixtine edition (first _two_ names
in genitive coupled by καί), which is appealed to in support
of Winckler’s construction, has very little MS authority.
“I have little doubt that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a
rather carelessly written MS) and in 135 the reading is due
to a scribe’s mistake, probably arising from misreading of a
contracted termination and induced by the immediately preceding
βασιλέως. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel
sure.”¹――=2.= בֶּלַע] LXX Βαλλα, etc.――שִׁנְאָב] LXX Σεννααρ.――שֶׁמְאֵבֶר] LXX
Συμοβορ, Συμορ _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמאבר
(‘name has perished’), Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).――הִיא] the first
of the 11 instances of this _Kethîb_ in Pentateuch (see on 2¹²).
¹ Private communication from Mr. M‘Lean.
* * * * *
=3.= _all these_] not the kings from the East (Dillmann, Driver), but
(see verse ⁴) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any doubt
on the point is an indication of the weak style of the chapter. What
exactly the verse means to say is not clear. The most probable sense
is that the five cities _formed a league_] of the Vale of Siddim, and
therefore acted in concert. This is more natural than to suppose the
statement a premature mention of the preparations for battle in verse
⁸.――_the Vale of Siddîm_] The name is peculiar to this narrative,
and its meaning is unknown (_v.i._). The writer manifestly shares the
belief (13¹⁰) that what is now the Dead Sea was once dry land (see
page 273 f. below).――_The Sea of Salt_] one of the Old Testament names
for the Dead Sea (Numbers 34³, Deuteronomy 3¹⁷, Joshua 3¹⁶ 15⁵ etc.):
see Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 64.
Winckler’s attempt to identify it with Lake Ḥuleh is something of a
_tour de force_ (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 36
f.; compare 108 f.).――=4.= _they rebelled_] by refusal of tribute
(2 Kings 18⁷ 24¹ᐧ ²⁰ etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the
earlier part of Ḫammurabi’s reign is perfectly credible in the light
of the monumental evidence (page 272). But the importance attributed
in this connexion to the petty kings of the Pentapolis is one of the
features which excite suspicion of the historicity of the narrative.
To say that this is due to the writer’s interest in Lot and Sodom is
to concede that his conception of the situation is determined by other
influences than authentic historical information.
* * * * *
=3.= חברוּ אל־] apparently a pregnant construct (Gesenius-Kautzsch §
119 _ee_) = ‘came as confederates to’; but this is rather harsh.
אֶל after חבר naturally refers to that to which one is joined
(Exodus 26³; of a person, Sirach 12¹⁴): that being impossible
here, חבר must be understood absolutely as Judges 20¹¹ (_vide_
Moore or Budde _ad loc._) and the אל may have some vague local
reference: ‘all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the Vale
of Siddim.’――עֵמֶק הַשֵּׁדִּים] LXX τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν, apparently
a conjecture from the context, Vulgate _vallem silvestrem_.
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ has חקליא (from שָׂדֶה), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרדיסיא; Peshiṭtå
‘valley of the Sodomites’: on the renderings of Aquila and
Theodotion see Field’s Note, page 30 f. It is evident the
Versions did not understand the word. Nöldeke (_Untersuchungen
zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 160³), Renan (_History_ i. 116),
Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁵ 105), Jeremias
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 351), al.
think the true form is שֵׁדִים: ‘valley of demons.’――=4.= וּשְׁלשׁ]
Accusative of time (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 _i_); but _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ובשלש is better.――מרד]
rare in Hexateuch (Numbers 14⁹, Joshua 22¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁹
[Priestly-Code]); and mostly late.
* * * * *
=5‒7. The preliminary campaign.=――One of the surprising things in the
narrative is the circuitous route by which the Eastern kings march
against the rebels. We may assume that they had followed the usual
track by Carchemish and Damascus: thence they advanced southwards on
the East of the Jordan; but then, instead of attacking the Pentapolis,
they pass it on their right, proceeding southward to the head of the
Gulf of Aḳaba. Then they turn North-west to Ḳadesh, thence North-east
to the Dead Sea depression; and only at the end of this long and
difficult journey do they join issue with their enemies in the vale
of Siddim.
In explanation, it has been suggested that the real object of
the expedition was to secure command of the caravan routes in
West Arabia, especially that leading through the Arabah from
Syria to the Red Sea (see Tuch 257 ff.). It must be remembered,
however, that this is the account, not of the first assertion
of Elamite supremacy over these regions, but of the suppression
of a revolt of not more than a few months’ standing: hence it
would be necessary to assume that all the peoples named were
implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind the plain
meaning of the Hebrew narrator; and the verisimilitude of
the description is certainly not enhanced by Hommel’s wholly
improbable speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of
an empire embracing the whole region East of the Jordan and the
land of Edom (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by
the Monuments_, 149). If there were any truth in theories of
this kind, we should still have to conclude that the writer, for
the sake of literary effect, had given a fictitious importance
to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley, and had
so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the
climax of the campaign. (See Nöldeke, 163 f.)
