FROM-THE- LIBRARY OF
TWNITYCOLLEGE TORONTO
[International Critical C0mnuntarg
0n % |Mg Scriptures 0f % (lfr attfr
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
THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.
Professor of Theological Encyclopedia 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
A. T. ; De Wette s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
N. T. ; Meyer s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ; Keil and
Delitzsch s Biblischer Commentar ilber das A. T. ; Lange s
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack s Handkommentar
zum A. T. ; Holtzmann s Handkommentar zum N. T. 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 enter
prise, 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.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
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 th
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 discuss
ing 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 Archaeological 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 con
stitute 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 oi
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 Pro
fessor 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 Theol
ogy, 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. CHAS. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Pro-
fessor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Read*
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.LUt., Regius Professor of He
brew. Oxford.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
ISAIAH. Chaps. 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 Inter
pretation 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 Presi
dent 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, Hart
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli
cal 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 Encyclopaedia
ind 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 Testa
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham. [Nuw Ready.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of 9t.
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. WlL-
LOUGHBY 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. ARCH. 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 Biblioal 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 BlGG, 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
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
GENESIS
BY
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., HON. M.A.(CANTAB.)
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS
1910
5
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 sug
gestive 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
archaeological questions, which the present state of scholar
ship 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 aesthetic 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
VIII PREFACE
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 neces
sary 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 atten
tion 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 under
taking required. It will probably appear to some that the
analysis is pushed further than is warranted, and that dupli
cates 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
PREFACE IX
differences of representation or language assume a signifi
cance 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 archaeological experts. It is naturally difficult to
estimate the worth of such an anticipation ; and it is advis
able 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 archaeologist,
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 imagina
tion, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the life and
soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be neces
sary, 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 en
deavoured 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 parti-
X PREFACE
cular verse in consecutive notes running 1 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 archae
ology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to
give effect.
JOHN SKINNER.
CAMBRIDGE,
April 1910.
CONTENTS.
PAGES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xm-xx
INTRODUCTION ....... i-lxvii
i. Introductory: Canonical Position of the Book its
general Scope and Title .... i
A. NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
2. History or Legend? ..... in
3. Myth and Legend Foreign Myths Types of mythical
Motive ...... viii
4. Historical Value of the Tradition . . . xiii
5. Preservation and Collection of the Traditions . . xxviii
B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
6. Plan and Divisions ..... xxxii
7. The Sources of Genesis ..... xxxiv
8. The collective Authorship of J and E . . . xliii
9. Characteristics ofj and E their Relation to Literary
Prophecy ...... xlvii
10. Date and Place of Origin Redaction of JE . . Hi
ii. The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction . . Ivii
COMMENTARY ....... 1-540
EXTENDED NOTES :
The Divine Image in Man . . . . . 31
The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath ... 38
Babylonian and other Cosmogonies . . . 4 I ~5
The Site of Eden ...... 62-66
The Protevangelium ..... 80
The Cherubim ...... 89
Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend . . 90-97
Origin of the Cain Legend ..... 111-115
The Cainite Genealogy ..... 122-124
The Chronology of Ch. 5, etc. .... 134-139
The Deluge Tradition . . . . 174-181
Noah s Curse and Blessing . . . . 185-187
The Babel Legend ...... 228-231
XII CONTENTS
Chronology of i i 10ff> 233
Historic Value of Ch. 14 . . . 271-276
Circumcision .... 296
The Covenant-Idea in P . . 297
Destruction of the Cities of the Plain . . 310
The Sacrifice of Isaac . . . . 331
The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting . . 402
The Legend of Peniel . . . . 411
The Sack of Shechem . . . . . 421
The Edomite Genealogies . 436
The Degradation of Reuben . . . . 515
The Fate of Simeon and Levi .... 518
The "Shiloh" Prophecy of 49 10 . . 521-524
The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes . . 534
INDEX I. English ...... 541-548
II. Hebrew . 54 8 ~5S J
ABBREVIATIONS.
i. SOURCES (see pp. xxxivff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.
E Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative.
J . . . . Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative.
JE . . Jehovist, or the combined narrative of J and E.
P or PC . . The Priestly Code.
PS The historical kernel or framework of P (see p. Ivii).
R E ^
I Redactors within the schools of E, J, and P,
RP J respectively.
RJE . . . The Compiler of the composite work JE.
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.
0. . . . ,, ,, ,, Theodotion.
S. . . . ,, ,, ,, Symmachus.
Gr.-Ven. . . Codex Grsecus Venetus (i4th or i5th cent.).
& The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the OT (ed.
A. E. Brooke and N. M Lean, Cambridge,
1906).
<Bi L . . . Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde,
Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars
prior Greece y etc. (1883).
(A. B, E. M.etc . Codices of <& (see Brooke and M Lean, p. v).
3L . Old Latin Version.
& The Syriac Version (Peshitta).
JUA . , . The Samaritan Recension of the Pent. (Walton s
London Polyglott ).
E The Targum of Onkelos [and cent. A.D.] (ed.
Berliner, 1884).
&J . The Targum of Jonathan [8th cent. A.D.] (ed.
Ginsburger, 1903).
y . . . The Vulgate.
xm
XIV
ABBREVIATIONS
2. COMMENTARIES.
Ayles . . H. H. B. Ayles, A critical Commentary on Genesis
ii. 4-iii. 25 (1904).
Ba[ll] . . . C. J. Ball, The Book of Genesis : Critical Edition of
the Hebrew Text printed in colours . . . with
Notes ( 1 896). See SBO T.
Ben[nett] . . W. H. Bennett, Genesis (Century Bible).
Calv[in] . . Mosis Libri V cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis.
Genesis seorsum, etc. (1563).
De[litzsch] . . F. Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar iiber die Genesis
(5th ed. 1887).
Di[llmann] . . Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erkldrt
von A. Dillmann (6th ed. 1892). The work
embodies frequent extracts from earlier edns. by
Knobel : these are referred to below as " Kn.-Di."
Dr[iver] . . The Book of Genesis "with Introduction and Notes,
by S. R. Driver (yth ed. 1909).
Gu[nkel] . . Genesis iibersetzt und erkldrt, von H. Gunkel (2nd
ed. 1902).
Ho[lzing-er]. . Genesis erkldrt, von H. Holzinger (1898).
lEz. . . . Abraham Ibn Ezra (t r. 1167).
Jer[ome], Qu. . Jerome (t 420), Qucestiones sive Traditiones hebraicce
in Genesim.
Kn[obel] . . A. Knobel.
Kn.-Di. . . See DiHlmann].
Ra[shi] . . Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki (t 1105).
Spurrell . . G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of
Genesis (2nd ed. 1896),
Str[ack] . . Die Genesis iibersetzt und ausgelegt, von H. L.
Strack (2nd ed. 1905).
Tu[ch] . . Fr. Tuch, Com mentar iiber die Genesis (2nd ed. 1871).
3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.
Earth, ES . . J. Barth, Etymologische Studien zum sent, insbe-
sondere zum hebr. Lexicon (1893).
,, NB . . Die Xominalbildung in den sem. Sprachen (1889-91).
Barton, SO . . G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902).
B.-D. . . . S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liber Genesis (1869).
The Massoretic Text, with Appendices.
BDB . F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Brig-gs, A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the 07^(1891- ).
Benz[inger], Arch.- I. Benzing-er, Hebrdische Archdologie (2nd ed. 1907).
Ber. R. . . The Midrash Bereshith Rabba (tr. into German by
A. Wiinsche, 1881).
Bochart, Hieroz. . S. Bochartus, Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de
animalibus Sacra Scriptures (ed. Rosenmiiller,
793-96)-
ABBREVIATIONS
XV
Bu[dde], Urg. . K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (1883).
Buhl, GP . . Fr. Buhl, Geographic des alien Palaestina (1896).
, , Geschichte der Edom iter ( 1 893).
Burck[hardt] . Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahdbys.
,, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land.
Che[yne], TB[A]f T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient
Israel (1907).
CIS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (1881 ).
Cook, Gl. . . S. A. Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions
(1898).
Cooke, NS1 . G. A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscrip
tions (1903).
Co[rnill], Einl. . C. H. Cornill, Einleitungin das AT (see p. xl, note).
,, Hist. . History of the People of Israel (Tr. 1898).
Curtiss, PSR . S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day (1902).
Dav[idson] . . A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax.
, , O TTh . The Theology of the OT ( 1 904).
DB . . .A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings
(1898-1902).
Del[itzsch], Hwb . Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handworterbuch
(1896).
,, Par. . Wo lag das Paradies ? Eine biblisch-assyriologische
Studie (1881).
,, Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebrdisch - aramdischen
Worterbuchs zum A T (1886).
,, See BA below.
Doughty, AD . C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta (1888).
Dri[ver], LOT . S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of
the OT (Revised ed. 1910).
,, Sam. . Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel
(1890).
,, T. .A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew (3rd
ed. 1892).
EB . . . Encychpcedia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Cheyne and
J. Sutherland Black (1899-1903).
EEL . . .See Hilprecht.
Ee[rdmans] . B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien :
i. Die Komposition der Genesis.
ii. Die Vorgeschichte Israels.
Erman, LAE . Ad. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (tr. by H. M.
Tirard, 1894).
,, Hdbk. . A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (tr. by A. S.
Griffith, 1907).
Ew[ald], Gr. . H. Ewald, Ausfuhrliches Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache des alien Bundes (8th ed. 1870).
HI . History of Israel [Eng. tr. 1871].
,, Ant. . Antiquities of Israel [Eng. tr. 1876].
Field . . . F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quce supersunt ;
sive Veterum Interpretum Grcecorum in totum
V.T. Fragmenta (1875).
XVI
ABBREVIATIONS
Frazer, AAO
GB
v. Gall, CSt.
G.-B. .
Geiger, Urschr. .
Ges[enius], Th. .
G.-K. .
Glaser, Skizze .
Gordon, ETG
Gray, HPN
Gu[nkel], Schopf.
Guthe, GI .
Harrison, Prol. .
Hilprecht, EBL .
Ho[lzinger], Einl.
or Hex.
Hom[mel], AA .
AHT.
AOD.
,, Gesch.
,, SAChrest.
H-ipflcld], Qu. .
J astro w, RBA .
JE . . .
Je[remias], ATLO 2
Jen[sen], Kosm. .
KAT*.
K AT* .
J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the
history of Oriental Religion (1906).
The Golden Bough ; a Study in Magic and Religion
(2nd ed. 1900).
Folklore in the OT(i^o j).
A. Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstdtten
(1898).
Gesenius Hebrdisches und aramdisches Handworter-
buch liber das AT (i4th ed. by Buhl, 1905).
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel
in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von derinnern Enfoaickelung
des Judenthums (1857).
W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguce
Hebrcece et Chaldace V.T. (1829-58).
Gesenius Hebrdische Grammatik, vollig umgear-
beitet von E. Kautzsch (26th ed. 1896) [Eng.
tr. 1898].
E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie
Arabiens, ii. (1890).
A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (\ 907).
G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (1896).
H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit (1895).
H. Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1899).
Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the study of Greek
Religion (2nd ed. 1908).
H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during
the igth cent, [with the co-operation of Ben-
zinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903).
H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (1893).
F. Hommel, Aufsdtze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-
semitologischen Inhalts (i-iii, 1892- ).
The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments (1897).
Die altorientalischen Denkmdler und das AT ^(1902).
Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1885).
Siid-arabische Chrestomathie (1893).
H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art
ihrer Zusammensetzung (1853).
M. Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria
(1898).
The Jewish Encyclopedia.
A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients (2nd ed. 1906).
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890).
Die Keilinschriften und das AT, by Schrader (2nd
ed. 1883).
Die Keilinschriften und das AT. Third ed., by
Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
ABBREVIATIONS
XVII
Kent, SOT .
KIB .
Kit[tel], BH
GH
K6n[ig], Lgl.
KS .
Kue[nen], Ges. Abh
Lagfarde], Ank. .
Ges. Abh. .
,, Symm.
OS . .
Lane, Lex. .
ME .
Len[ormant], Or.
Levy, CA. JF&. .
Lidz[barski], Hb.
or NSEpigr. .
Lu[ther], INS .
Marquart .
Meyer, Entst.
INS
Muller, AE.
Nestle, MM
No[ldeke], Bzitr.
Unters.
OH
Oehler, ATTh .
Ols. .
b
C. F. Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew
History [Students Old Testament] (1904).
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. by Eb. Schrader
(1889- ).
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Genesis) (1905).
Geschichte der Hebrder (1888-92).
F. E. Konig, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebdude der
hebrdischen Sprache (2 vols., 1881-95).
Historisch - comparative Syntax der hebr. Sprache
(1897).
E. Kautzsch and A. Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer
Unterscheidung der Qtiellenschriften.
A. Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (see p. xl,
note}.
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek . . . (see p. xl, note).
P. A. de Lagarde, Ankundigung einer neuen
A usgabe der griech. Uebersezung des AT(i 882).
Gesammelte Abhandlungen (1866).
Mittheilungen, i-iv (1884-91).
Orientalia, I, 2 (1879-80).
Semitica, i, 2 (1878).
Symmicta, 2 pts. (1877-80).
Onomastica Sacra (1870).
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (1863-93).
An Account of the Manners and Customs of the
Modern Egyptians (5th ed. 1860).
F. Lenormant, Les Origines de Thistoire, (i-iii,
1880-84).
J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch iiber die Targumim
. . . ( 3 rd ed. 1881).
M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi-
graphik (i&).
See Meyer, INS.
J. Marquart, Fundamente israel. undjiid. Geschichte
(1896).
E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (1896).
Geschichte des Alterthums (Bd. i. 1884).
,, ,, ,, (2nd ed. 1909).
Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstdmme^ von E.
Meyer, mit Beitragen von B. Luther (1906).
W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa nach altdgypt-
ischen Denkmdlern (1893).
E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (1893).
Th. Noldeke, Beitrdge zur semitischen Sprach-
Tioissenschaft (1904).
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A T (1869).
Oxford Hexateuch = Carpenter and Harford-
Battersby, The Hexateuch (see p. xl, note).
G. F. Oehler, Theologie des A T (3rd ed. 1891).
J. Olshausen.
XVIII
ABBREVIATIONS
Orr, POT . .
OS
P[ayne] Sm[ith],
Thes.
Petrie . . .
Pro[cksch] . .
Riehm, Hdivb. .
Robinson, BR .
Sayce, EHH .
,, HCM .
SBOT. . .
Schenkel, BL
Schr[ader],
Schultz, OTTh
Schiirer, GJV
Schvv[ally] . .
,,
Smend, A TRG .
GASm[ith], HG .
Rob. Smith, KM*
OTJC*
Pr. 2 .
,, 1ZS 2 .
Spiegelberg .
,,
Sta[de] . .
BTh .
GVI .
Steuern[ag-el],
Einiv. . .
TA
J. Orr, The Problem of the OT(igo6).
See Lagarde.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (1879, 1901).
W. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt.
O. Procksch, Das nordhebrdische Sagenbuch : die
Elohimquelle (1906).
E. C. A. Riehm, Handworterbuch des biblischen
Altertums (2nd ed. 1893-94).
E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine (2nd
ed., 3 vols., 1856).
A. H. Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews
(1897).
The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu
ments (and ed. 1894).
The Sacred Books of the OT, a crit. ed. of the Heb.
Text printed in Colours, under the editorial direc
tion of P. Haupt.
D. Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (1869-75).
Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts-
forschung (1878).
See KA T and KIB above.
H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Eng. tr. 1892).
E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Chrisli (3rd and 4th ed. 1898-
1901).
Fr. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode (1892).
Semitische Kriegsaltertiimer, i. (1901).
R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religions-
geschichte (and ed. 1899).
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land
W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in
Early Arabia (2nd ed. 1903).
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (and ed.
1892).
The Prophets of Israel (2n& ed. 1895).
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (and ed. 1894).
W. Spiegelberg-, Aegyptologische Randglossen zum
^(1904).
Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der
aeg. Monumente (3rd ed. 1904).
B. Stade, Ausgeivahlte akademische Reden und
Abhandlungen (1899).
Biblische Theologie des A T, i. (1905).
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ( \ 887-89).
C. Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen
Stdmme in Kanaan (1901).
Tel-Amarna Tablets [KIB, v ; Knudtzon, Die eU
Amarna Tafeln (1908- )].
ABBREVIATIONS
XIX
Thomson, LB . W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (3 vols.
1 88 1 -86).
Tiele, Gesch. . C. P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum,
i. (German ed. 1896).
Tristram, NHB . H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible
(gth ed. 1898).
We[llhausen], Comp? J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und.
der historischen Biicher des AT (2nd ed. 1889).
,, De gent. De gentibus et familiis Judceis quce i Chr. 2. 4
enumerantur (1870).
Heid. . Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed. 1897).
ProL 6 . Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. 1905).
,, . . Skizzen und Vorarbeiten.
, , TBS . Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (1871).
Wi[nckler], AOF. H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen (1893 ).
,, ATU. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (1892).
,, GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1892).
,, GI . Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen (i. ii., 1895,
1900).
See KA T 3 above.
Zunz, GdV . Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden
(2nd ed. 1892).
4. PERIODICALS, ETC.
AJSL .
AJTh .
ARW .
BA
BS .
Exp. .
ET .
GGA .
GGN .
Heir. .
JBBW
J[S]BL
JPh .
JQR -
JRAS .
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera
tures (continuing Hebraica).
A merican Journal of Theology ( 1 897- ).
A rchiv fur Religionswissenschaft.
Beitrdge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprach-
wissenschaft, herausgegeben von F. Delitzsch und
P. Haupt (1890- ).
Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review ( 1 844 ).
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung (1880 ).
The Expositor.
The Expository Times.
Gottinglsche gelehrte Anzeigen (1753- ).
Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Gottingen.
Hebraica ( 1 884- 95). See AJSL.
[Ewald s] Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft
(1849-1865).
Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and
Exegesis (1881- ).
The Journal of Philology (1872- ).
The Jewish Quarterly Review.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
and Ireland ( 1 834- ).
XX
JTS
MVAG
NKZ .
OLz ,
PA OS.
PEFS .
PSBA .
SBBA .
SK .
ThLz .
ThT .
TSBA .
ZA
ZATW
ZDMG
ZDPV
ZKF .
ZVP .
ABBREVIATIONS
The Journal of Theological Studies (1900- ).
Lit[erarisches] ZentralbT[att fur Deutschland]
(1850- ).
Monatsberichte der konigl. preuss. Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Continued in Sitzungs-
berichte der k. p. Ak. . . . (1881- ).
Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft
(1896- ).
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (1890- ).
Orient alische Litteraturzeitung (1898- ).
Proceeding s [Journal] of the American Oriental
Society (1851- ).
Palestine Exploration Fund : Quarterly Statements.
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology
(1878- ).
See MBBA above.
Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1828- ).
Theologische Litteraturzeitung (i^b- ).
Theologisch Tijdschrift (\%&i- ).
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archceology.
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie (1886- ).
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
(1881- ).
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesell-
Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina- Vereins (i8j8- ).
Zeitschrift fiir Keilschrif tsforschung ( 1884-85).
Zeitschrift fiir Volkerpsychologie und Sprach-wissen-
schaft (1860- ).
NH
v.i.
v.s.
*
N
y
in
5. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.
. New Hebrew : the language of the Mishnah,
Midrashim, and parts of the Talmud.
. . vide infra \ Used in references from commentary
. . vide supra / to footnotes, and vice versa.
. . Frequently used to indicate that a section is of
composite authorship.
. . After OT references means that all occurrences of
the word or usage in question are cited.
. . Root or stem.
. . Sign of abbreviation in Heb. words.
. . = noui = and so on : used when a Heb. citation
is incomplete.
INTRODUCTION.
I. 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 Ki. 25 30 ).
The tripartite division of the Jewish Canon has severed the
later portion of this work (Jos. -Kings), under the title of
the "Former Prophets" (n^l^Xin D &rajn), from the earlier
portion (Gen.-Deut.), which constitutes the Law (minn), a
seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Torah
having attained canonical authority soon after its com
pletion in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity
of the Prophetical scriptures was not recognised till some
centuries later. * How soon the division of the Torah into
its five books (minn Win npn : * 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 Pent.f In the case of Genesis, at all events,
* See Ryle, Canon of the OT, chs. iv. v. ; Wildeboer, Origin of the
Canon of the OT 2 , 27 ff., 101 ff. ; Buhl, Kanon und Text des AT, 8 f. ;
Budde, art. Canon, in EB, and Woods, OT Canon, in DB.
t Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. pp. 7, 331. The earliest external evidence
of the fivefold division is Philo, De Abrah., init. (Tdij> icpwi/ vbpuv iv irtvre
/3i/3Xois avaypcKptvTuv, TJ Trpum; /caXeircu /cai ^7riypd(f)Tai IVi ea is, dirb TTJS rov
KOV/J.OV 7ej^crea>s, ty iv dpxfj 7rept^x f Aa^oOcra TT\V irpdaprjaiv xaLroi KT\.) ;
Jos. c. Ap. i. 39. It is found, however, in JUJL and ffi, and seems to
have served as a model for the similar division of the Psalter. That it
II INTRODUCTION
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 con
trasted 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 Pent., except
Deut., which so readily lends itself to monographic treatment.
Genesis may thus be described as the__Bppk of Hebrew
Origins. It is a peculiarity of the Pent, 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 (chs. 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 con
nected with them. But this is preceded (in chs. i-n) 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 Vulg. from
the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply TeWcs (ffir EM - <="),
rarely 77 ytveais (Ox 72 ), a contraction of lY^eo-is Kfxruov (<& A 121 ). An
follows natural lines of cleavage is shown by Kuenen (II. cc.) ; and there
is no reason to doubt that it is as old as the canonisation of the Torah.
INTRODUCTION 111
interesting variation in one curs. (129) ij /3t /3\os rCtv yevtffeuv (cf. a 4 5 1 )*
might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view the series of
TolVdoth (see p. 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. f So also in Syriac (sephra dabritha), Theod. Mopsu.
(i) Krlffis), and occasionally among the Rabb. (m K nED). The common
Jewish designation is rrtftna, after the first word of the book (Origen, in
Euseb. HE, vi. 25 ; Jerome, Prol. gal., and Qucest. in Gen.} ; less usual is
ps?Nn ODin, the first fifth. Only a curious interest attaches to the
unofficial appellation nsrn ~\3D (based on 2 Sa. i 18 ) or onjrn o (the
patriarchs) see Carpzov, Introd. p. 55 j Delitzsch, 10.
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 con
temporary 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
* Cambridge Septuagint, p. i.
t See the quotation from Philo on p. i above ; and cf. Pseudo
Athanasius L)e svnop. script, sac. 5.
IV INTRODUCTION
history in this sense, we see from the story of David s court
in 2 Sa. and the beginning- of i 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 emerg-es 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 in
stinctive 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 experi
ences in which it first woke up to the consciousness of a
national existence and destiny.*
* Comp. 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."
INTRODUCTION V
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 ex
pression of the imperishable truths which have come to it
through its experience of God.
Thejegendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears -in, such
characteristics as these : (i) 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. Noldeke, indeed, has
VI INTRODUCTION
shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so
defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabatseans and
Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.* (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 (Di. 218). We may assume
that the scene at the well of Harran (ch. 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 (i2 10ff - || 2O lff> || 26 6fft ; 16. || 2i 8ff - ;
15. || 17, etc.). (3) The subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind con-
| genial to the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different from
1 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, f 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 appear
ance of history in this respect is ch. 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 p. 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
* A malekiter, p. 25 f.
f Cf. Wi. Abraham als Babylonier, 7.
INTRODUCTION Vll
the scientific knowledge of our time ; * 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 accom
modated 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 primaeval (chs. i-u)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.! 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.
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 pro
portions 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 archaeology 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 con
sider later ( 4), after we have examined the obviously
legendary motives which enter into the tradition. Mean
while the previous discussion will have served its purpose
*SeeDri. XXXI ff. 19 ff.
t See Reuss, Gesch. d. heiL Schr. AT 2 , 167 f.
viil INTRODUCTION
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.*
3. Myth and legend Foreign myths Types of
mythical motive*
i. 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 OT abundant confirmation of their thesis, f
The more prevalent view has been that the mythopceic
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.
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see Tuch, pp.
i-xv; Gu. p. xvn ; Hoffding, Phil, of ReL (Eng. tr.), 199 ff. ; Gordon,
77 ff. ; Procksch, Nordhebr. Sagenbuch, I. etc. The practically im
portant 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
* On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the admirable
statement of A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis , pp. 76-92.
t Goldziher, Der Mythos bei den Hebrdern (1876).
INTRODUCTION IX
solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative of the sun-god (see
p. i8of.). But the utility of this distinction is largely neutralised by a
universal tendency to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men
(Sargon of Agade, 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
(setiological) myths ; and, while recognising the existence of the latter
in Genesis, considers that the former type is hardly represented in the
OT at all. The distinction is important, though it may be doubted if
aetiology 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
aetiological or some similar motive is prominent (see p. xiff.).
2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent
in the primitive traditions of chs. i-n. 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 (pp. 45 ff., 177 f.). A similar relation obtains between
the antediluvian genealogy of ch. 5 and Berossus s list of
the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood
(p. 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 (p. 90 ff.). Both here and in ch. 4
a few isolated coincidences with Phoenician 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 concep
tion of godhead still appears (i 26 3 22 - 24 6 lff - n lff -), 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.
X INTRODUCTION
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 Pent, sources.*
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 trans
mission, 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.! 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 1 been
interposed between the Bab. 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 Gu. 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 Bab. material by a Hebrew writer ; and the assump
tion that such a writer in the later period would have been repelled by
the gross polytheism of the Bab. 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 Heb. antiquity extending" much further back than the ag-e of
written prophecy, and the present form of the legends is more intel
ligible 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 ap
proximate date, of this infusion of Bab. elements into the religious
tradition of Israel.
It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit no traces
of Bab. 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 p. 302 f.), and the destruction of Sodom (p. 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
* See Bu. Urg. (1883), 515 f.; Kuenen, ThT, xviii. (1884), 167 ff. ;
Rosters, ib. xix. (1885), 325 ff., 344; Sta. ZATW (1895), I 59 f., (1903),
175 ff-
\Schopfung und Chaos (1895), 143 ff. ; Gen. 2 (1902), 64 f. Cf.
Dri. 31.
INTRODUCTION XI
and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (p. 359), which is repeated
in the case of Zerah and Perez (ch. 38). The whole story of Jacob
and Esau presents several points of contact with that of the brothers
Hypsouranios (Samem-rum) and Usoos in the Phoenician mythology
(Usoos = Esau : see pp. 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric
variant of the incest of Reuben (p. 427). These phenomena are among
the most perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradi
tion.* 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 (p. ix), to mingle myth
with legend by transferring mythical incidents to historic personages.
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 (p. 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.!
(a) The most comprehensive category is that of cetiological or ex
planatory myths ; i.e., those which explain some familiar fact of experi- \
ence by a story of the olden time. Both the questions asked and the
answers returned are frequently of the most naive and childlike descrip
tion : they have, as Gu. 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 chs. 2. 3, which con
tains one explicit instance of aetiology (2 24 : 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. (p. 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
aetiology are practically confined to the first eleven chapters ; but the
same general idea pervades the patriarchal history, specialised under
the headings which follow.
* See Gu. p. LVI.
t The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken, with
some simplification, from Gu. p. xvm ff.
Xll INTRODUCTION
(b) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal narra
tives, is what may be called ethnographic leg-ends. It is an obvious
feature of the narratives that the heroes of them are frequently per
sonifications of tribes and peoples, whose character and history and
mutual relationships are exhibited under the guise of individual bio
graphy. Thus the pre-natal struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the
rivalry of two nations (25 23 ) ; the monuments set up by Jacob and
Laban mark the frontier between Israelites and Aramaeans (3i 44ff> ) ;
Ishmael is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (i6 12 ), 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 (cf. the Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus,
Aeolus, Achaeus, Ion, of the Greeks) ; * 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 in
credible ; 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 occa
sion to return at a later point (see p. xixff.).
(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, ch. 17 [but cf. Ex. 4 24ff> ] ; the abstinence from eating the
sciatic nerve, 32 33 ). 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 (2I 33 ), Jacob at Bethel with the reason for
anointing the sacred stone, and the institution of the tithe (28 10ff -), and
at Peniel (32 24fr> ) ; 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
* See Dri. 112 ; Gordon, ETC, 88.
INTRODUCTION Xlll
suffers it to appear that the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch
(see on I2 6 ). 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. Specula-
lation 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, ch. 30), or to have as many as three sug
gestions of its historic origin (Ishmael, i6 H ly 20 2i 17 ; Isaac, 17" i8 12 2i 9 ).
To claim literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.
(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 personifica
tion, 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 (ch. 49) with
their appearance in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren.
In the former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the char
acters 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 (p. vii) that there are three
chief ways in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradi-
XIV INTRODUCTION
tion 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 archaeological evidence. It will be con
venient to start with the last of these, and consider what is
known about
i. The historical background of the patriarchal traditions.
The period covered by the patriarchal narratives * 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 ch. 14, that Abraham was contemporary
with Hammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian
dynasty. The date of Hammurabi is probably c. 2100 B.c.f
* The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal tradi
tion, because it is only with regard to it that the question of essential
historicity arises. Every one admits that the pre-historic chapters
(i-n) stand on a different footing-, and there are few who would claim
for them the authority of a continuous tradition.
t The date here assigned to Hammurabi is based on the recent
investigations of Thureau-Dangin {Journal des Savants [1908], 190 ff. ;
ZA, xxi. [1908], 176 ff.), and Ungnad (OLz. [1908], 13 ff.); with whom
Poebel (ZA, 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 Bab. 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
(GA Z , i. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold that the Third (Kaite) 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 (i) that Ilima-ilu, the founder of the Second
dynasty, was contemporary with Samsu-iluna and Abi-esV, the 7th and
8th kings of the First dynasty ; and (2) that Ea-gamil, the last king of
INTRODUCTION XV
The lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is
usually assigned (as it must be if Ex. i 11 is genuine) to the
reign of Merneptah of the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty
(c. 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 chron
ology assigns nearly the same date as above to Abraham,
but a much earlier one for the Exodus (c. 1490), and reduces
the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan to 215 years;
since, however, the chronological system rests on artificial
calculations (see pp. 135^, 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.*
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of
writers, this period of history has been so illumined by
the Second dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Kas gite
(king?), Kas tilias . Now, Kas tiliaS is the name of the 3rd king of the
Kasite dynasty ; and the question is whether this Katilia is to be
identified with the contemporary of Ea-gamil. Th.-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 Kas s ite kings (8th to i5th), where the name of
Kas tilias may have stood. Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gamil
with the third KaSite 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 Dri. GenJ xxvn. ff. (with lists). King believes that his
date for yammurabi (c. 1958-1916) facilitates the identification of that
monarch with the Amraphel of Gn. 14 (see p. 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 ca-n be allowed
to this consideration.
* Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Ex. i 11 ) put back to
c. 1450 B.C. (Hommel, ET, x. [1899], 210 ff. ; Orr, POT, 4226.); while
Eerdmans would bring it down to c. 1125 B.C. (Vorgeschichte Israels,
74 ; Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Wi. al.)
identified with a minister of Amenophis IV. (c. 1380-1360), by Eerdmans
with a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty (c. 1205).
See p. 501 f.
XVI INTRODUCTION
recent discoveries that it is no longer possible to doubt the
essential historicity of the patriarchal tradition."* It is
admitted that no externa 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
archaeology 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 Habiri (see p. 218). It tells us that
Jakob-el (and Joseph-el ?) was the name of a place in Canaan
in the first half of the i5th cent. (pp. 360, 389 f.), and that
Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200 B.C.; also that
Hebrews ( f Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from
the time of Ramses n. to that of Ramses iv. (Heyes, Bib.
u. Aeg. 146 ff. ; Eerdmans, I.e. 52 ff. ; Exp. I.e. 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 bio-
* Jeremias, ATLO~, 365 : " Wir haben gezeig-t, dass das Milieu der
Vaterg-eschichten in alien Einzelheiten zu den altorientalischen Kultur-
verhaltnissen stimmt, die uns die Denkmaler fur die in Betracht kom-
menden Zeit bezeugen."
INTRODUCTION XV11
graphics 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.* 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 over
stated
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
Hammurabi ; these customs had entirely ceased in Israel under the
monarchy ; consequently the narratives could not have been invented
by legend-writers of that period (Je. ATLO 2 , 355 ff.). The strongest
case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Cod. Hamm. 146 to
the position of Hagar as concubine-slave in ch. 16 (below, p. 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 OT, 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 patriarchial period because two are men
tioned in Gen. and none at all in the rest of the OT ? 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
* 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 Je. (ATLO 2 , 298 ff.) quotes at length in demonstra
tion of their verisimilitude. W T hile the latter is full of detailed informa
tion about the people among whom the writer lived, the former (except
in chs. 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (24 3 37 15fl ) to the aboriginal
population of Palestine proper. Luther (INS, i56f.) even maintains
that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at this time an unin
habited 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?
b
XV111 INTRODUCTION
question (Lv. i8 18 ) is late ; and does not its enactment in the PC rather
imply that the practice against which it is directed survived in Israel
till the close of the monarchy ? The distinction between the mohar, or
purchase price of a wife, and the gift to the bride (* .), should not be
cited : the mohar is an institution everywhere prevailing- in early pastoral
societies; it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Ex. 22 16 ) ; its name is
not old Babylonian ; and even its transmutation into personal service
is in accordance with Arab practice (p. 383 below). In short, it does
not appear that the examples given differ from another class of usages,
"die nicht spezifisch altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spatern bez.
intergentilen Rechtszustanden entsprechen, die aber . . . wenigstens
teilweise eine interessante Beleuchtungdurchden Cod. Hamm. erfahren."
The "interessante Beleuchtung" will be freely admitted.
Still less has the new knowledge of the political circumstances of
Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the patriarchal tradi
tion, 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 archaeology can inform us, a positive anachronism. On the
whole it must be said that archaeology has in this region created more
problems than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yakob-el in
the time of Thothmes in., of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses II., and
of Israel under Merneptah ; the appearance of Hebrews (Habiri?) in
Palestine in the 15th cent., 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 ch. 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 imita
tion 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 (p.zyiff.). Here, however, it is in point to observe
that even if the complete historicity of ch. 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
* See S. A. Cook, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 79 f.
INTRODUCTION XIX
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 ch. 14.
^ 2. Ethnological theories. The negative conclusion ex
pressed above (p. 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 tran
script of actual family life in that remote age, and therefore
susceptible of illustration from private law as we find it
embodied in the Cod. Hamm. 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 ; * 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 ex
ponents 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 sub
sisting, or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in
Canaan ; f 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 atten-
* Hist, oflsr. i. 363, 382, etc.
f So We. Prol. 6 319 ff. [Eng. tr. 318 ff], Isr. undjiid. Gesch. n ff. ;
Sta. GVI, i. 145 ff., ZATW, i. naff., 347 ff.
XX INTRODUCTION
tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth
in the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
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 reinforce
ment 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 (Hist, of
Israel, 29 if.).
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 (p. 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 relation
ships of the patriarchs only lands us in confusion.* The
* Guthe (GVI, 1-6) has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks
can be used (with tact !) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology
INTRODUCTION XXI
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, 37 14ff - : 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 relation
ships between them (e.g. Jacob s journey to Harran : p.
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 Harran (or Ur) can hardly be inter
preted 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 en
forced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in advance
of the rest (see p. 441).
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 as
signing ethnological significance to incidents which origin
ally 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 embarass it. Each system has some
plausible and attractive features ; but each, to avoid ab
surdity, has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent
extension of its principles. The consequence is endless
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
XX11 INTRODUCTION
diversity in detail, and no agreement even in general out
line.*
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 Aramaean. About the middle of the millennium we
find the first notices of the Aramaeans as nomads in what is now the
Syro-Arabian desert. Shortly afterwards the Habiri make their appear
ance 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 Aramaeans. 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, be
cause neither is ever brought into contact with the Aramaeans ; Rebekah
is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by the chronology, unless
(with Corn.) we bring down his date to c. 1500, or (with Steuer.) 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
Habiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation of two
traditions, one tracing his nativity to Harran 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 Habiri, and the other might
have taken place as early as the age of Hammurabi. But these are
speculations no whit more reliable than any of those dealt with above ;
and it has to be confessed that as yet archaeology has furnished no
sure basis for the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permis
sible 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, f
* Luther (ZATW, 1901, 366.) wives a conspectus of four leading-
theories (We. Sta. Gu. Corn.), 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, Eimvanderung der. Isr.
Stcimme ; Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 45 ff. ; Procksch, Nordhebr. Sagen-
buch, 330 ff. etc. What Grote has written about the allegorical inter
pretation 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" (Hist, of Greece, ed. 1888, p. 2).
f To the whole class of theories considered above (those which try to
go behind the Exodus), Luther (I.e. 44 f.) objects that they demand a
continuous occupation of Palestine from the time when the legends were
INTRODUCTION XX111
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 accre
tions some elements of actual reminiscence of the pre
historic movements which determined the subsequent
development of the national life.* 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
formed. He hints at a solution, which has been adopted in principle by
Meyer (INS, 127 ff., 415, 433), and which if verified would relieve some
difficulties, archaeological 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 Aramaeans, 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 (chs. 34. 38. 48 22 ) ; 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.
* Cf. Winckler, KAT*, 204: " Es ist namlich immer wahrschein-
licher, dass ein grosses fur die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend
gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem Gedachtniss besser
crhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten seines Herganges."
XXIV INTRODUCTION
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 (#) the religious significance of the tradi
tion.
(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 trans
parently 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 reg-ard themselves as their children ; and in course of time the
gods mig-ht 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 super
human 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 Yizhak-el, etc.) are also most naturally explained
as tribal designations. Meyer, after long vacillation, has come to the
conclusion that they are divine names (INS, 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
INTRODUCTION XXV
(Yakub-ilu, Ya$up-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 p. 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 idealisa
tion. 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 oe.*
* Cf. Hoffding, Phil, of Rel. 199*?. : " 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 naive personification and
colouring. . . ."
XXVI INTRODUCTION
(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 Harran 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 signi
ficance 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 tradi
tion 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 (Is. 4i 8f ). 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
INTRODUCTION XXV11
nature to evoke that centripetal * intensification of memory
which Hoffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and
the preserving salt of legend as contrasted with myth. In
the second place, the appearance of a prophetic person
ality, 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 founda
tion 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 Hammurabi,
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 Harran, the two great centres of the worship of Sin,
migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of Hammurabi 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 tradi-
XXVlil INTRODUCTION
tion 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,
ATLO 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 ! cf. 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 Harran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and else
where, 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
unchang-ed as it passes from mouth to mouth.* 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 under
stand, in some measure, the circumstances of their origin.
The older stratum of the primaeval 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 narra-
* Cf. Gu. p. XXXII, to whose fine appreciation of the " Kunstform
der Sagen " this is greatly indebted.
INTRODUCTION XXIX
tion 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 birth
right, 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.
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 pro
ductions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable
stamp of individual genius (Gu. p. 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: (i) 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 con
serve 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
XXX INTRODUCTION
process of transmission and consolidation related to the
use of writing? Was the work of collecting and syste-
matising 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, (i) 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 pre
sumption 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 under
stand 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.*
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
p. 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 com
pilation 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 consider
able period of time to have elapsed between the formation
* See Gilbert Murray, Rise of the Greek Epic, p. 92 ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXI
of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of J and
E. 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 : * the sanctuaries were at least the obvious re
positories 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.f 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 propaga
tion of the national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume,
with Gu., 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 enter
tainment 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 pre
supposes 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 require
ments of the case.
We may here refer to a matter of great importance in its bearing 1
on the possibility of accurate oral transmissiori of the leg-ends : 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,
*Cf. Sta. ZATW, i. 347 ff.
f Pro., however (392 f. ), suggests Shiloh as the place where the
national legend was developed.
XXxii INTRODUCTION
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 Gu. (p.
xxixf.) and Pro. (21 off.), and it is certain to evoke interesting dis
cussion. 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 rigor
ously 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 disentangle
ment 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
Ewald * put an end to the Fragmentary Hypothesis of
* Die Kompositlon 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 (SK, 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
INTRODUCTION XXX111
Geddes and Vater. The ruling- idea of the book, as has
already been briefly indicated (p. 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. * 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 accommo
dated. The method consistently followed is the progressive
isolation of the main line of Israel s descent by brief genea
logical summaries of the collateral branches of the human
family which diverge from it at successive points.
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by the
editor s practice of inserting- the collateral genealogies (Tdl&ddth) at the
close of the principal sections (i i 10 30 ; 25 12 18 ; 36). f This yields a natural
and convenient division into four approximately equal parts, namely :
I. The Primaeval History of mankind : i.-xi.J
II. The History of Abraham : xii. i-xxv. 18.
III. The History of Jacob : xxv. ig-xxxvi. 43.
IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren : xxxvii.-L
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.
* See Tuch, XVI ff.
t The genealogies of 4 17 * 24 - 2M - and 22 20 24 do not count : these are
not T6l&d6th, and do not belong- to the document used as a framework.
Ch. 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 n 10
to find room for the story of the Dispersion (n 1 9 ). It may be said,
however, that the TolMdth of Adam (ch. 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 primaeval history as
one section.
Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at n 27 or w ; but the
actual division of chapters has its recommendation, and it is not worth
while to depart from it.
XXXIV INTRODUCTION
A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement of
the various sections.
It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has
marked the headings of the various sections by the formula m-r/ifl njrt<[i],
which occurs eleven times in the book: 2 4 *5 1 *6 9 lo 1 n 10 n 2 * 25 25*
36 3b 9 37 2 . Transposing a 4 * to the beginning, and disregarding 36 9
(both arbitrary proceedings), we obtain ten parts; and these are
actually adopted by De. as the divisions of his commentary. But the
scheme is of no practical utility, for it is idle to speak of u 10 * 2 * or
25 12 " 1 * as sections of Genesis on the same footing as 25 19 -35 29 or 37 2 ~5o 26 ;
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 TolVdoth, those of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall
under the TdlMolh of their respective fathers. See, further, p. 40 f.
7. The Sotirces 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,! to the
important discovery which was the first positive achievement
in this department of research. Having noticed the signifi
cant 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 B^N, and the other by the use of nj!t| ;
while a series of fragmentary passages where this criterion
failed him brought the total number of his memoires up to
twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise
the magnitude of this discovery, which Eichhorn J 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 Ex. 2,
partly because they were influenced by the traditional opinion
(afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,
* nnVin 150 ni.
f Conjectures sur les me moires originaux, dont il paroit que Moyse
sest servi pour composer le livre de la Genese.
Einleitung in das AT, 1780-3 (ist ed.).
INTRODUCTION XXXV
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.
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
Vns. (especially (3r) show the MT to be so unreliable that no analysis of
documents can be based on its data : see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch
(1893), p. 20 ff. ; Dahse, ARW, vi. (1903), 305 ff. ; Redpath, AJT/i, viii.
(1904), 286 ff.; Eerdmans, Comp. d. Gen. (1908), 34 ff. ; Wiener, BS
(1909), iigff. 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, (i)
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 fflr and MT. In Genesis the divine name
occurs in one or other form about 340 times (in MT, m,v 143 1. + D nWc
177 t. + N 20 1.). 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 ( is demonstrably right against MT. 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 KJ and 6s greater than between nirr and D H^K, or even
between " and N, and (b) a change of divine names more apt to occur in
translation than in transcription, but (c) the distinction between a
proper name mrv and a generic D n^K is much less likely to have been
overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives Kvptos and
0e6s. An instructive example is 4 26 , where <& Kvpios 6 6e6s is demon
strably 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 Gen. <& substitutes 0e6s for m,T 21 times, and
Kupios 6 6e6$ 19 times (40 in all), there are only 4 cases of Ktipios and 6 of
Kijpios 6 6eos for D nSx (10 in all: the proportions being very much the
same for the whole Pent.). < thus reveals a decided (and very natural)
preference for the ordinary Greek 0e6s over the less familiar
XXXVI INTRODUCTION
Dahse urges (p. 308) that MT betrays an equally marked preference
for m,T, and has frequently substituted it for D n^x ; but that is much less
intelligible. For although the pronunciation of m.T as fig might have
removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton, and that would be a very
good reason for leaving mrv 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 (Num. p. 311), that "wherever [6] /cs
appears in (Er it deserves attention as a possible indication of the
original text." (4) The documentary theory furnishes a better explana
tion of the alternation of the names than any other that has been
propounded. Redpath s hypothesis of a double recension of the Pent.,
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 MT (and JUA) 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
p. xlviii f.) on the services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems.