The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient
certainty from the geographical names of ⁵⁻⁷; although it
does not appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as
the centres of the various nationalities or the battlefields
in which they were defeated.――עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם (‘Astarte of the two
horns’:¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; or ‘Astarte
of the two-peaked mountain’²) occurs as a compound name
only here. A city _‛Astārôth_ of Bashan, the capital of
Og’s kingdom, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1⁴, Joshua 9¹⁰ 12⁴
13¹²ᐧ ³¹, 1 Chronicles 6⁵⁶ [= בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷]. _Ḳarnaim_ is
named (according to a probable emendation) in Amos 6¹³, and in
1 Maccabees 5²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Maccabees 12²¹. It is uncertain whether
these are two names for one place, or two adjacent places of
which one was named after the other (‛Astārôth of [_i.e._ near]
Ḳarnaim); and the confusing statements of the _Onomastica Sacra_
(84⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 86³² 108¹⁷ 209⁶¹ 268⁹⁸) throw little light on the
question. The various sites that have been suggested――Sheikh
Sa’d, Tell ‛Aštarah, Tell el-‛Aš‛ari, and El-Muzêrîb――lie
near the great road from Damascus to Mecca, about 20 miles
East of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, _Geographie des alten
Palaestina_, 248 ff.; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i.
166 f.; George Adam Smith in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 335 f.).
Wetzstein’s identification with Boẓrah (regarded as a corruption
of _Bostra_, and this of בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷), the capital of the
Ḫaurân, has been shown by Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxix. 431¹) to be philologically
untenable.――Of a place הָם nothing is known. It is a natural
conjecture (Tuch al.) that it is the archaic name of _Rabbath_,
the capital of _‛Ammon_; and Sayce (_The Higher Criticism and
the Verdict of the Monuments_, 160 f.) thinks it must be
explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source of the
word עַמּוֹן. On the text _v.i._――שָׁוֵה קִרְיָתַיִם is doubtless the Moabite
or Reubenite city קִר׳, mentioned in Jeremiah 48²³, Ezekiel 25⁹,
Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁹ (_Onomastica Sacra_, Καριαθαειμ,
Καριαθα), the modern _Ḳuraiyāt_, East of the Dead Sea, a little
South of the Wādī Zerka Ma‛īn. שָׁוֵה (only here and verse ¹⁷) is
supposed to mean ‘plain’ (Syriac (‡ Syriac word)); but that is
somewhat problematical.――On the phrase הַרְרָם שֶׁעִיר, see the footnote.
While שֶׁעִיר alone may include the plateau to the West of the
Arabah, the commoner הַר שֶׁעִיר appears to be restricted to the
mountainous region East of that gorge, now called _eš-Šera‛_
(see Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_, 28 ff.).――אֵיל פָּארָן (_v.i._)
is usually identified with אֵילַת (Deuteronomy 2⁸, 2 Kings 14²²
16⁶) or אֵילוֹת (1 Kings 9²⁶, 2 Kings 16⁶), at the head of the East
arm of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from
the groves of date-palms for which it was and is famous (see
especially Tuch 264 f.). The grounds of the identification
seem slender; and the evidence does not carry us further than
Tuch’s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the North of the
desert is meant (see Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3584).³ The
‘wilderness’ is the often mentioned ‘Wilderness of Paran’ (21²¹,
Numbers 10¹² etc.), _i.e._ the desolate plateau of _et-Tīh_,
stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus of Suez. There is
obviously nothing in that definition to support the theory that
_’Êl-Pârān_ is the original name of the later _Elath_.――קָדֵשׁ
(16¹⁴ 20¹ etc.), or ק׳ בַּֽרְנֵעַ (Numbers 34⁴, Deuteronomy 1²ᐧ ¹⁹ 2¹⁴).
The controversy as to the situation of this important place
has been practically settled since the appearance of Trumbull’s
_Kadesh-Barnea_ in 1884 (see Guthe, _Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins_, viii. 183 ff.). It is the spring now known
as _‛Ain Ḳadîs_, at the head of the Wādī of the same name,
“northward of the desert proper,” and about 50 miles South of
Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, _op. cit._ 272‒275).
The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about 80
miles, with a difficult ascent of 1500 feet. The alternative
name עֵין מִשְׁפָּט (‘Well of Judgement’) is found only here. Since קָדֵשׁ
means ‘holy’ and מִשְׁפָּט ‘judicial decision,’ it is a plausible
conjecture of William Robertson Smith that the name refers to an
ordeal involving the use of ‘holy water’ (Numbers 5¹⁷) from the
sacred well (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181).
The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have occupied a prominent
place in the earliest Exodus tradition (Wellhausen _Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 341 ff.); but there is no reason
why the institution just alluded to should not be of much
greater antiquity than the Mosaic age.――חַצְצֹן תָּמָר is, according to
2 Chronicles 20², _‛Ēn-gĕdî_ (_‛Ain Ǧidī_), about the middle of
the West shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for
an army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous
descent of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be
imagined: see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_,
i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the descent
there: it might again have made a detour and reached its goal
by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of
this narrative would be better satisfied by _Kurnub_, on the
road from Hebron to Elath, about 20 miles West-south-west of the
South end of the Dead Sea. The identification, however, requires
three steps, all of which involve uncertainties: (1) that ח׳ תָּמָר =
the תָּמָר of Ezekiel 47¹⁹ 48²⁸; (2) that this is the _Thamara_ of
_Onomastica Sacra_ (85³, 210⁸⁶), the Θαμαρω of Ptolemy xvi. 8;
and (3) that the ruins of this are found at _Kurnub_. Compare
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4890; Buhl, _Geographie des alten
Palaestina_, 184.