(5) It was frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see Ond. i. pp. 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 throug h
a too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.* Nevertheless the
opinion can be maintained that the MT is far superior to the Vns., 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
* It should be clearly understood that as regards P and J the dis
tinction of divine names is but one of many marks of diverse authorship
(see Dri. LOT 8 , 131 if., where more than fifty such distinguishing
criteria are given), and that after Ex. 6, where this particular criterion
disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as before. As regards J
and E, the analysis, though sometimes dependent on the divine names
alone, is generally based on other differences as well.
INTRODUCTION XXXV11
MT 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 (Er instead of MT ; 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.
The next great step towards the modern documentary
theory of the Pent, was Hupfeld s* demonstration that DTt^K
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 j
critics that there was a second Elohistic source (now called
E), closely parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (J), and that
both J and E 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 : P), whose outlines were then first drawn
with a clearness to which later investigation has had little
to add.f
Though Hupfeld s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of the
utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pent, as a whole. In par-
* Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusamtnensetzung (1853).
Hupfeld s discovery had partly been anticipated by llgen (Urkunden
des ersten Bucks von Moses [1798]). Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld,
criticism had passed through two well-defined phases : the Fragmentary
Hypothesis (see p. xxxiif. 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 Pent, was necessarily supplied
by its oldest source ; partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld
dispelled ; and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so inter
laced 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.
t See Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT, 1869, pp. 1-144.
It is worthy of mention here that this great scholar, after long resisting
the theory of the late origin of P, has at last declared his acceptance of
the position of We. (see ZA, 1908, 203).
XXXvill INTRODUCTION
ticular, it brought to light a fact which at once explains why Genesis
presents a simpler problem to analysis than the rest of the Pent., and
furnishes a final proof that the avoidance of m.v by two of the sources
was not accidental, but arose from a theory of religious development
held and expressed by both writers. For both P (Ex. 6 2ff -) and E (Ex.
3 13ff -) 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.* Consistency demanded that these
writers should use the generic name for Deity up to this point ; while J,
who was bound by no such theory, could use ni.T from the first. f From
Ex. 6 onwards P regularly uses ni.T; E s usage fluctuates between N
and (perhaps a sign of different strata within the document), so that
the criterion no longer yields a sure clue to the analysis.
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 Pent.,
and the dating- of its promulgation in the eighteenth year of
Josiah.J 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 deter
mined. The other point is the question of the date of P.
The preconception in favour of the antiquity of this docu
ment (based for the most part on the fact that it really forms
the framework of the Pent.) was nearly universal among
scholars down to the publication of We. s Geschichte Israels,
i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to be groundless
by Graf and Kuenen in 1866-69.
* A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will be found
in the art. of H. M. Wiener referred to above (BS, 1909, 158 ff.).
t For a partial exception, see on 4 26 .
J De Wette, Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das AT ( 1806-7); Ri enm >
Gesetzgebung Moses im Lande Moab (1854) ; al.
Die geschichtliche Sticker des A Ts (1866). Graf did not at first see
it necessary to abandon the earlier date of the narratives of P ; 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 Kue. Hex. xixff., or Ho. s Einleitung^
especially p. 64 ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison
of the layers of legislation in the later Pent, 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 be
longing to P were later than Deut., 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 P, especially those of them in Genesis and Ex. i-n.
But when the problem was fairly faced, it was perceived, not only
that P 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 : (i) The
oldest sources are J and E, closely parallel documents, both I
dating from the best period of Hebrew literature, but dis
tinguished 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 conu
bined into a composite narrative (JE) by a redactor (R JE ),
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 com
position of Deut., so that a third stage in the history of the
Pent, would be represented by the symbols JE -f D. (3) The
remaining source P 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
(R JEP ), by whom excerpts from JE have been used to fill up
the skeleton outline which P 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,
xl INTRODUCTION
we must here refer to works specially devoted to the
subject.*
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, de
servedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent,
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 (</) that even Graf and We.
mark an advance, in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis
than JE (pp. 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 OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent by
adopting two relatively conservative positions from Klostermann.
(i) The first is the denial of the distinction between J and E (216 ff.).
As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to
have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disen
tangled are really parts of J (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
J and E were, not indeed independent works, but different literary re
censions of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two
versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had cur
rency 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 agree
ment extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is,
nevertheless, perfectly clear : they hold that J and E are independent
recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they
* The following may be mentioned : Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onder
zoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Ver-
bonds-, i. (1885) [Eng. tr., The Hexateuch (1886)]; and Gesammeltc
Abhandlungen (transl. into German by Budde) ; Wellhausen, Com
position des Hexateuchs, etc. (-1889) ; and Prolegomena zur Geschichtc
Israels ( 1905) [Eng. tr. 1885]; Westphal, Les Sources du Pent. (1888,
1892) ; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften. des A Ts ( 2 i89o) ; Robert
son Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church ( 2 i892) ; Driver,
Introduction to the Literature of the OT ( s igog) ; Holzinger, Einleitung
in den Hex. (1893); Cornill, Einleitung ( 6 i9o8) ; Konig, Einl. (1893);
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of the Hex. (1902) [ = vol. i. of
The Hexateuch (1900)].
INTRODUCTION xli
were recensions of a single document, differing in nothing but the use of
.TI.T or DTiW. 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 J and E 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, J and E consist largely of duplicate narratives of the same
event. It is true, this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no diffi
culty 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,* and regard the stories as traditional
variations of the same theme. (2) The second position is that P was
never a distinct or self-subsisting document, but only a " framework "
enclosing the contents of JE (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 inde
pendent work. The facts that it is now closely interwoven with JE,
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 JE, and is too meagre to be in
telligible 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 tradi
tion, we have every proof that could be desired that P was an independent
document, and not a mere supplementary expansion of an earlier com
pilation (see, further, p. Ivii 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). t But that preference might just as easily have
* So even Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews (1897), 62 f. , 64 f.
t It is a grave injustice to Di. to associate his name, however re
motely, with this theory of collaboration (527). What Di. is speaking
xlil INTRODUCTION
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 Pent
Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications, has
announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school, and com
menced to lay down the programme of a new era in OT criticism (Hibb.
Journ. vii. [1909], 8i3ff.). 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 P and JE goes overboard
along with that between J and E. Criticism is thus thrown back into
its original chaos, out of which Ee. 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, (i) The
first is represented by remnants of the original undiluted polytheism,
where Yahwe does not appear at all ; e.g. 35 1 " 7 ; the Israel-recension of
the Joseph-stories ; the groundwork of chs. i. 20. 28 1 9 6 9 -9 17 . (2)
Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods ; 4. 9 18 ~ 27 22.
27. 28 11 22 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage, polytheistic legends are
transferred to Yahwe as the only God : 2. 3. 6 1 8 y 1 5 S 20 22 1 1 1 9 16. 18. 19
24. 25 19 34 26. (4) Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion :
j^i-6 j*^ 35 9 " 1B 48 3 " 6 . Now r , 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 Ee. s
classification is based, or to admit that, for example, ch. 17 is one whit
more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on Ee. 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 p. 439 be
low). Since the former begins apy nnVn n 1 ?^, it is considered to have
formed part of a comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing
with Adam (5 1 ), set in a framework of T6l8d6th, This is the ground
work of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it contains,
of in the words cited is simply the question whether the three documents,
P, E, and J, 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.
INTRODUCTION xliii
however, leg-ends 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 T6l$ddth-co\ lection ! 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 ch. 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 rudi
ments of a successful analysis. There is much to be learned from Ee. 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 Wi. and Jer., and Che., and now Ee., OT 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 J and E.
In J and E 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 com
pare the two documents, the first thing that strikes us is
their close correspondence in outline and contents. The
only important difference is that E s narrative does not seem
to have embraced the primitive period, but to have com
menced with Abraham. But from the point where E strikes
into the current of the history (at ch. 20, with a few earlier
traces in ch. 15), there are few incidents in the one document
to which the other does not contain a parallel.* What is
* 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 com
mentary, the only episodes in E to which there is no trace of a parallel
in J, after ch. 15, are : the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; Esau s selling of his
birthright, 25 29 34 (?) ; the theophany of Mahanaim, 32 2> 3 ; the purchase of
land at Shechem, 33 18 20 ; and the various incidents in 35 1 8 - 14 20 . Those
peculiar to J are : the theophany at Mamre, 18 ; the destruction of
Sodom, ig 1 " 28 ; Lot and his daughters, ig 30 38 ; the birth of Jacob and
Esau, 25 21 " 28 ; the Isaac-narratives, 26 ; Jacob s meeting with Rachel,
29 2 14 ; Reuben and the love-apples, 3o 14ff - ; the incest of Reuben, 35 2 - 22a ;
Judah and Tamar, 38 ; Joseph s temptation, 39 7 " 20 ; the cup in Benjamin s
sack, 44 ; Joseph s agrarian policy, 47 13 " 26 < 7 > ; and the genealogies of
xliv INTRODUCTION
much more remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the
manner of narration changes in the two documents paripassu.
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 p. xxviii f.),
is equally noticeable in J and in E. 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.*
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 con
solidated and reduced to writing. It has been shown with
great probability that both J and E 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 ad
vocated by most recent critics, that the symbols J and E
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 trans
mitting 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
J, composite structure has been most clearly made out in the Primaeval
History (chs. i-n), where at least two, and probably more, strands of
narrative can be distinguished (pp. 1-4). Gu. seems to have shown that
in 1 2-25 two cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (p. 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 J
and E alike, so that the fusion had probably taken place in the
common tradition which lies behind both. Further, chs. 34 and 38
* 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 Lu. INS, 169 : " E steht vollig in seinem [J 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.).
INTRODUCTION xlv
(pp. 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main
narrative ; and the same might be said of ch. 49 (p. 512), which may
very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the school of J, and
the oldest extant specimen of its repertoire. With regard to E, the
proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus,
Numbers, and Joshua ; in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly as
similated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (? if E be a
component there), 35 1 7 48 22 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
differentia of any consequence have yet been discovered.* The problem
is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material
incongruities and their literary homogeneity.
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 J especially) the stamp of
a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave
much play for the activity of a school. f It is very difficult
* The only exception would be Sievers* metrical analysis, which leads
to results far more complicated than can be justified by other indications
(see p. xxxif.).
f See the lengthy excursus of Luther in INS, 107-170, where the
thesis is upheld that the Yahvvist (i.e. J 1 ) 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). Lu. seems
to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primaeval 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 Lu. assigns to J 2 (e.g. chs. 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 J 1 , 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 gth cent., an opponent of the cultus, and
an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the drift of the old tradition,
xlvi INTRODUCTION
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 J 1 and J 2 , E 1 , E 2 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. Gu.
goes, however, much further with his conception of J and E
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.
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 J, and describes it in
terms which throw a shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of author
ship. When we read of an " einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den wie in
einen Stamm Geschicten ganz anderer Herkunft gewissermassen auf-
gepropft 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.
INTRODUCTION xlvii
9. Characteristics of J and E 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 J and E are to be re
garded 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.
J presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture
than E. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples
of pure narrative style in the OT ; and in Genesis it rarely,
if ever, falls below the highest level. But while E 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. J 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" (cf. Gn. 44 18ff> ).* E, 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 (2i 8ff -), the dismay of
Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob s fraud
(27 35ff -), Jacob s lifelong grief for Rachel (48 7 ), or his tender
ness towards Joseph s children (48 14 ).f 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 J than
* Driver, LOT, p. 119. f Cf. Gunkel, p LXXVII.
xlviii INTRODUCTION
in E. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a
tendency, it is found in several instances that J s objectivity
of treatment has succeeded in preserving 1 the archaic spirit
of a legend which in E is transformed by the more refined
sentiment of a later age. The best example is J s picture of
Hagar, the intractable, indomitable Bedawi woman (ch. 16),
as contrasted with E s modernised version of the incident
(2i sff -), with its affecting picture of the mother and child all
but perishing in the desert. So again, E (ch. 20) introduces
an extenuation of Abraham s falsehood about his wife which
is absent from the older narrative of J (i2 loff -).
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 J and Elohim in E.* 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.
The divine names. While the possibility of error in the Massoretic
textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of inadvertence in the use of
* This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology ; in the
case of E, it is the application of a theory of religious development
which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of
Moses (Ex. 3 13 " 10 ). It is now generally held that the original E con
tinued to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that the
occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to secondary strata ol
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 Yahive, the national God of Israel. Gu., 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 ca.se that in the patriarchal
history E contains several strong traces of a polytheistic basis of the
narratives (28 loflr - 32 2 - 3 35 7 etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic
sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (againsl
Eerdmans).
INTRODUCTION xlix
m,r and D n^N are in Genesis singularly few. In E contexts, m.v occurs
22 n. ubis 2 g-:n 3,41^ w here its presence seems due to the intentional action
of a redactor. J has D .T^K (a) in 3 1 5 4 25 (a special case : see pp. 2, 53) ;
(b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be
emphasised, 32 29 ; (c) in conversations with, or references to, heathen
(real or supposed), g 27 39 9 4i 32b - 38 43 s3 - ^ 44 ; there are also (d) some
doubtful examples which are very probably to be assigned to E,
33 5b - lob - n 42 28 . It is only in the last group (if even there), with
the possible addition (see p. 155) of 8 1 , that redactional alteration or
scribal error need be suspected.
For the inhabitants of Canaan, J uses JJN3, io 18bt 19 I2 6 (? R), 24 3 37
5o ll + (with MTS, i3 7 (R?) 34 30 ) ; E TDK, i5 16 48- + .*
For the name Jacob, J substitutes Israel after 35 22 (exc. 46 5b ) ; E con
sistently uses Jacob (exc. 46" 48 8 - " 2I [so 25 ?]).
The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) highly
characteristic of J and E respectively :
J : 3N and vnx cert in genealogies : the former, 4 20 - 21 io 21 n 29 22 2 ;
the latter, 4 21 io 25 (cf. 22 21 25 26 38 29f -). ^i?l(in connexion with a late-born
child), 2i 2a - 7 24 36 37 3 44 20 . jn NSD, 6 8 i8 3 ig 19 3O 27 32 6 33 8 - 10 - 16 34" 39"
47 s5 - 29 5o 4 + . DTB (without 3), 2 5 ig 4 24 15 - 45 + . jrr (in sexual sense),
4 1. 17. 25 , 9 5. 8 24 16 3326 ( algo J n p)._-,^ ( = < beget ), 4 18 IO 8 " 13 15 26 22 s3
2 5 8 . * , 2 4 23 - 42 - 49 2 8 16 39 4 - 5 - 8 4 a 2 43 4 - 7 4419.20.26 4? 6b + ( 42 i E? )._
Derivatives of ^ 3sy, 3 16 - 16 - 17 5 29 6 6 45 5a . oysn, 2 s3 i8 32 29 s4 - s 5 3 o 20b 46 30 + .
T ys, m*ys (for the younger of two brothers or sisters), ig 31 - 34 * 35< 38 25 23
2 9 26 43 33 4 8 14 . CK-3 xnp, 4 - 6 i2 8 r 3 4 2i 3a 26^ + . nKTpS pT, i8 2 [I9 1 ] 24"
29 I3 33 4._ nn2{7j , 2 16 l6 l. 5. 6. 8 2 ^5 ^7. 10. 12. 43 ^. 23 33!. 2. 6 ( 2Q 14 3O 18 R .
also common in P) ; see on HDN below. j psyn, i8 16 i9 28 26 8 + . yo with
following gen., i8 4 24"- ^ 43 2 u 44 25 - Particles : Tiaya, 3 17 8 21 I2 13 - 16 i8 26
29. 31. 32 2I 30 26 -24 2? 4. 10. 19. 31 ^.p^JTS, j8 5 I 9 8 33 10 3 8 26 + . ^3^, 3" 4 15
ig 21 38+ (inE and P once each). w, in J about 40 times, in E about 6
times (in Gen.).
E : ,TCK, 2o 17 2i 10 - 12 - 13 3o 3 3i 33 + (see rmsv above). ^na and [tip ( elder
and < younger ), 2 9 16 - 8 4 2 13 - 15 - 32 - 34 (cf. 4 i 51f -) ^^3, 45 11 4 7 12 So 21 .
mae D, 29 15 3 1 7 41 . A very characteristic idiom of E is the vocative (some
times doubled: 22 11 46 2 , Ex. 3 4 , [i Sa. 3 4 <E] + ) with the answer JJ,T :
he
20 ; .in, 48 16 + ; int,
3o ao ; ncn, 2 i 14 - 15 - 19 -h ; nnc, 2i 16 + ; p ( honest ), 42 n. 19. si. as. M . D , 3D>
3 i 7 - 41 + ; T33i pa, 2i 23 (cf. Is. i 4 22 , Jb. i8 19 + ); ipy, 22 9 + ; V^D, 4 8 n ; nn3,
40 8ff. 4 ,8ff. + . j nnB> 4Q 5ff. 4 ,11 + . m3s> 41 2S. nB , B pp j 3319+ J QS> 24 32 [-J b>
42 U ]+ ; by a partiality for rare infinitive forms (3r 8 46 3 5o 2 48 n + ), and
the occasional use of long forms of the nominal suff. (2i 29 [3i 6 ] 4i 21 42 36 ).
The religious and theological conceptions of the two
documents are in the main identical, though a certain differ
ence of standpoint appears in one or two features. Both
* The cross ( + ) means that the usage is continued in the other books
of the Hex.
d
1 INTRODUCTION
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 J than in E.
Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, or sacred
pole, E alludes, without offence, to the Mazzebah, or sacred
pillar (28 18 - 2 2 3i 13 - 45ff - 35 20 ) ; whereas J nowhere allows to the
mazzebah 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 : E
refers to it only twice (22. 46 1 ), and J never at all in the
patriarchal history (ct. 4 3ff - 8 20ff -). It is difficult to imagine
that the omission is other than accidental : the idea that it
indicates an indifference (Gu.), or a conscious opposition
(Lu.), 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 repre
sentation 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 J (chs.
16. 18. 19), and corresponds to the highly anthropomorphic
language which is observed in other parts of the document
(chs. 2. 3. 7. 8. 1 1 5 - 7 ). E, on the contrary, records no daylight
theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms of revelation,
the dream or night-vision (15* 2o 3 - 6 2i 12 [cf. 14 ] 22 lff - 28 loff -
3i 1L24 46 2 ),* or the voice of the angel from heaven (2i 17 ).
In this respect E undoubtedly represents a more advanced
stage of theological reflexion than J. The national feeling
in both sources is buoyant and hopeful : the * scheue
heidnische Stimmung, the sombre and melancholy view of
life which marks the primaeval history of J disappears abso
lutely when the history of the immediate ancestors of Israel
is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which some
* We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which seem to
stand on a somewhat different footing- (p. 345). Nocturnal revelations
occur, however, in J (26 24 28 13 ), but whether in the oldest parts of the
document is not quite certain.
INTRODUCTION II
writers note as characteristic of E finds no expression what
ever in Genesis ; and so far as it exists at all (Jos. 24), it
belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we
are not here concerned.
Here we touch on a question of great importance, and
one fortunately capable of being brought to a definite issue :
viz., the relation of J and E to the literary prophecy of the
8th and following centuries. It is usual to speak of the
combined JE as the Prophetical narrative of the Pent., in
distinction from P, the Priestly narrative ; and in so far as
the name is employed (as, e.g., by Dri. LOT*, 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
J and E 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, mazzebas,
teraphim, etc.). But that these and similar principles were
first enunciated by the prophets of the 8th cent., we have no
reason to suppose. Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a
man of God, is called Nab? (2O 7 , cf. Dt. 34 10 ) 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
gth century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement which,
commencing in N 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
lii INTRODUCTION
those parts of J and E 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 J and E 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 E, and the redactional additions to JE, 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 ofJE.
On the relative age of J and E, 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 E.*
Since then, the opposite view has been strongly maintained
by the leading exponents of the Grafian theory,! although
a number of critics still adhere to the older position. \ 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.
To take a few examples from Genesis : Ch. i6 a 14 (J) produces an
impression of greater antiquity than the parallel 2i 9 " 19 (E) ; J s explana-
* Hupf. Schr. No. Reuss, al.
f We. Kuen. Sta. Meyer ; so Luther, Procksch, al.
+ Di. Kittel, Konig, Wi. al.
INTRODUCTION liii
tion of the name Issachar, with its story of the love-apples (3O 14 ~ 16 ), is
more primitive than that of E (3O 17 ) ; J (3O 28 43 ) attributes the increase
of Jacob s flocks to his own cunning, whereas E (3i 4 ~ 13 ) attributes it to
the divine blessing. On the other hand, E s recension of the Bethel-
theophany (28 m>17ff -) is obviously more antique than J s ( 13 - 16 ) ; and in
the Joseph narratives the leadership of Reuben (E) is an element of
the original tradition which J has altered in favour of Judah. A
peculiarly instructive case is i2 10ff - (J) || 20 (E) || 26 7ff - (J), where it seems
to us (though Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is
clearly right in holding that J has preserved both the oldest and the
youngest form of the legend, and that E represents an intermediate
stage.
This result is not surprising when we understand that
J and E 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 stand
point between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that
E, 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 (p. xlviii),
occupies, on the whole, a higher level of reflexion than J ;
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 E has occa
sionally preserved the more ancient form of the tradition,
there is a strong presumption that J as a whole is the earlier
document.
In attempting to determine the absolute dates of J and
E, we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both
are earlier than the age of written prophecy (p. li f.) ; in other
words, 750 B.C. is the terminus ad quern for the composition
of either. If it be the case that 378 in E presupposes the
monarchy of the house of Joseph, the terminus a quo for that
document would be the disruption of the kingdom, c. 930
(cf. Dt. 33 7 ) ; and indeed no one proposes to fix it higher.
llV INTRODUCTION
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 gth-century prophecy, seem
to us to point to the later part of the period, and in particular
to the brilliant reign of Jeroboam n. (785-745), as the most
likely time of composition.* In J 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 E ; and it
has been questioned, not without reason, whether such
feelings could have animated the breast of a Judaean in the
dark days that followed the dissolution of Solomon s empire.!
That argument is not greatly to be trusted : although the
loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt in Judah
(Is. 7 17 ), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was
plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th cent., 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 J and E are separated by
an interval of two centuries ; if E belongs to the first half
of the 8th cent., J will hardly be earlier than the Qth.J
Specific historical allusions which have been thought to indicate a
more definite date for J (or E) prove on examination to be unreliable.
If 3i 44ff * 49 23ff - 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 inter
pretation to be improbable. 27 40b presupposes the revolt of Edom from
Judah (c. 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 cent. The curse on Canaan (g- 5K -) does not necessarily assume
the definite subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel ; and if it did, would
* So Procksch (i78ff.), who points out a number of indications that
appear to converge on that period of history. We. Kue. Sta. Ho.
agree ; Reuss. Di. Ki. place it in the gih cent.
t Procksch, 286 ft . So We. Kue. Sta. Kit. Gu. al.
INTRODUCTION Iv
only prove a date not earlier than Solomon. Other arguments, such
as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelah and Nineveh in
the list of Assyrian cities in lo 11 etc., are still less conclusive.
While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to
J and E, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally
accepted view that the former is of Judaean 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.* 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 geo
graphically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a
favourite resort of pilgrims from the northern kingdom
(Am. 5 5 8 14 , i Ki. ig 3 ). It is when we look at the diver
gence between the two sources that the evidence of the
Ephraimite origin of E and the Judaean of J becomes con
sistent and clear. Whereas E never evinces the slightest
interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above, J
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
(i2 7 - 8 ); but we can hardly fail to detect something per
functory in his description, as compared with E s impressive
narrative of Jacob s dream at Bethel (28 10 - 12 - 1? - 22 ), or his
own twofold account of the founding of Beersheba (chs. 21.
26). It is E alone who records the place of Rachel s grave
(35 19 ), of those of Rebekah s nurse Deborah ( 8 ), of Joseph
(Jos. 24 32 ), and Joshua ( 30 ), all in the northern territory.
The sections peculiar to J (p. xliii) are nearly all of local
* We. Prol. 6 317. It is the neglect of this fact that has mainly led
to the belief that J, like E, is of Ephraimite origin (Kue. Reuss, Schr.
Fripp, Luther, al.).
Ivi INTRODUCTION
Judasan interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; ig T ~ 28 is a
legend of the Dead Sea basin ; ig 30ff - 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 p. 455). Finally, while Joseph s place of honour
was too firmly established to be challenged, it is J who, in
defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright and
the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (49 8ff> 35 22f- , the Joseph
narratives). These indications make it at least relatively
probable that in J we have a Judaean recension of the patri
archal tradition, while E took its shape in the northern
kingdom.
The composite work JE is the result of a redactional
operation, which was completed before the other components
(D and P) were incorporated in the Pent.* The redactors
(R JE ) 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 J and E (i6 9f -28 21b? 31 "*.</)
39 1 4i 50? 46 1 5o lof< ) : some of these, however, may be later
glosses. Of greater interest are a number of short addi
tions, of similar import and complexion but occurring both
in J and E, which may, not with certainty but with great
probability, be assigned to these editors (i3 u ~ 17 i8 17 ~~ 19 22 15 ~ 18
26 3b ~ 5 28 U 32 10 " 13 46^) : to this redaction we are disposed
also to attribute a thorough revision of ch. 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 Druteronomic phraseology in i8 17ff - and 26 3bff - con
firms the impression that the redaction took place at some
time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.
So No. We. and most ; against Hupf. Di. al.
INTRODUCTION Ivii
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, j
even more obviously than J or E, the production of a school, t
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 Pent., 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 Pent., the document
distinguished by We. as Q (Quatuor foederum liber], by
Kue. as P 2 , by others as P g .* Although this groundwork
shows traces of compilation from pre-existing material (see
pp. 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428 f., etc.), it nevertheless bears the
impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.
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 inde
pendent document, which is a source, as well as the framework, .of
Genesis. We have seen (p. xli) that the opposite opinion is maintained
by Klostermann and Orr, who hold that P is merely a supplementing
redactor of, or collaborator with, JE. But two facts combine to
render this hypothesis absolutely untenable, (i) The fragments form
a consecutive history, in which the lacunce are very few and unim
portant, 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 primaeval history no hiatus whatever can be detected. Dr.
Orr s assertion (POT, 348 f.) that P 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 P had ever read the Babylonian story, or that,
if he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter of
* Kue. s P 1 is the so-called Law of Holiness (P h ), which is older
than the date usually assigned to P*.
IVlll INTRODUCTION
fact, neither is in the least degree probable ; and, as we shall see
presently, Noah s sacrifice is an incident which P 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 P s epitome of the biography of
Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse transposed
(ig 29 ) : i2 4b " Now Abram was 75 years old when he went out from
Harran. 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. 13 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. nb So they separated
from one another : 12ab Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot
dwelt in the cities of the Oval. i9 29 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. 16 1 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.
17* 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
(ch. 17). The narrative is resumed in 2i lb "And Yahwe did to Sarali
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.
23 1 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 (ch. 23), and
this brings us to 2^ "And these are the days of the years of the lite
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. n And after the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his
son." The reader can judge for himself whether a narrative so con
tinuous as this, every isolated sentence of which has been detached
from its context by unmistakable criteria of the style of P, 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 ig 29 , let him
INTRODUCTION lix
note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its present position
that verse is, considered as a supplement to ig 1 28 . In the sections on
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there are undoubtedly omissions which we
can only supply from JE ; 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
JE which will be specified immediately. Dr. Orr s argument on this
point (POT, 343 ff.) really assumes that the account of JE is the only
way in which the gaps of P 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 JE. (2) The second fact which makes Dr. Orr s
hypothesis untenable is this, that in almost every instance where P
expands into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the
events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents. The
difference between P s cosmogony and J 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 p. 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two
parallel accounts of the covenant with Abraham in ch. 15 (JE) and 17
(P) ; and it is evident that the one supersedes and excludes the other.
Again, P s reason for Jacob s journey to Mesopotamia (aS 1 9 ) is quite in
consistent with that given by JE in ch. 27 (p. 374 f.) ; and his conception
of Isaac s blessing as a transmission of the blessing originally bestowed
on Abraham (28 4 ) is far removed from the idea which forms the motive
of ch. 27. In JE, Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob s return
from Mesopotamia (32 3 ) ; in P he does not leave Canaan till after the
burial of Isaac (35 6 ). P 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 JE (see p. 444). It is
difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to J and E, but
it certainly was not at Machpelah, as in P (see p. 538 f.). And so on.
Everywhere we see a tendency in P 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 JE form parts of a practically complete narrative, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that P g 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 P g or from a deliberate re-writing of the history
as told by JE, under the influence of certain theological ideals and
principles, which we now proceed to consider.
x INTRODUCTION
The central theme and objective of P e 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 man
kind 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 (17*), and Yah we to Moses
(Ex. 6 3 ). 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 (2 2f> ) ; permission of the slaughter
of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the
blood (9 lff> ); 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 P g belonged. The exclusive emphasis on the formal or
institutional aspect of religion, which is the natural proclivity
of a sacerdotal caste, appears in P g in a very pronounced
fashion. Religion is resolved into a series of positive enact
ments on the part of God, and observance of these on the
part of man. The old cult-legends (p. xiif.), 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
INTRODUCTION Ixi
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 J or E,
whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions
shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the
spiritual Hfe (chs. 3. 6 5 8 21 i8 23ff - 45** etc.), and succeeds in
depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine
experience of inward fellowship with God (cf. 22. 24 12ff - 32 9ff -
48 15f - etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of P g
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 character
istic 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 JE and P is
seen in the enhanced transcendentalism of the latter s con
ception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthro-
popathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception
is Gn. 2 2f - : cf. Ex. 3i 17b ); 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 (Gn.
jyi. 22f. 3^9. is ^gs^ EX. 53^ Dut ^e manner of His appearance
is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at
Sinai (Ex. 24 lff - 34 29b 4o 34f -). It is true that a similar incon-
creteness often characterises the theophanies of J and E,
and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided
approximation to the abstract conceptions of P. But a
comparison of the parallels ch. 17 with 15, or 35 9ff - with
28 loff -, makes it clear that P s departure from the older tradi
tion springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous
imagery from the representation of Godhead.
It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, P s attitude to the
traditional history of the patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that
Ixii INTRODUCTION
he accepts the main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But
whether he knew that tradition from other sources than J and E, is a
question not so easily answered. For the primitive period, direct
dependence on J is improbable, because of the marked diversity in the
accounts of the Creation and the Flood : here P seems to have followed
a tradition closely akin to, but not identical with, that of J. In the
history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose that he had
any other authorities than J and E. 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
(ch. 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 (35 9fl ) o r the settlement of Jacob s family in Egypt
(47 5 ~ n ) ; and the author lingers with interest on the transmission of the
patriarchal blessing and promise from Isaac to Jacob (28 3> 35 12 ), and from
Jacob to his sons (48 3f -). But these are practically all the incidents to
which P g 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 P s epitome would
be unintelligible apart from JE, is to confuse his point of view with
our own. It is perfectly true that from P 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 P had no interest in making intelligible. He
is concerned solely with events, not with causes or motives. The indi
vidual 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 P s can be characterised without the reserves
and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the
difference between J and E (p. xlviif.); there is no better
illustration of the dictum le style c est Vhomme than in this
remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects
the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped termin
ology, its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its
monotonous repetitions, and its general determination to
INTRODUCTION Ixiii
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 w T ork 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 Gn. i. 47 7 ~ n ), it is apt to de
generate into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set
phrases and rigid formulae (see Nu. 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 ch. 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 P ; but of all the Priestly documents, P e is the
one in which the literary bent of the school is best ex
emplified, and (it may be added) is seen to most advantage.
The following selection (from Driver, LOT*, 131 ff.) of distinctive
expressions of P, 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.
D n^N as the name of God, uniformly in Gen., except ly 1 2i lb . pD,
kind : i a - 12 - 21 - 34 - 6 20 y 14 (Lv. u, Dt. 14; only again Ezk. 47 10 ).
p?, to swarm : i 20 - 21 f l 8 17 9 + * (outside of P only Ps. 1O5 30 , Ezk. $f).
* As on p. xlix, the cross ( + ) indicates that further examples are
found in the rest of the Pent. 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 Dri. (I.e.) or the Oxf. Hex. (vol. i. pp. 208-221).
Ixiv INTRODUCTION
pe>, < swarming things : 120^21 + ( O nly in P and Dt. i4 19 ). mm rns :
,22. 28 8 n 9 i.7 I7 2o 2 g3 ^n 4? 27 ^4 ( Ex j7> Lv . 2 6 9 ; elsewhere only Jer. 3 ie
[inverted], 2 3 8 , Ezk/ 3 6 n ). n^ax 1 ? : i 29 - 30 6 21 9 3 + (elsewhere only in
Ezk. (10 times), and (as inf.) Jer. i2 9 ). nn^in : io 32 25 13 + (elsewhere
i Ch. s 7 7 2 - 4 - 9 8 28 9 9 - a4 26 31 ). The phrase nn^in n^[i] occurs in P io
times in Gen. (see p. xxxiv), and in Nu. 3 1 ; elsewhere only Ru. 4 18 , i Ch. i 29 .
yu : 6 17 7 21 25 8 - 17 35 29 49 33 + (elsewhere poetical : Zee. 138, Ps. 88 16 io4 29 ,
La. i 19 , and 8 times in Jb.). ?],?y, JJRN, etc. (appended to enumerations):
6 i8 ? 7. is gie. is 9 8 28 4 ^e. 7 + ._ M nnK> e tc. (after seed ) : g 9 if- 9 - 10 - 19 3 5 la
4 8* + ._mn ovn D*y : 7" ly 23 - 2 ^; only in P and Ezk. 2 s 242 4O 1 (Jos. lo 27
redactional). en 1 DninstJ D 1 ?: 8 19 io 5 - 20 - 3i 36 40 + (very often in P : elsewhere
only Nu. n 10 [JE], i Sa. io 21 , i Ch. 5 7 6 47 - 48 ). o^y nna : 9 16 i7 7 - 1;J - J9 + ,
only in P. nxo nNDn : iy 2 - 6 - *>+ Ex. i 7 ; elsewhere only Ezk. 9 9 i6 13 .
j?m : i2 5 i3 6 3i 18 36 7 46 6 + ; elsewhere Gn. I4 11 - 12 - 16 - 21 i5 14 ; and 15 times
in Ch. Ezr. Dn. vy}: i2 5 3i 18 36 6 46 6 + . ^sj(= person ): I236 8 46 lfi -
is. 22. 2C. 26. 27 + . much more frequent in P than elsewhere." D3 cnrr? :
if- 9 - 12 + 36 times (only in P). D IUD : i; 8 28* 36 7 37 47 9 + Ex. 6 4 ; else
where Ezk. 20 38 , Ps. 55 16 ii9 54 , Jb. i8 l9 + . nrnx
4 8 4 49 30 50 13 + . Often in Ezk. (44 2
Ps. 2 8 , i Ch. 7 28 9 2 [= Neh. n 3 ], 2 Ch. n 14 3 i 1 + . njpo : z 7 12. is. 23.27 23 ia +
(confined to P except Jer. 3 2 n - 12 - 14 - 16 ). D cy (= father s kin ): i7 14
25 8 17 3S 29 49 33 + (also Ezk. i8 18 ; elsewhere Ju. 5 14 ?, Ho. io u + ). arm :
23 4 + io times (also i Ki. I7 1 ?, i Ch. 29, Ps. 39 73 ). pp : 3i 18 C34 23 ] 36^ +
(outside of P, only Ezk. 3 8 12f - ; Pr. 4 7 , Ps. io 4 24 io5 21 ).
In the choice of synonymous expressions, P exhibits an exclusive
preference for T^in in the sense of * beget over i 1 ? (in the genealogies
of J), and for the form JN of the ist pers. pron. ( DJX only in Gn. 23 4 ).
Geographical designations peculiar to Pe are : Kiryath- Arbd (for
25 ao 2 g2. 5. e- 7 31 is ^ 3S 9. 26 4 6 l5 + .To these may be added jyaa p, 1 1 31
i2 5 i3 12 i6 3 17 8 23 2 - 19 3i 18 33 18 35 6 37 1 +; the expression is found in JE
only in the Joseph-section (chs. 42, 44, 45, 47). P& has {yaa without pit
only in jyj3 nun (28 1 36 2 ).
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 P and JE (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in
criticism.
The date of the composition of P g 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 Deut., because it assumes without question
the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in
Dt. 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 P
which are too complex to be entered on here. That the
INTRODUCTION IxV
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 Deut., and of which we find the
origin and justification in Ezk. 44 6 ~ 16 , is presupposed as
already established (Nu. 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, how
ever, that that distinction belongs to a stratum of the
legislation not included in P g ; in which case P g might very
well be earlier than Ezk., or even than the Exile. The
question does not greatly concern us here. For the under
standing of Genesis, it is enough to know that P g , both in
its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the
national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later
than J and E.
The view that PS was written before the Exile (in the end of the
yth cent.) is advocated by Procksch (I.e. 319 IF.), who reduces this
part of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He regards
it as an essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, em
bracing- hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the Law of Holiness
(P h ), and recognising the priestly status of the entire tribe of Levi, just
as in Dt. (Nu. jy 16 24 and P h in its original form). If that fact could be
established, it would go far to show that the document is older than
Ezk. It is admitted both by Kuenen and Wellhausen (Prol. 6 116) that
the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of
P as compared with PS, but that it is not recognised in PS is not clear.
As to pre-Exilic origin, the positive arguments advanced by Pro. 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 Pro. : viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in ch. 10 bears internal
evidence of having been drawn up some considerable time before the
5th century B.C. (p. 191 below) ; but that may be sufficiently explained
by the assumption that the author of P* made use of pre-existing docu
ments in the preparation of his work.
The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the
Pent, is the amalgamation of P with the older documents,
in Genesis the amalgamation of P g with JE. 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 (cf. 6 7 f- 22 - 23 io 24 2^ etc.). The
aim of the redactor was, in general, to preserve the ipsissima
IxVl INTRODUCTION
verba of his sources as far as was consistent with the pro
duction of a complete and harmonious narrative ; but he
appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every
fragment of P that could possibly be retained. It is not
improbable that this rule was uniformly observed by him,
and that the slight lacunce which occur in P after ch. 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
Pent, we see from 47 5ff> , where (3J has preserved a text in
which the dovetailing of sources is much more obvious than
in MT. If the lawbook read by Ezra before the congrega
tion as the basis of the covenant (Neh. 8 lff> ) was the entire
Pent, (excepting late additions),* 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 (P g + P h ),f then the
final redaction is brought down to a later period, the ter
minus ad quern being the borrowing of the Jewish Pent, by
the Samaritan community. That event is usually assigned,
though on somewhat precarious grounds, to Nehemiah s
second term of office in Judasa (c. 432 B.C.).
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 naive legendary narratives
of JE 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 pre
vailed, 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
* So We. Di. Kit. al. t So Corn. Ho. al.
INTRODUCTION Ixvii
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 P 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 PRIMAEVAL HISTORY.
CHS. I-XI.
IT has been shown in the Introduction (p. xxxiii) that the most obvious
division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly equal parts, of which
the first (chs. 1-1 1) 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 Pent., 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 chs. i-n ; but the closest
examination has failed to produce any substantial evidence that E 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 J.
To the Priests Code, whose constituents can here be isolated with
great certainty and precision, belong: i. The Cosmog-ony (i 1 -^ 4 *) ;
2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5) ; 3. An account of
the Flood (6 9 -9 29 *); 4. A Table of Peoples (10 *) ; 5. The Genealogies
of Shem (n 10 26 ), and Terah (ii 27 32 *), ending with Abraham. There
is no reason to suppose either that the original P contained more than
this, or, on the other hand, that P 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 (2 s ),
and the sanctity of the blood (g 4ff ).
In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome is the
* 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.
I
2 GENESIS
rich variety of life and incident which characterises the Yahwistic
sections, viz. : i. The Creation and Fall of Man (2 4b ~3 24 ) ; 2. Cain and
Abel (4 1 16 ) ; 3. The Genealogy of Cain (4 17 24 ) ; 4. A fragmentary Sethite
Genealogy (4 25f - . . . 5 29 . . . ) ; 5. The marriages with divine beings (6 1 4 );
6. An account of the Flood (6 5 -8 22 *); 7. Noah s Curse and Blessing
(9 20 27 ); 8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (n 1 9 );
10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Terah (n 28 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 P)
bare lists of names and figures, but preserve incidental notices of new
social or religious developments associated with particular personages
(417. 20-22. 26 ^29) ? besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology
from which the names have been drawn (4 19 - 22 - 23fl ).
Composition of J. 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
J is a composite work, based on older collections of Hebrew traditions,
whose outlines can still be dimly traced, (i) 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 (p. 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
(p. 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 (p. 52! .).
If Gunkel be right, the same is true of J s Table of Peoples, and of the
account of the Dispersion ; but there the analysis is less convincing.
(5) In 4 26 we read that Enosh introduced the worship of Yahwe. The
analogy of Ex. 6 2f - (P) affords a certain presumption that the author of
such a statement will have avoided the name m,v up to this point ; and
as a matter of fact D rfVg occurs immediately before in v. 26 . It is true
that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage except 3 1 " 5 ,
where other explanations might be thought of. But throughout chs. 2
and 3 we find the very unusual compound name DM 1 ?* mrr, and it is a
plausible conjecture that one recension of the Paradise story was dis
tinguished by the use of Elohim, and that Yahwe was inserted by a
harmonising Yahwistic editor (so Bu. Gu. al. : see p. 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
i-xi 3
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 re
sources of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the principal
theories. (a) We. (Camp." 2 9-14) seems to have been the first to per
ceive that 4 1 16a is a late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4 16 24
and on chs. 2, 3 ; that originally chs. 2-4 existed not only without 4 1 " 16 *,
but also without 4 25f - and 5 29 ; and that chs. 2. 3. 4 16 24 n 1 " 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, pass.), who, after a most exhaustive and I
elaborate examination, arrived at the following theory : the primary
document (J 1 ) consisted of 2 4b 9 3 1 19 - 21 6 3 3* 4*- 2b /3- 16b - 17 24
51. 2. 4. I0 9 jji-9 9 2o-27 j^is was recast by J 2 (substituting O rta* for
JUT down to 4 26 ), 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 re
censions were then amalgamated by J 3 , who inserted dislocated
passages of J 1 in the connexion of J 2 , and added 4 1 15 5 s9 etc. J 2
attained the dignity of a standard official document, and is the authority
followed by P at a later time. The astonishing acumen and thorough
ness 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 con
fining 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 (ZATW, xiv.
274 ff. [= Ak. Reden u. Abh. 244-251]) distinguishes three main strata:
(i) chs. 2. 3. II 1 9 ; (2) 4 25f - "-22 920-27 IO ? 6 i. 2 ? . ^ the Flood-legend,
added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a Sethite
genealogy (4 25f - ... 5 29 ... ) and inserted the story of Cain and Abel, and
the Song of Lamech (4 23f> ). (d) Gunkel (Gen. 2 i ff.) proceeds on some
what 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 5 29 (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 3 17 ,
and forward to 9 20ff -. Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming
the core of a document where ni.T was not used till 4 26 , and hence called
J e , 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 Gu. thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah
appears in quite a different character : these belong to a second docu-
4 CREATION (?)
ment (JJ). Again, 9 18f< form a connecting- link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations ; but Gu. 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 We. Bu. Sta. al.) as an editorial expansion.
In this commentary the analysis of Gu. is adopted in the main ;
but with the following reservations : (i) The account of the Flood
cannot be naturally assigned to J-", because of its admitted incompati
bility with the assumption of the Cainite genealogy (see above). Gu.,
indeed, refuses to take such inconsistencies into account ; but in that
case there is no reason for giving the Flood to JJ rather than to J e .
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 (Sta.), say J d .
(2) With the Flood passage goes the Yahwistic Table of Peoples
(9 18f> ). The arguments for two Yahwists in ch. 10 are hardly decisive ;
and J e at all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethno
graphic survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel s analysis of n 1 " 9
appears on the whole to be sound ; but even so there is no ground for
identifying the two components with J e and JJ respectively. On the
contrary, the tone of both recensions has a striking affinity with that
of P : note especially (with We.) the close resemblance in form arid
substance between 1 1 6 and 3 22 . Thus :
Jj = 3 20-22. 24 4 17-24 6 l-4 j jl-9 .
Je _ 2 4b_ 3 19*.23 4 25f. . . . . . . g^-^ ;
Jd = 65-8 22 *9 18f - io*;
J r = 4 1 - 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. i -I I. 3. Creation of the World in Six Days: Institution
of the Sabbath.