¹ See Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 313; Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund:
_Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 15.
² Moore, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi.
156 f.
³ Trumbull places it at the oasis of _Ḳala‛at Naḫl_, in the
middle of _et-Tīh_, on the Ḫaǧǧ route halfway between ‛Aḳaba
and Suez (_Kadesh-Barnea_, page 37).
The six peoples named in verses ⁵⁻⁷ are the primitive races
which, according to Hebrew tradition, formerly occupied the
regions traversed by Chedorlaomer. (1) The רְפָאִים are spoken
of as a giant race dwelling partly on the West (15²⁰, Joshua
17¹⁵, 2 Samuel 21¹⁶, Isaiah 17⁵), partly on the East, of the
Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of
the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3¹¹, Joshua 12⁴ etc.).――(2) The זוּזִים,
only mentioned here, are probably the same as the Zamzummîm
of Deuteronomy 2²⁰, the aborigines of the Ammonite country.
The equivalence of the two forms is considered by Sayce
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 393) and others to be
explicable only by the Babylonian confusion of _m_ and _w_,
and thus a proof that the narrative came ultimately from a
cuneiform source.――(3) הָאֵימִים] a kind of Rephaim, aborigines of
Moab (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰ ᶠᐧ).――(4) הַחֹרִי] the race extirpated by the
Edomites (36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 2¹²ᐧ ²²). The name has usually
been understood to mean ‘troglodytes’ (see Driver _A critical
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 38); but this is
questioned by Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 332 f.,
346 f.) and Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 264²), who identify the word with _Ḫaru_,
the Egyptian name for South-west Palestine.¹――(5) הָעֲמָלֵקִי] the
Amalekite territory (שָׂדֶה), was in the Negeb, extending towards
Egypt (Numbers 13²⁹ 14⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵, 1 Samuel 27⁸). In ancient tradition,
Amalek was ‘the firstling of peoples’ (Numbers 24²⁰), although,
according to Genesis 36¹² its ancestor was a grandson of
Esau.――(6) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] see on 10¹⁶; and compare Deuteronomy 1⁴⁴,
Judges 1³⁶.――While there can be no question of the absolute
historicity of the last three names, the first three undoubtedly
provoke speculation. Rephāîm is the name for _shades_ or
_ghosts_; ’Emîm probably means ‘_terrible ones_’; and Zamzummîm
(if this be the same word as Zûzîm), ‘murmurers.’ Schwally (_Das
Leben nach dem Tode_, 64 f., and more fully _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xviii. 127 ff.) has given
reasons to show that all three names originally denoted spirits
of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary
race of _extinct giants_, the supposed original inhabitants
of the country (see also William Robertson Smith in Driver
_A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 40). The
tradition with regard to the Rephaim is too persistent to make
this ingenious hypothesis altogether easy of acceptance. It
is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so closely on the
historicity of Genesis 14 the evidence is not more decisive.
¹ Compare Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 136 f., 148 ff.
* * * * *
=5.= אֶת־רְפָאִים] The article should be supplied, with _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_. LXX τοὺς γίγαντας; so Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹח ק׳ The reading of the Sixtine and
Aldine editions of LXX, Ἀσταρωθ καὶ Καρναιν, which even Dillmann
adduces in favour of a distinction between the two cities, has,
amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge editors, the support of
only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains was copied from
the Aldine edition. It is doubtless a conflation of Καρναιν and
the και Ναιν (? Καιναιν) of LXXᴱᐧ ᵃˡᐧ (Nestle, _Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xv. 256; compare Moore, _Journal
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. 155 f.).――הַזּוּזִים]
LXX ἔθνη ἰσχυρά = עִזּוּזִים: so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.
Symmachus has Ζοιζομμειν = זַמְזֻמִּים.――בְּהָם] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå
read בָּהֶם (ἅμα αὐτοῖς, etc.). Some MSS of _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ have בחם, which Jerome expressly says is
the real reading of the Hebrew text.――=6.= בְּהַרְרָם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בְּהַרֲרֵי.
Duplication of ר is rare and doubtful (Psalms 30⁸, Jeremiah 17³)
in singular of this word, but common in construct plural. Buhl
strikes out שֶׁעִיר as an explanatory gloss, retaining בְּהַרֲרָם.――אֵיל פָּארָן]
LXX, Peshiṭtå render ‘terebinth of Paran,’ and so virtually
Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which have ‘plain’ (see on 12⁶).
If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, אֵיל is used
collectively in the sense of ‘great tree’ (here ‘palms’).――=7.=
For קָדֵשׁ, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (also Saadya) have רקם,
apparently identifying it with Petra: see Tuch’s Note, page 271
f.――שְׂדֵה] LXX, Peshiṭtå שָׂרֵי, ‘princes.’
* * * * *
=8‒12. The final battle, and capture of Lot.=――=9.= _four kings
against the five_] That the four Eastern kings should have been all
present in person (which is the obvious meaning of the narrator)
is improbable enough; that they should count heads with the petty
kinglets of the Pentapolis is an unreal and misleading estimate of
the opposing forces, due to a desire to magnify Abram’s subsequent
achievement.――=10.= The vale of Siddim was at that time _wells upon
wells of bitumen_] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular
reasoning rather than of authentic information regarding actual facts.