A short Introduction describing the primaeval chaos
(i 1 - 2 ) is followed by an account of the creation of the
world in six days, by a series of eight divine fiats, viz. :
(i) 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,
~ 8 ; (3) the separation of land and sea through the collect
ing of the lower waters into "one place," 9 - 10 ; (4) the
clothing of the earth with its mantle of vegetation, n ~ 13 ;
(5) the formation of the heavenly bodies, 14 " 19 ; (6) the
peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, 2 - 23 ; (7)
I. i-H. 3 5
the production of land animals, 24 - 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 (2 1 - 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 vv. 6 " 8 ).^ That the
writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, and
that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actu
ally came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt
(Wellhausen, Prol. 296). But the fundamental differ
ence of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the
significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of
* 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, (i) 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) Palaeontology 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.
6 CREATION (?)
physical fact which can be brought into line with the results
of modern science. The key to its interpretation must be
found elsewhere.
In order to understand the true character of the narra
tive, 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 specu
lation on the structure of the universe. There is ample
evidence, as will be shown later (below, p. 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 there
fore capable of being moulded in accordance with the genius
of a particular religion ; at the same time, being a tradi
tion, 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 trans
formed 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,
p. 10).
The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, there
fore, 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
I. i-H. 3 7
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 repre
sentation goes so far as a creatio ex nihilo, or whether
a pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on v. 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 (v. 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 formulae, 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 (fix than in MT. 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
8 CREATION (?)
of copj ists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on the other hand for
deliberate omissions, intended to bring out sacred numbers in the occur
rences of the several formulae.*
The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here :
(a] The fiat (And God said, Let . . . ) introduces (both in MT and
(K) each of the eight works of creation (vv. 3 - 6 - 9< n - 14< 2- 24 - 26 ). (b)
And it was so occurs literally 6 times in MT, but virtually 7 times :
i.e. in connection with all the works except the sixth (vv.^- 7 - 9> n 16g
24 - 30 ); in <& also in v. 20 . (c) The execution of the fiat (And God
made . . . with variations) is likewise recorded 6 times in MT and
7 times in <& ( vv .7. M. 12. ie. 21. 25. 27^ ^ The sen tence of divine
approval (And God saw that it was good] is pronounced over each
work except the second (in ($r there also), though in the last instance
with a significant variation: see w.^M. 10. is. 18.21.25.8^ ^ The
naming of the objects created (And God called . . . ) is peculiar to
the three acts of separation (vv. 5 - 8 - 10 ). (/) And God blessed. . .
(3 times) is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath
day (vv. 22 - 28 2 3 ). (#) The division into days is marked by the clos
ing formula, And it was evening, etc., which, of course, occurs 6 times
( vv> 5. a. is. 19. 23. 3i) ? being omitted after the third and seventh works.
The occurrence of the p .Ti 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 (& $ 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 2 2 * seems a duplicate of 2 1 ,
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), f
The Seven Days Scheme. The distribution of the eight works over
six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen, Ewald, Schrader, We.
Di. Bu. Gu. al. ) a modification introduced in the interest of the
Sabbath law, and at variance with the original intention of the cos
mogony. Before entering on that question, it must be pointed out that
* A familiar instance is the ten sayings of Pirk Abdth, 5, i :
D^iyn JO3J rmoxD msfyn, where the number 10 is arrived at by adding to
the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of iDsn in MT (vv. 28 - 29 ).
t See, now, Sta. BTh. \. 349 and Schwally in ARW, 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.
I. i-H. 3 9
the adjustment ot 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" (Dri. Gen. 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 re
sembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents ; for the
division into seven tablets of the Enuma eliS series has no relation to
the seven days of the biblical account.* 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 dis
tinctively 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 arrange
ment which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a
form different from what we now find.
The latter position is maintained by We. (Comfit 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 2 2 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 (i) separation of light from
darkness ; (2) separation of waters (vv. 6 10 ) ; (3) creation of plants ;
(4) luminaries ; (5) fish and fowl ; (6) land animals ; (7) man. The state
ment that God finished His work on the seventh day We. considers
* See below, p. 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian and
Etruscan analogies ; see p. 50.
IO CREATION (?)
to be inconsistent with a six days creation, and also with the view that
the seventh was a day of rest ; hence in ch. 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 Bu.
(Urgesch. 487 ff. ; cf. also Di. 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 2 2a by reading sixth instead of seventh (see on the verse).
Bu. 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,* and also (on the
ground of Ex. 2O 11 ) 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 Bu. s argument
(which as a whole seems to me valid against the specific form of the
theory advanced by We.) only pushes the real question a step further
back ; and Bu. himself, while denying that the seven days scheme
is secondary to P, agrees with Ew. Di. and many others in thinking
that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the cosmogony in which that
scheme did not exist.
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 juxta
position 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 Di. 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 incon
gruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the former during the
Heb. 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 P, and in all probability long before his time.
Source and Style. As has been already hinted, the section belongs
to the Priestly Code (P). 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 P are (be
sides the divine name D H^N) : Kin (see on v. 1 ), ropy) 13J yj ) p irrn
* See Jerome s polemical note, in Quasi., ad loc.
I. i-II. 3 1 1
[ n , n ] 24. 25. 30^ n t, 3K C, 29. 30^ j, D 11. 12. 21. 24. M mpD 10 j n3n1 nns 22. 88, ^ ^
21. 24. 25. 26. 28. 30^ p^ } pjjj 20. 21 ? an( J nn ^ n m 2 4a . Comp. the listsin
Di. p. i ; Gu. p. 107, and OH, 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 his
torian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict adherence to
a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous repetition of set phrase
ology, the aim at exact classification and definition, and generally
the subordination of the concrete to the formal elements of composi
tion : these are all features of the juristic style cultivated by this
school of writers, " it is the same spirit that has shaped Gn. i and
Gn. 5" (Gu.). On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse
judgments have been pronounced. Gu., 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 P as We. is impressed by " the majestic repose and sustained
grandeur" of the narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium
(Pro!.* 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 P may, in technical descriptions or
enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an extreme
case in Nu. 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 P 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" (Dri. Gen. 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 P, 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. Bu. has sought to prove that the story had passed through
the school of J before being adopted by that of P ; that it was in fact
the form into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer
called J 2 . Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as would be
supplied by allusions to Gn. i in other parts of J 2 ) there is none : it is
an inference deduced mainly from these premises : (i) that the creation
story shows traces of overworking which presuppose the existence of an
older Heb. recension ; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric
12 CREATION (P)
tradition P betrays his dependence on J 2 ; and (3) that J a in turn is
markedly dependent on Babylonian sources (see Urgesch. 463-496, and
the summary on p. 491 f.). Even if all these observations be well
founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a demonstration of
Bu. 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. 463 1 ) ; but when we realise how little is known of the diffusion of
literary activity in ancient Israel, the presumption that J 2 was the par
ticular writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes
very slender indeed.
I. We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome
question of syntax which affects the sense of every member
of v. 1 . While all ancient Vns. 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 v. 3 (Rashi, and so most) or v. 2 (Ibn Ezra, apparently).
On the latter view the verse will read : In the beginning- of
Gocfs creating- the heavens and the earth : n^toa being in
the const, state, followed by a clause as gen. (cf. Is. 2Q 1 ,
Hos. i 2 etc. ; and see G-K. 130^; Dav. 25). In a note
below reasons are given for preferring this construction to
the other ; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with
I. JT5?to] The form is probably contracted from n^N") (cf. nnN^ ; ),
and therefore not derived directly from B rfl. It signifies primarily the
first (or best) part of a thing : On. io 10 ( nucleus ), 49^ ( first product ),
Dt. 33 21 , Am. 6 6 etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc.,
see Gray s note, Num. 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into a
temporal sense, as the first stage of a process or series of events : I Io.
9 10 ( in its first stage ), Dt. n 12 (of the year), Jb. 8 7 40 (a man s life),
Is. 46 (starting point of a series), etc. We. (/Vo/. 6 386) has said
that Dt. ii 12 is the earliest instance of the temporal sense; but the
distinction between first part and temporal beginning is so im
palpable 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 Lv. 2 12 [Nu. i8 12 ] Neh. i2 44 : with
these may be taken also Dt. 33 21 ). In its temporal applications it is
always defined by gen. or suff. except in Is. 46, where the antithesis
to JVinN inevitably suggests the intervening series of which ~\ is the
initial phase. It is therefore doubtful if -\$ could be used of an absolute
beginning detached from its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like rua Nip
or nVnas (see Is. i 26 , Gn. i3 3 ). This brings us to the question of
I.I 13
v. 1 it is necessary to leave the alternative open. In the
beginning} If the clause be subordinate the reference of
iTWi is denned by what immediately follows, and no further
question arises. But if it be an independent statement
beginning is used absolutely (as in Jn. i 1 ), and two inter
pretations become possible : (a) that the verse asserts the
creation (ex nihilo) of the primaeval chaos described in v. 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 We. But (i) it is not in
accordance with the usage of JV^ SO (see below) ; (2) it is not
required by the word ( create, a created chaos is perhaps
a contradiction (Is. 45 18 Hion inrrt6), and We. himself
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed : (a) v. 1 an inde
pendent sentence (all Vns. and the great majority of comm., including
Calv. De. Tu. We. Dri.). 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
art. tells against it, but is by no means decisive. At most it is a
matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek transliterations Eaptjffrjd
(Field, Hexap.}, and Eap-^aed (Lagarde, Ankiind. 5), alongside of
B/)?7(rt0, may show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes
read na. Even the Mass, pointing does not necessarily imply that the
word was meant as const. ; T is never found with art., and De. has
well pointed out that the stereotyped use or omission of art. with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which eludes our
analysis (e.g. Dij^p, BW,p, n;^N-i| : cf. Kon. 5. 294 g). The construction
seems to me, however, opposed to the essentially relative idea of i,
its express reference to that of "which it is the beginning (see above).
(b) v. 1 protasis: v. 2 parenthesis: v. 3 apodosis ; When God began
to create . . . now the earth "was . . . God said, Let there be light.
So Ra. Ew. Di.* Ho. Gu. al. practically all who reject (a).
Although first appearing explicitly in Ra. (f 1105), it has been argued
that this represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in under
* Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of a
redactional operation. Originally the place of v. 1 was occupied by
2** in its correct form : D^nSx CN-m PN.TI D CBTI nn^in n*?K. When this was
transposed it was necessary to frame a new introduction, and in the
hands of the editor it assumed the form of v. 1 (similarly, Sta. BTh.
i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely accepted view of the original
position of 2** (see on the verse), and Di. s intricate hypothesis would
seem to me an additional argument against it.
14 CREATION (?)
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 (v. 2 ) ; the representation being a
chaotic earth from which the heavens were afterwards made
( 6f -). The verse therefore (if an independent sentence at all)
must be taken as an introductory heading to the rest of the
chapter.^ God created, .] The verb N^2 contains the central
idea of the passage. It is partly synonymous with nb>y (cf.
w. 21 - 27 with 25 ), but 2 3 shows that it had a specific shade of
meaning. The idea cannot be defined with precision, but
the influence of (5i from a desire to exclude the idea of an eternal chaos
preceding 1 the creation. f But the fact that C agrees with <& militates
against that opinion. The one objection to (b) is the verzweifelt
geschmacklose Construction (We.) which it involves. It is replied
(Gu. al) that such openings may have been a traditional feature of
creation stories, being found in several Bab. accounts, as well as in
Gn. 2 4b 6 . In any case a lengthy parenthesis is quite admissible in
good prose style (see i Sa. 3 2a /3- 3 , with Dri. Notes, ad /or.), and may
be safely assumed here if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for
adopting it. The clause as gen. is perfectly regular, though it would
be easy to substitute inf. Ni? (mentioned but not recommended by Ra.).
(c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more consideration than it
has received, is to take v. 1 as protasis and v. 2 as apodosis, When
God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc. (lEz. ?
but see Cheyne, in Hebr. ii. 50). So far as sense goes the sequence
is eminently satisfactory ; the iDN i of v. 3 is more natural as a con
tinuation of v. 2 than of v. 1 . The question is whether the form of
v. 2 permits its being construed as apod. The order of words (subj.
before pred.) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumst. cl. (Dri. T.
157 ; Dav. 138 (c)) ; but there is no absolute rule against an apod,
assuming this form after a time-determination (see Dri. T. 78).
* The view that v. 1 describes an earlier creation of heaven and earth,
which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned, needs no refutation.
t See Geiger, Urschr. 344, 439, 444. The Mechilta (on Ex. i2 40 :
Winter and Wiinsche s Germ, transl. p. 48) gives v. 1 as one of thirteen
instances of things written for King Ptolemy ; and Gei. infers that
the change was deliberately made for the reason mentioned. The
reading alleged by Mech. is n t?Ni:i Kin D n^K, which gives the sense but
not the order of (5r. The other variations given are only partly verified
by our texts of ( ; see on i 26 *- 2 2 1 1 7 i8 12 49 6 .
I.I 15
the following- points are to be noted : (a) The most im
portant fact is that it is used exclusively of divine activity
a restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in
other languages (see We. Prol. Q 304). (b) The idea of
novelty (Is. 48 6f - 4i 20 65 17f -, Jer. 3i 21 ) or extraordinariness
(Ex. 34 10 , Nu. i6 30 [J]) 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 volition^ (Ps. 33).
(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 Mac. 7 28 . At the same time the
facts just stated, and the further circumstance that the word
is always used with ace. of product and never of material,
constitute a long advance towards the full theological doc
trine, and make the word * create a suitable vehicle for it.
Close parallels (for it is hard to see that the .Ti makes any essential
difference) are Gn. 7 (J), 22 1 (E), or (with impf.), Lv. 7 16b (P). The
construction is not appreciably harsher than in the analogous case of
2 5 , where it has been freely adopted. Kin] enters fully into OT usage
only on the eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious
passages (Am. 4 13 , Is. 4 5 , Jer. 3i 21 ), its first emergence in prophecy
is in Ezk. (3 times) ; it is specially characteristic of II Is. (20 times), in
P 10 times, and in other late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic
use rests on Ex. 34, Nu. i6 30 (J), Dt. 4 32 . 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 reg arded as
the root of a Piel meaning cut, hence form by cutting^, carve,
fashion, (Ar. bara?, Phcen. ma [CIS, i. 347"*] : see BDB, s.v.\ Lane, Lex.
197 b; Lidzbarski, NS Epigr. 244 [with ?]) ; but the evidence of the
connexion is very slight. The only place where tna could mean
carve is Ezk. 2i 24to ; and there the text is almost certainly corrupt
(see Corn., Toy, Kraetschmar, ad loc.). Elsewhere it means cut
* The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their
word ban-Ci (see phil. note) ; but the association seems accidental ; and
its significance is exaggerated by Gu. when he says "the idea of
creation is that man may form with his hands, the god brings to pass
through his word" (Schijpf. 23). Banfi. is quite synonymous with ipisti,
(make), and is not restricted to the divine activity.
1 6 CREATION (?)
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 (inai inn), Darkness, and Water (Dinn, DVD).
The weird effect of the language is very impressive. On
the syntax, see above. waste and void] The exact meaning
of this alliterative phrase Tohu wa-Bohu is difficult to
make out. The words are nouns ; the connotation of inn
ranges from the concrete * desert to the abstract * non
entity ; while 1,12 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
down (Ezk. 23 47 ) or clear ground by hewing- down trees (Jos. ly 15 - 18
[J]) a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make (Di., G-B.
s.7 . ; We. Prol.^ 387). The Ar. bar a a (used chiefly of creation of animate
being s) is possibly borrowed from Heb. 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): Di. s view is similar.
Earth (ZA> iii. 58) has proposed to identify vra, (through mutation of
liquids) with the Ass. vb. for create, banu; but rejects the opinion
that the latter is the common Semitic .133 build (KAT A , 498 1 ), with
which N~a alternates in Sabasan (Miiller in ZDMG, xxxvii. 413, 415).
2. inDi inn] (fa doparos /cat d/caraavtetfaoros ; Aq. K.vwfj,a K. ovdev ; S. apybv K.
a8i6.KpiTov ; 6. Kevbv (or ovdtv] /cat ov6kv ; U inanis et vacua ; C N jpni (nst
( desolate and empty ); ft rnn on (JloZ. The fragmentary Jer. Tg.
has a double trans. : "And the earth was K rai N nn, and (cf. T) desolate
from the sons of men, and empty of work." inn occurs along with ina
in Jer. 4 23 , Is. 34 11 ; inn alone in 17 pass, besides. The meaning varies
between two extremes : (a) a (trackless) desert (Jb. i2 24 [ = Ps. IO7 40 ] 6 18 ,
Dt. 32 10 ), and (b) unsubstantially (t?DD I 1 ? J NB>, lEz.) or nonentity, a
sense all but peculiar to II Is. (also i Sa. i2 21 , and perhaps Is. 2Q 21 ), 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 OT usage is entirely based on the
traditional description of the primaeval chaos, and that the word had no
definite connotation in Heb., but was used to express any conception
naturally associated with the idea of chaos formlessness," confusion,
unreality, etc. inn] (never found apart from inn) may be connected
with bahiya = be empty ; though Ar. is hardly a safe guide in the
case of a word with a long history behind it. The identification with
Baau, the mother of the first man in Phoen. mythology (see p. 49 f.), is
I. 2 17
space (Gu.). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah s
vision of Chaos-come-again (4 23 ~ 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 subj. of the sentence,
must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in
which the elements of the future land and sea were com
mingled. Darkness (an almost invariable feature of ancient
conceptions of chaos) was upon the face of the Deep] The
Deep (ctan) is the subterranean ocean on which the earth
rests (Gn. y 11 8 2 4Q 25 , Am. 7 4 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 amat.
The Heb. narrative is free from mythological associations,
and it is doubtful if even a trace of personification lingers in
the name Dinn. In Babylonian, ti amatu or tamtu is a generic
term for ocean ; and it is conceivable that this literal
sense may be the origin of the Heb. conception of the Deep
(see p. 47). The Spirit of God was brooding\ not, as has
sometimes been supposed, a wind sent from God to dry
probable. Dinn] is undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Bab.
Ti dmat : a connexion with Ar. Tihamat, the Red Sea littoral province
(Hoffmann in ZATW, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 32ob, c;
Jensen, KIB, vi. i, 560). In early Heb. the word is rare, and always
(with poss. exception of Ex. I5 5 8 ) denotes the subterranean ocean,
which is the source from which earthly spring s and fountains are fed
(Gn. 49 25 , Dt. 33 13 , Am. y 4 , and so Dt. 8 7 , Gn. 7 n 8 2 (P); cf. Horn. //.
xxi. 195), and is a remnant of the primal chaos (Gn. i 2 , Ps. IO4 6 ,
Pr. 8 27 ). In later writings it is used of the sea (pi. seas), and even
of torrents of water (Ps. 42 8 ) ; 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 Ezk. 26 19 ).
Though the word is almost confined to poetry (except Gn. i 2 7" 8 2 ,
Dt. 8 7 , Am. 7 4 ), the only clear cases of personification are Gn. 49 25 ,
Dt. 33 13 (TVhom that coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the
art. (except with pi. in Ps. io6 9 , Is. 63 13 ) proves that it is a proper
name, but not that it is a personification (cf. the case of VIK^). On the
other hand, it is noteworthy that Dinn, unlike most Heb. names of fluids,
is fern., becoming occasionally masc. only in later times when its primary
sense had been forgotten (cf. Albrecht, ZATW, xvi. 62) : this might be
a
1 8 CREATION (?)
up the waters (5T, IEz., 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. Comp. Milton, Paradise Lost,
i. 19 ff., vii. 2336. It is remarkable, however, if this be
the idea, that no further effect is given to it in the sequel.
(i) The idea of the Spirit as formative principle of the
kosmos, while in the line of the OT doctrine that he is
the source of life (Ps. 33 iO4 29f -), yet goes much beyond
the ordinary representation, and occurs only here (possibly
Is. 4O 13 ). (2) The image conveyed by the word brooding
(DDrnp) is generally considered to rest on the widespread
cosmogonic speculation of the world-egg (so even De. and
Di.), 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 deity *
(Gu.), or an abstract principle like the Greek "Epws, the
Phcen. Ildflos, etc. : for this the Heb. writer, true to his
monotheistic faith, substitutes the Spirit of God, and
thereby transforms a "crude material representation . . .
into a beautiful and suggestive figure " (Dri. Gen. 5).
due to an original female personification. name] Gk. Vns. and U
express merely the idea of motion (^re^pero, tiri<pfp6/uiei oi>, ferebatur) ;
$T N3B-JD ( blow or breathe ); Ss \L***D. Jerome (Qutzst.}: " in-
cubabat sive confovebat in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis."
It is impossible to say whether brood or hover is the exact image
here, or in Dt. 32", the only other place where the Pi. occurs (the
Qal in Jer. 23 9 may be a separate root). The Syriac vb. has great
latitude of meaning-; it describes, e.g., the action of Elisha in laying
himself on the body of the dead child (2 Ki. 4 34 ) ; and is used of ang-els
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, Thes. 3886).
* In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is often
represented as a bird hovering over the waters (Waitz - Gerland,
Anthrop. vi. 241).
I. 3, 4 19
The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that of
empty space (Hesiod, Arist. Lucr., etc.) and the rudis indigestaque
moles of Ovid (Met. 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 v. 2 only the second (which includes the two
elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent descrip
tion (for on any view the waters of the third must be identical with
the Te hom 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 Gu. 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, T&hdm : it denotes the space now occupied by the
earth, which being 1 empty leaves nothing but the deep and the
darkness.
3-5. First work: Creation of light. [And] God
said] On the connexion, see above, pp. 13 ff. ; and on the
significance of the fiat, p. 7. Let there be lighi\ The
thought of light as the first creation, naturally suggested
by the phenomenon of the dawn, appears in several cos
mogonies ; 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 dramat
ised 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, Gesch. d. Rel.
ii. 295 f.). In Is. 45 7 both light and darkness are creations
of Yahwe, but that is certainly not the idea here. Comp.
Milton s Parad. Lost, iii. i fF. :
" Hail, holy Light ! offspring- of heaven first-born ;
Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam," etc.
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. Gu. goes too far in suggesting
that the expression covers a strong anthropomorphism
3. "IIK \TI corresponds to the p m of subsequent acts. 4. 310 3 iiNn]
20 CREATION (?)
(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 Heb. conceives of a spatial distinction of light
and darkness, each in its own place or abode (Jb. 38 19f -).
Even the separate days and nights of the year seem thought
of as having independent and continuous existence (Jb. 3 6 ).
The Heb. 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 mis
take, 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 (v. 5 ), that are re
presented as existing before the creation of the sun.
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
with attracted obj. : see G-K. 117 h ; Dav. 146. 5. or in popular
parlance denotes the period between dawn and dark, and is so used
in Ba . 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 prevail
ing usage of OT (rp^l cv). In post-exilic times we find traces of the
reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase DVI rh"h (wx6ti/*fpov\ Is. 27*
34 10 , Est. 4 16 . P regularly employs the form day and night ; and if
Lv. 23 a2 can be cited as a case of the later reckoning, Ex. ia 18 is as
clearly in favour of the older (see Marti, EB, 1036; Konig, ZDMG, Ix.
605 ff. ). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the less natural
method in this passage. N~]i?] Mil el, to avoid concurrence of two accented
syll. nj^] (also Mil el) a reduplicated form fy^ ; cf. Aram. K ^) : see
Noldeke, Mand. Gr. 109; Pratorius, ZATW, Hi. 218; Ron. ii. 520.
inx cv] a first day, or perhaps better one day. On nriN as ord. see
G-K. 98 a, 134 p ; Dav. 38, R. i ; but cf. Wellh. Prol. 6 387.
1.5,6 21
sunset to sunset (Tu. Gu. Ben. 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 morn ing 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 (De. Di. Ho. al.). One
must not overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.
The interpretation of or as (eon, a favourite resource of harmonists
of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage,
and has no warrant in Heb. usage (not even Ps. go 4 ). It is true that
the conception of successive creative periods, extending- over vast spaces
of time, is found in other cosmogonies (De. 55) ; but it springs in part
from views of the world which are foreign to the OT. 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 asons in his mind, he would hardly have missed
the opportunity of stating how many millenniums each embraced.
6-8. Second work : The firmament. The second
fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to
divide the primaeval 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"
(Ps. io4 13 , Am. g 6 ) supported by " pillars " (Jb. 26 11 ), and
resembling in its surface a "molten mirror" (Jb. 37 18 ).
Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain
descends through " windows " or " doors " (Gn. 7 11 8 2 , 2 Ki.
7 2 - 19 ) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps. 78 23 ).
The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and earth
6. STp-j] (dS <rre/3<?wjua, ^d firmamentum} a word found only in Ezk., P,
Ps. ig 2 I5O 1 , Dn. i2 3 . The absence of art. shows that it is a descriptive
term, though the only parallels to such a use would be Ezk. i 22f - 25f - jo 1
(cf. Phcen. j;piD= dish \Blechschale\ : CIS, i. go 1 ; see Lidzb. 370, 421).
The idea is solidity, not thinness or extension: the sense beat thin
belongs to the Pi. (Ex. 39 3 etc.) ; and this noun is formed from the Qal,
which means either (intrans.) to stamp with the foot (Ezk. 6 n ), or
22 CREATION (?)
is widely diffused ; it is perhaps embodied in our word
heaven (from heave?) and O.K. Mift. A graphic illustra
tion 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 Je. ATLO 2 , 7).* But the
special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully
intelligible apart from the Bab. creation-myth, and the
climatic phenomena on which it is based (see below, p. 46).
Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been propounded
(Winckler, Himmels- u. Weltenbild, 25 ff.; ATLO 2 , 164, 174) which
identifies it with the Bab. supuk Same, and explains both of the Zodiac.
The view seems based on the highly artificial Bab. 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 what
ever be the truth about supuk same, such a restriction of the meaning
of ypn is inadmissible in Heb. In Ps. ig 2 , Dn. i2 3 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.
9, 10. Third work : Dry land and sea. The shore
less lower ocean, which remained at the close of the second
(trans.), stamp firm, consolidate (Is. 42** etc.). It is curious that
the vb. is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven, except
Jb. 37 18 . *?n3D ,TI] on ptcp. expressing permanence, see Dri. T. 135,
5. f*T3 : Kon. 5. 3ign. *?!!^]] fix supplies as subj. 6 6e6s. 7. p ,Ti]
transposed in (5 to end of v. 6 , its normal position, if indeed it be not
a gloss in both places (We.). 8. (5r also inserts here the formula of
approval : on its omission in Heb., see above, pp. 8, 9.
9. ii|r] in this sense, only Jer. 3 17 . For Dips read with (3i nipp =
gathering-place, as in v. 10 . Nestle (MM, 3) needlessly suggests
for the latter rnjpp, and for np% IIJT. nnnp] not from under but simply
under (see v. 10 ) ; G-K. iiQc 2 . n.vnni] juss. unapocopated, as often
near the principal pause ; G-K. 109 a. At the end of the v. ffi adds :
/ecu ffw^x^ 7 ] T & vSup rb viroKdrw rov ovpavov ets rds (rvvayuyas avrwv /ecu &00?j
7; typd : i.e. rvfyjn Nnm D.Tjjpzp-^N o:9$j nnnp IK D:5D 11^1. The addition is
adopted by Ball, and the pi. avruv proves at least that it rests on a
Heb. original, v5up being sing, in Greek (We.). 10. D^l] the pi. (cf.
* Comp. also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, Anthrop. vi. 245 ff. ;
Lang, Custom and Myth, 45 ff.
I. 7-ii 23
day, is now replaced by land and sea in their present con
figuration. The expressions used : gathered together . . .
appear seem to imply that the earth already existed as a
solid mass covered with water, as in Ps. IO4 5 - 6 ; but Di.
thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a
muddy mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally
suggested by v. 2 . Henceforth the only remains of the
original chaos are the subterranean waters (commonly called
Te/iom, but in Ps. 2^ sea and streams ), and the
circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Jb. 26 10 , Ps.
139, Pr. 8 27 ), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.
We. s argument, that vv. 6 " 10 are the account of a single work
(above, p. gf.), is partly anticipated by IEz., 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 (2 4 ), he is driven
to take TDN i as plup., and assign vv. 9>1 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.
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 powers
a recognition of the principle of development not to be
explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual
renewal (Di.); see to the contrary v. 12 compared with v. 24 .
II. Let the earth produce verdure] N^H means * fresh
young herbage, and appears here to include all plants in
Gn. 49 13 , Dt. 33 19 , Ps. 46 3f - [where it is construed as sing.] 24* etc.) is
mostly poetic and late prose ; it is probably not numerical, but pi. of
extension like D^a, D:^ : , and therefore to be rendered as sg.
II. NZH Kghn] lit. vegetate vegetation, the noun being ace. cognate
with the vb. p is a7r.Xe7. ; on the pointing with Metheg (Baer-De. p. 74)
see Kon. i. 42, 7. S> ( > O^Z.) must have read K^in as v. 12 . NB^
lyy.] (& (fioTdvyv xt>P TOV ) an d U 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 Ex. <f> io 12 - 15 (all J), and the reasons for rejecting the other are, first,
24 CREATION (p)
the earliest stages of their growth ; hence the classification
of flora is not threefold grass, herbs, trees (Di. Dri. al.)
but twofold, the generic tfH including the two kinds 3^ V
and PV (De. Gu. Ho. etc.). The distinction is based on the
methods of reproduction ; the one kind producing seed
merely, the other fruit which contains the seed. The v.
continues (amending with the help of (JE) : grass producing-
seed after ifs 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 attach
ment except with the principal verb, which, however, is too
remote.
14-19. Fifth work : The heavenly luminaries.
On the parallelism with the first day s work see above,
p. 8f. The vv. describe only the creation of sun and
moon ; the clause and the stars in v. 16 appears to be an
the absence of ] before nry ; and, second, the syntactic consideration that
Ntn as cognate ace. may be presumed to define completely the action
of the vb. Ken denotes especially fresh juicy herbag-e * (Pr. 2^) and
those grasses which never to appearance get beyond that stage, ary,
on the other hand (unlike "n), is used of human food, and therefore
includes cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Ps. IO4 14 ). fy] read fjn
with jiuCSU.S, and 3 Heb. MSS (Ball). irc^, inro!?] On form of suff.
see G-K. 91 d. (5r in v. 11 inserts the word after yn (rendering
strangely /caret, ytvos KOL Ka.6 o^uot^ra, and so v. 12 ), and later in the v.
(/card yv. els 6/j..) transposes as indicated in the translation above. po]
a characteristic word of P, found elsewhere only in Dt. i4 13 - 14 - 15> 18 (from
Lv. j i ), and (dubiously) Ezk-47 10 , everywhere with suff. The etymology
is uncertain. If connected with ruiDn (form, likeness), the meaning
would be form (Lat. species) ; but in usage it seems to mean simply
kind, the sg. suff. here being distributive: "according to its several
kinds." In Syr. the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe.
For another view, see Frd. Delitzsch, Pro!. 143 f. 12. Nxini] One is
tempted to substitute the rare NEnni as in v. 11 (so Ball). After py r
adds "12 : Ball deletes the na in v. 11 .
14. HIND .v] (|| TIN \v in v. 3 ). On the breach of concord, see G-K.
1450; Dav. 1136. TIND] a late word, is used of heavenly bodies in
Ezk. 32, Ps. 74 16 ; it never means lamp exactly, but is often applied
collectively to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle ; once it is
* In Ar. this sense is said to belong to usb, but Heb. 3by has no such
restriction.
I. 12-14 25
addition (v.i.). The whole conception is as unscientific/
(in the modern sense) as it could be (a) in its^ ge^C.nlcLc~.
standpoint, () 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 tojijpure 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 (Ju. 5 20 ,
Is. 4O 26 , Jb. 38 7 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 Gu. 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. Comp. Jb. 38 33 , Ps. i36 7 ~ 9 (Jer. 3i 35 ). It is
noteworthy that this is the only work of creation of which
the purpose is elaborately specified. luminaries (flhRlwp)]
i.e. bearers or embodiments of light. The word is used
most frequently of the sevenfold light of the tabernacle
used of the eyes (Pr. I5 30 ), and once of the divine countenance (Ps. go 8 ).
BTJ Fpis] the gen. is not partitive but explicative: Dav. 24 (a). (
inserts at this point : et s 0aOcrti rrjs "y^s, /ecu &pxe<-v r?}s i]/j.tpas K, T. vvKrbs,
xat. nnx 1 ?] In Jer. io 2 a DB n mnx are astrolog-ical 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.* If we take nx 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 "\-both
. . . and ("as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and
years ") : others by a hendiadys (" signs of seasons "). It would be less
* The prophetic passages cited by Dri. (Gen. io 1 ) all contemplate
a reversal of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as
illustrations of its normal functions.
26 CREATION (?)
(Ex. 25 6 etc.); and to speak of it as expressing a markedly
prosaic view of the subject (Gu.) is misleading. in the
firmament, etc.} moving in prescribed paths on its lower
surface. This, however, does not justify the interpretation
of JTp~i as the Zodiac (above, p. 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 (Ps. i2i 6 ). -for sign s
and for seasons, etc.} DHjrtlD (seasons) appears never (certainly
not in P) to be used of the natural seasons of the year
(Ho. 2 11 , Jer. 8 7 are figurative), but always of a time con
ventionally agreed upon (see Ex. g 5 ), or fixed by some
circumstance. The commonest application is to the sacrea
seasons of the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the
moon (cf. Ps. TO4 19 ). If the natural seasons are excluded,
this seems the only possible sense here ; and P s predilection
for matters of cultus makes the explanation plausible.
Dhs (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 v. 18 .
and the stars] Since the writer seems to avoid on prin
ciple 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
Cm.).
The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is
confused, and suggests overworking- (Ho.). The clauses which most
excite suspicion are the two beginning with vm (the difficult 14b and
15a *) ; note in particular the awkward repetition of Hi nmoV. The
violent to render the first i und ZTvar (videlicet): "as signs, and that
for seasons," etc. ; see BDB, 5. i i. b, where some of the examples come,
at any rate, very near the sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the
same sense by reading io^> simply (MBA, 1870, 380). 16. m mxi] Dri.
(Heir. 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. ^ lan^j] On the comp. sheva see
Kon. i. 10, 6 e.
I. 1 6-20 27
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 ex
position of the idea of the vb. f?B>D, and that 15 ** was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to the
insertions of (5r (v.i.), which may be borrowed from v. 17f- .
20-23. Sixth work : Aquatic and aerial 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 Gu. to surmise that
two originally separate works have been combined in order
to bring the whole within the scheme of six days. Ben.
(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 Ra. and lEz.
on 2 19 ). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction
has the support of all Gk. Vns. and JJ ; but it is not certain
that the verb can mean "producer, swarm." More prob
ably (in connexions like the present: see Ex. 7 28 [J]
[EV 8 3 J, Ps. I05 30 ) the sense is simply teem with, indicating
the place or element in which the swarming creatures
abound, in which case it cannot possibly govern spy as obj.
?$ has a sense something like vermin : i.e. it never
denotes * a swarm/ but is always used of the creatures that
20. p* . . . in* ] On synt. see Dav. 73, R. 2. The root has in Aram,
the sense of creep, and there are many passages in OT where that
idea would be appropriate (Lv. n 29 - 41 43 etc.); hence Rob. Smith (R&,
2 93) creeping vermin generally/ But here and Gn. 8 17 9 7 , Ex. i 7 y ?8 ,
Ps. I05 80 it can only mean teem or swarm ; and Dri. (Gen. 12) is
probably right in extending that meaning to all the pass, in Heb.
Gn. i 80 *-, Ex. 7 s8 , Ps. 105* are the only places where the constr. with
cog. ace. appears ; elsewhere the animals themselves are subj. of the
vb. The words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary
of P. But for the fact that pe* never means swarm, but always
swarming thing, it would be tempting to take it as st. constr. before
rrn rw (ffi, Aq. U). As it is, n j has all the awkwardness of a gloss
(see 2 19 ). The phrase is applied once to man, 2 7 (J) ; elsewhere
to animals, mostly in P (Gn. !> 910.12.13.1^ Lv ,,10.46 e tc.).
^Biy f]ij;i] The order of words as in v. 22 (ar iiyni), due to emphasis on
the new subj. The use of descriptive impf. (<&, Aq. 20F) is mostly
poetic, and for reasons given above must here be refused. JS *?#] = in
28 CREATION (?)
appear in swarms (v.t.). ^*n fc ?}] lit. * living soul ; used
here collectively, and with the sense of G?BJ weakened,
as often, to individual or being (ct. v. 30 and see on
2 7 ). The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according
to OT 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 Heb. has no special name. 21. created] indis
tinguishable from made in v. 25 . the great sea monsters] The
introduction of this new detail in the execution of the fiat
is remarkable. DJ^fln here denotes actual marine animals ;
but this is almost the only passage where it certainly bears
that sense (Ps. I48 7 ). There are strong traces of mythology
in the usage of the word: Is. 27* 5i 9 (Gu. Schopf. 30-33),
Ps. 74 13 (?) ; and it may have been originally the name of
a class of legendary monsters like Ti amat. The mytho
logical 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 (v. llff -), these living beings are endowed
with the right of self-propagation by a s~eparate~"act a
benediction (see v. 28 ). The distinction Is natural. be
fruitful, etc.] "There is nothing to indicate that only a
front of : see BDB, 5. fWB, II. 7, a, (5r inserts p m at the end of the
v. 21. DJ jnrt] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far the
Heb. usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The important
point is that it represents a power hostile to God, not only in the pass,
cited above, but also in Job 7 12 . There are resemblances in the Ar.
tinnin, a fabulous amphibious monster, appearing- now on land and now
in the sea (personification of the waterspout? RS?, 176), concerning
which the Arabian cosmographers have many wonderful tales to relate
(Mas adI, i. 263, 266 ff. ; Kazwmi, Ethels tr. i. 270 ff.). Ra., 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
(comp. En. 60, 4 Esd. 6 4y - M , Ber. R. c. 7).* nn vsr^ n*o] Cf. 9 10 ,
* In Bab. tanninu is said to be a mythological designation of the
earth (Jen. Kosm. 161 ; Jer. ATLO \ 136? ; King, Cr. Tab. IO9 24 ) ; but that
throws no light on Heb.
I. 21-25 29
single pair of each kind was originally produced " (Ben.) ;
the language rather suggests that whole species, in some
thing like their present multitude, were created.
24, 25. Seventh work : Terrestrial animals.
24. Let the earth bring forth living creatures] rrn 6?D3 (again
coll.) is here a generic name for land animals, being re
stricted by what precedes living animals that spring
from the earth. Like the plants (v. 12 ), they are boldly said
to be produced by the earth, their bodies being part of the
earth s substance (2 7 - 19 ) ; this could not be said of fishes in
relation to the water, and hence a different form of ex
pression had to be employed in v. 20 . The classification of
animals (best arranged in v. 25 ) is threefold: (i) wild
animals, T^^ n -0 (roughly > carnivord) ; (2) domesticated
animals, fi^r 1 (herbivora) ; (3) reptiles, """?"} $? ^?"!, including
perhaps creeping insects and very small quadrupeds (see
Dri. DB, i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division
appears in a Babylonian tablet cattle of the field, beasts
of the field and creatures of the city (Jen. K1B, vi. i,
42 f. ; King, Cr. Tab. 112 f.). 25. God saw that it was
good\ The formula distinctly marks the separation of this
work from the creation of man, which follows on the same
day. The absence of a benediction corresponding to
Lv. ii 10 ; 2 though without art. is really determined by *?D (but see Dri.
T. 209 (i)). is-it? IB-N] N, ace. of definition, as p^ in v. 20 . 22. toni n$]
highly characteristic of P (only 3 times elsewhere).
24. The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed throughout
the OT. norn (from a root signifying be dumb Ar. and Eth.) denotes
collectively, first, animals as distinguished from man (Ex. 9 19 etc.), but
chiefly the larger mammals ; then, domestic animals (the dumb creatures
with which man has most to do), (Gn. 34 23 $6 6 etc.). Of wild animals
specially it is seldom used alone (Dt. 32 24 , Hab. 2 17 ), but sometimes with
an addition (p, rn ^, $:) which marks the unusual reference. As a
noun of unity, Neh. 2 12> 14 . See BDB, s.v. px irvn] an archaic phrase
in which i represents the old case ending of the nom., u or um (G-K.
90 n). So Ps. 79 2 ; in-n in other combinations Is. 56 9 , Zeph. 2 14 ,
Ps. IO4 11 ; Ps. 5o 10 io4 20 . In sense it is exactly the same as the
commoner pxn rrn (i 23 - 30 g 2 - 10 etc.), and usually denotes wild animals,
though sometimes animals in general (fcDo?). EOT and p? naturally
overlap ; but the first name is derived from the manner of movement,
and the second from the tendency to swarm (Dri. I.e.).
30 CREATION (?)
vv 22. 28 i s surprising, but it is idle to speculate on the
reason.
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 (Gu.). The distinctive features of
this last work are : (a) instead of the simple jussive we
have the cohortative of either self-deliberation or consulta
tion 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 ist pers. pi. has always
been felt.
Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by reading
n ^jy as ptcp. Niph. a view the absurd grammatical consequences of
which are trenchantly exposed by lEz. The older Christian comm.
generally find in the expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even
Calvin) ; but that doctrine is entirely unknown to the OT, and cannot
be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained as
pi. pf self-deliberation (Tu.), or after the analogy of the we of royal
edicts ; but Di. has shown that neither is consistent with native Heb.
idiom. Di. himself regards it as based on the idea of God expressed by
the pi. D n^N, as the living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers
and forces (so Dri.) ; but that philosophic rendering of the concept of
deity appears to be foreign to the theology of the OT.
26. unions 1JD7S3J (8r KO,T elxdva T]p,^Tepa.v Kal Ka.6 6/j.oid)(riv. Mechilta
(see above, p. 14), gives as (Gr s reading nionai D 1 ?^. On the ? of a
model, cf. Ex. 25* ; BDB, s.v. III. 8. D^x] Ass. salmu, the technical
expression for the statue of a god (JfAT 3 , 476 3 ) ; Aram, and Syr. NpS ,
= image ; the root is not zalima, be dark, but possibly $alama, cut
off (Noldeke, ZATW, xvii. 185^). The idea of pattern or model
is confined to the P pass, cited above ; it stands intermediate between
the concrete sense just noted (an artificial material reproduction :
i Sa. 6 5 etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. an unreal sem
blance (Ps. 39 7 73 20 ). men is the abstr. noun resemblance ; but also
used concretely (2 Ch. 4 , like Syr. (2.Q1D5) ; AT. dumyat = effigy.
The 1 is radical (form nv?^, cf. Ar.) ; hence the ending n* is no proof of
Aramaic influence (We. ProZ. 5 388) ; see Dri. JPh. xi. 216.
Ins. n!n with 5 (v.s.). Other Vns. agree with MT.
1. 26 31
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: cf. 3 22 n 7 , Is. 6 8 , i Ki. 22 19 - 22 (so Philo, Ra. lEz.
De. Ho. Gu. Ben. ah). Di. objects to this interpretation,
first, that it ascribes to angels some share in the creation of
man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine ; * and, second,
that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to by
P 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, p. 46), where a
polytheistic view of man s origin found expression. This
would naturally be replaced in a Heb. recension by the idea
of a heavenly council of angels, as in i Ki. 22, Jb. i, 38 7 ,
Dn. 4 14 7 10 etc. That P 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 v.
(ewcwv, ad imaginem) is employed. To speak of it, there
fore, as " the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine con
cerning 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 (Di.). The idea in this
precise form is in the OT peculiar to P (5*- 3 g 6 ) ; the con
ception, but not the expression, appears in Ps. 8 6 : later
biblical examples are Sir. i7 3g> , WS. 2 23 (where the * image
is equivalent to immortality), i Co. n 7 , Col. 3, Eph. 4 24 ,
Ja. 3 9 -
The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the Baby
lonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of Ea-bani,
Aruru forms a mental image (zikru : see Jen. KIB, vi. i, 401 f.) of
the God Anu (ib. 120, 1. 33) ; and similarly, in the Descent of Istar,
Comp. Calvin : " Minimam vero tarn prasclari operis partem
Angelis adseribere abominandum sacrilegium est."
32 CREATION (p)
Ea forms a zikru in his wise heart before creating Asusunamir (ib. 86.
1. n). In both cases the reference is obviously to the bodily form of
the created being-. See, further, KAT* t 506; ATLO 1 , 167.
The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine
lie beyond the scope of this commentary ; * and it is sufficient to observe
with regard to them (i) that the image is not something peculiar to
man s original state, and lost by the Fall ; because P, who alone uses
the expression, knows nothing of a Fall, and in g 6 employs the term,
without any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction
between dKwv (imago) and o^oiWis (similitude) the former referring to
the essence of human nature and the latter to its accidents or its en
dowments by grace has an apparent justification in (5r, which inserts
Kal between the two phrases (see below), and never mentions the
likeness after i 26 ; so that it was possible to regard the latter as
something belonging to the divine idea of man, but not actually con
ferred at his creation. The Heb. affords no basis for such speculations :
cf. 5 1 - 3 9 6 . (3) The view that the divine image consists in dominion
over the creatures (Greg. Nyss., Chrysostom, Socinians, etc.) is still
defended by Ho. ; but it cannot be held without an almost inconceiv
able 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 (cf. Ps. 8 6ffi , Sir. ly-" 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 OT theology ; and it is
certainly strongly suggested by a comparison of 5 3 with 5 l . God is
expressly said to have a form which can be seen (n:iDn, Nu. i2 8 ,
Ps. i7 15 ) ; the OT 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 ques
tioned if the idea of a spiritual image was within the compass of Heb.
thought. D5., 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 ex
pression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual qualities. f
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. J Note the striking parallel in Ovid, Met. i.
76 ff.
Man (7?) 1S here generic (the human race), not the
* A good summary is given by Zapletal, Alttestamentliches, 1-15.
t So Augustine, De Gen. cont. Man. i. 17: " Ita intelligitur per
animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta corporis forma, homo fact us
ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei."
J Cf. Engert, Die Weltschopfung, 33.
i. 27-29 33
proper name of an individual, as 5*. Although the great
majority of comm. 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 (Tu. and Ben.). -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. nn should
undoubtedly be restored to the text on the authority of .
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
Ps. 8 (Gu.). male and female] The persistent idea that
man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated
afterwards (mentioned by Ra. as a piece of Haggada,
and recently revived by Schwally, ARW, ix. 172 ff.), is
far from the thought of the passage. 28. Ab^JiSdic-
tion is here again the source^of fertility,. bu^this_time_alsp_
of dominion : (ju. regards this as another fragment of a
hymn. ~~"
29-31. The record of creation closes with another (tenth)
27. toVsa] (K om. The curious paraphrase of S appears to reflect
the Ebionite tendency of that translator : tv ek&u diafapy 8n6iov 6 6e6s
tKTurev avrdv (Geiger, J-iid. Ztschr. f. Wiss. u. Leben, i. 40 f.). See,
however, Nestle, MM, 3f., who calls attention to the Spdiov in fflr of
i Sa. 28 14 , and considers this word the source of the idea that thp upright
form of man is part of the divine image. But (& in i Sa. probably
misread jpi as *]pi. ink] construct ad formam: Dnk constr. ad sensum,
DIK being collective : see G-K. i%2g. mpai ~nt] The phrase confined to
P except Dt. 4 16 ; j alone in Jer. 3i 21 (a gloss?). Although the applica
tion to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the coll.
sense is established by Gn. 7 16 , and is to be assumed in some other cases
(Nu. 5 s etc.). On its etymology see Ges. Th., s.v., and (for a different
view) Schwally, ZATW, xi. 181 f. 28. en 1 ? TDJO] <& \tyuv ; perhaps
original. 7 f33 <| ] The only instance of a verbal suff. in this chapter: a
strong preference for expression of ace. by nx with suff. is characteristic
of the style of P(We. Prol. *$%<)). rwmn] ptcp. with art. = relative cl. : see
Dav. 99, R. i. The previous noun is defined by *?3, as in v. 21 (JUA inserts
the art.). After D Bs? 5 read normi (so Ball), fflr has for the end of the
V. : KCU Trdvruv rCiv KTrjvuiv Kal Trdcr^s rijs yijs /cai TT&.VTWV \r<2v epTreruv] T&V
29. nnj] = 1 1 give ; Dav. 406; Dri. T. 13. jni (over Athnach)]
3
34 CREATION (?)
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 9 2ff -, 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 P 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 chs. 2.
3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as
part of the curse has herbs (DE>y) assigned to him. 31. The
account closes with the divine verdict of approval, which
wrongly omitted by (Or. .I^DN] found only in P and Ezk., and always
preceded by ^. It is strictly fern, inf., and perhaps always retains
verbal force (see Dri. JPh. xi. 217). The ordinary cognate words for
food are V::N and ^p. 30. ill ^a 1 ?! The construction is obscure. The
natural interpretation is that ^ expresses a contrast to M the one
specifying- the food of man, the other that of animals. To bring out
this sense clearly it is necessary (with Ew. al.) to insert nnj before
pV^D-nx. The text requires us to treat n^DN 1 ? sr.v DO 1 ? in M as a paren
thesis (Di.) and pv^rnN as still under the regimen of the distant nra
^P n] (K epTrery r ZpirovTi assimilating. w$i] here used in its primary
sense of the soul or animating principle (see later on 2 7 ), with a marked
difference from vv. 201 - 24 . ivy pv] so 9 3 , = N$n " Ps. 372. pn; (verdure)
alone may include the foliage of trees (Ex. io 16 ) ; rn ^cr = grass (Nu.
22 4 ). The word is rare (6t.) ; a still rarer form p~v may sometimes be
confounded with it (Is. 37^ = 2 Ki. ly 26 ?). 31. ern or] The art. with
the num. appears here for the first time in the chap. On the construc
tion, see Dri. T. 209 (i), where it is treated as the beginning of a usage
prevalent in post-biblical Heb., which often in a definite expression uses
the art. with the adj. alone (nSvun nw3, etc.). Cf. G-K. 126^ (with
footnote) ; Ho. Hex. 465 ; Dri. JPh. xi. 229 f.
L 30-11. 3 35
here covers a survey of all that has been made, and rises to
the superlative very good.
y v 29f. diff er significantly in their phraseology from the preceding
sections : thus Jn* instead of in]D ( n - 12 ) ; jni jni py na u nrn pyn instead
of the far more elegant U iyni nt?K nfl ntyy fy ; the classification into beasts,
birds, and reptiles (ct. 24> **) ; rvn t?2J of the inner principle of life instead
of the living being as in w^ 24 ; iz>y p-i instead of NBH. These linguistic
differences are sufficient to prove literary discontinuity of some kind.
They have been pointed out by Kraetschmar (Bundesvorstg. 103 f.), who
adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition of animal food
to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in vv. 26 - 28 . But his infer
ence (partly endorsed by Ho.) that the vv. are a later addition to P
does not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9 2ff % and must
have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The facts point
rather to a distinction in the sources with which P worked, perhaps
(as Gu. 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.
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? (Gu.). 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.
36 THE SABBATH
I. And all their host} The host of heaven
is frequently mentioned in the OT, and denotes sometimes
the heavenly bodies, especially as objects of worship
(Dt. 4 19 etc.), sometimes the angels considered as an
organised army (i Ki. 22 19 etc.). The expression host of
the earth nowhere occurs ; and it is a question whether
the pi. suff. here is not to be explained as a denominatio a
potiori (Ho.), or as a species of attraction (Dri.). If it has
any special meaning as applied to the earth, it would be
equivalent to what is elsewhere called pxn fcfe (Is. 6 s 34 1 ,
Dt. 33 16 etc.) the contents of the earth, and is most
naturally limited to those things whose creation has just
been described.* In any case the verse yields little support
to the view of Smend and We., that in the name Yahwe
of Hosts the word denotes the complex of cosmical forces
(Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 201 ff.), or the demons in which
these forces were personified (We. Kl. Proph. 77). 2. And
God finished, etc.} The duplication of v. 1 is harsh, and
I. las] Lit. host or army ; then period of service (chiefly
military). (5r /c<$cr/uos and 5J ornatus look like a confusion with ny. Used
of the host of heaven, Dt. 4 19 ly 3 , Is. 24 21 4o 26 , where U has in the first
case astra, in the others militia. , (& tcda-pos in all. 2. *?3 i] For the
alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine Nu. ly 25 , or (with
jo) i Sa. io 13 , Ex 34 33 etc. nattta] the word "used regularly of the
work or business forbidden on the Sabbath (Ex. 2o 9 10 35 2 , Jer. ly 2 *- 1 *
al.)" (Dri.) ; or on holy convocations (Ex. i2 16 , Lv. i6 29 23- 8fft , Nu. 29 7 ).
It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation or business, as Gen.
39 n , Jon. i 8 . -y^tyn 1 ] jux(Ecj$ Jub., Ber. A\ tfn, given as <& s read
ing in Mechilta (cf. p. 14 above). n3!"i] The omission of continued
subj. (DVI^N) might strengthen We. s contention that the clause is a
gloss (see p. io above): it occurs nowhere else in the passage except
possibly i 7 . The verb rot? (possibly connected with Ar. sabata cut
off, or Ass. sabdtu 1 cease, be completed : but see KAT Z > 593 f.)
appears in OT in three quite distinct senses: (a) cease to be, come
to an end ; (b) desist (from work, etc.) ; (c) keep Sabbath (denom.).
Of the last there are four undoubted cases, all very late : Lv. 25* 23 32
26 34f -, 2 Ch. 36 21 . But there are five others where this meaning is at
least possible: Gn. 2 s - 5 , Ex. i6 30 23 12 34 21 31"; and of these Ex. 23"
34 21 are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful passages, the sense
* Cf. Neh. 9 6 "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."
n. 1-3 37
strongly suggests a composition of sources. on the seventh
day} juxd^S read sixth day (so also Jubilees, ii. 16, and Jerome,
Qu<zst.\ which is accepted as the original text by many
comm. (Hg. Ols. Bu. al.).* But sixth is so much the easier
reading that one must hesitate to give it the preference.
To take the vb. as plup. (Calv. al.) is grammatically impos
sible. On We. s explanation, see above, p. gf. The only
remaining course is to give a purely negative sense to the
vb. finish : i.e. desisted from, did not continue (lEz.
De. Di. Dri. al.). The last view may be accepted, in spite
of the absence of convincing parallels. and he rested} The
idea of ri3B* is essentially negative : cessation of work, not
relaxation (Dri.): see below. Even so, the expression is
strongly anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerat
ing P s aversion to such representations.! 3- blessed . . .
desist (b) is found only in Ho. 7*, Jb. 32* (Qal) ; Ex. 5 5 , Jos. 22 25 ,
Ezk. i6 41 34 10 (Hiph.) ; of which Ho. 7 4 (a corrupt context) and Ex. 5",
alone are possibly pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in all ;
9 Qal, 4 Niph., 33 Hiph.) the sense (a) come to an end obtains ; and
this usage prevails in all stages of the literature from Am. to Dn. ; the
pre-exilic examples being Gn. 8 22 , Jos. 5 12 (?) (Qal); Is. i; 3 (Niph.);
Am. 8 4 , Ho. i 4 2 13 , Is. i6 10 (?) 30", Dt. ^2 26 , 2 Ki. 2 3 8 - , Jer. 7 34 i6 9
36 29 (Hiph.). These statistics seem decisive against Hehn s view (I.e.
93 ff.) that ro^ is originally a denom. from ri2^. 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 (cf. the analogous
case of Viri), 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 Heb. vb. 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 Ex. 23 12 34 21 might be early
examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold
(ZATW, 1909, 100 f.), except that he ignores the distinction between
desist and come to an end, which seems to me important.] 3. N"n
mwyh . . .] The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because ton
could not directly govern the subst. m*t!?D. (5r has ijp^aro . . . TroiTycrcu.
* Expressly mentioned as (& s reading in Mechilta : see above, p. 14,
and Geiger, I.e. 439.
f In another passage of P, Ex. 3i 17 , the anthropomorphism is greatly
intensified : " God rested and refreshed Himself" (lit. took breath ).
See Jast. (AJTh. ii. 3436.), who thinks that God s resting meant
originally " His purification after His conquest of the forces hostile to
38 THE SABBATH
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 (Dri.), does not quite bring
out the sense. Both verbs contain the idea of selection and
distinction (cf. Sir. 36 [33] 7 ~ 9 ), but they are not synonymous
(Gu.). A blessing is the effective utterance of a good wish ;
applied to things, it means their endowment with per
manently beneficial qualities (Gn. 27 27 , Ex. 23 25 , Dt. 28 12 ).
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.
The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian
usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here (see Lotz,
Qucest. de hist. Sabbati [1883] ; Jastrow, AJTh. ii. [1898], 312 ff. ; KAT*>
592 ff. ; Dri. DB, s.v., and Gen. 34; Sta. BTh. 88, 2). The main
facts, however, are these : (i) The name sab[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)
Sabattu is equated with Am nufy 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 (Jen. ZA>
iv. 274 ff. ; Jast. I.e. 3i6f.). (b) In a tablet discovered by Pinches in
1904, the name sapattu is applied to the fifteenth day of the month (as
full-moon-day?) (Pin. PSBA, xxvi. 51 ff. ; Zimmern, ZDMG, Iviii. 199 ff.,
458 ff.). (2) The only trace of a Babylonian institution at all resembling
the Heb. Sabbath is the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul,
MarcheSvan, but possibly the rest as well) the yth, I4th, 2ist and 28th
days, and also the igth (probably as the 7 x 7th from the beginning of
the previous month), had the character of dies nefasti ( lucky day, un-
the order of the world," and was a survival of the mythological idea of
the appeasement of Marduk s anger against Ti amat. The vb. there
used is ndfyu, the equivalent of Heb. rm, used in Ex. 2o n .
n. 3, 4A 39
lucky 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 sabattu ;
and the likelihood that this was the case is distinctly lessened by the
Pinches fragment, where the name is applied to the i5th day, but not
to the yth, although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question,
therefore, has assumed a new aspect ; and Meinhold (Sabbath u. Woche
im AT [1905], and more recently [1909], ZATW, xxix. 81 ff.), developing
a hint of Zim., has constructed an ingenious hypothesis on the assump
tion that in Bab. Sabattu 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 (Am. 8 5 , Hos. 2 13 , Is. i 13 , 2 Ki. 4 22f> ) ; and concludes
that in early Israel, as in Bab., 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 Dt. i6 9 ;
cf. Ex. 34 21 ), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year (Lv. 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
Bab. institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is no historical con
nexion between the Heb. Sabbath and the dies nefasti of the Bab.
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 re
strictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these changes, it must be
confessed, no convincing explanation has yet been found. The estab
lished 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 u.
Sabbat, 91 ff., esp. 1140*". ; cf. Gordon, JSTG, 216 ff.
4a. These are the generations, etc.] The best sense that
can be given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to
4a. nn"?in] only in pi. const, or with suff. ; and confined to P, Ch.
and Ru. 4 18 . Formed from Hiph. of n 1 ? , it means properly begettings ;
not, however, as noun of action, but concretely ( = progeny ) ; and this
is certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase n K (only P [all in Gn.
except Nu. 3 ], i Ch. i 29 , Ru. 4 18 ) 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 (Gti. [5 1 ] ro 1 n 10 n 27 25 ia
4O THE SABBATH
what precedes, and render the noun by * origin : * This is
the origin of, etc. But it is doubtful if nn^in 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
P j and in that document it invariably stands as introduction to the
section following. But in this case the next section (2 4b -4 26 ) belongs
to J ; and if we pass over the J passages to the next portion of P (ch. 5),
the formula would collide with 5 1 , which is evidently the proper heading
to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the improbable hypothesis
of Strack, that a part of P s narrative has been dropped, the attempt to
treat 2 4a 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 i 1 , as the heading of P s account
36 1>9 , i Ch. i 29 , Ru. 4 18 ) 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 : Gn. 6 9 25 19 37 2 .
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 37 3 may not have
been originally followed by a genealogy (such as 35 22b " 26 or 46 8 27 [see
Hupfeld, Quellen, 102-109, 213-216]) which was afterwards displaced
in the course of redaction (see p. 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" (G-B.
s.v.), or an account of a man and his descendants " (BDB). The natural
hypothesis would then be that a series of nn^in formed one of the sources
employed by P in compiling his work : the introduction of this genea
logical document is preserved in 5 1 (so Ho.); the recurrent formula
represents successive sections of it, and 2** 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 TolVdoth, sometimes under those of
his father ; and it is difficult otherwise to account for the omission
of the formula before I2 1 or for its insertion in 36 9 . On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary view that
the formula was devised by P to mark the divisions of the principal
work. DN-i3 n n] in their creation or when they were created. If the
lit. mimisc. has critical significance (Tu. Di.) the primary reading was
inf. Qal (DN-I^?^ ; and this requires to be supplemented by D n^K as subj.
It is in this form that Di. thinks the clause originally stood at the begin
ning of Gen. (see on i 1 ). But the omission of DM^N and the insertion
of the f<1 minusc. are no necessary consequences of the transposition of
the sentence ; and the small n may be merely an error in the archetypal
MS, which has* been mechanically repeated in all copies.
II. 4A 4 1
of the creation.* But this theory also is open to serious objection. It
involves a meaning- of nn nn which is contrary both to its etymology and
the usage of P (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be as
signed to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it is always followed
by gen. 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, Or. ii. 38 ff., and Ho.). And even if that difficulty could be
overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable description of
the process of creation as conceived by P. In short, neither as super
scription 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 Ho. that the formula in this place owes
its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of P by a later
hand. The insertion would be suggested by the observation that the
formula divides the book of Gen. into definite sections ; while the advan
tage 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 n in the sense of history
and referred nVN to what follows. The analogy of 5 1 , Nu. 3 1 would
suffice to justify the use of the formula before the nrn of 4b . It has
been thought that Or has preserved the original form of the text : viz.
in n nso n; (cf. 5 1 ) ; the redactor having, " before inserting a section from
the other document, accidentally copied in the opening words of 5*,
which were afterwards adapted to their present position " (Ben.). That
is improbable. It is more likely that (3r deliberately altered the text to
correspond with 5*. See Field, Hex., ad loc. ; Nestle, MM, 4.
Babylonian and other Cosmogonies.
I. The outlines of Bab. cosmogony have long been known from two
brief notices in Greek writers : (i) an extract from Berossus (3rd cent.
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 cent. 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 Chal-
daean 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 KAT*, 488 ff.):
(i) Berossus : Tevtcrdai (p-rjcri ^phvov tv $ rb irav o-/c6ros Kal tiSwp elvat,
Kal 4v TOVTOIS cDa reparudri, Kal I5io<pveis [em. Richt., cod. et 5i0i>ets] ras
idtas ZXOVTO. faoyoveladai avQp&irovs yap diirrtpovs yevvrjdrivai, tviovs 8
* On Dillmann s modification of this theory, see above on
42 BABYLONIAN
Kal rerpctTrrepous Kal Snrpocr&Trovs Kal <ru>/Li.a fj.lv e xojro.s eV, Ke0aXds 5e 8vo,
dvdpetav re Kal yvvaiKeiav, Kal alSota 8 [corr. v. Gutschm., cod. re] i<r<rd,
appev Kai #77X1; Kal ere"poi s avQp&irovs TOVS fj.lv aiy&v ffK^Xt] Kal Ke*para $x ov -
ras, TOVS 5e ITTTTOU irddas [corr. v. Gutschm., cod. brTroTroSas], TOVS Se rd
btrlffd) fj.lv fJ.^pfj ITTITUV, rd 5e Zfiirpoffdev avQp&iruv, ovs [cos? v. Gutschm.]
linroKCVTavpovs rrjv Idtav elvai. ZwoyovrjOrjvai 81 Kal raupovs avdpuvuv
K(pa\as fyovTas Kal Kvvas rerpacrw/u.drous, ovpds ixQvos K T&V 8Tri<r6ev
Kal ITTTTOVS Kvt>OKe<f>d\ovs Kal avdpuirovs, Kal Zrepa ^wa /ce^aXds
ovpas 8 tydfitav Kal a\\a 5e
roi^rots l\6vas Kal epirera K
("toa wXeiova Oai /naffra Kal TrapTjXXary/^j as [em. v. Gutschm., cod.
/A^a] rds d l/ eis aXX^Xajj/ J-XOVTCL &v Kal ras ei /covas eV ry rou B^Xou vcup
dj/a:e<(r^at, apxciv 8t TOVTWV iravTuv yvvalKa y 6vou.a 0/zop/ca [corr. Scaliger,
cod. *0/Aopw/ca] cTi ai rouro 5^ XaXSaiVri ^iev 6a/ire [corr. W. R. Smith,
.^4, vi. 339, cod. 0aXar0], EXXTji iari 5 /j.eOepfj.TjveveTai ^dXatrtra xard 5^
i<?6\//r]<poi GeK hvT). Ourcos 5^ Twy 8\d)v o vve&TyKOTui , tiraveXdbvTa B?jXoi/
yvvaLKa, /m-^anjv, Kal rb /j.v TJ/j,i<rv avrijs iroLrfcrai yijv, r6 5^ dXAo
ovpavbv, Kal ra tv [vvv? v. Gutschm.] avrrj wa d(pavi<rai, dXX^opt/cws
TOUTO Tre<t>vffio\oyT)crdat vypou yap 6vros rou Travrds Kal f&uv v avrip
[A]* roi&vde [em. v. Gutschm., cod. rbv 5^] B7;Xo , 6v Aa
cr/c6ros x^P^ - 1 T^ 1 * /ca ^ ovpavbv air dXX?JXwi ,
/cat 5tard|ai rii Kfojuov. Td 5^ ^"tDa OUK tveyKbvra TTJV rou 0wr6s 5wa/*tv 00ap-
^I at, id6vra 5^ r6v B^Xov x^P av tpynov Kal aKap-jro(p6pov [em. Gunkel, cod.
Kapwofp&pov] K\ev(rai evl r&v 6e&v TT\V K(fia\T]v a(pe\6vTi eaurou ry airoppvtvrL
al/j-art (pvpavat TT)V yrjv Kal StaTrXdaat dvdp&Trovs Kal difjpta ra Swd/meva rbv
de pa 0epetv. ATroreX^erai 5^ rov BTjXoi /cai a<rrpa Kal TJ\IOV Kal <rf\^vr]v Kal
roi>s Tr^re TrXafTjras. Taurd 077(7^ 6 TroXwVrwp AX^ar5pos r6v Br}pwcr(rbv tv
rrj Trp&Tig (fidcTKeiv [B] * TOVTOV rbv 8e6v a<pe\flv TT\V eaurou K(f)a\T]v Kal r6
pu^ af/ia rous fiXXous Oeobs 0upacrai r?j 7^, /cai 5ta7rXdo*at rous
5i6 voepous re eTvai /cai ^poj^crea;? ^et aj ^.er^etv.
(2) Damascius : Tw^ 5e fiapfidpuv eW/catn Ba/3uXc6vtoi ^ei r
Aw*/ dpx Jji 0-4777 irapitvai, 8uo 5e Troietv Tau^e *cal Airaffwv, rbv f
&i>5pa rrjs Tavde iroiovvres, ravr-r^v 5e /x?jr^pa OeCjv dvoudfrovres,
iraida yevvrjdTJvaL rbv Mcuu/ati , atirbv 61/j.at. rbv vot^rbv K6(T[j.ov K ruv Svoiv
apx&v Trapay6fj.vov. E* 5^ T&V avr&v aXkifv yeveav irpoe\6e iv, Aaxyv [cod.
Kal Aaxov [cod. Aaxoj/]. Elra aft rp irt]v K rCov aurcDv, Kurffapij Kal
4% &v yevtcrdai rpets, Avov Kal IXXivov Kal Aov rou 5e Aou Kal
vibv yevtadai rbv 677X0^, 8v 8rj(j.Lovpy6v elval (paffiv.^
* 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. Je. ATLO*, 134,
plausibly assigns the section from aXX ^optKuJs to Qdapyvat to another
recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).
f The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Muller, Fragm. Hist.
Grcec. li. 497 f. ; that of Damascius in Damascii philos. de print, pr inc.
(ed. Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both fragments, see
COSMOGONIES 43
2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and con
tinuous comparison with Gn. i is the great Creation Epos just referred
to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first fragments, many lacunae
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 elis (= When
above ).* The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier date than
the yth cent. 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 out
line of the contents of the tablets is based on King s analysis of the
epic into five originally distinct parts (C7\ p. Ixvii).
i. The Theogony. The first twenty-one lines of Tab. I. contain a
description of the primaeval 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 primaeval Apsu, 1 who begat them,
And chaos, Ti amat, 2 the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.
First Lahmu and Lahamu, 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 Bab. pantheon, Anu, Bel, and Ea. 5
1 Damascius, Aira<rui>. 2 Dam. Tav0e, Ber. 0a/rre (em., see above).
3 Dam. Aaxfj and Aaxos (em.). 4 A<rcrw/3os and Kicrcra/)?;. 5 Ai/o?,
IXXtvos (In-lil = Bel), and Aos.
KAT*, 488 ff. ; G. Smith, Chaldean Genesis (ed. Sayce), pp. 34 ff., 43!".
(from Cory, Ancient Fragments} ; Gu. Schopf. if ff. ; Nikel, Gen. 11.
Keilschr. 24 f., 28.
* The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in English
is given in L. W. King s Seven Tablets of Creation, vol. i. (1902) ; with
which should be compared Jen. Mythen und Epen, in KIB, vi. i (1900),
and now (1909) Gressmann, Altorient. Texte und Bilder z. AT., i. 46.
See also Jen. Kosmologie (iSyo), 268-301 ; Gu. Schopf. (1894)401-420, and
the summaries in KAT*, 492 ff. ; Lukas, Grundbegriffe in d. Kosm. d.
alt. Volker (1893), 2 ff . ; Jast. Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1898) 410 ff. ; Jer.
ATLO*, 132 ff. ; EB, art. CREATION.
44 BABYLONIAN
ii. The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea. The powers of chaos, Apsu,
Tiamat, and a third being 1 called Mummu (Dam. Mow/as), take counsel
together to destroy the way of the heavenly deities. An illegible
portion of Tab. 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. Tabs. 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 Tab. 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 con
fronts 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 Tab. 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-Sara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-Sara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.
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-sara, or is to be looked for in a lost part of Tab. V., is a point in
dispute (see Jen. Kosm. 1856., 195 ff. ; and KIB, vi. i, 344 f.). Tab.
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 ;
COSMOGONIES 45
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 Tab. V., where legible, contains nothing bearing on the
present subject ; but in Tab. 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 Tabs.
IV. -VI.
How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with the
cosmogony of Gn. i ? (i) In both we find the general notion of a watery
chaos, and an etymological equivalence in the names (Tiamat, T&hdm]
by which it is called. It is true that the Bab. chaos is the subject of a
double personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat the
female principle by whose union the gods are generated. Accord
ing to Jen. (KIB, 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 (Tab.
I. 5), and by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the sub
sequent narrative the r61e of Apsu is insignificant ; and in the central
episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the power
of chaos, as in Heb. TVhorn. (2) In Enurna eli$ the description of
chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there is no trace in Gen.
The Bab. theory is essentially monistic, the gods being conceived as
emanating from a material chaos. Lukas, indeed (I.e. 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 Tab. 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, pp. 7, 15), and at all events
the supremacy of the spiritual principle (Elohim) is absolute. That a
46 BABYLONIAN
theogony must have originally stood between vv. 2 and * of Gn. i (Gu.)
is more than can be safely affirmed. Gu. thinks it is the necessary
sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end of v. 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 Phrenician 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 Bab. 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 primaeval chaos. In Enuma elis the septum is formed from the
body of Tiamat ; in Gen. it is simply a rdkia a solid structure
fashioned tor the purpose. But the common idea is one that could
hardly have been suggested except by the climatic conditions under
which the Bab. myth is thought to have originated. Jen. has shown,
to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of the
Bab. 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 Kosm. 307 ff. ; cf. Gu. Schopf. 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 p. 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 (p. 30 f.). Here, however, the resemblance is
slight, though the deliberative ist pers. pi. in Gn. i 26 is probably a
reminiscence of a dialogue like that between Marduk and Ea in the
Enuma elis 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
COSMOGONIES 47
naturally by that of the stars. The arrangement of the remaining
works, which must have been mentioned in lost parts of Tabs. 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, CT, lix,
Ixxxvi). Gordon (Early Traditions of Gen.) holds that the differences
of arrangement can be reduced to the single transposition of heavenly
bodies and plants (see his table, p. 51).
In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that thel
cosmogony of Gn. I rests on a conception of the process of creation!
fundamentally identical with that of the Enuma eliS 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.* 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 (tamtu).
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 reed f 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.
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.
*JRAS, 1891, 393 ff.; translated in King, CT, 131*?.; KIB, 39 ff.;
ATLO*, i29ff. ; Texte u. Bilder, i. 27 f.; Sayce, Early Israel, 336 f.
Cf. the summary in KAT*, 498.
t So King; but Je. a reed-hurdle (Rohrgeflechf) \ while Jen.
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 KA T*).
48 PHOENICIAN
The main interest of the fragment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-
fact representation of the primaeval condition of things, and of the
process of world-building. Of special correspondences with Gn. i there
are perhaps but two : (a) the impersonal conception of chaos implied
in the appellative sense of tamtu(TVhdm) 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 Gn. 2 ; but from that account it is sharply distinguished
by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast to the arid waste of
Gn. 2 5 . It is therefore inadmissible to regard this text as a more illumi
nating parallel to Gn. i than the Enuma eli$ 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
mo part, and that the biblical narrative goes back directly to one of
ithese. But when we consider that the Tiamat myth appears in both the
jGreek 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 Gn. i 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 OT.
Gu. in his Schopfung 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 T&hdw) ;
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.*
4. The Phoenician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions
are given below,f hardly presents any instructive points of comparison
* The chief texts are Is. 5i 9t , Ps. 8 9 loff -, Jb. 26 12f - (Rahab); Ps.
74 12ff -, Is. ay 1 (Leviathan) ; Jb. 7*- (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion
in Schlipf. 30-111 ; and the criticisms of Che. EB, i. 950 f., and Nikel,
pp. 90-99.
f Eus. Prcep. Evang. i. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 37 ff.; cf. Orelli, Sa?ich.
Berytii Fragm. [1826]), gives the following account of the cosmogony
of Sanchuniathon (a Phoenician writer of unknown date, and even of
uncertain historicity) taken from Philo Byblius :
" TTJV T&V o\a}v apxftv vTroTiGerai atpa o0u>5?7 Kal Trvev/JLaTibS-r), i) TTVOTJV
atpos ^~o0a>5oi>s, Kal x ao * doXepbv, pef3&8es. Taura 6 elvai aireipa, xal 5td
iro\vv aluva /J.T] l^en/ irtpas. "Ore 5^, (prjo i.i , ripaffdyrb Trvevfj-arCov iftlwv dpx&v,
Kal tytvero (rvyKpaffis, i] TT\OKT] (Keivr] K\r)Or] HoOos. A-vrrj
a.TrdvT<j)v avrb 8t OVK ^yivucTKe ryv ai/roO Krlaiv, Kal K rrjs
roD -rrveufJiaTOs, tytvero Mwr. Tour6 Tivts (pacus IXvv, ol 5, vdarddovs
COSMOGONY 49
with Gn. i. 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 Gn. i 2 . In Sanchuniathon, the union of
gloomy, breath-like Air" with turbid dark Chaos produces a miry
watery mixture called Murr, in which all things originate, and first of all
certain living beings named watchers of heaven (cv?$ si:). These
appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are shaped like
the form of an eggj i.e., probably, are arranged in the sky in that form.
In Eudemos, the first principles are Xpovos, II60os, and O/xtxX?; : the two
latter give birth to Arjp and Aupa, and from the union of these again
Kal K TavTys tytveTo ird<ra awopd
d Tiva tDa OVK ZXOVTO, aicrd-rj<nv, e &v eyeveTo fu)a voepd, K
[Zw07;(rayui/x] TOUT ZCTTIV ovpavov KaTbirrai. Kat dveirXdadT] 6/Aota>s [-f-cioD, see
Or.] crxwiaTr /cat te\a/. .\J/e Ma>r 77X165 re Kal ffeXrjvTj, d<rr^pes re Kal &&lt;rrpa
/j.eyd\a" ..." Kai TOV dtpos diavxdaavTos, did irvpoxriv Kal TTJS daXdaffrjs Kal
TTJS yijs frytvero Trj/e^ara, Kal vefir), Kal ovpaviwv vSdrwv fj^yurrai Kara<popal
Kal -xyfffis. Kal tTreidr] dieKpid-rj, Kal TOV idlov rbirov diexupicrdT] did TT\V TOU
i]\lov Trtipuffiv, Kal Trdvra avvi]VT-f](se ird\iv v dtpi rdde ToiffSe, Kal <ri veppa!;av
re dTreTeXtffdrjaav Kal dcrrpaTral, Kal irpos TOV iraTayov T&V fipovrCov
irpoyeypa/j./u.^va voepd &a typriyopTjcrei* Kal Trpos TOV Tf%ov twTvpr], Kal
T yrj Kal 6a\daa"r] appev Kal d-fj\v. n . . . ET?S rourotj
wit, N6roi Kal Boptov, Kal TUJV Xonr&v, t-jriXeyei U A\X
rd TTJS yrjs (3\aaTr)/j.aTa, Kal deovs frd/u-Hrav, Kal
vTa, d(p &v airroi re oieyivovTO, Kal 01 fTr6/J.evoi, Kal 01 irpb attruv Trd^res, Kal
Kal dTriduaeis ^TTotovv." Kai 4iri\yi " ACrai 5 rj&av at ^irivoiai TTJS
o/^oiai Trj ai>T&v avdeveia, KaL ^VXTJS droX/it a. Eird
yeyevrjadai K TOV Ko\iria dv^ov, Kal ywaiKbs avTov Edav, TOVTO 5t
epwveveiv, Aiuiva Kal llpurbyovov dvyTovs dvdpas, OVTU /caXouya^o^s." . . .
[the sequel on p. 124 below].
The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle) and a
native writer Mochos : they are preserved in the following passage of
Damascius (cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 385):
2i5tt)i iot 5 Kara TOV avTov crvyypafaa (i.e. Eudemos) irpb irdvTwv ~%.pbvov
viroTldevTai Kal YlbQov Kal 0/it%X7;j . TL66ov 5^ Kal 0/utxX7;s fJiiytvTwv ws Svolv
dpx&v Aepa yevtcrdai Kal Avpav, Atpa p.v &KpaTOv TOV VOTJTOV TrapadrjXovvTes,
Aupav 8 Tb ^ avTov KIVOI I/UCVOV TOV vorjTov ^wTiKbv irpoTvir^pLa. IldXt^ 5
K TOVTUV d/x0otv COTOV [rd. wbv] yevvrjdrjvai /card TOV vovv olfj,ai TOV vorjTov.
fis 5^ Z$-ti)6v Eu5?7/ioi; TT]V ^OIVIKOJV evpl<TKO[j.ev /card MtD^o** u.vdo\oylav,
fy Tb irp&Tov Kal A7/p at dvo avTai apxcn, % &v yevva-Tai QvXw/jibs, 6
6ebs, avrb ol/j-ai Tb &Kpov rc9 VOTJTOV ov eavTi^ ffvveKdbvros yevvrjdrjvai <prfffi
JLovffupbv, dvoiyta irp&TOv, elra ubv TOVTOV jj.v olu,ai TOV voi]Tbv vovv \tyovTes,
rbv d dvoiyta Xoucrwpif, TTJV VOTJTTJV dvva/niv dre irp&njv SiaKplvaaav TTJV
ddidKpiTov (fevffiv, el fj.rj apa /*erd raj dvo dp%ds Tb /JL^V &Kpov tffTiv avf/j.03 b
efs, Tb 5t fjiecrov 01 dvo &ve/j.oi Al\f/ re Kal N6ros TroioDcrt 7ap TTWS Kat TOVTOVS
irpb TOV Oi^XwyLtoO 6 5 Ov\ti>/j,bi avTbs b vor/rbs etrj vovs, b 5^ avoiycvs, Xovaupbs,
i) //.era r6 vor]Tov irpibnr] rd^ts, Tb d &bv b ovpavbs \4yerat ybp ai/rou paytvTOS
e/s dvo, yevtadai ovpavbs Kal yi} t raiv dixoTo/j,r)/j.dT(t}v e/fdrepo* .
4
50 COSMOGONIES
proceeds an egg. More striking is the expression of the idea in
Mochos. Here the union of Aid-ftp and A-f/p produces 0Xw/*os (o^y), from
which proceed Xovawpos, 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 Xova-wpos) 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 primaeval 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 Xou<rwpos 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 Gn. i 2 . Another
supposed point of contact is the resemblance between the name Eaav
and the Heb. ini. In Sanchuniathon Baau is explained as night, and
is said to be the wife of the Kolpia-wind, and mother of Alwv and
Hpurbyovos, the first pair of mortals. It is evident that there is much
confusion in this part of the extract ; and it is not unreasonably con
jectured that Ai&v and Hpurdyovos 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 Tohu and Bdhfl
in Gn. There is a strong probability that the name Baau is connected
with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see ATLO*, 161) ; but the
evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically Phcenician
influences are traceable in Gn. i 2 .
5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar to that of
Gn. i, 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 Gn. i.
The order is : i. Heaven; 2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals;
6. Men. We miss from the enumeration : Light, which in Zoroastrian-
ism is an uncreated element ; and the Heavenly bodies, which are said
to belong to an earlier creation (Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. im Altert. 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, /.c., and ARW, vi. 2446. ; Caland,
ThT, xxiii. 179 ff.). The most remarkable of all known parallels to the
six days scheme of Gn. is found in a cosmogony attributed to the
ancient Etruscans by Suidas (Lexicon, s.-v. Tvppyvia). Here the creation
is said to have been accomplished in six periods of 1000 years, in the
following order : i. Heaven and Earth ; 2. the Firmament; 3. Sea and
Water ; 4. Sun and Moon ; 5. Souls of Animals ; 6. Man (see K. O. Miiller,
Die Etrusker, ii. 38; ATLO 3 , 154 f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier
than the loth cent. 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-HI. 24 5 1
II. 4b-III. 24. The Creation and Fall of Man (J).
The passage forms a complete and closely articulated
narrative,* 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 2 4bff> had primarily, perhaps, an
independent interest ; yet it contains little that is not
directly subservient to the main theme developed in ch. 3.
It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of
4 earth and heaven (2 4b ) 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 (cf. Frankenberg in Gu. 2 24). From ch. i it
differs fundamentally both in its conception of the primal
condition of the world as an arid, waterless waste (2 5f - : ct.
i 2 ), and in the order of creative works : viz. Man ( 7 ), Trees
( 9 ), Animals ( 18 - 20 ), Woman ( 21 ~ 23 ). Alike in this arrange
ment and in the supplementary features the garden ( 8 - loff -),
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 (ch. 3), with its account of the temptation
by the serpent ( 1 ~ 5 ), the transgression ( 6 - 7 ), the inquest ( 8 ~ 13 ),
the sentences ( 14 ~ 19 ), and the expulsion from Eden ( 22 ~ 24 ).
The story thus summarised 5s one of the most charming idylls in
literature: ch. 3 is justly described by Gu. as the pearl of Genesis.
Its literary and aesthetic character is best appreciated by comparison
with ch. i. Instead of the formal precision, the schematic disposition,
the stereotyped diction, the aim at scientific classification, which distin
guish the great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by child
like 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 (3 8 ), or making experiments for the welfare of His first
creature (a 188 -), or arriving at a knowledge of man s sin by a searching
* Cf. especially 2 4b with 3 19 - 23 ; 2 9 - 16f - with 3 1 5 - " 17 - 22 ; 2 8b - 10 with
3 . . 2 19 with 3 la. 14 . 2 ai-28 W j th 3 13 . ( 2 24 w j th 3 16b) . 2 25 wUh f. 10I.
52 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
examination (3 9flr )> 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 OT. We have but to thi n k f 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 Gn. i-n. Cf. the characterisation in We. Prol. 6 302 ff. ; Gu.
p. 22 ff.
Source. The features just noted, together with the use of the divine
name mrr, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs to the Yahwistic
cycle of narratives (J). Expressions characteristic of this document are
found in noip 2 14 , oysn 2 23 , nxt-no 3 13 , ITIK 3 14 - ", pasy 3 16 - 17 , -naya 3 17 ; and
(in contrast to P) is , create, instead of N13, marr rrn instead of pn n,
D"n nDew instead of n rrn (see on 7 22 ) ; and the constant use of ace. suff.
to the verb.
Traces of Composition. That the literary unity of the narrative is
not perfect there are several indications, more or less decisive, (i) The
geographical section 2 10 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 2 10 14 could not have belonged to it.
At all events the objections urged would apply only to n 14 ; and there
is much to be said, on this assumption, for retaining 10 (or at least lt)a )
as a parallel to v. 6 (Ho.). (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 Bu. According to 2 9b the tree of
life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew together in the
midst of the garden, and in 2 17 the second alone is made the test of the
man s obedience. But ch. 3 (down to v. 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 3 22 - 24 , and its sudden introduction there only creates fresh embarrass
ment ; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer s silence about it in
2 17 3 s 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 accumu
late. (3) The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the
twofold account of the expulsion from Eden : 3 23> 24 . Here 22 and 24
clearly hang together ; M and 21 are as clearly out of their proper
II. 4B-HI. 2 4 53
position ; hence 2S 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 : 2 6 1| 2 10 ( n - 14 )
(see above), s*!! 9 * (the planting of the garden) ; and 8b 1Ca (the placing
of man in it) ; 2 23 ||3 20 (the naming of the woman). (5) Bu. (Urg. 232 ff.)
was the first to suggest that the double name D nVx mrr (which is all but
peculiar to this section) has arisen through amalgamation of sources.
His theory in its broader aspects has been stated on p. 3, above ; it is
enough here to point out its bearing on the compound name in Gn. 2 f.
It is assumed that two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which
(J e ) employed only D n^K, the other (JJ) only mrr. When these were
combined the editor harmonised them by adding D nSx to mrr everywhere
in J-i, and prefixing mrr to D n 1 ?^ everywhere in J e except in the colloquy
between the serpent and the woman (3 1 " 5 ), where the general name was
felt to be more appropriate.* The reasoning is precarious ; but if it be
sound, it follows that 3 1 5 must be assigned to J e ; and since these vv.
are part of the main narrative (that which speaks only of the tree
of knowledge), there remain for JJ only 3 22 - 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 recen
sions existed ; in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the know
ledge of good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of life
(so v. Doorninck, THT> xxxix. 225 f.) and possibly both trees ;f the
former supplied the basis of our present narrative, and is practically
complete, while the second is so fragmentary that all attempt to recon
struct even its main outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.
* So Gu. A still more complete explanation of this particular point
would be afforded by the somewhat intricate original hypothesis of Bu.
He suggested that the primary narrative (J 1 ) in which mrr was regularly
used, except in 3 1 5 , was re-written and supplemented by J 2 who sub
stituted D n/K for m.T ; the two narratives were subsequently amalgamated
in rather mechanical fashion by J 3 , with the result that wherever the
divine names differed both were retained, and where the documents
agreed D nW alone appears (Urg. 233 f.). Later in the volume (471 ff.)
the hypothesis is withdrawn in favour of the view that J 2 contained no
Paradise story at all. A similar explanation is given by v. Doorninck
(I.e. 239), who thinks the retention of trnVx in 3 1 5 was due to the redactor s
desire to avoid the imputation of falsehood to Yahwe !
t The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed to
have obtained between the two recensions. Gu., who assumes that the
resemblance was very close, holds that in JJ probably both trees were
concerned in the fall of man. But the text gives no indication that in
JJ 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, ARW, x. 355 f.).
54 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
4b-7. The creation of man. On the somewhat in
volved construction of the section, see the footnote. 40.
At the time when Yahwe Elohim made, etc.\ The double
name CTTO? n ).? !, which is all but peculiar to Gn. 2f., 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,.ux(SS) appears again only in Ps. i48 13 .
5- there was as yet ?w bush, etc.} Or (on Di. s construction)
while as yet there was no, etc. The rare word n^ denotes
elsewhere (2i 15 [E], Jb. 3O 4> 7 ) a desert shrub (so Syr.,
Arab.); but a wider sense is attested by Ass. and Phcen.
It is difficult to say whether here it means wild as opposed
4b-7- The sudden change of style and language shows that the
transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the middle of v. 4 .
The construction presents the same syntactic ambiguity as J 1 " 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
(We. ProL 6 297 f. ; KS. al.) that the clause is the conclusion of a lost
sentence of J, as inconsistent with the natural position of the time
determination in Heb. 4b must therefore be joined as prot. to what
follows ; and the question is whether the apod, commences at 5 (Tu.
Str. Dri. al.), or (with 6f - as a parenthesis) at 7 (Di. Gu. al.). In
syntax either view is admissible ; but the first yields the better sense.