The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the production of bitumen,
masses of which were found floating on the surface (Strabo, XVI. ii.
42; Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 98; Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still
are after earthquakes, but “only in the southern part of the sea”
(Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 518, ii. 189, 191).
It was a natural inference that the bottom of the sea was covered with
asphalt wells, like those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says
that the bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, “and that (_und zwar_)
under the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt and seen”; and
Strabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling water from the middle of
the deepest part.――=11, 12.= Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is
taken captive. The account leaves much to be supplied by the
imagination. The repetition of וַיִּקְחוּ and וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ in two consecutive sentences
is a mark of inferior style; but the phrase בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם, which anticipates
the introduction of Abram in verse ¹³, is probably a gloss (_v.i._).
* * * * *
=10.= בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת] On the nominal appositives and duplication, see
Davidson § 29, _R._ 8; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_ (compare
§ 130 _e_). LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ has the word but once.――וַֽעֲמֹרָה] better as
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX וּמֶלֶךְ ע׳.――הֶרָה] On
the peculiar ֶ, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 27 _q_, 90 _i_.――=11.=
רְכֻשׁ] LXX ἵππον (_i.e._ רֶכֶשׁ); the confusion appears in ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹, but
nowhere else in the Old Testament.――=12.= בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם] LXX inserts
the words immediately after לוֹט,――an indication that they have
been introduced from the margin. It is to be noted also that Lot
is elsewhere called simply the ‘brother’ of Abram (¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――The
last clause is awkwardly placed; but considering the style
of the chapter, we are not justified in treating it as an
interpolation.
* * * * *
=13‒16. Abram’s pursuit and victory.=――The homeward march of the
victorious army must have taken it very near Hebron,――Engedi itself is
only about 17 miles off,――but Abram had ‘let the legions thunder past,’
until the intelligence reached him of his nephew’s danger.――=13.=
_Abram the Hebrew_] is obviously meant as the first introduction
of Abram in this narrative. The epithet is not _necessarily_ an
anachronism, if we accept the view that the Ḫabiri of the Tel Amarna
period were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 10²¹);
though it is difficult to believe that there were Ḫabiri in Palestine
more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ḫammurabi (against Sellin,
_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 936; compare Paton, _The Early
History of Syria and Palestine_ 39 ff.). That, however, is the only
sense in which Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a
contemporary document; and the probability is that the term is used by
an anachronistic extension of the later distinction between Israelites
and foreigners.――_Mamrē’ the Amorite_] see on 13¹⁸. In Yahwist (whose
phraseology is here followed) מַמְרֵא is the name of the sacred tree or
grove; in Priestly-Code it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the
personal name of the owner of the grove. In like manner _’Eškōl_ is
a personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (‘grape-cluster,’
Numbers 13²³ ᶠᐧ); and _‛Anēr_ may have a similar origin. The first
two, at all events, are “_heroes eponymi_ of the most unequivocal
character” (Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_
166),――a misconception of which no contemporary would have been
capable.¹――_the confederates of Abram_ (LXX συνωμόται)] The expression
בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית does not recur; compare בַּֽעֲלֵי שְׁבוּעָה, Nehemiah 6¹⁸. Kraetzschmar’s
view (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 23 f.), that it
denotes the relation of patrons to client, is inherently improbable.
That these men joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is
presupposed in verse ²⁴,――another example of the writer’s laxity in
narration.――=14.= As soon as Abram learns the fate of his _brother_
(_i.e._ ‘relative’), he _called up his trained men_ (?: on וַיָּרֶק and חֲנִיכָיו,
_v.i._) and gave chase.――_three hundred and eighteen_] The number
cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be historical.
It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish _Gematria_, 318 being
the numerical value of the letters of אליעזר (15²) (_Bereshith Rabba_
§ 43: see Nestle, _The Expository Times._, xvii. 44 f. [compare 139
f.]). A _modern_ Gematria finds in it the number of the days of the
moon’s visibility during the lunar year (Winckler _Geschichte Israels
in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27).――_to Dan_] Now Tell el-Ḳāḍi, at
the foot of Hermon. This name originated in the period of the Judges
(Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18²⁹); and it is singular that such a prolepsis
should occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance of
antiquity.――=15.= _He divided himself_] _i.e._ (as usually understood)
into three bands,――the favourite tactical manœuvre in Hebrew warfare
(Judges 7¹⁶, 1 Samuel 11¹¹ 13¹⁷, Job 1¹⁷, 1 Maccabees 5³³): but see
the footnote.――_smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah_] Hobah
(compare Judith 15⁵) has been identified by Wetzstein with _Hoba_, _c._
20 hours’ journey North of Damascus. Sellin (934) takes it to be the
_Ubi_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets, the district in which Damascus was
situated (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 139, 63; 146, 12). The
pursuit must in any case have been a long one, since Damascus itself is
about 15 hours from Dan. It is idle to pretend that Abram’s victory was
merely a surprise attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of
the booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main body
of the enemy.