The state of things described in 5f - 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
(v. 6 ) with a point^." 1 ) of time" (Spurrell). On the form of apod., see
again Dri. T. 78. 4. D V? always emphasises contemporaneousness of
two events (cf. 2 17 3 5 ) ; the indefiniteness lies in the subst., which often
covers a space of time (= when : Ex. 6 28 32 34 , Jer. 1 1 4 etc.). D nVx m.v]
in Hex. only Ex. 9 30 ; elsewhere 2 Sa. 7-- 25 , Jon. 4, Ps. 72 18 84 9 - 12 ,
i Ch. I7 18 , 2 Ch. 6 41 . (3r uses the expression frequently up to g 12 , but its
usage is not uniform even in chs. 2. 3. The double name has sometimes
been explained by the supposition that an editor added D nSx to the
original TTI.T in order to smooth the transition from P to J, or as a hint
to the Synagogue reader to substitute D .nW for mrr ; but that is scarcely
satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory
of Bu. and Gu., on which see p. 53. Barton and Che. (TBAI, 99 f.)
take it as a compound of the same type as Melek-AUart, etc., an
utterly improbable suggestion. 5- n a s probably the same as Ass.
sifytu, from *J grow high (Del. I/fhvb.), and hence might include
trees, as rendered by J5&. On 3K% see on i 11 . The gen. mc>n, common
n. 4-6 55
to cultivated plants (Hupf. Gu.), or perennials as opposed
to annuals (Ho.). For the earth s barrenness two reasons
are assigned: (i) 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 corre
spond broadly to the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast
between land watered by the Baal and that watered by
human labour (Rob. Sm. jRS 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. I ~ I 97^ both here and v. 6 , has
probably the restricted sense of soil, arable land (cf. 4 14 ).
6. but a ftood (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. (Ra. al., cf. Gu. Che. TBAI, 87). But this
appears to neutralise 5b ", since rain is no longer an indispensable condi
tion of vegetation. Ho., 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
tiddmah, but had, of course, no effect on the steppes, which were de
pendent 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.
to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities or houses,
sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (De. 96). On D^n with impf. see
G-K. 107 c\ Dri. T. 27/3. The rendering before (< [one of the
deviations mentioned in Mechilta see on i 1 ] U) would imply D^B?, and
is wrong. 6. nx] (5r mpyij, Aq. tirifi\vfffi6s t U fons, & ] vn ^Vn. 2T Njjy.
Che. conj. IN; ; others };y (after Vns.). The word has no etymol. in
Heb., and the only other occurrence (Jb. 36") is even more obscure than
this. Cloud (ST) or mist is a natural guess, and it is doubtful if it
be anything better. The meaning flood comes from Ass. edfi, applied
to the annual overflow of a river (Del. ffdwb.), note the freq. impf. Gu.
thinks it a technical semi-mythological term of the same order as T&hom,
with which Ra. seems to connect it; while lEz. interprets cloud, but
confounds the word with TN, calamity (Zeph. i 15 ); so Aq., who renders
the latter by ^rijSXuoytis in Pr. i 26 , Jb. 3o 12 (see Ber. R. 13). On the tenses,
56 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
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 (Che. EB, 949).
7. Yahwe Elohim moulded man] The verb "^ (avoided by
P) is used, in the ptcp., of the potter ; and that figure under
lies the representation. An Egyptian picture shows the
god Chnum forming human beings on the potter s disc
(ATLO 2 , 146). The idea of man as made of clay or earth
appears in Babylonian ; but is indeed universal, and pervades
the whole OT. breath of life] Omit the art. The phrase
recurs only 7 22 (J), where it denotes the animal life, and
there is no reason for supposing another meaning here.
" Subscribere eorum sententiae non dubito qui de animali
hominis vita locum hunc exponunt " (Calvin). man became
a living- being] t,"|M here is not a constituent of human
nature, but denotes the personality as a whole.
The v. has commonly been treated as a locus classicus of OT
anthropology, and as determining the relations of the three elements of
human nature flesh, soul, spirit to one another. It is supposed to
see G-K. 112*; Dri. T. 113, 4(/3). 7. nonx . . . DIK] Both words are
of uncertain etymology. The old derivation from the vb. be red ( . . .
jrvppbv tireidrjirep curb TTJS Trvppas 7775 <f>vpadei(rr)s yey6vt : Jos. Ant. i. 34) is
generally abandoned, but none better has been found to replace it (recent
theories in Di. 53 f.). According to Noldeke (ZDMG, xl. 722), DIK
appears in Arab, as J dnam (cf. Haupt, ib. Ixi. 194). Frd. Del. s view,
that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as Di. 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. nsy] Ace. of material, G-K. 117 hh. Gu. regards
it as a variant to nrnxn from J 3 . .Tn rsi] This appears to be the only
place where the phrase is applied to man ; elsewhere to animals (i 20 - 24
etc.). 3, 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.
n. 7, 8 57
teach that the soul (i) arises through the union of the universal life-
principle (nil) with the material frame (T^|) : cf. e.g. Griineisen, Ahnen-
kultus, 34 f. No such ideas are expressed : neither "W2 nor nn is men
tioned, while e>s: is not applied to a separate element of man s being 1 , 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, OTTh. 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 J s equivalent for the image of God.
8-17. The garden of Eden. That the planting- of the
garden was subsequent to the creation of man is the un
doubted meaning of the writer ; the rendering- plantaverat
(JJ: so lEz.) is grammatically impossible, and is connected
with a misconception of DlpO below. a garden in Eden\
This is perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geo
graphical designation) is distinguished from the garden
(cf. 2 10 - 15 3 23 - 2 * 4 16 , Is. 5i 3 , Ezk. 28 13 3 i.ie.i8 3535, ji. 2 3 }
Sir. 4O 27 ). The common phrase HV l-l would suggest to a
Hebrew the idea garden of delight, as it is rendered by (
(often) and "JJ (*>*) There is no probability that the
proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived
by the younger Del. and Schrader from Bab. edinu, f plain,
steppe, or desert (Del. Par. 80; KAT*, 26 f. ; KAT Z , 539);
but it is a somewhat precarious inference that the garden
was conceived as an oasis in the midst of a desert (Ho.).
D "!i?P] in the (far) East ; i.e. from the Palestinian standpoint
of the author ; not, of course, to be identified with any other
PV within the geographical horizon of the Israelites (see
2 Ki. i 9 12 [ = Is. 3 7 12 ], Ezk. 2y 23 , Am. i 5 ).
Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden
appears also in Gn. i3 10 , Ezk. 3i 8 . Usually it is a mere symbol of
8. p] <& TrapdSeio-os (cf. DTifl, Ca. 4 13 , EC. 2 5 , Neh. 2 8 : probably from
Pers.), and so JJ. ]~\y] is regularly treated as nom. prop, by < j, by
TS only 4 16 (everywhere else as appellative : voliiptas, delicice). (& has
ESe/i only in 2 8 - 10 4 ; elsewhere rpv^fs], except Is. 5i 3 (Trapd&ricros).
mpo] Lit. in front (on the }D see Kon. Lgb. ii. p. 318; BDB, 578 b ) :
in the hist, books it always means east or eastward ; but in prophs.
and Pss. it usually has temporal sense ( of old ) ; and so it is misunder-
58 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezk.
3i 8f - 16 - 18 ) ; but in Ezk. 28 13 it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-
divine being-. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Gn. 2 f. ;
but the imagery of Ezk. 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of
which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive
Semitic (and ja is common to all the leading- dialects), it may originate in
the sacred grove (Hinia) "where water and verdure are united, where
the fruits of the sacred trees are taboo, and the wild animals are anls,
i.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened
away " (We. Prol. c 3032 ; cf. Held. 141 ; Barton, SO 1 , 96). In early times
such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or super
natural beings (KS 2 , 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth,
and the facts pointed out on p. 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 A TLO Z , 195 ff.).
p. 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 (3 17L )- and the tree of
life (was) in themidst\ On Bu. s strictures on the form of the
sentence, v.i. The intricate question of the two trees must
be reserved for separate discussion (pp. 52 f., 94) ; for the
present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree
stood here by all Vns. except <& (H in principio, etc.). 9. pjrVa] G-K.
127 b. njnn] The use of art. with inf. const, is very rare (Dav. 19), but
is explained by the frequent use of njn as abstr. noun. Otherwise the
construction is regular, jni aits being ace., not gen. of obj. Budde
(Urg. 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound obj. by the
secondary pred. pn "pn3, and thinks the original text must have been
ui nyirr py pn Timi ; thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the
primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge
(p. 52 ; so Ba. Ho. Gu. al.). In view of the instances examined by Dri.
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 (Kuen. ThT, 1884,
136; v. Doorninck, ib. t 1905, 225 f. ; Eerdmans, ib. 494 ff.). A more im
portant point is the absence of nN before the def. obj. The writer s use
of this part, is very discriminating ; and its omission suggests that 9b is
really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in
analyses 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 (3 22 ).
ii. 9-1 1 59
of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3 22 ; cf. Pr. 3 18 ii 30
i3 12 15* ; further, Ezk. 47 12 , Rev. 22 2 ), is a widely diffused
idea (see Di. 49; Wunsche, Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum u.
Lebensivasser). 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, Or. i. 85 f. ;
Baudissin, Stud. ii. 227) is not so probable. As to what is
meant by knowing good and evil, see p. 95 ff.
The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by Barton
(SO 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. Cf.
also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of Gilg., Tabs. IV. V. For
these and other Bab. parallels, see ATLO 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 (Dri. Ben.); the vb. N S T is used of the rise of a
stream at its source (Ex. ly 6 , Nu. 2O 11 , Ju. i5 19 , Ezk. 47 1 ,
Zee. i4 8 , Jl. 4 18 ). Whether the ptcp. 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 (pp. 62-66 below).
That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent
it may be with physical geography. II. Pison] The name
occurs (along with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon)
10. T ] Freq. impf. ? So Dri. T. 30 a, 113, 4 ft ; G-K. 107 d
( always taking place afresh ), Dav. 54(6). That seems hardly
natural. Is it possible that for once D^p could have the effect of IK in
transporting- the mind to a point whence a new development takes
place? (Dav. 45, R. 2). D ^tq] Not sources but branches ; as
Arab, ras en-nahr (as distinct from ras el-ain] means the point of
divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by De., p. 82). So Ass.
ris ndri or ris ndr, of the point of divergence (Ausgangsort] of a canal
(Del. Par. 98, 191). II. inNn] See on i 5 . aaon Kin] On the determina
tion of pred., Dav. 19, R. 3; cf. G-K. 126 k (so v. 13f -). n vinn] If
the art. be genuine, it shows that the name was significant ( sandland,
60 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
in Sir. 24 25 , but nowhere else in OT. That it was not a
familiar name to the Hebrews is shown by the topo
graphical description which follows. On the various
speculative identifications, see De. and Di., and p. 64 f.
below. the whole land of Hdmldh\ The phraseology
indicates that the name is used with some vagueness,
and considerable latitude. In io 7 - 29 25 18 etc., Havilah
seems to be a district of Arabia (see p. 202) ; but we cannot
be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically
coloured geography of this passage. 12. Two other pro
ducts of the region are specified ; but neither helps to an
identification of the locality. bedolah\ a substance well
known to the Israelites (Nu. n 7 ), is undoubtedly the
fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks /SSe AAiov or
ySSe AAa. Pliny (NH, xii. 35 f.) says the best kind grew in
Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in Arabia, India,
Media, and Babylonia. the sohani stone\ A highly esteemed
from 7*111 ?) ; but everywhere else it is wanting", and JUUL omits it here. 12.
3nn] On methegf and hat.-pathach, see G-K. \og, 16 e,f; K6n. i. io,
6ed (cf. i 18 ). Kin] The first instance of this Qre perpetuum of the
Pent., where the regular K n is found only Gn. \^ 20" 38 25 , Lv. 2 15 1 1 89
, 3 io. 21 l6 si 2l9) Nu 513^ Ko - n ^ Lgb ; p I24 ff.) a i m ost alone amongst
modern scholars still holds to the opinion that the epicene consonantal
form is genuinely archaic ; but the verdict of philology and of Hex.
criticism seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error
of some scribe or school of scribes : whether proceeding from the original
scrip, def. NH or not does not much matter (see Dri. and White s note
onLv. i 13 in SBO T, p. 25 f.). aia] juu. + nxp. r6i3n] Of the ancient Vns.
(Sir alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here 6 &vdpa (red
garnet), and in Nu. n 7 (the only other occurrence) Kp&rrctXAos. &
|._KK-1O^O can only be a clerical error. That it is not a g"em is
proved by the absence of pK. Dnert p] <& 6 Xt flos 6 irpdcnvos (leek-
green stone) ; other Gk. Vns. 6 ^^, and so U (onychinus) ; J5 fjOjjQ,
3T "?Ti3. Philology has as yet thrown no light on the word, thoug-h
a connexion with Bab. sAmtit is probable. Myres (EB, 4808 f.) makes
the interesting sug-gestion 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 (DB, iv. 620), thinks that in early
times It was green felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is
at least noteworthy that Jen. (KIB, vi. i, 405) is led on independent
grounds to identify s&mtu with malachite. But is malachite found in any
ii. 12-14 6r
gem (Jb. 28 16 ), suitable for engraving (Ex. 28 etc.), one
of the precious stones of Eden (Ezk. 28 13 ), and apparently
used in architecture (i Ch. 2g 2 ). From the Greek equiva
lents it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the
beryl (v.t.). According to Pliny, the latter was obtained
from India, the former from India and Arabia (Nff, xxxvii.
7 6 ? 86). 13. Gthon] The name of a well on the E of
Jerusalem (the Virgin s spring : i Ki. i 33 etc.), which lEz.
strangely takes to be meant here. In Jewish and Christian
tradition it was persistently identified with the Nile (Si. 24 27 ;
(S of Jer. 2 18 [where "tfnB> is translated Trjwv] ; Jos. Ant. 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 Kiis\ Usually Ethiopia; but see on io 6 .
14. Hiddekel\ is certainly the Tigris, though the name
occurs only once again (Dn. io 4 ). in front of tissur] Either
between it and the spectator, or to the east of it : the
latter view is adopted by nearly all comm. ; 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 E of the Tigris.
The second view can be maintained only if "WX be the city
region that could be plausibly identified with Havilah ? 13. pn j] Prob
ably from *y m ( Jb. 38 8 4o 23 ) = bursting forth. 14. cy] <& om. "?p-m]
.7
Bab. Idigla, Diglat, Aram. rhn and AXO5, Arab. Diglat; then Old
Pers. TigrA, Pehlevi Digrat, Gr. Tlypis and Tiyp-rjs. The Pers. TigrA
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 in, sharp, and ^p* swift, a view given by Ra., and mentioned
with some scorn by lEz. Hommel s derivation (AHT, 315) from hadd,
wadi, and n^Ti ( = wadi of Diklah, Gn. io 27 ), is of interest only in
connexion with his peculiar theory of the site of Paradise. roip]
Rendered in front by (Or (KO.TVOLVTI), & (^CLDQJl) and 5J (contra) ;
as eastward by Aq. S. (<! dfaroX^s) and E (NruiD 1 ?). This last is also
the view of Ra. lEz. and of most moderns. But see No. ZDMG,
xxxiii. 532, where the sense eastward is decisively rejected. The
other examples are 4 16 , i Sa. i3 5 , Ezk. 39 n f. ms] Bab. Pur&tu, Old
Pers. Ufr&tU) whence Gr.
62 THE SITE OF PARADISE
which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now Kafat
Serkat on the W bank of the river. But that city was
replaced as capital by Kalhi as early as 1300 B.C., and is
never mentioned in OT. 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. (Gress-
mann, ARW, x. 347). Euphrates} The name ( n ^S) needed
no explanation to a Hebrew reader : it is the inj par excel
lence of the OT (Is. 8 7 and often).
The site of Eden. If the explanation given above of v. 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 manv 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 .
i. 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 un
natural exegesis of v. 10 . That of Frd. Del. (Wo lag das Paradifs?,
1881) is based partly on the fact that N 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 N 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 S of
Babylon. The river of v. 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; Gihon
is the Shaft en-Nil, another canal running E of the Euphrates from
near Babylon and rejoining the parent river opposite Ur ; Hiddekel
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. Havilah is part of the great Syrian
II. u-14 63
desert lying- W and S of the Euphrates ; and Kush is a name for
northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the Kassite 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 g-laring
anomaly; while v. 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 Bab. equivalent of in: 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 Havilah 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
Shaft en-Nil is an abuse of language. According^ to Sayce (HCM,
950. ; DB, 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 (Her. i. 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing
that the writer of v. 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 W of Euphrates,
while the Choaspes is E of the Tigris.* Further, although the de
scription of the Persian Gulf as a river is fully justified by its Bab.
designation as Nar 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 (AA, iii. i, p. 281 ff., etc.,
AHT, 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, Gihon, and
Hiddekel, he identifies with three N Arabian wadls, W. Dawasir,
W. Rumma, and W. Sirhan (the last the wadi of Diklah = frad-dekel
[see on v. 14 above], the name having- been afterwards transferred to the
Tigris).
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
* This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson, who
identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further E than the Kerkha. But
that removes it from all connexion with Havilah, which is one of the
recommendations of Sayce s view.
64 THE SITE OF PARADISE
interpretation of v. 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 Gihon. 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 know
ledge of the country, which must have dispelled the notion of a common
source. Van Doorninck has suggested the Leontes and Orontes
(ThT, 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.* 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.
De. and Di. identify the Pishon with the Indus, but follow the tradi
tional identification of Gihon with the Nile (see p. 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 ; f and we might then
fall back on the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.^ But it
must be admitted that the names Havilah and Kush are a serious
* Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian rivers
rise in the Caucasus (xv. i. 13). The fact that in mediaeval Arabian
geographers Geifyun 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.
f From the presence in both of crocodiles : Arrian, Anab. vi. i, 2 f. ;
cf. Strabo, xv. i. 25, and the similar notion about the Nile and
Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2.
Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there
seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas Inclico-
pleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of Nile and Indus was
a fixed idea?
ii. ii-i4 65
difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may retain its
usual OT meaning- if Gihon be the upper Nile, either as a continu
ation of the Indus or a separate river ; but if it be the Indus alone, Kush
must be the country of the KaSsites, conceived as extending indefinitely
E of Babylonia. Havilah has to be taken as a name for India con
sidered as an extension of NE Arabia, an interpretation which finds
no support in the OT. At the same time, as Di. observes, the language
employed ( the whole land of H. ) 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 Havilah
of Gn. 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 N Mesopotamia : the Euphrates
and Tigris lose themselves in marshes ; the Pishon (suggested by the
Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the Ndr Marratum (Persian Gulf)
and the Red Sea, and so encompasses the whole of Havilah (Arabia) ;
beyond this there was supposed to be land, through which the Gihon
(suggested by the Karun) was supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia),
whence it flowed northwards as the Nile. The theory perhaps com
bines more of the biblical data in an intelligible way than any other
that has been proposed ; and it seems to agree with those just con
sidered in placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers,
to the N of Mesopotamia.*
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
Ranha be the Oxus or the Yaxartes or the Indus ; the truth being- that
Ranha is a mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly
equivalents might be named (see Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. 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 Gn. 2 10 14 is but one of many attempts to localise on earth a
representation which is essentially mythical. <ju. r 33. Mt], aflOPtlB^-
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 : cf. Ezk. 28 14 ), 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
KAT*, 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
* The summary is taken from Dri. p. 59 f. ; the original article, in
Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-95, I have not been able to consult.
5
66 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
be surprised if it should prove impossible to identify Pishon and Gihon
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 Gn. 2 10 " 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, ARW, x.
346 f.)-
15. to till it and to guard ii\ To reject this clause (Bu.),
or the second member (Di.), as inconsistent with 3 17ff -
are arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is
not idle enjoyment, but easy and pleasant work; "the
highest aspiration of the Eastern peasant" (Gu.) being to
keep a garden. The question from what the garden had
to be protected is one that should not be pressed. l6f. The
belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees
(observe the difference from i 29 ) was widespread in antiquity,
and appears in Phoenician mythology.* 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 3 3 ),
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 (3 5 ) (Bu. Ho. Gu. al.). But the
narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical
15. The v. 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. DiNrrnN] (5r + t>v tir\a.<rev (as
v. 8 ). inrvri] On the two Hiphils of nu and their distinction in meaning-,
see G-K. 72 ee t and the Lexx. py] (S L and most cursives render r?}s
rpvfirjs : ffi A and uncials omit the word. ui rmy 1 ?] Since p is nowhere
fern., it is better to point rnoffSi .Tiny 1 ? (see Albrecht, ZATW, xvi. 53).
16. DIK.T] (& A5a/i, U ei. Except in v. 18 , the word is regularly, but
wrongly, treated as nom. pr. by these two Vns. from this point
onwards. 17. ninn mo] S. 6i>r)T&s tvy. In <& the vbs. of this v. are all
pl. (as 3 8 -<).
* Eus. Prcep, Ev. i. 10 (from Philo Byblius) : efyetv 5 rbv Alwva r^r
iiirb T&v devdpuv Tpo<t>T)v.
n. 15-19 67
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
(Jer. al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries
and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calv.
al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to
the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose
and modified the penalty.
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 naivete" of the con
ception 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 inter
course with the beasts (see p. 91), there is not a trace.
l8. a helper] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2 5 ),
not of the original, but of the present familiar conditions of
human life. ^S?] (only here) lit. as in front of him, i.e.
corresponding to him. Ip. The meaning cannot be that the
animals had already been created, and are now brought to
be named (Calv. al. and recently De. Str.) : such a sense
is excluded by grammar (see Dri. T. 76, Obs.), 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
18. wyN] May be cohort. (G-K. 75 /) ; F render as ist p. pi. (as
i 26 ). "ny] (usually succour ) = helper (ab sir. pro concr.) is used else
where chiefly of God (Dt. 33 7>26 , Ps. 33 20 H5 9ff - etc.) ; possible exceptions
areEzk. i2 14 (if text right), Ho. i3 9 (if em. with We.): see BDB. na]
fflr KCLT afrr6v (but v. 20 8fJ.oios avry) ; Aq. u>s K0.rho.vn avrou ; S. avriKptis
aiJroO; U similis sibi (ejus, v. 20 ) ; 5> O"lZ(13| ; & a ^rpa. 19. <uu.(& ins.
Tiy after DviStf. Omission of TIN before rvrr^a is remarkable in this ch.
(see on v. 9 ), and is rectified by juu. .Tn c^] The only construction
possible would be to take i 1 ? as dat. eth., and n : as direct obj. to wnp* ;
but that is contrary to the writer s usage, and yields a jejune sense.
Even if (with Ra.) we transpose and read every living- thing which the
man called [by a name], that was its name, the discord of gender would
68 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
the effect of a new experience on a little child. whatever
the man should call zV, that (was to be) its name] The spon
taneous ejaculation of the first man becomes to his posterity
a name : such is the origin of (Hebrew) names. The words
rrn C D3 are incapable of construction, and are to be omitted
as an explanatory gloss (Ew. 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 ch. i. 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 com
panion for man : from his own body, therefore, must his
future associate be taken. nErnri] is a hypnotic trance,
induced by supernatural agency (cf. Duhm on Is. 29 10 ).
The purpose here is to produce anaesthesia, with perhaps
the additional idea that the divine working cannot take
place under human observation (Di. Gu.). 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" (Dri.). The Arabs use
similarly a word for * rib, saying hua lizkl or hua bilizki 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 Schw. ARW^ ix. 172 ff.),
finds no countenance in the passage. 22. built up the rib
be fatal, to say nothing- of the addition of DI?. 20. *py^i] Rd. with MSS
(GrFcSSP liySa^i (Ba.). 0"JN L; i] Here the Mass, takes Adam as a proper
name. De. al. explain it as generic = for a human being (Gu.); Ols.
emends DiNni. The truth is that the Mass, loses no opportunity pre
sented by the Kethib of treating DTK as n. pr. Point DiKJn. NHD *?] Tu.
al. take God as subj. ; but it ma} be pass, expressed by indef. subj.
(G-K. 144 rf, e) = there was not found. 21. no-nn] fflr ^Ka-rainv ; Aq.
Kara^opdv ; ~Z. Kapov ; <& [j ^- ( tranquillity ); U sopor ; t and some
Gr. Vns. (Field) have sleep simply. The examples of its use (i5 12 ,
i Sa. 26 12 , Is. 2 9 10 , Jb. 4 13 33 15 , Pr. i9 :5 t), all except the last, confirm
II. 20-23 9
. . . 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, DB, Sup. 180). 23. By a flash of intu
ition 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] Lit. This, this time (v.i.): note
the thrice repeated J1NT. bone of my bones, etc.] The expres
sions originate in the primitive notion of kinship as resting
on "participation in a common mass of flesh, blood, and
bones" (Rob. Sm. S 2 , 273 f. : cf. KM 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 (cf. 2g 14 37 27 , Ju. g 2 , 2 Sa. 5*
ig 13 ). 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 f/jf, J Issa) without straining-
language : other translations are driven to tours de force
Duhm s view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the
vb. (Niph.) that sense is less marked. 23. cyan HNT] The construction
rendered above takes ruxt as subj. of the sent, and cyan = this time, the
art. having- full demonstrative force, as in 29 34f - 3o 20 46 30 , Ex. 9 27 (so (&
20U ; De. Di. Gu. al.). The accents, however, unite the words
in one phrase this time, after the rather important analogy of c^s n?
43 10 ), leaving the subj. unexpressed. This sense is followed by
J, and advocated by Sta. (ZATW, xvii. 210 ff.); but it seems less
acceptable than the other. c> X, ,n^x] The old derivation of these words
from a common *J t?3N is generally abandoned, U^N being assigned to a
hypothetical ^ Bto= c be strong (Ges. Th.). Ar. and Aram., indeed,
show quite clearly that the *J seen in the pi. DTJN (and in PUN) and
that of ny* (n^ax) are only apparently identical, the one having- 5- where
the other has f. The masc. and fern, are therefore etymologically
distinct, and nothing remains but a very strong assonance. The
question whether we are to postulate a third *J for the sing-. E> N does
not greatly concern us here ; the arguments will be found in BDB, s.v.
See No. ZDMG, xl. 740 (" Aber E> N mochte ich doch bei a>jx lassen").
In imitation of the assonance, 2. has tivSpis, TB Virago. 0. X^^ts, re
presents Nb N, I will take : a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by
70 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
(e.g. Jer. Virago^ Luther, Mtinnin). Whether even in Heb.
it is more than an assonance is doubtful (v.i.). 24. An
aetiological 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
Mt. ig 43 -, Mk. io 6ff -, i Co. 6 16 , Eph. s 31 ) ; 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 attach
ment to the woman is explained here, and the woman s to
the man only in 3 16 .
It has been imagined that the v. 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 Gu. : cf. KM 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 3 16b is inconsistent with the conditions of
beena marriage. Cf. Benz. EB, 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, ARW, x. 353*; van Doorninck, ThT, xxxix.
238 (who assigns 2 24 and 3 16 to different recensions).
oneflesK\ If the view just mentioned could be maintained,
this phrase might be equivalent to one clan (Lv. 25 49 ) ;
for "both in Hebrew and Arabic flesh is synonymous
with clan or kindred group " (^?^, 274). More probably
it refers simply to the connubium. 25. naked . . . -not
ashamed] The remark is not merely an anticipation of the
the quotation from Origen given in Field, p. i5 32 . For B"ND, MJL(&^ read
n^ xp, which is by no means an improvement. nurnri^] See G-K. 10 h,
20 c. 24. vm] Add D.T# with <& &1&) and NT citations. .ux has
on JB D rrm, referring to the offspring. 25. n snj;] Dny naked, to be care
fully distinguished from ony (^/Diy) crafty, in 3 1 , is either a by-form
of o vy (fj niy= be bare ) in 3 loft , or (more probably) a different forma
tion from tj my ( be bare ). See BOB, s.vv.iervw] The Hithpal.
(only here) probably expresses reciprocity ( ashamed before one
another ) ; the impf. is frequentative.
II. 24-IH. I 71
account given later of the origin of clothing (3?, cf. 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, AD, ii. 475).
V. 25 is a transition verse, leading 1 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 indiffer
ence 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 ;
Jub. iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R. Eliezer (Ber. R.)
finds that it did not last six hours.
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 (Mt. io 16 :
see Bochart, Hieroz. 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 : Trvev/xart-
KomxTOV yap TO tfiov TrdvTwv ran/ epTrerwv (Sanchuniathon, in Eus.
Prcep. Ev. i. io). Hence the epithet BVy might be used of
it sensu bono (<pon/Aos), though the context here makes it
certain that the bad sense (Travovpyos) 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 (v.^ 4 ). 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, Di. 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,
72 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
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 move
ments, 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.*
Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the abode of a spirit,
sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that gann and gul and even
Shaitan are given as designations of the serpent (We. Held. 152 f. ; cf.
Rob. Sm. 1?S 2 , I2O 1 , 129 f., 442).! 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 posses
sion 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 Gres. I.e. 357). All
this belongs to the background of heathen mythology from which the
materials of the narrative were drawn ; and it is the incomplete elimina
tion of the mythological element, under the influence of a monotheistic
and ethical religion, which makes the function of the serpent in Gn. 3
so difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty was
* Comp. the interesting sequel to the sentence from Sanchuniathon
quoted above : ... /cat Trup^Ses UTT aurov trapedbdr] trap 5 Kal reives avvrrtp-
(3\r)TOi> dia TOV Trvev/j-aros 7ra/)i (rT??<n, XW/HS iroft&v re Kal xeip&v, fj a\\ov Tt.vbs
TUV w9ev, e wv TO. XotTrd fwa ras Kivrjcrets -jroielrai Kal iroiKiX
TVTTOVS aTToreXe?, Kal Kara TTJV iropeiav e\iKoei5e?s %et ras op^ds, ^0 5
rci%os Kal 7ro\vxpoviwTaTOv d ^ffTiv, ov IAOVOV ry tK.dv6p.evov rb yrjpas peufetv,
dXXd Kal afj^tjfftv ^7ri5^x ecr ^ at jJ>ti.ova 7r^0u/ce . . . Atd Kal &v lepols TOVTO rd
a)oj> Kal iv /jLvtrTTiplois (m/zTrapei X^TrTai KT\. (Orelli, p. 44).
f Cf. No. ZVP^ i. 413: "Das geheimnissvolle, damonische Wesen
der Schlange, das sie vor alien grosseren Thieren auszeichnet, die
tiickische, verderbenbringende Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem
einfachen semitischen Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne
etwas Gottliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So
finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so ist sie 5m
Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand orientalischer Zauberei.
So g laubte auch der Araber, die Schlange (wie einige andere schadliche
Thiere) sei kein gewohnliches Geschopf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist.
Schon die Sprache driickt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit Dzdnn, einem
Worte welches mit Dzinn eng verwandt ist, eine Schlangenart bezeich-
net, etc."
in. i 73
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 Wisd. 2 24 ( by the envy of the devil, death
entered into the world ): possibly earlier is the allusion in En. Ixix. 6,
where the seduction of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Cf.
Secrets of En. xxxi. 3 ff. , Ps. Sol. 4 ; also Ber. R. 29, the name J^nj
ib-ijjn (Sifrg 138 b), and in the NT Jn. 8 44 , 2 Co. u 3 , Ro. i6 20 , Ap. i2 9
20 2 (see Whitehouse, DB, iv. 408 ff.). Similarly in Persian mythology
the serpent Dahaka, to whose power Yima, the ruler of the golden ag-e,
succumbs, is a creature and incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo
( Vend. i. 8, xxii. 5, 6, 24 ; Ya$na ix. 27 ; cf. Di. 70). The Jewish and
Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension of the teaching-
of Gn. 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 temp
tation 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 OT till after the Exile
(Zee. Jb. Ch.).
The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first
temptation to the more mobile temperament of the woman
(Ra. 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 ^ *]N (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 E^K is
I. rrn t^mm] The usual order of words when a new subject is intro
duced, G-K. 1420?; Dav. 105. DTiy] (& (f)povifj.d!}TaTOS, Aq. 9. Travovpyos,
S. -rravovpydrepos, U callidior. The good sense (which appears to be
secondary, cf. Ar. *arama = be ill-natured ) is confined to Prov. ; else
where (Jb. 5 12 i5 5 ) it means crafty, wily. The same distinction is
observed in all forms of the ^/ except that in Jb. 5 13 ony has the good
sense. The resemblance to D ony in z^ is perhaps accidental. nctn
QrJS + vrun. 3 *\K] as a compound part, generally means much more
74 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of
J, where the name nvT 1 is avoided in conversation with
heathen (39 etc.), or when the contrast between the divine
and the human is reflected upon (32 29 ). But J s usage in
such cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true
explanation here (see p. 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 (Ber. R., Ra.). Equally futile inferences have been
drawn by modern comm., and the surmise that the clause
is redactional (Bu. Urg, 241) is hypercritical. the tree . . .
midst] See p. 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 imputa
tion of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. a jealous
fear on God s part lest they should become His equals.
(or less), not to mention, etc., as in i Sa. I4 30 , i Ki. 8 27 , Pr. n 31 etc.
In some cases the simple IN has this sense, and the O (= when, if )
introduces the following- clause (i Sa. zf, 2 Sa. 4 lof - etc.). It would be
easy to retain this sense in v. 1 ( How much more when God has said,
etc.), if we might assume with many comm. that some previous conver
sation had taken place ; but that is an unwarrantable assumption. The
rendering on which Dri. (BDB) bases the ordinary meaning- of 3 FJN
* Tis indeed that requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of the
voice to yield the shade of meaning 1 given above : So it is the case that
God, etc.? The Vns. all express a question : <& rl #rt, Aq. ^ 8rt, S. irpbs
Tty Bcur, A_]i-j-, & Koanpa (= really ?). "?DD . . . N^ not o/
any : G-K. 152 b. 2. TSD] ffi Sap, S> ^ TBD. 3. nsoi] Not concerning
the tree. There is an anakolouthon at D nW HDN, and the emphatically
placed nso is resumed by MOD. fyn] juui + njn. pncn] On the ending-, see
G-K. 47 m, 72 u. 4. pncn mo N 1 ?] On the unusual order, see Dav. 86 (b} ;
G-K. 113 v. It is often explained as a negation of the threat in 2 17 ,
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 neg. part, rather than on
in. 2-6 75
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 super
natural influence (2i 19 , Nu. 22 31 , 2 Ki. 6 17 ). as gods] or
4 divine beings, rather than as God : the rendering as
angels (lEz.) expresses the idea with substantial accuracy.
The likeness to divinity actually acquired is not equality
with Yahwe (see Gu. on v. 22 ). knowing good and evil] See
p. 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 (3 22 ) ; and it is also true that death does v
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 : (f>6ovcpov TO 0etoi/, an antique sentiment
familiar to us from the Greeks" (Gu.). 6. The spiritual
part of the temptation is now accomplished, and Jthe 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
(ffiFS; so Tu. Ges. De. Gu. al.). The second trans
lation is the more suitable for how could she tell by sight
that the fruit would impart wisdom ? although the vb. is
not elsewhere used in Heb. 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" (Ben.). That Adam sinned with
his eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has
the verbal idea (cf. Am. 9 8 , Ps. 49 s ). 5. D -I^ND] (5r ws Oeoi, T&
6. fyn 2 ] (Uom. ^^] (Er /carcu OTjcrcu, U adspectu, and & CTLD .. ^ Vn\
all take the vb. as vb. of sight ; 3T .Tn N^rtDN 1 ? is indeterminate (see Levy,
Chald. Wb. 163 a). In OT the word is used of mental vision (insight, or
attentive consideration: Dt. 32 2a , Ps. 4i 2 , Pr. 2i 12 etc.); in NH and
76 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
been a common idea both among- Jews and Christians (Ber.
R., Ra. lEz. Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention
of the narrative. 7- ^ e e J es 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 Werthur-
theil passed by the awakened intelligence on the empirical
fact of being unclothed. A connexion between sexual
shame and sin (Di.) 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, SO 1 , 93 ff. ; Gressmann, p. 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" (Dri.). -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
(Di. Dri. Ben. 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 " (Bu.). For allegorical interpretations of the fig-
leaves, see Lagarde, Mitth. i. 73 ff., who adds a very
original and fantastic one of his own.
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
Aram, it means to look at, but only in Hithp. (Ithp.). On the other
view the Hiph. is intrans. (= for acquiring* wisdom : Ps. 94 8 ) rather
than caus. ( = to impart wisdom : Ps. 32 8 etc.). Gu. considers the
clause .i*? } y-"i iDrm a variant from another source. nprn] (5i L + nir Nrr.
jJ& iSiJN 1. 7. D DTy] See on 2 25 . n 1 ?^] coll.; but some MSS and
have f?y..
in. 7-12 77
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 sou?id] ^ip used of
footsteps, as 2 Sa. 5 24 , i Ki. i 4 6 , 2 Ki. 6 32 : cf. Ezk. 3 12 -,
Jl. 2 5 . of Yahwe God as He walked] The verb is used
(Lv. 26 12 , Dt. 23 15 , 2 Sa. 7 6 ) of Yahwe s majestic marching
in the midst of Israel ; but it mars the simplicity of the
representation if (with De.) we introduce that idea here. in
the cool (lit. * at the breeze ) of the day] i.e. towards evening-,
when in Eastern lands a refreshing wind springs up (cf.
Ca. 2 17 4 6 : but v.i.), and the master, who has kept his
house or tent during the heat of the day (iS 1 ), can walk
abroad with comfort (24 63 ). 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 themselveSjjetc.
p. Where art thou?\ (cf. 4). The question expresses
ignorance ; it is not omniscience that the writer wishes to
illustrate, but the more impressive attribute ofsagacity^.
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 (Ho.). II. Hast thou eaten, etc.?] All
unwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret : hejias 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 j
mixture of cowardice and effrontery he throws the blame
8. iSnno] ace. of condition: Dav. 70 (a). cvn nnS] <& TO
U ad auram post meridiem, & |lDQ._5 rn . l c^ \, NDV mo 1 ?. On
this use of j> ( = * towards ), see BDB, s.v. 6 a; and cf. 8 n i7 21 , Is.
7 15 , Jb. 24 14 . With nn cf. Ar. raivdh = tempus -vespertinum. Jewish
exegesis (Ber. R.} and Calv. suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be
meant, as is probably the case in Ca. 2 17 4 6 , and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly improbable
here. py] coll., as often. (& L om. 9. HD N] G-K. 100 o. (& supplies
Adam before, and S> after, the interrog. IO. -nycc] (& + Tre/uTraroiWos
(as v. 8 ). II. ^zh] See G-K. 1145. Before ^ (payeiv (& has TOVTOV
78 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
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 ""hacT "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.
Calv. says, " the beast had no sense of sin, and the devil no
hope of pardon."
14-19. 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 4 15 8 21ff - g 253 - i6 12 27 27ff -
39f. 4 8 19ff -, ch. 49; cf. Nu. 23 f., Dt. 33. Here certain fixed
adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced
back to a primaeval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence
of man s first transgression. See, further, p. 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 ( u ), 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.
Rabb.}. As a matter of fact most snakes have the power of
erecting a considerable part of their bodies ; and in mytho-
pbvov. 13. JINI-HD] So commonly with nvy ; with other vbs. nrno (G-K.
i 3 6<r;Dav. 7 (*)).
14. "?DD] On this use of p ( = e numero), see G-K. 11970, and cf.
Ex. i9 5 , Dt. i4 2 33 24 , Ju. $* etc. Sta. s argument (ZATW, xvii. 209) for
deleting i nDmn ^DD, on the ground that the serpent belongs to the cate
gory of mari n"n but not to noro, is logical, but hardly convincing. pru]
Probably from *J jru ( Aram.) = curve or bend (De., BDB), occurs
again only Lv. n 42 , of reptiles. TJ renders pectus, (5r combines <rr?)00y
in. 13-15 79
logical representations the serpent often appears in the
upright position (Ben.). The idea probably is that this was
its original posture : how it was maintained was perhaps
not reflected upon. dust shalt thou eat] Cf. Mic. 7 17 , Is. 6$ 25 .
It is a prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawl
ing on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of
dust (Boch. Hieroz. iii. 245 ; Di. al.) ; and a mere metaphor
for humiliation (like Ass. ti-ka-lu ip-ra\ KIB, 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
ginn eat dirt (We. Heid. 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
comm. 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 (g 5 , Ex. 2i 28f> , Lv. 2o 15fi ). But it
is quite possible that here (as in v. 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.* thy seed and her see d\ The whole brood of
and AcoiXfa. 15. jnj] in the sense of offspring 1 , is nearly always col
lective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual child (4 251 2i 18 ,
i Sa. i 11 ) it denotes the immediate offspring as the pledge of posterity,
never a remote descendant (see No. AR W, viii. 164 ff.). The Messianic
application therefore is not justified in grammar. Nin] the rendering-
ipsa (U) is said not to be found in the Fathers before Ambrose and
Augustine (Zapletal, ATliches, 19). Jer. at all events knew that ipse
should be read. uswn . . . ISie"] The form *jw recurs only Jb. 9 17 ,
Ps. I39 11 , and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aram, and
NH the *y (i"y or y"y) has the primary sense of rub, hence wear
down by rubbing = crush ; in Syr. it also means to crawl. There are
a few exx. of a tendency of i"y vbs. to strengthen themselves by
insertion of N (Kon. i. 439), and it is often supposed that in certain pass.
* " Fit enim arcano naturae sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat homo " (Calv.).
Cf. (with Boch. Hieroz. iii. 250) " quam dudum dixeras te odisse aeque
atque angues" (Plaut. Merc. 4) ; and tic ?rcu5ds rbv \f/vxpov 8(j)iv TO. ^dXiara
(Theoc. Id. 15).
8O PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
serpents, and the whole race of men. He shall bruise thce
on the head) etc.\ In the first clause the subj. (Nin) is the
1 seed of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the
second ( n ^^>) it is the serpent himself, acting" through his
seed. The current reading of JJ (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 vb. cjv^,
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 Lat. feriri a serpente\ but hardly of bruising.
Hence many comm. (following ffi aL) take the vb. as a
by-form of *|S5T (strictly pant ), in the sense of be eager
for, aim at (Ges. Ew. Di. al.); while others (Gu. 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 (Dri.). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation
cannot be given (v.i.).
The Messianic interpretation of the seed of the woman appears
in CJ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish com-
(Ezk. 36 3 , Am. 2 7 8 4 , Ps. 56" 3 57 4 ) f]iB> is disguised under the by-form f]NB>.
But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are
Am. 2 7 8 4 , where the K may be simply mater lectionis for the d of the
ptcp. (cf. DKJJI, Ho. io 14 ) ; in the other cases the proper sense of r\xy
( pant or metaph. long for ) suffices. The reverse process (substitu
tion of rpiff for rpv) is much less likely ; and the only possible instance
would be Jb. 9 17 , which is too uncertain to count for anything 1 . There
is thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this v. ; and De.
points out that vbs. of hostile endeavour, as distinct from hostile achieve
ment (nan, nxi, etc.), are never construed with double ace. The gain
in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning crush.
The old Vns. felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of crushing
is represented by Aq. irpoa-rptyet, S. 0\t^ei, (5r Coisl - m &- rp^et (see
Field) and Jer. (Qucest.} conterere ; pant after by (5i A al - Tr)pr]<rei[s] (if
not a mistake for rp^creifs] or rctp^cretfs]). A double sense is given by
5J co:iteret . . . insidiaberis, and perhaps & _O,J . . . r .rno > v>.VnZ. j
while 9T paraphrases : .T 1 ? IBJ \nn n*i jTnp jD ,T|? mayn no T:H ,r Kin
in. 15 8 1
munity and its victory over the devil "in the days of King- Messiah."
The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenaeus, but was
never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the
serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediaeval exegetes, relying on the
ipsa of the Vulg., 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 v. 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. Di. (with whom Dri. 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 interpreta
tion, however, is open to several objections, (i) 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 chs. i-n 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 in
carnation 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. Di. 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 mani
festation 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 psychologi
cally 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 trans
formation of a once sacred animal into an object of aversion is a not
infrequent phenomenon in the history of religion (see Gres. I.e. 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 i
find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has seduced from >
82 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
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 OT. The conjecture of Gu., that originally the
seed of the woman and the * seed of the serpent may have been
mythological personages (cf. ATLO 2 , aiyf.), even if confirmed by
Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical
narrator.
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 wiiich 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. / will multiply, etc.] More strictly, I will
cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy (see
Dav. 3, R. (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of
pain to which she is already subject that is meant. For
^Pi^j (& read some word meaning groaning (v.i.)\ but to
prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women
esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gu.) makes a too
general statement. It is better (with Ho.) to assume a
hendiadys : the pain of thy conception (as in the ex
planatory clause which follows). in pain . . . children]
The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in OT for the
extremity of human anguish (Is. 2i 3 i3 8 , Mic. 4 9 , Ps. 48 6 ,
and oft. : Ex. I 19 cannot be cited to the contrary). to thy
16. *?N] Read -Sni, with AixfflrS. naiK rain] So i6 10 22 17 . On the
irreg. form of inf. abs., see G-K. 75^ pasy] (3" 5 29 t [J]). ffir Xrfiras
(^rvayy ?). -pini] ( v /rm): jux-pv-ini (Ru. 4, Ho. 9 11 ). Ols. (MBA,
1870, 380) conj. "pi in?, to avoid the harsh use of }. (& rbv ffrevay^dv
crov probably = iJVjn ; ^r ( sorrow ) has also been suggested (Gu.);
and 7]rny (Di. Ho. al.). The other Vns. follow MT. asya] JUUL pasya ;
(& likewise repeats tv \virais. npit?n] Probably connected with Ar.
Saitk, ardent desire (Rahlfs " "ty und ijv," p. 71); cf. pptf, Is. 29 8 ,
Ps. I07 9 . Aq. <rvt>d(f>eia, S. bpw. Although it recurs only 4? and Ca. 7 11 ,
it is found in NH and should not be suspected, fflr i] airoffrpo^n & v
and & 1 <^/ _(__ point to the reading Tin^^p, preferred by many, and
defended by Nestle (MM, 6) as a technical expression for the relation
here indicated, on the basis of (& s text of 2 Sa. i7 3 . His parallel between
the return of the woman to her source (the man) and the return of the
man to his source (the ground, v. 19 ) is perhaps fanciful.
III. 1 6, 17 83
husband . . desire} It is quite unnecessary to give up the
rare but expressive njJ^BTl of the Heb. for the weaker rQIKTl.
of (, etc. (v.i.). It is not, however, implied that the
woman s sexual desire is stronger than the man s (Kn.
Gu.) ; 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
vb. ; 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
(cf. 2 18 - 23 ). There is here certainly no trace of the matri-
archate or of polyandry (see on 2 24 ).
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 spontane
ously 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 fellah. 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 (Gu.).
17. And to the man} v.i. The sentence is introduced by a
formal recital of the offence. Cursed is the ground} As
17. Point D-IN^I ; there is no conceivable reason why DIN should be
a proper name here (cf. 2 20 3 21 ). UDD . . . -tax 1 ?] <& reads TOI/TOU pbvov
(see v. 11 ) pi) Qayeiv, air aurou tyayes. Tinjn] (& (tv rots I/ryots <rov), 2.
U read I^O, 0. tv rrj 7rapa/3dcrei aou (Tpy?). The phrase is characteristic
of J ; out of 22 instances in the Hex., only about 3 can be assigned
84 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing (27^
etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Is. 24,
Jer. 23 10 ), 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 suffer
ing (bodily fatigue and mental anxiety) shalt thou eat [of] if]
See 5 29 . The laborious work of the husbandman is re
ferred to in Sir. 7 15 ; but this is not the prevailing feeling
of the OT ; and the remark of Kno., that " agriculture was
to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same time a
heavy burden," needs qualification. It is well to be re
minded that " ancient Israel did not live constantly in the
joy of the harvest festival " (Gu.) ; 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 i 11 . The
creation of this order of vegetation has not been recorded by
J. Are w r e 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 2 5 ). 19. in the sweat of thy brow, etc.] A
more expressive repetition of the thought of 17b ^. The
phrase eat bread may mean earn a livelihood (Am. 7 12 ),
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 v. 17 ). It is not a
threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no
right to say (with Di.) that vv. 16 ~ 19 are simply an expansion
of the sentence of 2 17 . That man was by nature immortal is
not taught in this passage ; and since the Tree of Life in
v. 22 belongs to another recension, there is no evidence that
the main narrative regarded even endless life as within man s
to E (none to P). mVrrNn] The government of direct ace. seems harsh,
but is not unexampled : see Jer. 36 16 . 18. (Gr omits initial } : so U
Jub. mm pp] Hos. io 8 ; mm occurs nowhere else in OT. It is still
used in Syria (dardar) as a general name for thistles. --19. ny
wada a) is (Lir. Xey. ; cf. yr, Ezk. 44 18 . on 1 ?] ( fub. ion 1 ?.
III. 18-20 85
reach. The connexion of the closing words is rather with
2 7 : man was taken from the ground, and in the natural
course will return to it again. and to dtist, etc.} Cf. Jb.
TO 9 34 15 , Ps. go 3 146*, EC. 3 20 I2 7 etc. : CK yatas pXao-rw yata
yeyova.
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 Jub. iii. 25 the passage is
quoted in an abridged form, the line Cursed . . . sake being immedi
ately 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 5 s9 . Ho. rejects 18b , and to avoid the repetition
of SDK proposes njiuyn instead ofruVaitn in 17 . Gu. is satisfied with v. 17f -
as they stand, but assigns 19a <* (to on 1 ?) and ]9b to another source (JJ), as
doublets respectively of 17b and 19a . This is perhaps on the whole
the most satisfactory analysis. The poetic structure of the vv., which
might be expected to clear up a question of this kind, is too obscure
to afford any guidance. Sievers, e.g, (II. lof.) finds nothing, except
in v. 19 , to distinguish the rhythm from that of the narrative in which
it is embedded, and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only
tentative.
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 15f - (De. al.), or
20. nin] (& Ei!a [E#a] (in 4 1 ), Aq. ASa, Tff He-va, Jer. Eva (Eng. Eve} ;
in this v. (& translates Zo>?7, S. Zuoydvos. The similarity of the name
1 *" 1
to the Aram, word for serpent ( in, K;in, Syr. _Q_K, Syro-Pal. |Q_KJ
[Mt. 7 10 ]) ; cf. Ar. hayyat from hauyat [No.]) has always been noticed,
and is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological
equivalence (No. ZDMG, xlii. 487; Sta. GVI, i. 633; We. Heid. 154).
The ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done
the serpent s work in tempting Adam (Ber. R. ; Philo, De agr. Noe,
21 ; Clem. Alex. Protrept. ii. 12. i). Quite recently the philological
equation has acquired fresh significance from the discovery of the name
nin on a leaden Punic tabella devotionis (described by Lidz. Ephemeris,
i. 26 ff. ; see Cooke, NSI, 135), of which the first line reads : "O Lady
HVT, goddess, queen ... !" Lidz. sees in this mythological per
sonage a goddess of the under- world, and as such a serpent-deity ;
and identifies her with the biblical Havvah. Hawaii would thus be
a depotentiated deity, whose prototype was a Phoenician goddess of
the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and bearing the
86 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
with the thought of mortality in 19 (Kn.), are forced. The
most suitable position in the present text would be before
(so Jub. iii. 33) or after 4 1 ; and accordingly some regard
it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of that v. But when
we consider (a] that the name Havvah must in any case be
traditional, (b) that it is a proper name, whereas B^n
remains appellative throughout, and (c) that in the follow
ing vv. there are unambiguous traces of a second recension
of the Paradise story, it is reasonable to suppose that v. 20
comes from that recension, and is a parallel to the naming
of the woman in 2 23 , whether it stands here in the original
order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been pre
served, while there is no distinctive name for the man,
suggests that nin 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\ Accord
ing to this derivation, Hjn would seem to denote first the
idea of life, and then the source of life the mother.* But
title of Mother of all living* (see Ores. I.e. 359 f.)- Precarious as
such combinations may seem, there is no objection in principle to an
explanation of the name Havvah on these lines. Besides the Hivvites
of the OT (who were probably a serpent-tribe), We. 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. n^D DN] Rob. Sm. renders mother of
every hciyyj Jiayy being the Arab, 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" (KM 2 , 208). The
interpretation has found no support.
* So Baethgen, Beitr. 148, who appends the note : " Im holstein-
ischen Plattdeutsch ist Dat Leben euphemistischer Ausdruck fur das
pudendum muliebre " a meaning by the way which also attaches to
Ar. hayy (Lane, Lex. 68 1 b).
III. 20-22 87
the form nin is not Heb., and the real meaning of the word
is not settled by the etymology here given (v.i.}. ^n 73
commonly includes all animals (8 21 etc.), but is here
restricted to mankind (as Ps. I43 2 , Jb. 3o 23 ). Cf. however,
irarvia flr/pooi/, Lady of wild things, a Greek epithet of the
Earth -mother (Miss Harrison, Prol. 264). 21. Another
detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is,
of course, not inconsistent with v. 7 , but neither can it be
said to be the necessary sequel to that v. ; most probably
it is a parallel from another source. coats of skin] "The
simplest and most primitive kind of clothing in practical
use" (Dri.).
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 (Di. al.) may be true
as regards the present form of the legend ; but that is hardly the
original conception. In the Phoen. legend of Usoos, the invention is
connected with the hunting of wild animals, and this again with the
institution of sacrifice : ... 6s ffK^irrjv r (rw/tan Trpwros IK Sepfj-druv &v
&rxf0"e ffv\\a[3e iv dypluv edpe . . . &/j.a re (rirtvdeiv avrcus j- &v ijypeve
Q-ripluv (PrcEp. Ev. i. 10 ; Orelli, p. iyf.) 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,
Rob. Sm. (RS?, 306 ff.) found in the v. 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.
22-24. The actual expulsion. 22. Behold . . . one of
us] This is no ( ironica exprobatio (Calv. al.), but a serious
admission that man has snatched a divine prerogative not
meant for him. The feeling expressed (cf. n 6 ) is akin to
what the Greeks called the * envy of the gods, and more
remotely to the OT attribute of the zeal or jealousy of Yah we,
His resentment of all action that encroaches on His
21. Point DnxS, as in v. 17 . 22. in*o] Constr. before prep. ; G-K.
130 a. ap] The so-called oriental punctuation (which distinguishes
ist pi. from 3rd sg. masc. suffix) has ?p, from us (B-D. p. 81). C
(nro ND*?ya n rr) and 2 (6/xoO &$ ecturoD) treat the form as 3rd sing. :
cf. Ra. s paraphrase: "alone below, as I am alone above." nin 1 ?] in
[respect of] knowing : gerundial inf. ; Dav. 93; G-K. 1140; Dri.
88 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
divinity (see p. 97). In v. 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 v. would have justified the serpent s insinuation, even
in form, by a divine utterance. There are several indica
tions (e.g. the phrase like one of us ) that the secondary
recension to which v. 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. Gres. s contention
that the v. 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. immor
tality : 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
(Bu. Urg. 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 (De.), 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 aposio-
pesis at the end of the v., v.i. 23 is clearly a doublet of
24 ; and the latter is the natural continuation of 22 . V.- 3 is
T. 205. The pregnant use of ~]9 ( = f I fear lest ) is common (Gn. rg 19
26 38 11 44 s4 , Ex. i3 n etc.). Here it is more natural to assume an
anakolouthon, the clause depending- on a cohortative, converted in v. 28
III. 23, 24 89
a fitting conclusion to the main narrative, in which it
probably followed immediately on v. 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 fflr (v.t-),
and it gives a more natural construction than MT, 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 v. represents a
different tradition as to the site of Eden from 2 8 or 2 loff -.
It is not said in 2 8 that it was in the extreme east, or in
2 10 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 u 2 is quite consistent
with the supposition that mankind entered the Euphrates
valley from a region still further east. the Cherubim and
the revolving sivord-flame\ Lit. 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. (KIB, i. 36 f.), where the king says that when he
destroyed the fortress of Hunusa 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 Di. Gu. Dri. ; KAT*, 529 f., 631 ff. ;
Che. in EB, 741 ff. ; Je. ATLO 2 -, 218; Haupt, SEAT, Numbers, 46;
Polychrome Bible, 181 f. ; Furtwangler, in Roscher s Lex. art. GRYPS.
The derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a con
nexion with ypu\f/ (Greif, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of plausibility, but
lacks proof. The often quoted statement of Lenormant (Orig. i. 118),
that kirubu occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name
into a historic tense. DJ] ffirS om. 24. (3r KO! ttfia\v rbv ASct/ct Kal
KartpKLffev avrbv dirtvavTi TOV irapadeiffov TTJS Tpv<prjs, Kal raev rd ^epov^lv
KT\. = 131 D am.vnK o yji py p 1 ? cnpo pen onxn-nK enn Ball rightly adopts
this text, inserting ink after pan, against J s usage. There is no need
to supply any pron. obj. whatever : see 2 19 i8 7 38 18 , i Sa. ig 13 etc.
For the first three words J5 has simply C"LQ^D|O> and for pe^i y^r^ (O
(with the cherubim, etc., as obj.). msnnon] Hithpa. in the sense of
revolve, Ju. 7 13 , Jb. 37" ; in Jb. 38 14 it means be transformed.
9O THE PARADISE
of the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely disproved
(see Je. 218). A great part of the OT symbolism could be explained
from the hypothesis that the Cherubim were originally wind-demons,
like the Harpies of Greek mythology (Harrison, Prol. i78ff.). 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 occasion
ally 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, PSBA, xii. 383 ff.). Starting
with this clue, we can readily explain (i) the function of the Cherub as
the living chariot of Yah we, or bearer of the Theophany, in Ps. i8 u
(2 Sa. 22 11 ). It is a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe
rides, just as the Babylonian storm-god Zu was figured as a bird-deity.
The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud is a mere
conjecture based on Ps. i8 llf> , 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 (Ezk. 28 14 - 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 (i Ki.
6 23ff< 8 6f> ), and the miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle
(Ex. 25 18ff - etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears in the
alternation of cherubim and palm-trees in the temple decoration (i Ki.
6* 9ff -, Ezk. 4 i 18ff -; see, further, i Ki. 7 29ff -, Ex. 26 1 - 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 (Ezk. i 5ff - io lff> ). These may represent
primarily the four winds of heaven ; but the complex symbolism of
the Merkdbdh shows that they have some deeper cosmic significance.
Gu. (p. 20) thinks that an older form of the representation is preserved
in Apoc. 4 6ff- , 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 KAT, 631 f.
The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend.
i. 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
LEGEND 91
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.*
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 Gn. 3. The most that can be
claimed is that there are certain remote parallels to particular features
or ideas of Gn. 2 4 ~3 24 , 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 :
(a) The account of Creation in 2 4ff> has undoubted resemblances
to the Babylonian document described on p. 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 Gn. 2 sf is based rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see
p. 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 2 7 (pp. 42, 45).
(b) The legend of Eabani, embedded in the Gilgames -Epic (Tab. I.
Col. ii. 1. 33 ff. : KIB y vi. i, p. 120 ff.), seems to present us (it has been
thought) with a type of primitive man. Eabani, created as a rival
to Gilgame 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, GilgameS 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 Gn. 2 18 " 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, AJSL, xv. 198 ff. ; Stade, ZATW,
xxiii. I74f.).
(c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive of the story
* Reproduced in Smith s Chaldean Genesis, 88 ; Del. Babel und Bibel
(M Cormack s trans, p. 48) ; ATLO-, 203, etc. Je. 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.
92 THE PARADISE
of the Fall are found in the myth of Adapa and the South-wind, dis
covered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets, and therefore known in
Palestine in the i5th cent. B.C. (KIB, vi. i, 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 Gn. 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, p. 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 Gn. 2. 3. The Graeco-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, Op. et Dies, 90-92, 109-120; Ovid, Met. 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
LEGEND 93
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 Di. p. 47 ff.). But these echoes are too faint and distant
to enable us to determine the quarter whence the original impulse pro
ceeded, 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 Havvah [p. 85 f.], and elements of ch. 4) seem to point to
Phoenicia 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 Phoenicians or the Canaan-
ites (We. Pro!. 6 307 ; Gres. ARW, x. 345 ff. ; cf. Bevan, JTS, iv. 500 f.).
A similar conclusion might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea
of chaos, if the explanation given above of 2 6 be correct : it looks as if
the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through trans
ference to a dry climate (see p. 56). The fig-leaves of 3 7 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 Dri. says, "con
tains 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 " (Gen. 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 p. 57 f.),
the trees of life und of knowledge (p. 59), the serpent (p. 72 f.), Eve (p. 85 f.),
and the Cherubim (p. 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 (RS*, 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
94 THE PARADISE
Babylonian and Phoenician 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 (cf. Lenormant, Origines, i. 93 f. : see the illustrations in Roscher,
Lex. 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. Ob
viously 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 Gu. 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 melan
choly, 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. Gres.
(I.e. 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three primitive conceptions:
(i) 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 child
like innocence (3 ) ; (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality
(3 22 ). The question is immensely complicated by the existence of two
recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly inseparable as Gres. 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
D3 in 3 s2 , which is wanting in &, 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 doubt
ful 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 (ThT, 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 seem
ingly 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
LEGEND 95
which it originally conveyed from those which it suggested to more
advanced theological speculation.
(1) We observe, in the first place, that the setiological motive is
strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of many
of the facts,_of Jinjyersal experiejisg, the bond between man and wife
(a 24 ), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence (3 7 ), the use of
clothing (3 al ), the instinctive antipathy to serpents (3 15 ). 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 v. 19 it is
spoken of as the natural fate of a being made from the earth ; in v. 22 it
follows from being excluded from the tree of life. IVjan was capable of
immortality, but not^bj^naJ^u^Jmnaorlal ; and God did not mean that he
shouTtt~attaTfrimmortality. The death threatened in 2 17 is immediate
death ; and to assume that the death which actually ensues is the ex
action of that deferred penalty, is perhaps to go beyond the intention of
the writer. Nor do^Jt^^p^aj^jth^Jt_^h^jrmrjajtJYe_ jseeks to account for
the origin of sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the first sin; but
it descrTbgJT lt^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 ? * Keeping in mind the possibility that
the two recensions may represent different conceptions, our data are
these : In 3 22 knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a)
* In OT usage, knowledge of good and evil marks the difference
between adulthood and childhood (Dt. i 39 , Is. 7 15f< ), or second childhood
(2 Sa. ig 36 ) ; it also denotes (with different verbs) judicial discernment of
right and wrong (2 Sa. 14 17 , i Ki. 3 s ), which is an intellectual function,
quite distinct from the working of the conscience. The antithesis of
good and evil may, of course, be ethical (Am. 5 14 -, Is. 5 20 etc.) ; but it
may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful, or wholesome
and hurtful (2 Sa. ig 36 ). 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" : cf. 2 Sa. 14" with 20 all things that are in earth (Gn. 24 5 3i 24 ).
We. 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 tiling from another.
96 THE PARADISE
implies equality with God, (b) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually secured
by man. In the leading- narrative (b) certainly holds good (2 17 ), 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 3 22 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 god
like 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 Bu. (Urg. 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly dis
missed, 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. We. (Prol. 6 299 ff.) holds that the
knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of nature, and intel
ligence 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 (3 21 ?), in the founding of cities (4 17 ), in the
discovery of the arts and crafts (4 19ff- ), and in the building of the tower
(n lff -). The undertone of condemnation of the cultural achievements of
humanity which runs through the Yahwistic sections of chs. i-n 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 Gu. (u f., 25 f.) urges some
what 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.
We. s seems to me the only view that does justice to the thought of 3 s2 ;
and if 4 16ff - and u 1 " 9 be the continuation of this version of the Fall, the
theory has much to recommend it. On the other hand, Gu. s acceptation
may be truer to the teaching of 3 lff> . 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 distin
guishes the grown man from the child. If it be objected that such
LEGEND 97
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 child
hood : "Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
(3) The next point that claims attention is the author s conception of\
sin. Formally, sin is represervted^as an act of disobedience to a positive
commandpinrposed 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 hlsM^ker. But the essence of the transgression lies deeper : God
had a reason for imposing the command, and man had a motive Tor
disobeying it ; and the reason and motive are unambiguously indicated.
Man was tempted by the desire to be as God, and Yah we does not will
that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the last instance presump
tion, an overstrrp^nj^ofj.he limits of creaturehood, and an encroach
ment on the prerogatives qf i^eitv. 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 3 22 borders hard on the pagan notion
of the envy of the godhead, a notion difficult to reconcile with the
conceptions of OT 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 deter
mined 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 Is.
2 i2ff. > 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 uni
verse. The God of Gn. 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 in
nocence and happiness, is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator.
7
9 8
CH. IV. Beginnings of History and Civilisation.
Critical Analysis. Ch. 4 consists of three easily separable sections :
(a) the story of Cain and Abel t 1 16 ), (b) a Cainite genealogy O 7 24 ),*
and (r) a fragment of a Sethite genealogy (^ 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. f Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is com
posite, and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of critical
problems of great intricacy.
i. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs in v. lfft , and
has to be disentangled from the Cain legend (so We. Bu.); whether
it can have included the whole of that legend is a point to be considered
later (p. 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 J has hardly been
questioned except by Di., who argues with some hesitation for assigning
it to E, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with vv. 25 - 26 . Bu.
(p. 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria point decidedly (if not
quite unequivocally) toJ;J and in the absence of any certain trace of E
in chs. i-n, 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 ch. 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 3 20 is an integral part of one recension of
the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that that recension
was continued in 4 1 , and then in 4 17 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 ch. 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 We.).
* We. unites v. 16b with 17 24 . f e.g. Hupfeld, Quelien, I26ff.
n^ beget, 18 ; Kin DJ, M (in genealogies, confined to J, io 21 I9 M
21 ( rf> I0 2fl). c f. 19
iv. 99
2. The fragmentary genealogy of vv. 25 - 26 corresponds, so far as it
goes, with the Sethite genealogy of P in ch. 5. It will be shown later
(p. 138 f.) that the lists of 4 17 " 24 and 5 go back to a common original ;
and if the discrepancy had been merely between J and P, 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 P s list occur also in
the connexion of J ? There are four possible solutions, (i) It is conceiv
able that J, not perceiving the ultimate identity of the two genealogies,
incorporated both in his document (cf. Ew. JBB W, vi. p. 4) ; and that
the final redactor (R p ) then curtailed the second list in view of ch. 5.
This hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see 25b )
the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent of J 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 v. 25 - are entirely redactional (Ew. Schr. al.) ; i.e.,
that they were inserted by an editor (R p ) to establish a connexion
between the genealogy of J and that of P. In favour of this view the
use of DIK (as a proper name) and of D n 1 ?^ has been cited ; but again the
statement of 26b presents an insurmountable difficulty. P has his own
definite theory of the introduction of the name m,v (see Ex. 6 2ff> ), 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 vv. 25 ^ stood originally before v. 1 (or before v. 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 v. 25 to adapt it to its new setting (so Sta.)
(see on the v.). That is, no doubt, a plausible solution (admitted as
possible by Di.), 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 trans
position. 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 (RJ) prior to the
incorporation of P ; and that the second list was curtailed by R p because
of its substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in ch. 5.
The harmonistic glossing of v. 25 is an inevitable assumption of any
theory except (i) 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 RJ. In other respects the solution is free from
difficulty. The recognition of the complex character of the source called
J 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
IOO CAIN AND ABEL (j)
of the non-Priestly sections of chs. 2-11 (see pp. 3, 134). One important
consequence may here be noted. Eve s use of the name D n^K, and the
subsequent notice of the introduction of the name mrr, suggest that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as E and P pre
viously to Ex. 3 14ff - and Ex. 6 2fft ). Hence, if it be the case that one
recension of the Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use
of DM^N (see p. 53), 4 20 26 will naturally be regarded as the sequel to
that recension.
3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv. 1 " 16 . That it
belongs to J in the wider sense is undisputed,* 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 m.vf would show that it was unknown to the author of
vv- 25. 26 anc j O f ^at form of the Paradise story presupposed by these vv.
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 (v. 17 ), who as
the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of stable civilised life.*
Still more complicated are the relations of the passage to the history of
the Fall in ch. 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 ch. 3 ; the free choice of occupation by the two
brothers, and Yahwe s preference for the shepherd s sacrifice, ignore
the representation (3 19 ) that husbandry is the destined lot of the race ;
and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which betray no conscious
ness of a primal curse resting on the ground. It is true, on the other
hand, that the literary form of 4 1 16 contains striking reminiscences of
that of ch. 3. The most surprising of these (4 7b || 3 16b ) may be set down
to textual corruption (see the note on the v. ) ; but there are several other
turns of expression which recall the language of the earlier narrative :
cf. 4 9 10< n with 3 9> 13> 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 indistinct-
* Cf. m,T, * 3 - 4 - 6 - 9 - 13 - 15 - 16 ; nnx, " ; vta^>, 15 ; and obs. the resemblances
to ch. ^ noted below : the naming of the child by the mother.
t This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in djr. In (5i A
Ktf/nos occurs twice ( 3 - 1S ), 6 9e6s 5 times ( 1 - 4 - 9< 10 - 16 ), and Kfy>ios 6 6e&s 3
times ( 6 - 15> 15 ) (for variants, see Cambridge LXX).
Even if we adopt Bu. s emendation of v. 17 , and make Enoch the
city-founder (see on the v.), it still remains improbable that that r61e
should be assigned to the son of a wandering nomad.
IV. I IOI
ness of conception in 4 1 " 16 which contrasts unfavourably with the con
vincing- lucidity of ch. 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 1 with the
material differences already enumerated, they confirm the opinion that
the literary connexion between ch. 3 and 4 lff - 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 Yah-
wistic 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 v. 1 (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be
assigned to it (so Bu.), possibly also 2b (Cain s occupation), and 3 b
(Cain s sacrifice). Other important questions will be best considered
in connexion with the original significance of the legend (p. in ff.).
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 ( 1 - 2 ). Each offers to Yahwe the sacrifice ap
propriate 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 ( 6f> ), he yields
to his evil passion and slays his brother ( 8 ). Yahwe pro
nounces 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 ( 14f< ) ; and he departs into the land
of Nod, east of Eden ( 16 ).
1-5. Birth of Cain and Abel : their occupation,
and sacrifice. I. On the naming of the child by the
I. y~\" DINTI] A plup. sense (Ra.) being unsuitable, the peculiar order
of words is difficult to explain ; see on 3 1 , and cf. ai 1 . Sta. (Ak. Red.
2 39) regards it as a proof of editorial manipulation. The euphemistic
use of yr is peculiar to J in the Hex. (7 times) : Nu. 3i 17 - 18> K (P : cf. Ju.
2 j 11. 12) are somewhat different. Elsewhere Ju. ii 39 i9 22 - 25 , i Sa. i 19 ,
i Ki. i 4 , all in the older historiography, and some perhaps from the
IO2 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
mother, see Benzinger, ArcJueol? 116. It is peculiar to the
oldest strata (J and E) of the Hex., and is not quite con
sistently observed even there (4 26 5 29 25 25f -, Ex. 2 22 ) : it may
therefore be a relic of the matriarchate which was giving
place to the later custom of naming by the father (P) at the
time when these traditions were taking shape. The difficult
sentence njir-ns ^ ^i? connects the name T?. with the
verb nj|5. But H3p has two meanings in Heb. : (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 TIN with the help of (Di. and most) is against all
analogy. It is admitted that nx itself nowhere has this sense (in 49 20
the true reading- is SNI, and Mic 3 8 is at least doubtful) ; and the few
cases in which the synonym Dj; can be so translated are not really
parallel. Both in i Sa. i4 45 and Dn. n 39 , the cy denotes association
in the same act, and therefore does not go beyond the sense along
with. The analogy does not hold in this v. if the vb. 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 nxo = from
(Bu. al. after 2T). (c) The idea that n is the sign of ace. (3P, al.), and
that Eve imagined she had given birth to the divine seed promised in
3 15 (Luther, al.) may be disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic
exegesis. If we adopt the other meaning of njp, the construction is
perfectly natural : / have created (or produced) a -man with (the co
operation of) Yahwe (cf. Ra. : " 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, p. 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 zi-ir a-mt-lu-ti it-ti-Su ib-ta-nu {KIB, vi. i, 40 f. ;
King, Cr. Tab. i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of Istar, is a mother-goddess
of the Babylonians (see KAT 3 , 430), i.e. y a deified ancestress, and
therefore so far the counterpart of the Heb. njn (see on 3 20 ). The
exclamation certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have
survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which
literary school of J. j;p] *J pp (Ar. kana). In Ar. kain means smith ;
= Syr. f > ^ Qj worker in metal (see 4 M 5 9 ). Noldeke s remark, that
in Ar. kain several words are combined, is perhaps equally true of Heb.
\*$(EB, 130). Many critics (We. Bu. Sta. Ho. al.) take the name as
eponym of the Kenites ({IP, Vp) : seep. 113 below. vnp] All Vns. express
the idea of acquiring (tKTr/a d/j. rjv, fiossedi, etc.). The sense create
or originate, though apparently confined to Heb. and subordinate
IV. 2, 3 103
Hawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity taking-
part with the supreme god in the production of man. See Cheyne,
TBI) 104, who thinks it "psychologically probable that Eve congratu
lated herself on having created a man." That e> N is not elsewhere
used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any interpretation (cf.
93 in Jb. 3 s ) ; though the thought readily occurs that the etymology
would be more appropriate to the name S^JN (4 26 ) than to ] $.
2. And again she bare, etc.] The omission of the verb
rnn is not to be pressed as implying that the brothers were
twins, although that may very well be the meaning. The
OT 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 (Gu.).
The absence of an etymology of ^n is remarkable (but cf. v. 17 ),
and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition that the name was
only coined afterwards in token of his brief, fleeting existence (Di.).
The word (= breath ) might suggest that to a Heb. reader, but the
original sense is unknown. Gu. regards it as the proper name of an
extinct tribe or people ; Ew. We. al. take it to be a variant of *?5;,
the father of nomadic shepherds (4 20 ) ; 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. Syr. JiOin = herd ;
Ar. abbal camel-herd, etc.): the meaning would then be herds
man (EB, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in TBI, in the interests
of Yerahme el.
3. An offering} nnaip, lit. a present or tribute (^2 US - 33!
43 llff -, i Sa. io 27 etc.) : see below. The use of this word
even there, is established by Dt. 32 6 , Pr. 8 22 , Ps. I39 13 , Gn. i4 19 - w . nn]
Of the Vns. alone can be thought to have read nxc (cnp JD) ; one
anonymous Gr. tr. (see Field) took the word as not. ace. (&vdpwirov
Ktpiov) ; 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 : ( 5ia rou 6., S. <ri>v K., *E/3p. ical 6 2tf/>. : fy 0,, J5 per
Deum, S> I .;VnV Conjectures : Marti (Lit. Centralbl., 1897, xx - 641)
and Zeydner (ZATW, xviii. 120): rnrr nk V*K = I the man of the Jahwe
sign (v. 16 ); Gu. njxnN B> N = a man whom I desire.
3. D D 1 fpo] After some time, which may be longer (i Sa. 29 ) or
shorter (24 65 ). To take DT> in the definite sense of year (i Sa. i 21 2 19
IO4 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
shows that the gift-theory of sacrifice (fiS 2 , 39 2 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 "
(fiS 2 , 221 and n. 3). Cain s offering is thus analogous to
the first-fruits (D TJ33 : Ex. 2 3 16 - 19 34 22 - 26 , Nu. i 3 20 etc.) of
Heb. 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 G-K. 154 a, N. i (b)) of their fat-pieces] cf. Nu. i8 17 .
Certain fat portions of the victim were in ancient ritual
reserved for the deity, and might not be eaten (i Sa. 2 16 etc. :
for Levitical details, see Dri.- White, Lev., Polychr. Bible,
pp. 4, 65). 4b, 53- How did Yah we signify His acceptance
of the one offering and rejection of the other ? It is
2O 6 etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether unnatural (lEz. al.).
K 3n] the ritual use is well established: Lv. 2 2 - 8 , Is. i 13 , Jer. ly 26 etc.
nnp : Ar. minhat gift, Moan : *J manaha.* On the uses of the
word, see Dri. DB, iii. 5870. In sacrificial terminology there are
perhaps three senses to be distinguished : (i) Sacrifice in general, con
ceived as a tribute or propitiatory present to the deity, Nu. i6 15 , Ju. 6 18 ,
i Sa. 2 17 - 29 26 19 , Is. i 13 , Zeph. 3 10 , Ps. 96* etc. (2) The conjunction of rruo
and nj] (i Sa. 2 29 3 14 , Is. ig 21 , Am. 5 M etc.) may show that it denotes
vegetable as distinct from animal oblations (see 1?S 2 , 217, 236). (3) In
P and late writings generally it is restricted to cereal offerings : Ex. 3O 9 ,
Nu. i8 9 etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted meaning be the
older it is difficult to say. 4. jna^np ] On Meth., see G-K. 16 d. We
might point as sing, of the noun (jn^lj, Lv. 8 16 - 23 ; G-K. 91 c) ; but AU
has scriptio plena of the pi. jn aSnD). ytsn] (5r KO.\ ZiriSev (in v. 5 irpovtaxcv)
Aq. t7reK\idr] ; 2. ir^p^Qi] ; 0. tve-jrupta-ev (see above) ; 6 2i//>. evd6icr)(rev ;
H respexit ; & - > *^ ^ ]o ; & " m? Nijn mm. There is no exact parallel
to the meaning here ; the nearest is Ex. 5 9 ( look aivay [from their tasks]
to idle words). 5. mn] in Heb. always of mental heat (anger); (Hr
* Some, however, derive it from nm = direct ; and Hommel (AHT,
322) cites a Sabsean inscr. where tanahhayat (V conj.) is used of offering
a sacrifice (see Lagrange, fctudes, 250). If this be correct, what was
said above about the gift theory would fall to the ground.
IV. 4, 5 105
commonly answered (in accordance with Lv. g 24 , i Ki. i8 38
etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel s
offering (. Ra. lEz. De. al.). Others (Di. Gu.) think
more vaguely of some technical sign, e.g. the manner in
which the smoke ascended (Ew. Str.) ; while Calv. 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 (3 24 ).
Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance of Gideon s
sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Ju. 6 21 ). 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 comm.), or (d) in the material of the sacrifice (Tu.).
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 them
selves ; 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
, Lect. 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 (Sta. 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.* 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
wrongly \vTn)<rev ; so <S. On impers. const., see G-K. 1446 ; cf.
jgso.32 3I 36 ^ N U> l6 is etc> The word j s not used by p._For ^ M> %
has ujjlQsZ ) ( Ht - became black ).
* It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the institution
of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of two brothers who quarrelled
(Pr. Ev. i. 10). Kittel (Studien zur hebr. Archdol. IO3 1 ) suggests that
our narrative may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the
fire-offering and the altar.
IO6 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
a stage of Heb. ritual when vegetable offerings were excluded ; but
such sacrifices must have been introduced after the adoption of agri
cultural 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 Gu. thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing
to Yahwe than husbandry.
5b. Cain s feeling is a mixture of anger (it became very
hot to him) and dejection (his face fell : cf. Jb. 2Q 24 , Jer. 3 12 ).
This does not imply that his previous state of mind had
been bad (Di. 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
7. The difficulties of the present text are "the curt and ambiguous
expression nxp ; further, the use of nNan as masc., 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 3 16 " (Ols. MBBA,
1870, 380). As regards 7a , the main lines of interpretation are these:
(i) The inf. nxy may be complementary to TB J? as a relative vb. (G-K.
120, i), in which case b> must have the sense of offer sacrifice
(cf. 43 s4 , Ezk. 2O 31 ). So (a) (3r OVK dav dpQ&s irpocrevtyicris, dpd&s 5e /AT/
dtt\Tjs, ^uapres ; V^X a<rc " (reading nn^ for nnsV, and pointing the next
two words fan nNpn)= 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
nej (cf. Ex. 2 9 17 , Lv. i 6 - 12 , r Ki. iS 23 - 33 etc.) for which he needlessly
substitutes ins (i5 10 ) has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering. (b)
Somewhat similar is a view approved by Bu. as " vollig befriedigend "
(Urg. 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 inf. may be taken as compressed apod.,
and n as an independent vb. = do well (as often). & might then
express the idea of (a) elevation of countenance ( DMS SP: cf. Jb. n 15
22 s6 ) : If thou doest well, shall there not be lifting up ? etc. (so Tu.
Ew. De. Di. Dri. al.); or (b) acceptance ( a "v as Gn. I9 21 , 2 Ki. 3",
Mai. i 8 * 9 ) : so Aq. (fyArets), 0. (SeKT<H & (A\CLD), U (recipies] ; or
(c) forgiveness (as Gn. 50", Ex. 32 32 ) : so S. (d077<ru>), E- Jer. and
recently Ho. Of these renderings 2 (a) or i (b) are perhaps the most
iv. 5-8 ID;
out. Every attempt to extract a meaning" from the v. 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.t.).
8. And Cain said] ">EN never being quite synonymous
with IS 1 ?, the sentence is incomplete : the missing- words,
Let us go to the field) must be supplied from Vns. ; see below
(so Ew. Di. Dri. al.). That Cain, as a first step towards
reconciliation, communicated to Abel the warning 1 he had
just received (Tu. al.), is perhaps possible grammatically, but
psychologically is altogether improbable. thefield\ the open
country (see on 2 5 ), where they were safe from observation
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
f3T as a noun ( sin is at the door, a lurker : Ew. al.), though no doubt
it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image itself the best
explanation would be that of Ho., who regards fjT as a technical
expression for unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 29 19 ). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil impulse in man (yin ~i^) 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. 7^ reads smoothly
enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The ante
cedent to the pron. suff. is usually taken to be Sin personified as a wild
beast, or less commonly (Calv. al.) Abel, the object of Cain s envy.
The word npwn 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 n^tw-i of (5r and Sb (see on 3 16 )
is no better. The verbal resemblance to 3 16b 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 eye of a copyist had
wandered to 3 16 in the adjacent column, and that the erroneous wprds
were afterwards adjusted to their present context : in & the suff. (are
actually reversed (s*^ -^v\A * 1 OCTIO m7n\ \)2_l. Aj]). ^he
paraphrase of 3T affords no help, and the textual confusion is probably
irremediable ; tentative emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no
avail. Che. TBI, 105, would remove v. 7 as a gloss, and make **
(reading rm) Cain s answer to v. 6 .
8. TON, in the sense of speak, converse (2 Ch. 32 24 ), is excessively
rare and late : the only instance in early Heb. is apparently Ex. ig 25 ,
where the context has been broken by a change of document. It might
mean mention (as 43^ etc.), but in that case the obj. must be indi
cated. Usually it is followed, like Eng. say, by the actual words
spoken. Hence rn^ri ro^i is to be supplied with jui^SF, but not Aq.
(Tu. De. : see the scholia in Field) : a Pisqa in some Heb. MSS, though
I08 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
(i Ki. ii 29 ). p. Yahwe opens the inquisition, as in 3 9 , 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 brothers blood is crying to
me, etc.} P> denotes strictly the cry for help, and specially
for redress or vengeance (Ex. 22 22 - 26 , Ju. 4 3 , Ps. 1076- 28
etc.). The idea that blood exposed on the ground thus
clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the OT
(Jb. i6 18 , Is. 26 21 , Ezk. 2 4 7 - 8 , 2 Ki. 9 26 ) : see R&, 41 f. 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. II. And now cursed art
thou from (off) the ground] i.e., not the earth s surface, but
the cultivated ground (cf. v. 14 , and see on 2 5 ). To restrict
it to the soil of Palestine (We. Sta. Ho.) goes beyond the
necessities of the case. which has opened her mouth, etc.}
a personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in
Is. s 14 (cf. Nu. i6 32 ). 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, 2i9ff.). The
ordinary OT conception is that the blood remains un
covered (cf. Eurip. Electra, 3i8f.). The relation of the
two notions is obscure. 12. The curse from off the
ground has two sides: (i) The ground will no longer yield
its strength (Jb. 3i 39 ) to the murderer, so that even if he
wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry ; and
not recognised by the Mass., supports this view of the text. To emend
nb^i (Ols. al.) or ion, no. ] (Gk.) is less satisfactory. 9. ] WJL n.>N. 10.
On the interjectional use of Vip, see G-K. 146 b ; No. Mand. Gr. p. 482.
Q py> ] .ux py^, agreeing- with Vip (?). II. jp . . . nnx] pregnant constr.,
G-K. i\qx,y,ff. This sense of jp is more accurately expressed by
Syo in v. 14 , but is quite common (cf. csp. 27 39 ). Other renderings, as
from (indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or by, are
less appropriate ; and the compar. more than is impossible. 12. ^pn]
juss. form with *6 (G-K. 109 d, h ; Dav. 63, R. 3, 66, R. 6); fol-
IV. 9-14 IO9
(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.
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 1 shall be hidden] This
anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the
hands of comm. (except Gu.). Like that of Esau in 27 34 ,
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 comm.); but rather the lawless state of things
in the desert, where any one s life may be taken with
impunity (Gu.). 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 leg-end, (i) It
lowed by inf. without *? (G-K. 114 m\ ijj yj] an alliteration, as in i a .
Best rendered in anon. Gr. Vns. (Field) : <ra\ei>6/ie;/os Ka.1 d/carao-raTwv ;
5J vagus et profugus ; (Er (incorrectly) artvwv Kal rp^uwj .
13. On jty ( v gawd? = go astray : Dri. Sam. 134^) in the sense of
punishment of sin, see the passages cited in BDB, s.v. 3. y NBU, in
the sense of bear guilt, 1 seems peculiar to P and Ezk. ; elsewhere it
means to pardon iniquity (Ex. 34 , Nu. i4 18 , Ho. I4 3 , Mic. 7 18 , Ps. 32 5 ).
This consideration is not decisive ; but there is something to be said
for the consensus of anc. Vns. (fflr afadrjisai ; 3J 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. VIN] instead of suff. is unlike J. In the next v. tak after inf. was
I 10 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
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 (cf. i Sa. 26 19 ), 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.
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 Kayin (or
* whenever any one kills K ), it (the murder) shall be avenged
sevenfold} by the slaughter of seven members of the
murderer s clan. See below. appointed a sign for Kayin]
or set a mark on K. 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 n lN, is certainly
consistent with the phrase ^ . . . Df : cf. e.g. Ex. I5 25 , Jos. 2^ with
Ex. io 2 etc. So some authorities in Ber. R., lEz. Tu. al. But Ex. 4 1U
proves that it may also be something attached to the person of Cain
(Calv. Ber. R., De. and most) ; and that nix may denote a mark appears
from Ex. I3 9 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 some
thing 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
Kayin is no longer a personal but a collective name. The clause
p anrr^J (not rirp p, or " i^tf) has frequentative force (exx. below), imply
ing that the act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe
Kayin : similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin - circle to
which the murderer belongs. See, further, p. 112.
necessary to avoid confusion between subj. and obj. 15. }?>] ofy
((0) implies J? ^ : so &F ; but this would require to be followed
by ?. p n n-^] see G-K. n6w; cf. Ex. i2 15 , Nu. 35 30 , i Sa. 2 13 3"
etc. _ Ojr] The subj. might be pp (as v. 24 ) or (more probably) impers.
(Ex. 2i 21 ), certainly not the murderer of Cain. 0:0^]= *7 times :
Q-K. 134^. Vns. : (fix CTTTO. ^KdiKovfieva TrapaXfoei ; Aq. e7rTa7r\a<rui;j
IV. 15, 16 III
16. and dwelt in the land of Ndd] The vb. SB* is not
necessarily inconsistent with nomadic life, as Sta. alleges
(see Gn. i3 12 , i Ch. 5 10 etc.). It is uncertain whether the
name 1i3 is traditional (We. Gu.), or was coined from the
participle "ti = land of wandering- (so most) ; at all events
it cannot be geographically identified. If the last words
PJJ noip belong to the original narrative, it would be
natural to regard Kayin as representative of the nomads
of Central Asia (Knob, al.); but the phrase may have been
added by a redactor to bring the episode into connexion
with the account of the Fall.
The Origin of the Cain Legend. The exposition of 4 1 " 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."*
A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly laid, is the
identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the Kenites. These ideas,
first propounded by Ew.,f adopted by We. ,J and (in part) by Rob.
Sm., have been worked up by Sta., in his instructive essay on The
sign of Cain, || 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 vv. 1 " 16 .
i. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic life
may be regarded as certain. We have seen (p. no) that in v. 13ff - the
name Cain has a collective sense ; and every descriptive touch in these
closing vv. is characteristic of desert life. His expulsion from the noiN
and the phrase in yj, express (though not by any means necessarily,
0. 5t
U septuplum punietur; $s Vi;JZ)Aj |V"> * *^ r ^ J ; jnarv pi
vrD (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech the 7th from
Adam [see on v. 24 ]). 16. in] AM. 13, <& Nai 5 (TJ?) with variants (see
Nestle, MM, p. 9). 26F (habitavit profugus in terra) [?] take
the word as a participle ; but the order of words forbids this. nmp]
see on 2 14 . In front of E. and East of E. would here be the same
thing (3").
* Smith, AW 2 , 251. *tJBBW,\\.$S. J Coij>.* lof.
l>c. Ak. Reden, 229-73.