¹ Dillmann’s remark (page 235), that “it makes no difference
whether Mamre or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,” is hard
to understand. If Mamre and Eshcol were really names of
places, and the writer took them for names of individual
men, the fact has the most important bearing on the question
of the historicity of the record. The alternative theory,
that the names were originally those of persons, and were
afterwards transferred to the places owned or inhabited
by them, will hardly bear examination. ‘Grape-cluster’ is
a suitable name for a valley, but not for a man. And does
any one suppose that Yahwist would have recorded Abram’s
settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13¹⁸, if he had been
aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time?
Yet the Yahwist’s historical knowledge is far less open to
suspicion than that of the writer of chapter 14.
* * * * *
=13.= הַפָּלִיט] Ezekiel 24²⁶ 33²¹ (compare הַמַּגִּיד, 2 Samuel 15¹³). For
the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_.――הָעִבְרִי] LXX τῷ περάτῃ
(only here), Aquila τῷ περαΐτῃ.――עָנֵר] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ ענרם, LXX Αὐναν.――=14.= וַיָּרֶק] Literally ‘emptied
out,’ used of the unsheathing of a sword (Exodus 15⁹, Leviticus
26³³, Ezekiel 5²ᐧ ¹² etc.), but never with personal objective
as here. Tuch cites the Arabic _ǧarrada_, which means both
‘unsheath a sword’ and ‘detach a company from an army’ (see
Lane); but this is no real analogy, _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ has בַיָּדֶק = ‘scrutinize’ (Aramaic). LXX ἠρίθμησεν
(so Vulgate) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זריז (‘equip’: so Peshiṭtå and
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural.
Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 102²) derives
from Assyrian _diḳu_ = ‘call up troops’; so Sellin, 937. Ball
changes to וַיִּפְקֹד.――חֲנִיכָיו] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, LXX τοὺς ἰδίους, Vulgate
_expeditos_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘young men.’ The √ חנך
suggests the meaning ‘initiated’ (see on 4¹⁷), hence ‘trained,’
‘experienced,’ etc. Sellin (937) compares the word _ḫanakuka_
= ‘thy men,’ found in one of the Ta‛annek tablets. If it comes
direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born
child (see page 116), it may have nothing to do with war,
but denote simply those belonging to the household, the
precise equivalent of יְלִדֵי בַיִת. The latter phrase is found only
in Priestly-Code (17¹² ᶠᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷, Leviticus 22¹¹) and Jeremiah
2¹⁴.――=15.= וַיֵּחָלֵק] (compare 1 Kings 16²¹). The sense given
above is not altogether natural. Ball emends וַיַּדְבֵּק. Winckler
(_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27²)
suggests a precarious Assyrian etymology, pointing as Piel, and
rendering ‘and he fell upon them by night’: so Sellin.――מִשְּׂמֹאל]
Literally ‘on the left.’ The sense ‘north’ is rare: Joshua 19²⁷
(Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 16⁴⁶, Job 23⁹.
* * * * *
=17, 18‒20. Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ.=――“The scene between Abram and
Melkiẓedeḳ is not without poetic charm: the two ideals (_Grösse_)
which were afterwards to be so intimately united, the holy people and
the holy city, are here brought together for the first time: here for
the first time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary” (Gunkel 253).
=17.= The scene of the meeting is עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה, interpreted as _the king’s
vale_. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Samuel 18¹⁸ as the site
of Absalom’s pillar, which, according to Josephus (_Antiquities of
the Jews_ vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situation
harmonises with the common view that Šalem is Jerusalem (see below);
and other information does not exist.――=18.= _Melkîẓedeḳ, king of
Šālēm_, _etc._] The primitive combination of the kingly and priestly
offices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.¹
The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times
is perfectly credible, though not historically attested (compare
the _patesis_ of Babylonia). _Šālēm_ is usually understood to be an
archaic name for Jerusalem (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 180;
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome [_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ
in Genesim_], Abraham Ibn Ezra al.), as in Psalms 76³, the only other
place where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is
the typical significance attached to Melkiẓedeḳ in Psalms 110⁴, which
is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a
sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem.
¹ _Studies in the Kingship_, 29 ff. “The classical evidence
points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the
rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes
or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties
and probably enjoyed a sacred character as descendants of
deities” (page 31).
Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not
know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name
_Uru-Salim_ is of much greater antiquity than might have been
gathered from the biblical statements (Judges 19¹⁰, 1 Chronicles
11⁴); but the shortened form _Salem_ is as yet unattested. It
has been suggested that the cuneiform _uru_ was misread as the
determinative for ‘city’ (see Sellin, 941).――The identifications
with other places of the name which have been discovered――_e.g._
the Salim 8 Roman miles from Scythopolis (where, according
to Jerome [_Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_], the ruins
of Melkiẓedeḳ’s palace were to be seen)――have no claim to
acceptance.
* * * * *
=17.= שָׁוֵה (without article) must apparently be a different word
from that in verse ⁵. Hommel and Winckler emend שָׁרֵי (_šarrē_, the
Assyrian word for ‘king’).――=18.= מַלְכִּי־צֶדָק] usually explained as
‘King of Righteousness’ (Hebrews 7²), with _î_ as old genitive
ending retained by the annexion; but more probably = ‘My king
is Ẓidḳ,’ Ẓidḳ being the name of a South Arabian and Phœnician
deity (Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_
i. 15; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 128). That
Ẓedeḳ was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Isaiah 1 ²¹ᐧ ²⁶,
Jeremiah 31²³ 50⁷, Psalms 118¹⁹) there is no reason to believe.