112 ORIGIN OF THE
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.* The sign which Yahwe puts on him is most naturally
explained as the " shart 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. "f 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.
2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as expressing
reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the Hebrews. A dis
paraging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is, no doubt, conceivable
on the part of the settled Israelites (cf. Gn. i6 12 ) ; but Cain is hardly
the symbol of that estimate, (i) 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. J (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, INS, 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 OT 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
* 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.
t Smith, I.e. 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 Burck. 149 ff., 320 f.
% No. EB> 130.
CAIN LEGEND 113
given by Burck. and Doug-hty 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.* The name pp, signifying smith (p. 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 v. 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 detre of Sta. 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, f
3. The kernel of Sta. s argument is the attractive combination of
Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites. In
historical times the Kenites appear to have been pastoral nomads (Ex.
2 i6ff. ^i) frequenting the deserts south of Judah (i Sa. 27 3O 29 ), and (in
some of their branches) clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner
of life (Ju. 4 n - 17 5 24 , Jer. 35* cpd. with i Ch. 2 55 ). From the fact that
they are found associated now with Israel (Ju. i 16 etc.), now with
Amalek (Nu. 24 21ff> , i Sa. I5 6 ), and now with Midian (Nu. io- 9 ), Sta.
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 Kenites exercised a
more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites : indeed, it seems an
inconsistency in Sta. s position that he regards the Kenites 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
Kenites were anything but typical Bedouin ; and all the objections to
* Burck. 14 f. ; Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 280 ff.
f An interesting parallel might be found in the account given by
Merker (Die Masai, p. 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, Ethnogr. Parall. . Vergl. (1878), 156 ff.
^ The tribe is called j;p in Nu. 24 22 , Ju. 4" ; elsewhere the gentilic "y$
is used (in i Ch. 2 55 n j p).
8
114 THE CAIN LEGEND
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 Kenites 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.
4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Kenite theory
can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The evidence
on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from vv. 13 " 16 . Sta.
justifies his extension of the theory to the incident of the murder by the
analogy of those temporary alliances betw r een Bedouin and peasants
in which the settled society purchases immunity from extortion by the
payment of a fixed tribute to the nomads (cf. i Sa. 25 2ff -). 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 con
vincing. 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. Gu., with more consist
ency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an actual (prehis
toric) 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 ; * and Gu. s view has the advantage
over Sta. s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual an intelligible
factor in the quarrel (see p. 105 f.). But the process of extracting history
from legend is always precarious ; and in this case the motive of indi
vidual blood-guilt appears too prominent to be regarded as a secondary
interest of the narrative.
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, (i) He is the
originator of agriculture (v. 2 ). (2) He is the founder of sacrifice, and
(as the foil to his brother Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offer
ings alone are not acceptable to Yahwe (see on v. 3 ). (3) He is the
individual murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the
curse, like the Orestes, Alcmaeon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek legend
(v. 8ffi ). Up to v. 12 that motive not only is sufficient, but is the only
one naturally suggested to the mind : the expression 1:1 j?j being merely
the negative aspect of the curse which drives him from the ground, f
* Instances in Merker, Die Masai, pp. 3, 7, 8, 14, 328, etc.
f For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, comp. 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 " (Ar. Des.
ii. 293, cited by Stade).
IV. 17-24 I 15
(4) Lastly, in w. 13 16 he is the representative of the nomad tribes of
the desert, as viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisa
tion. 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 (v. 208 -). 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.
IV. 17-24. The line of Cain.
This genealogy, unlike that of P in ch. 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.* These are : Husbandry (v. 2 ; see above), city-life ( 17 ),
[polygamy ( 19 ) ?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-
working ( 2 - 22 ). The Song of Lamech ( 23f -) 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 vv. 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 ; poly
gamy (though a declension from the ideal of 2 24 ) is not
generally condemned in the OT (Dt. 2i 15 ) ; 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
* Gu., however (p. 47), considers the archaeological notices to be
insertions in the genealogy, and treats them as of a piece with the
similar notices in 2 15 3 7 - 21 - M .
Il6 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
those existing in the writer s own day ; hence the passage
does not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of develop
ment by a cataclysm like the Flood. That the representa
tion involves a series of anachronisms, and is not historical,
requires no proof (see Dri. Gen. 68). On the relation of the
section to other parts of the ch., see p. 98 above : on some
further critical questions, see the concluding Note (p. i22ff.).
17. Enoch and the building of the first city. The
question where Cain got his wife is duly answered in
Jub. iv. 1,9: she was his sister, and her name was Awan.
For other traditions, see Marmorstein, Die Namen der
Schiuestern Kains u. Abels, etc., ZATW, xxv. 141 ff. and
he became a city-buildcr\ So the clause is rightly rendered
by De. Bu. Ho. Gu. al. (cf. 2i 20b , Ju. i6 21 , 2 Ki. i 5 5 ).
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 j:p is the subj. of vri only appears from the phrase ij? DP? towards
the end. Bu. (i2off.) conjectures that the original text was ID*??, making-
Enoch himself the builder of the city called after him (so Ho.). The
emendation is plausible : it avoids the ascription to Cain of tivo 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 subj. of the immediately preceding vbs. is Cain s wife. But the
difficulty of accounting for the present text is a serious objection, the
motive suggested by Bu. (123) being far-fetched and improbable. The
incongruity between this notice and vv. 11 16 has already been mentioned
(p. 100). Lenormant s examples of the mythical connexion of city-building
with fratricide (Origines 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 out
laws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling of Rome (Fort.
Rev. 1899, Apr., 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 (Ho. Gu.) to remove 17b as an addition
to the genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would put
17. On J?TI, see on v. 1 . The vb. Tjjn appears from Ar. kanaka to be a
denom. from hanak (Heb. Tjn), and means to rub the palate of a new-born
child with chewed dates : hence trop. to initiate (Lane, s.v. ; We.
Heid. 173). In Heb. it means to dedicate or inaugurate a house,
etc. (Dt. 20 5 , i Ki. 8 63 : cf. n|iq, Nu. 7 11 , Neh. I2 27 etc.); and also to
teach (Pr. 22 6 ). See, further, on 5".
IV. i;, i8 117
city-building 1 before cattle-rearing- ; but the Phoenician tradition is full
of such anachronisms, and shows how little they influenced the reasoning
of ancient genealogists. The name -pan occurs (besides 5 18ff> , i Ch. i 8 )
as that of a Midianite tribe in 25-* (i Ch. i 33 ), and of a Reubenite clan
in 46 (Ex. 6 14 , Nu. 26*, i Ch. 5 3 ). It is also said that -pn is a Sabsean
tribal name (G-B. 12 s.v.),* which has some importance in view of the
fact that fi p (5 9ff> ) is the name of a Sabaean deity. As the name of a
city, the word would suggest to the Heb. mind the thought of initia
tion (v.i.}. The city Tun cannot be identified. The older conjectures
are given by Di. (p. 99) ; Sayce (ZKF, ii. 404 ; Hib. Lect. 185) and
Cheyne (EB, 624 ; but see now 7!Z?7, 106) connect it with Unuk, the
ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.
l8. 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
ch. 5.
On the first three names, see esp. Lagarde, Orientalia, ii. 33-38 ;
Bu. Urg. 123-9. ""TV] & TaiSad ( = Tvy), Try (the latter supported
by Philo), corresponds to TV in 5 15ff *. The initial guttural, and the want
of a Heb. etymology, would seem to indicate Tvy as the older form which
has been Hebraized in TV ; but the conclusion is not certain. If the
root be connected with Ar. arada (which is doubtful in view of ffir s F),
the idea might be either fugitive (Di. al.), or strength, hardness,
courage (Bu.). Sayce (ZKF, ii. 404) suggests an identification with
the Chaldean city Eridu ; Ho. with -nj in the Negeb (Ju. i 16 etc.). The
next two names are probably (but not certainly : see Gray, ffPN, 164 f.)
compounds with "?N. The first is given by MT in two forms, S&nnp and
^8[ ];np. The variants of (Er are reducible to three types, Mcu^X (S"nD),
Maoi;i?7\ (Vjnno), MctXeXe^X ( = M>WiD, 5 13fn )- Lag. considers the last
original, though the first is the best attested. Adopting this form, we
may (with Bu.) point the Heb. *?N V0<? or *?N v .np = * God makes me live :
so virtually Philo airb fays deov, and Jer. ex vita Deus (cited by Lag.).
Both Mass, forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense : destroyed (or
smitten) of God (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Dri. Sam.
14). ^N^ino is now commonly explained by Ass. mutu-$a-ili y Man of
God, f though the relative Sa presents a difficulty (Gray, I.e.). The
true (& reading is MatfowraXa ( = nV^nt?, 5 21ff- ) ; ^ia6ov<ra-rj\ occurs as a
correction in some MSS r^h] again inexplicable from Heb. or even
Arabic. Sayce (Hib. Lect. 186) and Hommel connect it with Lamga, a
Babylonian name of the moon-god, naturalised in S. Arabia. %
18. On ace. nx with pass, see G-K. 116 a, b. ~h\ in the sense of
beget is a sure mark of the style of J (see Ho. Einl. 99). inp] archaic
* Omitted in 13th edition.
t Lenorm. Orig* i. 262 f., Di. Bu. al. Che. EB, 625. It does not
appear that mutu-sa-ili occurs as an actual name.
% Hommel, Altisrael. Uberl. 117 n.: " Lamga ist ein babylonischer
Il8 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
19. The two wives of Lamech. No judgment is passed
on Lamech s bigamy, and probably none was intended.
The notice may be due simply to the fact that the names of
the wives happened to be preserved in the song afterwards
quoted.
Of the two female names by far the most attractive explanation is
that of Ew. (JBBW, vi. 17), that nr\y means Dawn (Ar. gaeF", but ffi
has A5a), and nW (fern, of "?$) Shadow, a relic of some nature-myth (cf.
Lenorm. Orig.^ 183 f.). Others (Ho.) take them as actual proper names
of inferior stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech ; pointing out that
my recurs in 36 2ff - as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This
ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the passage.
For other explanations, see Di. p. 100.
20-22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.
At this point the genealogy breaks up into three branches,
introducing (as Ew. 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. Yabal, son of "Adah,
became the father (i.e. originator: J ^-) of tent- and cattle-
dwellers (v.i.)] i.e. of nomadic shepherds. n }i?P, however,
is a wider term than JN (v. 2 ), including all kinds of cattle,
and even camels and asses (Ex. g 3 ). The whole Bedouin life
is thus assigned to Jabal as its progenitor. 21. Yiibal, also a
nom. case (G-K. 90 o) of an old Sem. word (also Egypt, according
to Erman) np= man (male, husband, etc.) : cf. G-B. s.v.
2O. nap. pi Wfk 3tr] (5r olKovvruv tv (ncrjva is KTrjvoTpdfiui , perhaps reading
mpo VrtK as in 2 Ch. i4 15 (so Ball). TS (atque pastorum] takes njpp as a
ptcp. ; & inserts *__t__fcJLDO, and 5T HDI, before cattle ; similarly
Kuenen proposed njpo n:pi. The zeugma is somewhat hard, but is
retained by most comm. for the sake of conformity with v. 21f> ; G-K.
11766, 118 g. 21. VHN can] cf. io 25 (J) (i Ch. 7). ui !*.} (5r 6 KO.TO.-
5efas \f/a\rr]piov KO! Ki9dpav. ixy] Ti33] U cithara et organo ; 5 |5A--O
]jJLDO ; QL N313N1 NTUD (|| K^j). See Benzinger, Archteol. 1 , 237-246 ; We.
Psalms (Polychr. Bible), 2igf., 222 f.; Riehm, Hdwb. 10436*". The -mi is
Beiname des Sin ; daraus machten die Sabaer, mit volksetymologischer
Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka (wahrsch. glanzen), einen Plural
Almaku."
IV. 19-22
son of Adah, is the father of all who handle lyre and pipe ; the
oldest and simplest musical instruments. These two occupa
tions, representing the bright side of human existence, have
Adah (the Dawn ?) as their mother ; recalling the classical
association of shepherds with music (see Lenorm. i. 207).
22. Equally suggestive is the combination of Tubal-kdyin, the
smith, and Naamah ( pleasant ), as children of the dark
Zillah ; cf. the union of Hephasstos and Aphrodite in Greek
mythology (Di. al.). The opening words of a/3 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, Ber. R., Ra. and
most, which has led to a questionable interpretation of the
Song, has no foundation. He is simply the metal-worker,
certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (i Sa. i6 23 etc.),
probably the lyre (Greek Kivvpa). The a:iy (associated with the ni33
in Jb. 2 1 12 30 31 : elsewhere only Ps. iso 4 ) is some kind of wind instrument
(H&), a flute or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan s pipe (<rvpiy). 22. Kin DJ]
in genealogies (as here, 4 26 io 21 ig 38 22 20 - 24 [Ju. 8 31 ]) is characteristic of J.
pp ^ain] (5r 0o/SeX- Kal ty. Other Vns. have the compound name, and
on the whole it is probable that Kal fy is a corruption of Kcu>, although
the next cl. has 0o/3eX alone. ui wgh] ( Kal 7jj> <r<pvpoK6iros, xaX/reus x a ^ K v
Kal ffiSripov, IS qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta opera aer. et /!; &
; 31 3 m 3 y yv "?:
To get any kind of sense from MT, it is necessary either (a) to take &tih
( sharpener or hammerer ) in the sense of instructor ; or () take
enh as neut. ( a hammerer of every cutting implement of, etc.) ; or (c)
adopt the quaint construction (mentioned by Bu. 138) : a hammerer of
all (sorts of things), a (successful) artificer in bronze, etc ! All these
are unsatisfactory ; and neither the omission of SD with (3r (Di.), nor the
insertion of 3N before it yields a tolerable text. Bu. s emendation (139 if.)
m ah n ID 1 ? m [for pp] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his
utterly improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was origin
ally designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in the
words t^a 1 ? pp, for which we should expect, UN rrn Nin (Ols. Ball). The
difficulty is to account for the present text : it is easy to say that tfD 1 ?
and pp are glosses, but there is nothing in the v. to require a gloss, and
neither of these words would naturally have been used by a Heb. writer
for that purpose. ^nj] The Semitic words for iron (Ass. parzillu,
Aram. "?ns, Mlr^, Ar. farzil) have no Semitic etymology, and are
9 7
probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On the antiquity of iron in
W. Asia, see Ridgeway, Early Age of Gr. i. 6i6ff.
120 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as a species of
black-art,* and by Semitic nomads held in contempt.
On the names in these vv. see the interesting- discussion of Lenorm.
Orig? i. 192 ff. The alliterations, YabalY&balT&bal, are a feature
of legendary genealogies : cf. Arab. Habil and Kabil, Shiddid and
Shaddad, Malik and Milkan, etc. (Lenorm. 192). *?y (<& Iw/3eX -TjX) and
Snv ( Iov/3aX) both suggest ^y (Heb. and Phoen.), which means primarily
ram, then ram s horn as a musical instrument (Ex. iQ 13 ), and finally
joyous music (in the designation of the year of Jubilee). On a sup
posed connexion of ^n with Vnn in the sense of herdsman, see above,
p. 103. ^yw is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for metal-working
(see on io 2 ) ; and it is generally held that their heros eponymus sup
plies the name of the founder of metallurgy here ; but the equation is
doubtful. A still more precarious combination with a word for smith
(tumal, dubalanza, etc.) in Somali and other East African dialects,
has been propounded by Merker (Die Masai, 306). The compound V^m
pp (written in Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either Tubal [the]
smith (in which case pp [we should expect ppn] is probably a gloss), or
Tubal of (the family of) Cain. f <& has simply QofieX ; but see the
footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the TeX%?ves, 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 Phoenician legend,
were <ndr]pov evperal /ecu rrjs rotirov pyafflas,fiQ%j ((5r Noe^a) seems to
have been a mythological personage of some importance. A goddess
of that name is known to have been worshipped by the Phcenicians.J
In Jewish tradition she figures as the wife of Noah (Ber. -/?.), as a
demon, and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of vocal music
(2TJ : cf. Lag. OS, 180, 56: Noe^t^ ^aXXovcra (fiwi -fj OVK v dpydvtf [Nestle,
MM, io]).
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 com
memorates the invention of weapons by Tubal-cain, and is
accordingly spoken of as Lamech s Sword Song. But the
23. The Introd. of the song is imitated in Is. 28 23 32 9 ; cf. also Dt. 32 1 .
The words piixn and rriDN are almost exclusively poetical. On the form
}#!?:?, see G-K. 46/1 "nnn is perf. of experience (Dav. 40 (c) ; Dri. T.
12), rather than of single completed action, or of certainty (lEz. De.
Bu. al.). ? is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to attention.
V?^, Tn Gn p] On this use of ^, see BDB, s.v. 5, f. : (5r els rpav/j.a [/-twXwTra]
* See Andree, Ethnogr. Parall. u. Vergleiche (1878), 157.
t So Ew., who thinks the pp belongs to each of the three names.
% Lenorm. 200 f.; Tiele, Gesch. 5. 265; Baethgen, Beitr. 150.
IV. 2 3 , 24 I2I
contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion
(We.); and the position in which it stands makes its con
nexion 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 vv. may be rendered :
23 Adah 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.
94 For Cain takes vengeance seven times,
But Lamech seventy times and seven !
23a. Ho. raises the question whether the words Adah and
Zillah belong to the song or the prose introduction ; and
decides (with JT) for the latter view, on the ground that in
the remaining vv. 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 p. 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, B*K and "17J ( is not a fighting youth, a sense it
rarely bears: i Ki. i2 8ff> , Dn. i 4ff -, but an innocent man-
child [Bu. Ho.]) are not the actual perpetrators of the
outrage, but any members of the same clan. The parallel
ism 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
tyol ; U in vulnus [livorem] meum. 24. ?] again introducing the reason,
which, however, "lies not in the words immediately after o, but in the
122 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
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 Ho. s division of ^ 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, Gu. 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 Sta. thinks)
to a connection between the song and the legendary cycle from which
the Cain story of 13ff - 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. (Lenorm.) ; its real
character was first divined by We., who, after pointing out the base
lessness of the notion that it has to do with the invention of weapons,
describes it as " eine gar keiner besonderen Veranlassung bedtirftige
Prahlerei eines Stammes (Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie
die Araber sich besonders gern ihren Weibern geg-eniiber als grosse
Eisenfresser riihmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech" (Comp. z 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
(3rU), who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated murder
committed by Lamech. The rendering- of & 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. W T hen 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 (Ra. al.; cf. Jer. Ep. ad
Damasum, 125).* The metrical structure of the poem is investigated
by Sievers in Metrische Studien, i. 404 f., and ii. i2f., 247^ 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 nV*i nij; as a gloss.
Apart from v. 23f> , the most remarkable feature of the genealogy is
second part of the sentence " (BOB, s.v. 3, c) : cf. Dt. i8 14 , Jer. 30". c,r
on ace., see G-K. 29 g. The Niph. op? would yield a better sense :
avenges himself (Bu. Di. Ho.).
* See, further, Lenorm. Orig. \. i86ff.
IV. 24 123
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 develop
ment. Several recent scholars have sought a clue in the social con
ditions 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,* the
flite of all nomadic-living men, and the flower of human culture
(Bu. 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 (Sta. 232). The
obvious inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic
people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in Canaan (Bu.) ;
though Ho. considers that it embodies a specifically Kenite tradition in
which the eponymous hero Cain appears as the ancestor of the race (so
Gordon, ETG, 1 88 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.f Moreover, the circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a
very incomplete parallel to the classes of vv. 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 vv., which certainly
imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal s art. And once more, as Sta.
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 Bu.) we include
vv. 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 Phoenician 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 Heb. tradition ; but
the general idea is the same : in each case we have a genealogical list
* But against this view, see p. 112 above, and Meyer, IA T S, 303 ff.
t Ho. evades this objection by deleting v. 17b , and reducing the
genealogy to a bare list of names ; but why should the Kenites have
interposed a whole series of generations between their eponymous
ancestor and the origin of their own nomadic life ?
124 SETHITE GENEALOGY (j)
of the legendary heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and
occupations is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phoenician
tradition is the more original may be doubtful; in anv case "it is
difficult," as Dri. says, "not to think that the Heb. and Phcen.
representations spring- from a common Canaanite cycle of tradition,
which in its turn may have derived at least some of its elements from
Babylonia" (Gen. p. 74).*
IV. 25, 26. Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy.
The vv. are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy
(see above, p. 99), of which another fragment has fortunately
been preserved in 5 29 (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have
* Cf. Eus. Prcep. Ev. i. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 39 ff.). The Greek text
is printed in Miiller s Fragni. Hist. Grcec. iii. 566 f. French transla
tions are given by Lenorm. Orig. i. 536 ff., and Lag-range, Etudes 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 Gen. : Of the two proto
plasts Ai cii/ and Hpioroyovos, it is recorded evpelv de rbv AuDi/a rr\v airb r&v
devdpwv rpcxpriv. The second pair, Yevos and Feved, dwelt in Phoenicia,
and inaugurated the worship of the sun. Of the race of AI WJ/ and
Hpwr6yovos were born three mortal children, ^cDs, II Op, and 4>X6 : oSrot
IK Traparpifirjs uXu>i/ eftpov irvp, Kal TTJJ/ -^prjcriv ^dida^av. Then followed
a race of giants, of whom was born [Zajyu/^poC/xos ( = Dno VDI?) 6 Kal
c T^oi pcmos, who founded Tyre. Of him we read : Ka\v(3as re eiriforjaai
curb KctXd/zwj/, Kal dpvwv, Kal irairvpwv crTCKrtdcrcu de irpbs rbv a5e\(pbv Ovcrwov,
5s crKTnjv T( (Tib/mart TT/JWTOS eK dep/j.dra)v &v f(T%u(re aiiXXa^elv drjpkw edpe . . .
AtvSpov d Xafio/mevov rbv QVITUOV Kal aTroK\a8ev(rai>ra, irp&rov TO\/m->j(Tai fij
da\aa<rav tyfirivai aviepQxrai 5^ duo trr^Xas . . . al/md re (nrevSeiv aurats e% &v
ijypeve Oypiuv. The further history of invention names (a) Aypevs and
AXteuy, rovs a\eLas Kal aypas evperds ; (b) . . . Stfo d5eX0oi)s <riSripov evperas,
Kal TTJS TOVTOV epyavLas &v Barepov rbv Xputrcup \6yovs dcncTjcrcu, Kal ^Tr^Sas
Kal /j-avreias ; (c) Tex*^ T7 ? s and I 1 7711/05 Avrdxduv : OUTOL eTrevb-riffav rcj) 7r?;\y
TT^S ir\lvdov (rvfj./j,Lyvveiv cpopvrbv, Kal rig i]\iq) ai)ra? rep(raiveii>, d\\a Kal areyas
e^evpov ; (d) A-ypis and Aypovypos (or 3 Ayp&Tr]s) : eirevb-rja av 8 OVTOL av\as
irpoffTLdevai rols OIKOLS (rat 7re/H/36Acua Kal o"7r^Xata eK rovruv dyporai Kal
Kwyyoi ; (e] "A/JLVVOS and Mdyos : ot /care5etaj/ Ku>/j,as Kal jroifj.va s ; (f) Mtcrcfy)
(nc^D) and Su5u/c (pis) : ourot rrjv rov d.X6s XP^ (rtJ/ ef>pov> [g] Of Mi<rtt>/) was
born Tdaur, 5? eCpe TTJV r&v irpwrwv aToixeluv ypatpyv and (h) of "LvdvK, the
At<5cr/foi;poi : oCrot, 07/cri, trpCnoi ir\oiov etipov. After them came others of
Kal /3ordi/as evpov, Kal r^v rCov daKeruv faaiv, Kal eTruidds. It is impossible
to doubt that some traditional elements have been preserved in this
extraordinary medley of euhemerism and archaeology, however unfavour
ably it may contrast with the simplicity of the biblical record.
IV. 2 5 125
contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to
the genealogy of P, it may be assumed that the two lists
were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten
generations. That that of J was not a dry list of names
and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that
has survived. The preservation of 4 25f - 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 J s statement intact. The circumstance
shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical specula
tions may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision
of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in J
would hardly have been suspected ; and the whole analysis
of the J document into its component strata might have run
a different course.
25. And Adam knew, etc.\ see on v. 1 That JHJ denotes
properly the initiation of the conjugal relation (Bu.) is very
doubtful: see 38 26 , i Sa. i 19 . And she called\ see again on v. 1 .
God has appointed me seed] (the remainder of the v. is
probably an interpolation). Cf. 3 15 . Eve s use of DTl^tf is
not surprising (Di.) ; it only proves that the section is not
from the same source as v. 1 . On the other hand, it harmon
ises with the fact that in 3 lff - DTI7X is used in dialogue. It
is at least a plausible inference that both passages come
from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name m,T
up to 4 26 (see p. 100).
The v. in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a knowledge of
the Cain and Abel narrative of 4 1 " 16 ; but it is doubtful if the allusions
to the two older brothers can be accepted as original (see Bu. 154-159).
Some of Bu. s arguments are strained; but it is important to observe
that the word ~f\y is wanting in (5r, and that the addition of *?3n nnn inn
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of substitution
being quite foreign to the connotation of the vb. JVB>. The following
clause j p iJin 3 reads awkwardly in the mouth of Eve (who would
naturally have said p n I^N), and is entirely superfluous on the part of
25. D^x] here for the first time unambiguously a prop. name. There
is no reason to suspect the text : the transition from the generic to the
individual sense is made by P only in 5 1 3 , and is just as likely to have
been made by J. (Gr reads Evav in place of liy ; Jo has both words.
Before iWn Q5t%> insert inrn. tnpni] jjj. mp x ?] (& \tyov<ra ; so U and
126 SETHITE GENEALOGY (j)
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 v. 1 : jnt D n^K ^ ns?, God has appointed me seed
(i.e. posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3, where both the
significant words JVB> and jni 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 Heb. word
(with equivalents in Phoen. Arab. Syr. Jew. -Aram. : cf. No. Mand. Gr.
p. 98) nt? would mean foundation (not Setzling, still less Ersatz) ; but its
real etymology is, of course, unknown. Rommel s attempt (A OD, p. 26 ff. )
to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus
(below, p. 137) involves too many doubtful equations, and even if
successful would throw no light on the name. In Nu. 24" ns? appears
to be a synonym for Moab ; but the text is doubtful (Meyer, INS, 219).
The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah may be based
on the Messianic interpretation of 3 15 , and does not necessarily imply
a Babylonian parallel.
26. On the name B^K ( = Man, and therefore in all prob
ability the first member of an older genealogy), see below.
Then men began to call , etc.~\ Better (with (jjr, etc., v.t.):
He was the first to call on the name of Yahive (cf. Q 20 io 8 ),
i.e. he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe ; cf. i2 8
i3 4 2 1 33 26 25 (all J). What historic reminiscence (if any)
lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjec
ture ; but its significance is not correctly expressed when
even & 26. Kin cu] (G-K. 135 h) (& om. enj] like DIN, properly a
coll. : En6 is a personification of mankind. The word is rare and
mostly poetic in Heb. (esp. Jb. Ps.); but is common in other Setn.
dialects (Ar. Aram. Nab. Palm. Sab. Ass.). Nestle s opinion (MM,
6f.), that it is in Heb. an artificial formation from DT:K, and that the
genealogy is consequently late, has no sort of probability ; the only
artificiality in Heb. is the occasional individual use. There is a pre
sumption, however, that the genealogy originated among a people to
whom BnJK or its equivalent was the ordinary name for mankind
(Aramaean or Arabian). Vmn m] so Aq. S. ; JUA *?nn JK ; <& OUTOS 1)\irL<rev
(from *y ^rr) implies either Vnn ni or n ton ; so U (iste coepit] and Jub.
iv. 12 ; & has ;_ jy-tOT The true text is that read by (3r, etc. ;
and if the alteration of MT was intentional (which is possible), we may
safely restore *?nn ton after io 8 . The Jewish exegesis takes *?nin in the
sense was profaned, and finds in the v. a notice of the introduction of
idolatry (Jer. Qu., &J, Ra. al.), although the construction is absolutely
ungrammatical (IEz.). After m.r <& adds carelessly roO 6cou.
IV. 25-V 127
it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on
the part of a religious community (De.) ; and the idea that
it is connected with a growing sense of the distinction
between the human and the divine (Ew. De. al.) is a baseless
fancy. It means that Ends was the first to invoke the
Deity under this name ; and it is interesting chiefly as a
reflexion, emanating from the school of J, on the origin of
the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception is
more ingenuous than that of E (Ex. 3 13 ~ 15 ) or P (6 3 ), who
base the name on express revelation, and connect it with
the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.
The expression nea tnp (lit. call by [means of] the name of Y. )
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 wide
spread 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.* The best illustration is I Ki. iS 24 ^, 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
mrv, from the Babylonian or Egyptian pantheon, though often asserted, f
and in itself not incredible, has not been proved. The association with
the name of Eno might be explained by the supposition that the old
genealogy of which Eno was the first link had been preserved in some
ancient centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai ? or Kadesh ?).
CH. V. The Ante-Diluman Patriarchs (P).
In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation
(i 1 -2 4a ) and the Flood (6 m -) is bridged by this list of ten
patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration
of the period (in MT) at 1656 years. The names are
traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three
with 4 25f -, and of Nos. 4-9 with 4 17ff -. It has, indeed, been
held that the names of the Cainite genealogy were intention
ally modified by the author of P, in order to suggest certain
* See Giesebrecht, Die A Tliche Schdtzung des Gottesnamens, esp. p.
25ff., 9 8fT.
tW. M. Muller, AE, pp. 239, 312; Del. Babel [tr. M Cormack] p.
61 f. ; Bezold, Die Bab.-Ass. Keilinschr. etc. p. 31 ff. ; Oppert, ZA, xvii.
291 ff.; Daiches, ib. xxii. (1908), 125 ff. ; Algyogyi-Hirsch, ZATW, xxiii.
355 ^ J Sta. BTh. i. 29; Me. GA*, i. (ate Halfte), 545 f. Cf., further,
Rogers, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1908), p. 89 ff.
128 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (P)
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 J s Sethite genealogy, its names would be
found to correspond closely with those of ch. 5. The
chronology, on the other hand, is based on an artificial
system, the invention of which may be assigned either to P
or to some later chronologist (see p. 136 below). What is
thoroughly characteristic of P 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 chil
dren), and (c) his age at death.* The stiff precision and
severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formula;,
and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a some
what pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the
Priestly school of writers.
The distinctive phraseology of P (D ng, K"]3, rnrn, nrip^ 121) is seen
most clearly in vv. lb - 2 , which, however, may be partly composed of
glosses based on i 26ff> (see on the vv.). Note also ril^n ( la ), o)v, WOT
( 3 ), v"pin (throughout), D fr?grrn$ ^Vnjpn (& 24 , cf. 6 9 ) ; the syntax of the
numerals (which, though not peculiar to P, is a mark of late style : see
G-K. 134 * ; Dav. 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 mrr and the allusion
to 3 17 to be an extract from J, and in all probability a fragment of the
genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4 25 - 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 Heb. conception of primitive times " (Dri.
Gen. p. 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attri
buted 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
* Only in the cases of Adam (v. 3 ), Enoch ( 22 - ) and Lamech ( w - )
are slight and easily explicable deviations from the stereotyped form
admitted. The section on Noah is, of course, incomplete.
CH. V. 129
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 n:^ denotes a space of time much shorter
than twelve months (see Di. 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 com
parative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated
statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions
of a people (Ryle, quoted by Dri. p. 75).
The author of P 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 (6 12 ).
It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deteriora
tion 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 OT times. The Priestly writers may have
been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to
the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of
Gen. 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 (Urgesch. 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
P in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that the Samaritan chronology
(which Bu. takes to be the original: see below, p. I35f.) admits of the
conclusion that Jered, Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.*
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.
* The more rapid decrease of life (in jju) after Mahalalel ought not
to be counted as an additional argument ; because it is a necessary
corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.
9
I3O ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (?)
I, 2. Introduction : consisting of a superscription ( la ),
followed by an account of the creation and naming 1 of Adam
( lb - 2 ). la. This is the book of the generations of Adam]
See the crit. note below ; and on the meaning of nTflfl,
see on 2 4a . lb. 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
(v. 3 ). On this and the following clauses see, further, i 26ff -.
2. And called their name Adam] v.i.
The vv. show signs of editorial manipulation. In lft DIN is pre
sumably a proper name (as in 3ff> ), in 2 it is certainly generic (note the
pi. suff.), while in lb 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 i 26ff - } where DIN 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 DIN, from being a
generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear per
ception 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 v. 3 . An
original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Ho.
observes that the heading DIN mWi nso n? reads like the title of a book,
suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genea
logical work used by P as the skeleton of his history ; and the fuller
formula, as compared with the usual m*?in n*?N, at least justifies the
assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Di. s
opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of J s Sethite
genealogy with that of P, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts
point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using DIN as a
designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.
3-5. Adam. begat [a son] in his likeness, etc.} (see on
i 26 ) : implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image
(v. 1 ) from Adam to all his posterity. 6-20. The sections
on Seth, Eno, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Yered rigidly
I. For DnN (& has i avdpuTruv, 2 Add/m. ; U conversely i Adam, 2
hominem.2. DCS?] ffi 1 - totf. 3. iVvi] ins. J3 as obj. (Ols. ah). T^in con
fined to P in Pent. ; J, and older writers generally, using i 1 ?; both for
beget and bear. iD^S? irviD 1 ]?] (& Kara rrjv eidtav avrov nai K. r. eli<6va a.
avoiding O/XO/UKTIS (see the note on i 26 ). 4. DIN D r.vi] (5i L ins. As
tfr<rc, as in v. 5 . j$ reads DIN n;i (but see Ball s note) as in vv. 7 - 10 etc.
But vv. 3 5 contain several deviations from the regular formula : note
n lE N in v. 5 , and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The
reverse order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.
V. i-2 4
observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed com
ment, except as regards the names.
6-8. Seth: cf. 4 25 . For the Jewish, Gnostic, and Mohammedan
legends about this patriarch, see Lenorm. Orig.* 217-220, and Charles,
Book of Jubilees, 336. 9-11. Ends: see on 4 26 . 12-14. Kenan is
obviously a fuller form of Kdyin in the parallel genealogy of 4 17ff - ; and
7
possibly, like it, means smith or artificer (cf. Syr | ) * O : see on
4 1 ). Whether the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we
have no means of judging. It is important to note that jrp or pp is the
name of a Sabaean deity, occurring several times in inscriptions : see
Mordtmann, ZDMG, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, Beitr. 127 f., 152. 15-17.
MahdlaPel ( = Praise of God ) is a compound with the OLTT. Xe-y. S^qp
(Pr. 27 21 ). But there the Vns. read the participle ; and so <& must have
done here : MaXeXeTjX^^Vnp, i.e. Praising God. Proper names com
pounded with a ptcp. are rare and late in OT (see Dri. Sam. 14* ;
Gray, HPN, 201), but are common in Assyrian. Nestle s inference that
the genealogy must be late (MM, jf. )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-
Ar&ru in the list of Berossus (see AOD, 29). D is found as a personal
or family name in Neh. n 4 . 18-20. Ye"red (i Ch. 4 18 ) would signify in
Heb. Descent ; hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels
descended to the earth {Gen. 6 2 ) : cf. Jub. iv. 15; En. vi. 6, cvi. 13. On
Bu. s interpretation, see p. 129 above. The question whether Try or TV
be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both to an
original Babylonian I-yarad= descent of fire.
21-24. The account of Enoch contains three extraordinary
features: (a) The twice repeated D^KHTIK ^nnl. In the
OT such an expression (used also of Noah, 6 9 ) signifies
intimate companionship (i Sa. 25 15 ), and here denotes a
fellowship with God morally and religiously perfect (cf.
Mic. 6 8 , Mai. 2 6 p]?J]), hardly differing from the commoner
walk before God (i; 1 24*) or after God (Dt. i3 5 , i Ki.
I4 8 ). We shall see, however, that originally it included
the idea of initiation into divine mysteries, (b) Instead of
the usual nb i we read D r6 in Hj5^3 133W ; i.e. he was
22. D n^K.vnK l"?nm] (5r ev-qptaT-rjcrev r$ 6e$ ((5i L adds xal tfao-ev Ej/o>x),
2 aveffTptyero, J5 |cJlXlj ; &\ , C "i KnSma T^n : Aq. and F render
literally. The art. before K is unusual in P (see 6 9 - n ). The phrase must
have been taken from a traditional source, and may retain an unobserved
trace of the original polytheism ( with the gods ). 23. \TI] Rd vm
(MSS, jumffir, etc.). 24. urtti] indicating mysterious disappearance
(37 2f. 42 18. 32. 36 j- E ] , KL 20 40 ); see G _ K>
132 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (P)
mysteriously translated so as not to see death (He. n 5 ).
Though the influence of this narrative on the idea of immor
tality in later ages is not to be denied (cf. Ps. 4Q 16 73 24 ), 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 (Gu.). (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 re
markably verified by the Babylonian parallel mentioned below.
The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-leg-end in later
Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage alone ;
everything- g-oes 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 KA T*, 532), a
corruption (it seems certain) of Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a
ritual tablet from the library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364 : trans
lated in KAT^y 533 f.) as king of Sippar (city of Samas, 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 Samas and Ramman, to
have been initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and in
structed in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his son.
The points of contact with the notice in Gen. are (i) the special relation
of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (cf. the 365 of v. 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 Sir. 44 16 he is
already spoken of as irn in 1 ? njn ro. Comp. Jub. iv. 17 ff. (with Charles s
note ad loc.) ; and see Lenorm. Grig? 223; Charles, Book of Enoch
(1893), pass.
25-27. Methuselah. n^np commonly explained as man of the
dart (or weapon), hence tropically man of violence, which Budde (99)
5J tultt, but ST;VDK. The vb. became, as Duhm (on Ps. 49 16 ) thinks, a
technical expression for translation to a higher existence ; cf. 2 Ki. 2 l ,
Ps. 49 16 73 24 . The Rabbinical exegesis (, Ber. R. y Ra.) 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.
V. 25-31 133
regards as a deliberate variation of ^MBnno (4 18 ) intended to sug-g-est the
wickedness of the later generations before the Flood (see above, p. 129).
Lenormant (247) took it as a designation of Saggitarius, the gih sign
of the Zodiac ; according to Hommel, it means sein Mann ist das
Geschoss (!), and is connected with the planet Mars.* If the 8th name
in the list of Berossus be rightly rendered man of Sin (the moon-god), f
a more probable view would be that rhv is a divine proper name.
Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a corruption of Sarrafyu,
said to be an ancient name of the moon-god (cf. Cheyne, EB, 625,
4412). 28-31. Lantech. The scheme is here interrupted by the inser
tion of v.
29. An extract from J, preserving an oracle uttered by
Lamech on the birth of Noah. This (nj ; cf. DKT in 2 23 ) 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 Di.
rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between
the Lamech of this v. and the truculent bravo of 4 23f -.
There is an obvious reference backwards to 3 17 (cf.
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 : 9 20ff - (Bu. 306 ff. al.). This is true even if
the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were traditionally
27. After nWinn ( ins. &s ^o-ev (cf. v. 8 ). 29. pqr] (Gr 5iai>airat<rei
hence Ball, Ki. urrj;. The emendation is attractive on two
grounds : (a) it yields an easier construction with the following JD ; and
(b) a more correct etymology of the name m. The harshness of the
etymology was felt by Jewish authorities (Ber. R, 25 ; cf. Ra.) ; and
We. (Degent. 38 3 ) boldly suggested that ni in this v. is a contracted writing
of orri= comforter. Whether ni (always written defectively) be really
connected with no = rest is very uncertain. If a Heb. name, it will
naturally signify rest, but we cannot assume that a name presumably
so ancient is to be explained from the Heb. lexicon. The views mentioned
by Di. (p. 116) are very questionable. Goldziher (ZDMG, xxiv. 207 ff.)
shows that in mediaeval times it was explained by Arab writers from
Ar. naha, to wail ; but that is utterly improbable. ufryp] Some MSS
and JUA have W&y_& (pi.) ; so (&, etc.
* AOD [1902], 29. Here Amemphsinus is resolved into Amel-Nisin :
formerly (PSBA, xv. [1892-3] 245) Hommel propounded the view now
advocated by Zimmern (see next note).
t Zimmern, KAT*, 532.
% Aufs. u. Abh. ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (I.e.) relies on the fact that
Sarfyu ( all-powerful ) is an epithet of various gods (De. Hdwb. 690 a).
134
CHRONOLOGY OF
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 J document. Di. s objection, that a biblical writer would
not speak of wine as a comfort under the divine curse, has little force :
see Ju. 9 13 , Ps. IO4 15 . In virtue of its threefold connexion with the
story of the Fall, theSethite genealogy of J, and the incident of 9 208 -, the
v. has considerable critical importance. It furnishes a clue to the dis
entanglement 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).
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 (7 6< 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 Ch. 5. In this chapter we have the first instance
of systematic divergence between the three chief recensions, the Heb., the
Samaritan, and the LXX. The differences are best exhibited in tabular
form as follows (after Holzinger) :
MT.
Sam. (Jub.).
LXX.
Year (A.M.)
of Death.
E
1
E
V
c
j_
C
v
c
rt
.
o
i
_c
J
G
MT.
S.
LXX.
"en
"rt
"en
I
5
tfl
C
5
Ui
<u
"o
t-
CU
O
J
V
o
H
H
H
i. Adam .
130
800
930
130
800
930
230
7OO
930
93
93
93
2. Seth
807
912
105
80 7
912
205
707
912
1042
1042
1142 |
3. Enos .
9
905
90! 815
905
190
905
1 140
1140
4. Kenan .
5. Mahalalel
6. Jered
7
65
162
840
830
800
910
895
962
H
62
8 4
830
785
910
895
847
170
165
162
74
730
800
910
895
962
1235
1290
1422
1290
1307
1690
1922
7. Enoch
65
300
365
65 300
365
165
200
365
987
887 1487
8. Methuselah
187 782
969
671 6.S3
720
167*
802*
969
1656
1307 2256
9. Lamech .
182
595
777
53
600
653
1 88
565
753
1651
1307
2207
10. Noah
con
^oo
Till the Flood
IOO
IOO
too
Year of the Flood
1656
...
...
1307
So (5 1 -. ( A and other MSS have 187 : 782 ; but this is a later correction.
CH. V. 135
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.
i. Commencing with the MT, we may notice (a) the remarkable
relation discovered by Oppert* 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 MT 1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible)
of 5 solar years (of 365^ days) to i week. We might, therefore, suppose
the Heb. chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and
to have reduced it by treating each lustrum (5 years) as the equivalent
of a Heb. week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coinci
dence it is perhaps impossible to say. (b) A widely accepted hypothesis
is that of von Gutschmid,t who pointed out that, according to the
Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is
2666 years : i.e. 26| generations of 100 years, or f 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 tradi
tional ; 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 (ZATW,
xx. 136-147). Working on lines marked out by Kuenen (Abhandlungen,
tr. by Budde, io8ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esd. 9 38ff - io 45f -,
Jos. Ant. viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and Ass. Mosis, i 2 io 12 , that a chrono
logical 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 : i (1656 : 414 years). Further,
that this system differed from MT only in the following particulars :
For the birth year of Terah (Gn. n 24 ) it substituted (with <& and JUA)
79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430)
years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Ex. i2 40 ) ; and, finally,
it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as
i Ki. 6 1 (3r). For the details of the scheme, see the art. cited above.
* GGN, 1877, 201-223 ; also his art. in Jewish Enc. \v. 66 f.
t See No. Unters. in ff. ; We. ProL* 308.
% Made up as follows 11656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham : see
the Table on p. 233)+ 100 (birth of Isaac : Gn. 2i 5 ) + 6o (birth of Jacob :
25 26 )+i 3 o(age of Jacob at Descent to Egypt: 47"- 28 ) + 430 (sojourn in
Egypt: Ex. i2 40 ) = 2666. The number of generations from Adam to
Aaron is actually 26, the odd f stands for Eleazar, who was of mature
age at the time of the Exodus.
136
CHRONOLOGY OF CH. V.
These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing- as to the
priority of the MT. 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 P. The natural inference is
that both were actually in use in the first cent. A.D., and that conse
quently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A presumption
in favour of MT would be established only if it could be shown that the
numbers of MA and (& are either dependent on MT, or involve no chrono
logical scheme at all.