* * * * *
On the name אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (_God Most High_), see below, page 270 f.――_bread
and wine_] compare ‘food and drink’ (_akalî šikarî_) provided for an
army, etc., in the Tel-Amarna Tablets: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
50²² 207¹⁶ 209¹² ᶠᐧ 242¹⁶ (Sellin, 938).――=19, 20.= The blessing of
Melkiẓedeḳ is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it
is a liturgical formula rather than a ‘blessing’ in the proper sense.
It lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences
which is the note of the antique blessing and curse (compare 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ
4¹¹ ᶠᐧ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ).――_Creator of heaven and earth_] so LXX,
Vulgate. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere
_possession_ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, al.); _v. infra_――By payment of the tithe,
Abram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melkiẓedeḳ’s priesthood (Hebrews
7⁴), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at
the same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the
payment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so
already in _Jubilees_ xiii. 25‒27: compare Genesis 28²²).
The excision of the Melkiẓedeḳ episode (see Winckler _Geschichte
Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 29), which seems to
break the connexion of verse ²¹ with verse ¹⁷, is a temptingly
facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The
designation of Yahwe as ‘God Most High’ in the mouth of Abram
(verse ²²) is unintelligible apart from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ. It may rather have
been the writer’s object to bring the three actors on one stage
together in order to illustrate Abram’s contrasted attitude
to the sacred (Melkiẓedeḳ) and the secular (king of Sodom)
authority.――Hommel’s ingenious and confident solution (_The
Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,
158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and
resolves ¹⁷⁻²⁴ wholly into an interview between Abram and
Melkiẓedeḳ, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism.
Sellin’s view (page 939 f.), that verses ¹⁸⁻²⁰ are original
and ¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴ are ‘Israelitische Wucherung,’ is simpler and
more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of
the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the
essential historicity of the narrative.
The mystery which invests the figure of Melkiẓedeḳ has given
rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and
modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Talmud, al.) is thought to be a reaction
against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school
of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos),
which, through Hebrews 7¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, exercised a certain influence on
Christian theology (see Jerome, _Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_;
compare _Jewish Encyclopædia_, viii. 450). From a critical point
of view the question of interest is whether Melkiẓedeḳ belongs
to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage,
created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood
in Jerusalem (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 312). In opposition
to the latter view, Gunkel rightly points out that Judaism
is not likely to have invented as the prototype of the High
Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible
pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the
figure of Aaron (253). It is more probable that Melkiẓedeḳ is,
if not a historical figure, at least a traditional figure of
great antiquity, on whom the monarchy and hierarchy of Jerusalem
based their dynastic and priestly rights.¹ To the writer of
Psalms 110, Melkiẓedeḳ was “a type, consecrated by antiquity,
to which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must
conform” (Driver 167); and even if that Psalm be not pre-Exilic
(as Gunkel supposes), but as late as the Maccabæan period, it
is difficult to conceive that the type could have originated
without some traditional basis.――Some writers have sought a
proof of the historical character of Melkiẓedeḳ in a supposed
parallel between the ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, of Hebrews
7³ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)
of Abdḫiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV.: “Neither my father
nor my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king
established me in my father’s house.”² Abdḫiba might have been a
successor of Melkiẓedeḳ; and it is just conceivable that Hommel
is right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated
with the head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abdḫiba
a political turn, and is made use of to express his absolute
dependence on the Egyptian king. But it must be observed that
Abdḫiba’s language is perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic
sense; its agreement with the words of the New Testament is only
partial, and may be accidental; and it is free from the air of
mystery which excites interest in the latter. This, however, is
not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews drew
his conception partly from other sources than the verses in
Genesis.
¹ Gunkel instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction
by which the imperial prestige of the Cæsars was transferred
to Charlemagne and his successors.――Josephus had the same
view when he spoke of Melkiẓedeḳ as Χαναναίων δυνάστης, and
the first founder of Jerusalem (_War of the Jews_, vi. 438).
² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 155 ff.; Sayce, _Monuments_ 175; _The Early
History of the Hebrews_, 28 f.; _Expository Times_, vii. 340
ff., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts and
letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).
_’Ēl ‘Elyôn._――’El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was
frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the
divine nature, or particular local or other relations entered
into by the deity: hence arose compound names like אֵל שֶׂדַּי (17¹),
אֵל עוֹלָם (21³³), אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (33²⁰), אֵל בֵּיתאֵל (35⁷), and אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (here
and Psalms 78³⁵).¹ עֶלְיוֹן (= ‘upper,’ ‘highest’) is not uncommonly
used of God in the Old Testament, either alone (Numbers 24¹⁶,
Deuteronomy 32⁸, Psalms 18¹⁴ etc.) or in combinations with יהוה
or אלהים (Psalms 7¹⁸ (?), 47³ 57³ etc.). That it was in actual use
among the Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Phœnicians
had a god Ἐλιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος (Eusebius _Præparatio
Evangelica_ i. 10, 11, 12); and there is nothing to forbid
the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of Jerusalem
was worshipped under that name. On the other hand, there is
nothing to prove it; and it is perhaps a more significant fact
that the Maccabees were called ἀρχιερεῖς θεοῦ ὑψίστου (Josephus
_Antiquities of the Jews_ xvi. 163; _Assumption of Moses_,
6¹]).² This title, the frequent recurrence of עֶליוֹן as a divine
name in late Psalms, the name Salem in one such Psalm, and
Melkiẓedeḳ in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences
which go to show that the Melkiẓedeḳ legend was much in vogue
about the time of the Maccabees.
¹ See Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 291
f.――Compare, in classical religion, _Zeus Meilichios_,
_-Xenios_, _Jupiter Terminus_, _-Latiaris_, etc.
² Siegfried, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1895, 304. On
the late prevalence of the title, see also _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iii. 450, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 70
(in and near Byblus), and Schürer, _Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_, 1897, page 200 ff.
* * * * *
=19.= קָנָה has two senses in the Old Testament (if, indeed, there
be not two distinct roots: see Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ _s.v._): (a)
‘create’ or ‘produce’ (Psalms 139¹³, Proverbs 8²², Deuteronomy
32⁶ [? Genesis 4¹]); (b) ‘purchase’ or ‘acquire by purchase’
(frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase
is hardly represented (? Isaiah 1³); and since the suggestion
of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense ‘create’ must be
accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late
examples is certainly no objection so far as the present
passage is concerned: see on 4¹.――=20.= After וּבָרוּךְ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
inserts יהוה.――מִגֵּן] only Hosea 11⁸, Isaiah 64⁶ (LXX, etc.),
Proverbs 4⁹. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it
is a denominative from מָגֵן, ‘shield’ (√ גנן, Brown-Driver-Briggs)
is hardly correct (see Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum
semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 4).
* * * * *
=17, 21‒24. Abram and the king of Sodom.=――The request of the king of
Sodom presupposes as the usual custom of war that Abram was entitled
to the whole of the booty. Abram’s lofty reply is the climax to which
the whole narrative leads up.――=22.= _I lift up my hand_] the gesture
accompanying an oath (Exodus 6⁸, Numbers 14³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁰,
Ezekiel 20²³, Daniel 12⁷ etc.).――_to Yahwe, ’El ‛Elyôn_] A recognition
of religious affinity with Melkiẓedeḳ, as a fellow-worshipper of
the one true God. The יהוה, however, is probably an addition to the
text, wanting in LXX and Peshiṭtå while _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ has האלהים.――=23.= _lest thou shouldst say, etc._] An
earlier writer (compare 12¹⁶) would perhaps not have understood this
scruple: he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God, even
if the medium was a heathen king.――=24.= The condescending allowance
for the weakness of inferior natures is mentioned to enhance the
impression of Abram’s generosity (Gunkel).
_The Historic Value of Chapter 14._――There are obvious reasons
why this chapter should have come to be regarded in some
quarters as a ‘shibboleth’ between two opposite schools of Old
Testament criticism (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as
illustrated by the Monuments_, 165). The narrative is unique
in this respect, that it sets the figure of Abraham in the
framework of world-history. It is the case that certain features
of this framework have been confirmed, or rendered credible,
by recent Assyriological discoveries; and by those who look to
archæological research to correct the aberrations of literary
criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating
the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving
that the criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance
must be vitiated by some radical fault of method. How far that
sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The
question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not
yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however,
to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to
ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads.
The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the
antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the
following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of
places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible
to later readers, and required identification by explanatory
glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not
in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the
narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote
past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could
find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim,
etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions,
is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the
argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved
in the use of the name Dan (see on verse ¹⁴). The presence of
archæological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this
way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete
or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of
casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a
somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption
that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps
documentary) material, though of what nature that material was
it is impossible to determine.¹――(2) The general verisimilitude
of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question
that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed
before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as
is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of
historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine
presupposed by the record――a number of petty kingships striving
to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary
alliances for that purpose――harmonises with all we know of
the political condition of the country before the Israelitish
occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the
writer’s knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be
acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the
Conquest in the Book of Joshua.――(3) The consideration most
relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from
Assyriology that the names in verse ¹ are historical. The
evidence on this question has been given on page 257 ff., and
need not be here recapitulated. We have seen that every one
of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent
Assyriologist (see, further, Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_²,
I. ii. page 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified
to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps
premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same
time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and
it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings
who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in
this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still
undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but
there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to
be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow
that the author’s information is derived ultimately either
from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the
Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic
history in verse ¹ being thus admitted, we have to inquire how
far this enters into the substance of the narrative.
¹ It is to be observed that in no single case is the
correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence
(see verses ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁷). Those who maintain the existence
of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory
of Winckler, who holds that the basis of the narrative is
a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with
the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names
whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See
_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 28 ff. The
question cannot be further discussed here.
Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments
advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character
of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent
improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded.
This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by Nöldeke in
1869 (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_, 156‒172):
the following points may be selected as illustrations of the
difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said
to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for
a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged
object of the campaign,――the chastisement of the Pentapolis.
That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley,
leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a
decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting
march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare,
and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with
the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on page 261).
(b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of
the personal names――especially _Bĕra‛_ and _Birsha‛_ (see on
verse ²), and _Mamre_ and _Eshcol_ (verse ¹³)――are artificial
formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer,
or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of
traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed
writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer’s
army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible.
It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard
action may have taken place; the writer does not _mean_ that;
and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place,
his account is at any rate not historical (see page 267).
(d) It appears to be assumed in verse ³ that the Dead Sea was
formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems
to have been traditional in Israel (compare 13¹⁰), but it is
nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that
that amazing depression in the earth’s surface had existed for
ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the
first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally
several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead
Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not
coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow
southern ‘Lagoon’ (South of _el-Lisān_), which by a partial
subsidence of the ground might have been formed within historic
times.¹ But even if that were the true explanation, the manner
of the statement is not that which would be used by a writer
conversant with the facts.――The improbabilities of the passage
are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are
spread over the entire surface of the narrative; and while their
force may be differently estimated by different minds, it
is at least safe to say that they more than neutralise the
impression of trustworthiness which the precise dates, numbers,
and localities may at first produce.――(2) The second class of
considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency which
characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint
of the writer. It would be easy to show that many of the
improbabilities observed spring from a desire to enhance
the greatness of Abraham’s achievement; and indeed the whole
tendency of the chapter is to set the figure of the patriarch in
an ideal light, corresponding not to the realities of history,
but to the imagination of some later age. Now the idealisation
of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of
tradition; the question is to what period this ideal picture
of Abraham may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by
a number of critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism,
and has its affinities “with Priestly-Code and the midrashic
elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite
historians” (Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 677). Criticism
of this kind is necessarily subjective and speculative. At
first sight it might appear that the conception of Abraham
as a warlike hero is the mark of a warlike age, and therefore
older than the more idyllic types delineated in the patriarchal
legends. That judgement, however, fails to take account of the
specific character of the narrative before us. It is a grandiose
and lifeless description of military operations which are quite
beyond the writer’s range of conception; it contains no trace
of the martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable
ignorance of the conditions of actual warfare; it is essentially
the account of a Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic
campaign for the consolidation of empire. It has been fitly
characterised as the product of a time which “admires military
glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself; and,
having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present, revels
in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in
imagination towards the grotesque; the lack of the political
experience which is to be acquired only in the life of the
independent state produces a condition of mind which can no
longer distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Thus
the passage belongs to an age in which, in spite of a certain
historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk
almost to zero” (Gunkel 255).
¹ Compare Driver’s elaborate Note, page 168 ff.; also Robinson,
_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 187 f.; Gautier,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, i. 576ᵇ.
It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic
element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit.
Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed
into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the
form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from
an external source into the hands of a late author, who used
it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former
alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case)
the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources
of the Pentateuch.¹ The most acceptable form of this theory
is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which
reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (_Neue
kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 929‒951). The expedition, he
thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750
B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have
elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500.
This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple
archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of
the Israelites through David’s conquest of that city. He thus
leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary
document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The
theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged
Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ
(חלק, דיק, חניך) should prove to be relevant. At present, however,
they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be
their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of
a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The
assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of
course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity
or credibility of the narrative can be based.
¹ Page 256 above.
On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support
in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend
the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the
cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names
in verse ¹ are supposed to have been discovered is as late
as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of
the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the
period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and
legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed
approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows
that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary
document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact.
If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession
of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such
a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the
blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of
the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical
material remains undetermined. The names in verse ¹ are
historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken
of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of
conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested――the
figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ, the importance, the
revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the _Kikkār_
and, in short, all the details of the story――are as yet
unattested by any allusion in secular history.
In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real
antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this
matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem;
and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous
and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate
of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from
opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have
shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail
which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary
record of fact. All that the archæologist can pretend to have
proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent
with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the
monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be
the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics
are perfectly prepared to admit. Nöldeke, who has stated the
case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any
man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that
nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and
allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional
(_op. cit._ 159 f.).¹ Assyriology has hardly done more as yet
than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It
is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts
for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual
discoveries.
¹ The same admission was made by Wellhausen as long ago as
1889 (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 310). In view of the
persistent misrepresentations of critical opinion, it is not
unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of the
names in verse ¹ has not been denied by any leading critic
(_e.g._ Ewald, Nöldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen), even before
the discoveries of later years.――For an exposure of Sayce’s
extraordinary travesty of Nöldeke’s arguments, the reader
should consult Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction
and Notes_⁷, _Addenda_ to page 173.
* * * * *
=22.= הֲרִמֹתִי] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_.――=23.=
On the אִם of negative asseveration, § 149 _a_, _c_. The second
וְאִם, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX
or Vulgate.――=24.= בִּלְעָדַי literally ‘not unto me!’ (in Hexateuch
only 41¹⁶ᐧ ⁴⁴ [Elohist], Joshua 22¹⁹ [late]). LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have read בִּלְעֲדֵי רַק as a compound
prepositional phrase (= ‘except’).
* * * * *