2. The Sam. Vn. has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood.
It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Gn. n 10 , we obtain
from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 x 7 years ; and it is
pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind
of the writer of Jub. (see p. 233^). It is worth noting also that if we
assume MT of Ex. i2 40 to be the original reading (as the form of the
sentence renders almost certain), we find that JUA counts from the Creation
to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.* 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 x 180-)
360. Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work
of P closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this
was his original chronological period ; and that the systems of MT
(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 AU. is, however,
the disparity between ch. 5 and n 10ff - with regard to the ages at the
birth of the first-born.
3. A connexion between (5r and juu. is suggested by the fact that the
first period of (3r (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of AU
(1300 + 940=2240), though it does not appear on which side the depend
ence is. Most critics have been content to say that the ( figures are
enhancements of those of MT in order to bring the biblical chronology
somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of Egypt or Chaldaea. That
is not probable ; though it does not seem possible to discover any dis
tinctive principle of calculation in (JR. Klostermann (NKZ, v. 208-247
\-Pent. (1907) 1-41]), who defends the priority of d&, 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 Noali to
the Flood, and substitute the 120 years of Gn. 6 3 ! This reduces the
reckoning of (Sir to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the Flood, we
obtain 1764 = 3 x 12 x 49.
See, further, on n loff - (p. 234 f.).
* 1307 + 940(566 p. 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40 = 3007.
THE LIST OF BEROSSUS 137
II. The Ten Ante-dilu-vian Kings of Berossus. The number ten
occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of many peoples * 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 ; f although there are allusions to it in
the inscriptions which encourage the hope that the cuneiform original
may yet be discovered. I Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus
is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach considerable im
portance to any correspondence that can be made out between his list
and the names in Gn. 5. A detailed analysis was first published by
Hommel in 1893, another was given by Sayce in 1899.;! The first-
named writer has subsequently abandoned some of his earlier proposals,^
substituting others which are equally tentative ; and while some of his
combinations are regarded as highly problematical, others have been
widely approved.**
The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are : i. "AAwpos,
2. AAciTrapos, 3. A.[j.rj\<j)v [ A/^XXaposj, 4. A/i/u^ajj/, 5. MeyclXapos [Meyd-
Xavos], 6. Adwi os [Adws], 7. EueScfyaxos, 8. A^^ivos, 9. firtdprT/s [Rd.
^jrdpTrjs], 10. Eicrovdpos. Of the suggested Bab. equivalents put forward
by Hommel, the following are accepted as fairly well established by
Je. and (with the exception of No. i) by Zimmern : i. Aruru (see p. 102),
2. Adapa (p. 126), 3. Amelu ( = Man), 4. Ummanu ( = workman ), 7.
Enmeduranki (p. 132), 8. Amel-Sin (p. 133), 9. Ubar-Tutu (named as
father of Ut-Napistim), and 10. Hasisatra, or Atra[iasis ( = the super
latively Wise, a title applied to Ut-Napistim, the hero of the Deluge).
On comparing this selected list with the Heb. genealogy, it is evident
that, as Zimmern remarks, the Heb. name is in no case borrowed
directly from the Bab. 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. PUN ( = Man), and 4. jrp (= workman ) ;
while 8 is in both series a compound of which the first element means
Man. The parallel between 7. Tjijp || Enmeduranki, has already been
noted (p. 132) ; and the loth 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
* Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese,
etc. See Liiken, Traditionen t 146 ff. ; Lenorm. Orig. i. 224 ff.
t Preserved by Eus. Chron. [ed. Schoene) i. 7ff., 31 f. See Miiller,
Frag. Hist. Grcec. ii. 499 f.
% See Je. ATLO 2 , 221 f. PSBA, xv. 243-246.
|| Exp. Times, 1899, 353. [ AOD [1902], 23 ff.
** See Zimmern, KAT 9 , 531 ff. ; Dri. Gen. 50 f.; Nikel, Gen. u.
Kschrfrsch.
133
RELATION OF SETHITE
obscure, and is complicated by the double genealogy of ch. 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 Gn. 4 1 - 17 - 18 with Nos. 3-9 of ch. 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 mean
ing, or varies but slightly in form ;
SETHITE.
1. Adam
2. Seth
3. En& (Man)
4. Kenan
5. Mahalal el
6. YeVed
7. Hanokh_
8. Me-thu-selah
9. Lemekh
10. Noah
Sem Ham Ye"pheth
CAINITE.
Adam (Man)
Kayin
anokh
trad
Mghuya el
Mgthu-a- el
Le mekh
1 I I
Yabal Yubal Tubal-Kayin.
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 ; * 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
* Hommel s view (AOD, 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 Phoenicia (see the notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na amah), and
the Sethite from Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).
AND CAINITE GENEALOGIES 139
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 (AOD, 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 inter
pretation of the Bab. 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.* And the same thing must, he considers, hold
good of Adam and Seth : Adam should be read DIK, 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 Bab. original of Berossus, and the Cainite can be nothing but
a mutilated version of it. It is just conceivable, however, that the Bab.
list is itself a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy,
which passed independently into Heb. tradition. f
VI. 1-4. The Origin of the Nephilim.
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 (vv. 1 - 2 ) ; and how from these unnatural
unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods (v. 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
* But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jen. KIB> vi.
i, 362.
t Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent of Aruru
was not Adam but Havvah, as earth and mother-goddess (see pp. 85 f.,
102), and that this name stood at the head of the list. That in the process
of eliminating the mythological element Havvah should in one version
become the wife, in another remain the mother, of the first man (Adam
or Enos), is perfectly intelligible ; and an amalgamation of these views
would account for the duplication of Adam-Enos in 4 25f - 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 con
ception of mother and son as associated deities (Rob. Sm. KM 2 , 2986.).
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.
I4O THE NEPHILIM (j)
an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be
checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (v. 3 ).
The fragment belongs to the class of aetiological myths. The belief
in NSphilim is proved only by Nu. i3 33 (E?); 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 (Dt. i 28 2 10 - 21 9 2 , Jos. is 14 , Am. 2 9 etc.). The
question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, and the
passage before us supplied the answer. But while the setiological
motive may explain the retention of the fragment in Gn., it is not to be
supposed that the myth originated solely in this reflexion. Its pag;m
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. (i) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were
men of gigantic stature ; * and (2) that marriages of the gods with
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.f Similar
ideas were current among other peoples. The Koran has frequent
references to the peoples of Ad and Thamftd, primaeval 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. J
The legend appears also in the Phoenician traditions of Sanchuniathon,
where it is followed by an obscure allusion to promiscuous sexual inter
course which appears to have some remote connexion with Gn. 6 2 .
That the source is J is not disputed.!] Di., indeed, following Schrader
(EinL 276), thinks it an extract from E which had passed through the
hands of J ; but borrowing by the original J from the other source is
impossible, and the only positive trace of E would be the word D V fll,
which in Nu. i3 33 is by some critics assigned to E. 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
* Horn. //. v. 302 f. ; Herod, i. 68; Paus. i. 35. 5f., viii. 29. 3;
32. 4; Lucret. ii. 1151 ; Virg. Aen. xii. 900; Pliny, HN y vii. 73 ff. otc.
Cf. Lenorm. Orig.^ i. 350 ff.
t Horn. //. xii. 23 : rj/judeuv ytvos avdpuv ; Plato, Cratylus, 33 : travres
[sc. oi ijpci>es] drjTrov yey6va(riv tpaadfrTOS ?) 6eov 6vt]rri^ r) BfrjTOu deas (text
uncertain) : see Jowett, i. 341.
J Sur. vii, xv, xxvi, xii, xlvi, Ixxxix : see Sale, Prelim. Disc. i.
Euseb. Prcep. Ev. i. 10 (see p. 124 above) : curb ytvovs Alwvo? Kal
Hpuroyovov yevvrjdTJvat afidis Traldas 6vr]Tovs, oh elvai 6v6jJ.ara 4>cl>y /ecu llvp Kal
<J>\($ . . . vlovs 5e lytwriaav oSroi [tfyedei re Kal vTrepoxy K pet >r cravat
. . . K Tourcjjv, (frriffiv, ^yevv^d T] "2a/j.-rj/j.pov/uios 6 Kal T\j/ovpdvi.os airb
5, (pTjalv, ^xp?7,udrioj rCov r6re yvvaiK&v avcS-qv fj^LcfyofjLfvwv ols av [v
|| The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except ni.T, v. 8 );
but the following expressions, as well as the structure of the sentences
(in v. lf- ), are, on the whole, characteristic of J : ^nn, nipnNn ^^y. ( l ), n;n
p,K3, iiaa ( 4 ) : see Bu. Urgesch. 6ff., 39 A.
VI. I, 2 141
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 4 17 24 or 4 25f> (against Ho.),
though certainly not that of P in ch. 5. The idea that it is a parallel
to the story of the Fall in ch. 3 (Schr. Di. We. 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.
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 sug-gest the Flood as its sequel,
except on the supposition (which we shall see to be improbable) that
the 120 years of v. 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 6 1 " 4 belongs to a
stratum of J which knows nothing of a flood (p. 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. ;
ZATW, ix. i34ff.), claims to have recovered from Greek sources a
Phoenician legend of intermarriages between deities and mortals, which
presents some striking affinities with Gn. 6 1 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 Phoenician
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 Gn. That this is not incon
ceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins the biblical
name Nfi appears as that of the hero of the Deluge (see p. 180 below).
I, 2. The sense of these vv. is perfectly clear. The sons
of God (oTi^Nn.^D) are everywhere in OT members (but
probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (usiny
the word with some freedom) angels (v.i.).
I. "9 *n;i] peculiar to J in Hex. ; 26 8 27* 43 21 44 24 , Ex. i 21 13^
Jos. I7 13 . See Bu. 6. The apodosis commences with v. 2 . !?nn] see
142 THE NEPHILIM (j)
*
"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, Camb. Bible, p. 6).
In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they
were perhaps called DTlta 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 1 permanent
marriages, but this must not be pressed) whomsoever they
chose. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters
Ho. Einl. 97. nOTNn jr^y] see Oxf. Hex. i. 187. 2. nviSicfn] J3] Jb. i 6
2 1 38 7 , [Dn. 3 25 ] ; cf. D ^K 3, Ps. 29 1 89?. In all these places the super
human character of the beings denoted is evident, belonging to the
category of the gods. On this Semitic use of J3, see Rob. Sm. KM*,
17; Pr. 2 85, 389^ (i) The phrase is so understood by (5r (oi #776X01
[also viol] TOV 0eoO), Q,Jub. v. i, En. vi. 2 ff . (Jude 6 , 2 Pe. 2 4 ), Jos. Ant.
i. 73 ; Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.
[S transliterates ^Q-O1C1 :Vv 1 *^) as in Jb. i 6 2 1 .] (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 distinc
tion from women of humble rank : CJ (N maT 33), S (r. dvt>a.(TTev6i>Tii}v),
Ber. -ff., Ra. lEz. [Aq. (viol r. 0eu)j>) is explained by Jer. as deos in-
telligens sanctos sive angelos }. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The
prevalent Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles s
valuable Note, B. of Jub. 33 ff.) has been to take the phrase in an
ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line of Seth : Jul. Afr., most
Fathers, Luth., Calv. al. : still maintained by Strack. Against both
these last explanations it is decisive that onxn nun cannot have a
narrower reference in v. 2 than in v. 1 ; and that consequently n J3 cannot
denote a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant,
Orig* 291 ff.; the Comm. of De. (146 ff.), Di. (ngf.), or Dri. (82f.).
On the eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were a
wicked pre- Adamite race, see Lenorm. 304 ff. DTJ . . . inp i] = marry :
4 19 ii 29 25 1 36 2 etc. nc N *?3D] consisting of all whom, the rare JD of
explication; BDB, s.v. 3b (e) ; cf. G-K. 11971; 2 : Gn. 7 M 9 10 .
vi. 2, 3 143
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
3. m,v] ffir Ktf/uos 6 6eo$. j n;] There are two traditional interpreta
tions : (a) abide : so fix (Kara/ie/i^), HSC ; (b) judge (2. Kptvel;
so 2T J ). The former is perhaps nothing- more than a plausible guess
at the meaning, though a variant text has been suspected (p*v, TIT,
pa:, etc.). The latter traces the form to the *J pi ; but the etymology
is doubtful, since that ^ shows no trace of med. i in Heb. (No.
ZDMG> xxxvii. 533 f.) ; and to call it a juss. or intrans. form is an abuse
of grammatical language (see G-K. 71 r). A Jewish derivation,
mentioned by lEz. and Calv., connects the vb. with }ij, sheath
(i Ch. 2I 27 ), the body being compared to the sheath of the spirit. The
Ar. ddna (med. w)= be humbled or degraded, yields but a tolerable
sense (Tu. Ew. al.); the Egypt. Ar. ddna, which means to do a
thing continually (Socin ; see G-B. s.v.), would suit the context well, but
can hardly be the same word. Vollers (ZA, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from
A^/ pi, Ass. dan&nu = 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 vb. could be taken as a denominative from Ass. dindnu,
bodily appearance, with the sense "shall not be embodied in man for
ever." D"JK?] (& Iv rots dvdpu-rrois TOI/T-OIS, whence Klostermann restores
njn DiN3,* = this humanity, as distinguished from that originally
created, an impossible exegesis, whose sole advantage is that it gives
a meaning to the oa in D3&&gt;? (v.i.). D^y^ & (thus separated)] here =
not . . . for ever, as Jer. 3, La. 3 31 ; elsewhere (Ps. i5 5 etc.) the
phrase means never. DJi??] so pointed in the majority of MSS, is
inf. const, of JJ^, err, with suff. This sense is adopted by many (Tu.
Ew. Bu. Ho. al.), but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suff.
to DTK?, 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 part. Moreover, it is questionable if
the idea of iw (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the con
nexion. Margoliouth (Expositor, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains the obscure
* Already proposed by Egli (cited by Bu.).
144 THE NEPHILIM (j)
[ . . . in?] man for ever ; [ . . . ?] he is flesh, and his days
shall be \ 20 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 specula
tion ; * 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 v., assuming the text to be fairly complete,
and a real connexion to exist with vv. 1 - 2 . (i.) Everything turns on the
meaning of the word nn, of which four interpretations have been given :
(i) That nn is the Spirit of Yah we as an ethical principle, striving
against and judging the prevalent corruption of men (as in Is. 63 10 ) ;
so S2TJ, Luther, al. There is nothing to suggest that view except
the particular acceptation of the vb. JIT associated with it, and it is
now practically abandoned. (2) Even less admissible is the conception
of Klostermann, who understands nn subjectively of the divine feeling
(Gemut) excited by human sin f (similarly Ra.). (3) The commonest
view in modern times (see Di.) has been that nn is the divine principle
word by Aeth. shega = body ; but the proposed rendering, inasmuch
as their body (or substance) is flesh, is not grammatically admissible.
The correct Mass, reading is GiV$(i.e. na-f \y + ^} = inasmuch as he too.
The objections to this are (a) that the rel. & is never found in Pent., and
is very rare in the older literature (Ju. 5 6 17 y 12 8- 6 ), while compounds
like ? do not appear before Eccl. (e.g. 2 16 ) ; and (b) that the D? has no
force, there being nothing which serves as a contrast to wn. We.
observes that ? must represent a causal particle and possibly nothing
more. The old translators, ffir (Sia TO elvai. avrovs) JbU2u seem to
have been of the same opinion ; and it is noticeable that none of them
attempt to reproduce the Da. The conjectures of Ols. ((aa vyfy), Cheyne
(-1^2 r^l^psi), and others are all beside the mark. ui ro vm] The only
natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life (so Jos. Tu.
Ew. and most since), a man s D p; being a standing expression for his
lifetime, reckoning from his birth (see ch. 5. 35 28 , Is. 65 20 etc.). The
older view (J, Jer. Ra. lEz. Calv. al. : so De. Klost.), that the
clause indicates the interval that was to elapse before the Hood, 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 P,
and decide nothing as to the meaning of the words in J.
* Comp. Cheyne s imaginary restoration in EB, 3391, with the
reconstructed Phoenician myth of Gruppe in Philolog-us, 1889, i. looff.
f Reading nn DT 6, shall not restrain itself (lit. be silent ). See
NKZ> 1894, 2346. (= Pent. [1907] 28 ff.).
vi. 4 i45
of life implanted in man at creation, the tenor of the decree being 1 that
this shall not abide * 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 v. contains would be quite as intelligible
apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to them.f
(b) The following words nao Kin 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 (2 7 ).
(4) The most probable sense is that given by We. (Comp? 3050.), viz.
that nn is the divine substance common to Yah we and the angels, in
contrast to "i 3, which is the element proper to human nature (cf. Is. 3i 3 ) :
so Ho. Gu. The idea will then be that the mingling of the divine and
human substances brought about by illicit sexual unions has intro
duced 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. We. 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 indi
viduals. The context requires an announcement of the annihilation of
the race, and the last clause of the v. must be a mistaken gloss on the
first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a strong-
reason either for revising We. s acceptation of 3 *, or for understanding
8b 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 extinc
tion 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. + 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.
4. The Nephilim were (or arose] in the earth in those days\
Who were the 0^33 ? The name recurs only in Nu. i3 33 ,
4. D >! ??ID] <5x ol ylyavres ; Aq. ol tirnrlTTTOvTes ; 2. ol picuoi ; & ] . *^ 11 )
The etymology is uncertain (see Di. 123). There is no
* On this traditional rendering of JIT, see the footnote, p. 143.
t Bu. s argument that the v. is detachable from its present context
is, therefore, perfectly sound ; although his attempt to find a place for
it after 3 21 is not so successful (see p. 3 above).
J Just as in 3 22 - 24 man is allowed to retain the gift of illicitly obtained
knowledge, but is foiled by being denied the boon of immortality. The
10
146 THE NEPHILIM (j)
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 (cf. i2 6 i3 7 ) is misleading, for the writer can
not have meant that the 3 existed in those days apart from
the alliances with the angels, and that the result of the latter
were the D"Hi33 (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 after-
allusion to a fall ( J ^S}) of angels from heaven (@P, Jer.* Ra.), or to
a fall of the world through their action (Ber. JR. Ra.). A connexion
with ^, abortive birth (from Ssj, fall dead ), is not improbable
(Schwaily, ZATW, xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Co.
(oViyo O^p i?}) in Ezk. 32 s7 not only yields a striking- resemblance to this
v. , but supports the idea that the j (like the CTN^n) were associated with
the notion of Sheol. ntrK p nn] cannot mean after (as conj.), which
would require a perf. to follow, but only afterwards, when. On any
view, iNi; and n^;i are frequent, tenses. *?N NU] (as euphemism) is
characteristic of JE (esp. J) in Hex. (Bu. 39, Anm.\ Cf. Rob. Sm. KM*,
198 ff. oniaan] lit. mighty ones (Aq. dvvarol ; U potentes ; ffi2$&
& do not distinguish from D ^ fil). The word is thoroughly naturalised
in Heb. speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But pass, like
Ezk. 32 12ff> show that it had another aspect, akin to Ar. gabbar (proud,
audacious, tyrannical). The Ar. and Syr. equivalents are used as
names of the constellation Orion (Lane, Lex. i. 375 a ; P. Sm. Th. 646).
D^iyo IB>N] cf. oViy oy, Ezk. 26 20 , probably an allusion to a wicked ancient
race thrust down to Sheol. The whole v. 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 Nephilim with
the incident recorded in v. lft . At the same time we may reasonably
hold that the kernel of the v. reproduces in a hesitating and broken
fashion the essential thought of the original myth. The writer
apparently shrinks from the direct statement that the Nephilim were
the offspring of the marriages of vv. 1 - 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. Bu., who omits v. 3 , restores the original connexion with v. lf *
as follows : onn D-D D pta D ^Bin rn [pi] . . . ovr^Kn 33 ito [ns?ND .mi].
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.
same point of view appears in n 1 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.
* " Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium."
vi. 4 i47
wards whenever (ffi ws av) the sons of the gods came in . . .
and they (the women) bore unto theni\ That is to say, the
production of Nephilim was not confined to the remote
period indicated by v. lf -, 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 I^TlHf? D ?1 as an interpolation,
and connect the 12 S with Bnn B P*? ; though even then the
phrasing is odd (v.i.). Those are the heroes (D ntean) that
were of old, the men of fame] p$n HWN, cf. Nu. i6 2 ). nisn has
for its antecedent not ")& f K as obj. to Vl^ (We.), but D^Bjn.
There is a touch of euhemerism in the notice (We.), the
archaic and mythological DyB? being identified with the
more human D"ni33 who were renowned in Hebrew story.
It is probable that the legend of the Nephilim had a wider circula
tion in Heb. tradition than could be gathered from its curt handling by
the editors of the Hex. In Ezk. 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 v. 27 (nSiyD n^gj Dnna) be sound, these are to be
identified with the Nephilim of our passage ; and the picture throws
light on two points left obscure in Gen. : viz., the character of the
primeval 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 Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut.
40 f.).
VI. 5-IX. 29. Noah and the Flood.
Analysis of the Flood- Narrative. The section on the Flood (6 5 ~9 17 )
is, as has often been observed, the first example in Gen. 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 J and P, preserving in the process
many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking differences
of representation and phraseology " (Dri. 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
148 THE FLOOD (j AND P)
documentary analysis (comp. the interesting- exposition by Gu. i2iff.).
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 :
J 58-8 -1-5 7 (8. 9). 10 1-2 16b 17b 22. 28
p 9-i!2 6 11 13-16a 17a 18-21
J 2b. 3a 6-12 13b 20-22
p -24 gl. 2a 3lj-5 13a 14-19 g]-17
The minutiae of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be dealt with
in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given above represents
the results of Bu. (to whom the finishing touches are due : Urgesch.
248 ff.) Gu. and Ho. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he
assigns 7 17 wholly to J, and 7 23b to P ; and We., except with regard to
7 17 (J) 8 3< 13 , which are both assigned entirely to P. The divergences of
Kue. and Co. are almost equally slight ; and indeed the main outlines of
the analysis were fixed by the researches of Hupfeld, Noldeke, and
Schrader. This remarkable consensus of critical opinion has been
arrived at by four chief lines of evidence : (i) Linguistic. The key to
the whole process is, of course, the distinction between the divine names
m,r (6 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 7 1 - 5 - 1(:b 8 20 - 21 ) and trn 1 ?* (6 9 - n - 12 - 13 - 22 7 16a 8 1 - J5 9 1 - 6 - 8 - l 2 16 - 17 ).
Besides this, a number of characteristic expressions differentiate the
two sources. Thus J s mew STK (7 2 ) answers to P s nnpjnm* (6 19 7< 9 ) 16 );
nnn (6 7 7 4 - 23 ) to nntf and nwn (6 13 - 17 9"- 16 ) ; mo ( 7 22 ) to y\? (6 17 f l ) ;
mp .T^D (7 4 - - 3 ) to whi* (6 12 - 13 - 17 7 21 and oft.) ; "?p (8 8 - ) and aw (7 3tt ) to
ion (8 5 ) ; ann (8 13b ) to ^n> (8 14 ) [but see on 8 13b ] ; D^n noso (8 22 ) to D"n nn
(6 17 ) ; nvnj> (7 3 ) to nvqnj> (6 19 - 20 ) ; ^a-^a (7 1 ) to the specific enumerations of
6 is 7 (7). is gw. is. (Comp. the list in Ho. Gen. p. 68). (2) Diversity of
representation. In J clean and unclean animals are distinguished, the
former entering the ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7 2 , cf. 8 20 ) ; in
P one pair of every kind without distinction is admitted (6 19f - 7 lr f ).
According to J, the cause of the Flood is a forty-days rain which is to
commence seven days after the command to enter the ark (7 4 - 10 - 12 8 all< 6 )
the latter passage showing that the waters began to subside after the
40 days. In P we have (7 11 8 2a ) a different conception of the cause
of the Flood ; and, in f- " 13 - 24 8 3b - 4 - 5 - 13a - 14 , a chronological scheme
according to which the waters increase for 150 days, and the entire
duration of the Flood is one year (see p. 167 ff.). (3) Duplicates. The
following are obviously parallels from the two documents : 6 5 8 || 6 11 " 13
(occasion of the Flood); 7 1 " 5 ||6 17 22 (command to enter the ark, and
announcement of the Flood) ; 7 7 1| 7 13 (entering of the ark) ; 7 10 1| 7 11
(coming of the Flood) ; 7 17b |l7 18 (increase of the waters : floating of ihe
ark) ; 7 22f - 1| 7 21 (destruction of terrestrial life) ; 8 2b - 3a || 8 lf< (abatement of the
Flood); 8 13b || 8 l3a - 14 (drying of the earth); S 20 22 || 9 8ff - (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
* Phrases characteristic of the style of P generally.
VI. 5-IX. 29 149
exhibit the distinctive features of the two great sources of the primitive
history, J and P. The J sections are a graphic popular tale, appealing 1
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 8 9 )
reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often breaks forth
from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms are freely intro
duced into the conception of God (6 6f - 7 16b 8 21 ); and the religious institu
tions of the author s time are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of
Noah. Still more pronounced are the characteristics of P 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 (9 12 ~ 17 ) is
retained, its aesthetic 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 determina
tions 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, 9 1 " 7 , and the establishment of the first of the
three great covenants, 9 8 " 17 . The connexion of the former passage with
Gn. i is unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of
Noah s sacrifice, and the ignoring- of the laws of cleanness and unclean-
ness amongst animals.*
The success of the critical process is due to the care and skill with
which the Redactor (R JP ) 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 P he appears to have preserved intact,
allowing neither omissions nor transpositions. Of J 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 lacunae
except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6 8 and 7 1 ), and
(b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8 13b and 20 ). The middle part
of the document, however, has been broken up into minute fragments,
* Traces of P s general vocabulary are very numerous. Besides
some of those (marked by *) already enumerated in contrast to J, we
have rhVw (6 9 ) ; rvn (6 9 9 12 ) ; -r^n (6 10 ) ; ma D pn (6 18 9 9 - 17 ) and a ;nj
(9 12 ); inx in enumerations (6 18 y 13 8 16 etc.); J D (6 20 7 14 ) ; bp-i, fczj-i (6 20
7 (8). 14. 21 g!7. 19 9 2. 3) . p^ ^ ( ?2 l gi? ^ . n ^^ (6 21 9 3 ) ; H1H DV.1 DSJD (y 13 ) ;
mo iND (y 19 ) ; 3 of specification (f l 8 n g 10 - 15 - 16 ) ; nail ma (8 17 9 1 - 7 ) ;
Dirnnsti D 1 ? (8 19 ) ; o^iy nna (9 16 ). Of the style of J the positive indications
are fewer : jn NSD (6 8 ) ; nno in the sense destroy (6 7 7 4 - 23 ) [see Ho. Hex.
101] ; iw (6 6 ) ; ronxn rto (7*- 23 8 8 < ? 13 LXX >) ; iiaya (8 21 ). See the comm.
of Di. Ho. Gu. etc.
I5O THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
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 J s 40
days count twice, once as a stage of the increase of the Flood (y 12 ) and
once as a phase of its decrease (8 6 ).* 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.
The Flood according to J.
VI. 5-8. The occasion of the Flood : Yahwe s experi
ence 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 6 1 " 4 (Ho.). The ground of the pessimistic estimate of
human nature so forcibly expressed in v. 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 character
ises the Yahwistic tradition. 5. the whole bent (lit. forma
tion ) of the thoughts of his heart] It is difficult to say
whether "W 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 Trachteri] :
5. m,T] (Or KvpLos 6 debs (so v. 8 ). 1:1 nx -^V] fflr loosely: /cat Tras ns
StayoetTcu (iJT?) tv rrj Kapdly. OLVTOV ^Trt/xeXaJs ^TTI TO, Trovypd ; U cuncta
cogitatio. Another Gr. rendering (6 E/3p., see Field, ad loc.) is (f>v<rti<bv
TOU &t>0. ; but in 8 21 the same translator has TO 7rXdo>ia r?js /cap. dvd. On
the later Jewish theologoumenon of the jnn n* 1 (the evil impulse in man,
also called "IJT simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish
comm. (Ra. on 8 J1 ) is found here ; see Taylor, Sayings of Jew. Fathers*,
37, 148 ff. ; Porter, BibL and Sem. Studies by members . . . of Yale
* The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (Orig. i. 415), that the
double period occurred in the original J, has no foundation.
VI. 5-8 VII. I 151
cf. 8 21 , Dt. 3i 21 , Is. 26 3 (Ps. ic-3 14 ?), i Ch. 28 2g 18 ; v.i. 6.
The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (OW)
and vexation (3J?yn*1) because He had created man is unusually
strong. Although in the sense of mere change of purpose,
the former is often ascribed to God (Ex 32 14 , Jer. i8 7 - 8
26 3 - 13 , Jl. 2 13 , Jon. 3 10 etc.), the cases are few where divine
regret for accomplished action is expressed (i Sa. i5 n ). The
whole representation was felt to be inadequate (Nu. 23,
i Sa. is 11 ) ; 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 (nno) 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 7 1 . The Yahwistic narrative must
have contained some previous notice of Noah, probably at
the end of a genealogy.
VII. 1-5. Announcement of the Flood. The section
is an almost exact parallel to 6 17 ~ 22 (P). V. 1 presupposes
in J a description of the building of the ark, which the
redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of
P. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah
the purpose it is to serve: v. 4 is obviously the first intima
tion 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 ; cf.
Heb. ii 7 . I. Thou and all thy house] J s brevity is here far
Univ. (1901), 93 ff. DVfr^a] continually ; see BDB, 400 b. 6. mrr]
<& 6 8e6s (so v. 7 ). asym] Gn. 34 ; cf. Is. 63 (Pi.). Ra. softens the
anthrop. by making- the impending- destruction of the creatures the
immediate object of the divine grief. 7. nnox] cf. 7 4> 23 . In the full
sense of exterminate (as distinct from obliterate [name, memory,
etc.]) the vb. is peculiar to J s account of the Flood ; ct. Nu. 5 s3 34 11
(P). The v. is strongly interpolated. The clauses TiN"O nrn and DIND
own ... are in the style of P (cf. 6 20 7 14 - 21 8 17 - 19 9" etc.); and the
latter is, besides, an illogical specification of Dixn. They are redac-
tional glosses, the original text being o nnru "3 noiNn Jfi ^>yo DtK.TriN nriDX
D n tfy (Bu. 249 ff. ; Di. 125). 8. Tjn jn NXD] characteristic of, though not
absolutely confined to, J : ig 19 32 6 33 8 - 15 34" 39* 47 25 etc. (Ho. Einl.
97 f.).
I. mrr] juu.5> Q nto ; r Ktfpcos 6 6e6s. pns] pred. accus. ; Dav. 76.
152 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
more expressive than the formal enumerations of P (6 18
^13 gi6. is^ The principle involved is the religious solidarity
of the family ; its members are saved for the righteousness of
its head (cf. iQ 12 ). thee have 1 seen (to be) righteous (P^V, see
on 6 9 )] Bu. 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 KVE but n&O, which has pre
cisely the same force as the KTI of 6 5 . Comp. also 6 8 . 2.
clean (~^ n 9) means, practically, fit for sacrifice and human
food; the technical antithesis is NEt?> which, however, is
here avoided, whether purposely (De. 174) or not it is
impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once
supposed (see Tu.), a proof of J s interest in Levitical
matters, but, on the contrary, of the naivete" 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 P,
who traces the distinction to the positive enactments of
the Sinaitic legislation (Lv. n, Dt. 14), and consequently
ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears
with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 4 3f - 8 20 i2 7 etc.
njntr nynp] by sevens (G-K. 134 #); i.e. 7 (individuals)
of each kind (De. Str. al.), rather than 7 pairs (Ber. R.
lEz. Di. Gu. al.), in spite of the following inK KI B*K. It
is a plausible conjecture (Ra. De. Str.) that the odd
individual was a male destined for sacrifice (8 20 ). 3a presents
an impure text (v.i.), and must either be removed as a gloss
(Kue. Bu. Ho. Gu. al.) or supplemented with (&(Ba. Ben.).
3b. to keep seed alive, etc.\ reads better as the continuation of
2. For D :B>, jum&JoU read D JP G w, probably correctly. I/IBM tf N (fo s)]
jux napai IDT, assimilating J to P. 3a. The distinction to be expected
between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly by JUUL and j$, which
insert linen after D DBTI ; and fully by (5r, which goes further and adds
the words KCU OLTTO jravruiv TUV irereivuiv T. /ar) nadapuv 8tio 8uo (ipcrev K. dr]\v.
Ball accepts this, thinking the omission in MT due to homoioteleuton.
But the phrase nnpJi 121 shows that l3 * has been manipulated ; and it is
on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional. Birds may be
included in the nonan of v. 2 ; though Bu. s parallels (Ex. 8 13f - g 9 - M ,
Jer. 32" 33 10 12 36 29 , Ps. 36?) are not quite convincing. 3b. nvn^] P uses
vii. 2-7 153
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. J knows no other physical cause of the Deluge
than the 40 days rain (cf. v. 12 ). 5. Comp. 6 22 (P).
7-10, 12, i6b, I7b, 22, 23. Entrance into the ark
and description of the Flood. J 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 J and P. 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 (v. 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 ( 22f> ).
The rearrangement here adopted (io. 7. ib. la. nt>. a. ) Is due mam i y
to the acute criticism of Bu. (Urg. 258 ff.), who has probably added the
last refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation. Some
points (e.g. the transposition of vv. 7 and 10 ) are. of course, more or less
doubtful ; others (e.g. 16b ) are seen to be necessary as soon as the com
ponents of J 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 comm. The most extensive
interpolations are part of v. 7 , the whole of vv. 8 and 9 , and part of ffl .
For details see the footnote.
10. At the end of the 7 days (cf. v. 4 )] The interval (we
may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and
provisioning the ark. the waters of the Flood\ TBttn, a tech
nical name for the Deluge, common to both sources (v.t.).
7* Noah enters the ark on account of the . . . Flood:
Hiph. (6 19fc ). jni] as Jer. 3I 27 . 4. D D S] On $> as denoting the close of a
term (cf. v. 10 ), see BDB, s.v. 6b. Dip$] a rare word (only J 23 , Dt. n 6 ),
meaning that which subsists ( *J Dip), ffi di/do-re^a (other exx. in Field,
^avdffTacrLv), U substantia, & iQ[.Q5 xO- On the form see Barth, Nom.-
bild. 181 ; Kon. ii. 146 ; G-K. 85 d.
7. tax r:;u] The enumeration is in the manner of P (obs. also inx) ;
154 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
hence v. 7 presupposes v. 10 . The same order of events is
found in P ( n> 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.). l6b (which must
in any case follow immediately on v. 7 ) contains a fine anthro
pomorphism, which (in spite of the Bab. parallel just cited)
it is a pity to spoil by deleting niiT and making Noah the
implicit subject (Klost. NKZ, i. 717). 12. forty days and
forty nights] This determination, which in J expresses the
entire duration of the Flood, seems to have been treated by
R as merely a stage in the increase of the waters (cf. 8 6 ).
It obviously breaks the connexion of P. The Babylonian
deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128). I7b. Parallel
to 18 (P). 22, 23. A singularly effective description of the
the words either replace irvn ^Di (as v. 1 ), or are a pure insertion ; in
either case redactional. ^non <D] so y 10 (J), 9" (P) (ct. D^D an, 6 17 7 6 ).
"?13D] (Sr Ka,Ta,K\v(Tfj,6s ; U diluvium ; ,& and NJSIB (J NJjmo). The word
has usually been derived from *?3 , streaming (see Ges. Th., Di.) ; but
is more probably a foreign word without Heb. etymology (see No.
ZDMG, xl. 732). Del. (Parad. 156) proposed the derivation from Ass.
nabAlu, destroy, which is accepted by Konig (ii. 153), Ball (p. 53), and
others. The Bab. technical equivalent is abubu, which denotes both a
1 light-flood and a water-flood : the double sense has been thought
to explain P s addition of or? to the word (see on 6 17 ). A transformation
of the one name into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see
JfAT 3 , 495 1 , 546 2 ). In Ps. 29 ^UD 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 un
clean points to J ; but all other features (crn 1 ?** [though a reading mn
seems attested by juxUJP, and MSS of (] ; napai 131 ; the undiscrimin
ated C W D Jt? ; the categorical enumeration [to which (5r adds the birds
at the beginning of v. 8 ]) to P. In P the vv. are not wanted, because
they are a duplicate of 13-16 : they must therefore be assigned to an
interpolator (Bu. al.). IO. On the construction of the sentence, see
G-K. 1640;, and on v. 6 below. 12. 0^3] (*/ gasuma= be massive )
commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezr. io 9 , Ca. 2 11 ) : see GASm.
HG,6^. l6b. mrv] (Or Kvpios 6 0e6s + rV KipwTbv.ijb. Since 18 belongs
to P (nsj i, ~IND), its duplicate 17b must be from J, where it forms a natural
continuation of 12 . 17a , on the other hand (in spite of the 40 days), must be
assigned to P (see p. 164). 22. D"n nnnDBo] is an unexampled combina
tion, arising from confusion of a phrase of J (D"n not^j, 2 7 ) with one of P
(D"n m-i, 6 17 7 15 ). The v. being from J (cf. n;nn instead of ntf 3: ; inn instead
of jnri, 21 ), nn is naturally the word to be deleted. 23a as a whole is J
(nno, Dip , nD-mn 3r^y) ; but the clause o Btfn . . . DIKD seems again (cf. 6 7 )
VII. 8-VIII. 3A 155
effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived as uni
versal.
VIII. (ib?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6-12, isb. 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 J s narrative has again been disturbed by the
redaction. V. 6a , which in its present position has no point of attach
ment in J, probably stood originally before 2b , where it refers to the
40 days duration of the Flood (We. Comp. 2 5). It was removed by R 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, (i) lb (the wind causing the abatement
of the waters) is, on account of DTI^N, assigned to P. But the order
it 2a j s unnatural, and transpositions in P do not seem to have been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with J s conception of the Flood
than with P s ; and but for the name DVI^N the half-verse might very
well be assigned to J, and inserted between 2b and 3a . (2) V. 4 is also
almost universally regarded as P s (see Bu. 269 f.). But this leaves a
lacuna in J between 3a and 6b , where a notice of the landing of the ark
must have stood : on the other hand, 8b makes it extremely doubtful if
P thought of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only ob
jection to assigning 4 to J is the chronology : if we may suppose the
chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a later hand
(see p. 168), there is a great deal to be said for the view of Hupfeld and
Reuss that the remainder of the v. belongs to J.* The opening passage
would then read as follows :
6a. At the end of qo days, 2b. the rain from heaven was
restrained ; lb. and Yahwe (?) caused a ivind to pass over
the earth, and the waters abated. 3a. And the waters went
to be redactional, and the three words following must disappear with
it. m might be assigned with almost equal propriety to J or to P.
n!l] (apoc. impf. Qal) is a better attested Massor. reading than ni
(Niph.). It is easier, however, to change the pointing (to Niph.) than
to supply m.T as subj., and the sense is at least as good. Gu. s re
arrangement ( 23aa - 22< 23b ) is a distinct improvement : of the two homo
logous sentences, that without ] naturally stands second.
3a. yvn -p^n] G-K. 113^. (Qr has misunderstood the idiom both
* It may be noted that in Jub. v. 28 no date is given for the landing
of the ark.
156 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
on decreasing from off the earthy 4- and the ark rested on the
mountains of Ararat. On the landing-place of the ark, see
p. 166 below.
6b-I2. 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 (Gu.). Tuch quotes from Pliny, vi. 83 (on
the Indians): " siderum in navigando nulla observatio ;
septentrio non cernitur ; sed volucres secum vehunt, emit-
tentes saspius, meatumque earum terram petentium comi-
tantur." 7- H e sen ^ ou ^ a raven\ The purpose of the action
is not stated till v. 8 ; partly for this reason, partly because
the threefold experiment with the dove is complete and more
natural, the genuineness of the v. has been questioned (We.
Ho. Gu. al.). Dahse, ZATW, xxviii. sf., calls attention to
the fact that in (& M the v. is marked with the obelus. The
Bab. account has three experiments, but with different birds
(dove, swallow, raven). 8. And he sent out a dove] perhaps
immediately ; see (5 below. But if v. 7 be a later insertion,
we must supply and he waited 7 days (see v. 10 ). 9. The de
scription of the return and admission of the dove is unsur
passed even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and
beauty of imagination. 10. Seven other days\ implying a
similar statement before either v. 7 or v. 8 . II. a freshly
plucked olive leaf] The olive does not grow at great alti
tudes, and was said to flourish even under water (Tu.).
But it is probable that some forgotten mythological signi
ficance attaches to the symbol in the Flood-legend (see Gu.
p. 60). Cf. the classical notices of the olive branch as an
emblem of peace : Virg. Aen. viii. 116 (Paciferaeqite manu
ramum prcetcndit oliv(Z)\ Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. 16. 12. The
third time the dove returns no more ; and then at last
here and in v. 7 . 7. anyn] on the art. see G-K. 126 r; but cf. Smith s
note, RS^, 126. (fix here supplies roO Idetv e/ KCKoiraKev r6 i55u>p, as in v. 8 .
awi Ni* NJTI] <& Kal te\6uv o\>x v-rreffrpe^ev ; so "BSb (accepted by Ball) :
see on 3a . 8. inxn] (& d-n-Lcru auroO (r=vj-x); assuming that both birds
were sent forth on the same day. 10. ^nn] cf. Sn>l, v. 12 (jux has Wi both
times). Both forms are incorrect : read in each case Srri (Bu. Di. al.).
VIIL 4-2i 157
I3D. Noah ventures to remove the covering of the ark, and
sees that the earth is dry.
20-22. Noah s sacrifice. J 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 v. 21 shows) of pro
pitiation : 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 p. 177): the incident appears also in the
Greek and Indian legends. 20. an altar] Lit. * slaughtering-
place. The sacrificial institution is carried back by J to
the remotest antiquity (see on 4 3f - 7 2ft ), but this is the first
mention of the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire : see p. 105
above. nS y] 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 Sa. 24 25 ).
21. smelted the soothing odour] niTO rpn (moi/, nidor) *
becomes a technical term of the Levitical ritual, and is
never mentioned elsewhere except in P and Ezk. This,
Gu. points out, is the only place where Yahwe is actually
described as smelling the sacrifice ; but cf. i Sa. 26 19 . It is
probably a refinement of the crude eudaemonism of the
Bab. story (see p. 177 below); and it is doubtful how far it
elucidates primitive Heb. 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
I3b. ncrp] possibly described in J s account of the building of the ark.
Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle (P) ; but cf. nsap,
Ezk. 27 . lain] (& ins. r6 vdwp dird.
20. m.T 1 ?] & T Oe$. 21. m.v] fflt K. 6 0e6s (bis). nmn m] & |*^_5
]_KK_i_J5 ^KK_ 5 I/O m> conflate? V?P^] a different vb. from that used
in 3 17 4 n 5 29 (TIN). Ho. points out that Pi. of ^p is never used with God
as subj. (cf. Gn. i2 3 ) ; and for this and other reasons regards 21a as an
unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the prophecy of
5 s9 . But 21a can only refer to the Flood, while the curse of 5 29 belongs
to the past : moreover, an interpolator would have been careful to use
the same verb. The sense given to ^I?p is fully justified by the usage
*//.i. 317 : Kviat] d ovpavbv Z/ce>> ^\t(r<rofji4vr} vepl Kairvip ; cf. Ov. Met.
xii. 153.
158 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sound theology, but it hardly expresses the idea of the
passage. 2lb is a monologue (iz6~ta). un "WJ *3 (see on 6 5 )
may be understood either as epexegetical of B}? ? "^-V? (a
reason why Yah we might be moved to curse the ground,
though he will not [Ho.]), 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 VHyiiE, 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 (cf. Is. 54). 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 (Mt. 5 45 ). A division of the year into six
seasons (Ra.), or even into two halves (De.), is not in
tended ; the order of nature is simply indicated by a series
of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be inter
rupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance
closes J s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior
resolve of Yahwe ; whereas in P it assumes the form of
a covenant (g 11 ), a striking instance of the development
of religious ideas in the direction of legalism : cf. Jer. 3I 35 -
33 20f.25f..
The Flood according to P.
VI. 9-12. Noah s piety; The corruption of the
earth. p. This is the genealogy of Noah] The formula is
usually taken as the heading of the section of P dealing
with the Flood; but see on Q 28 -. Noah is characterised as
of Pual (Ps. 37 M , Jb. 24 18 , Is. 65 20 ). maya] (Hi Sia r& tpya, as 3 17 . "3
in 1^] ($r 8n tyxeiTai r? SiAvoca T. &i>6. ^Ti/ueXws KT\. See on 6 5 . 22. iy]
(3r om. ; Ball, iy. inns? ] come to an end : see on 2 2 .
9. D Dn pHx] (so Jb. I2 4 ). The asyndeton is harsh ; but it is hardly
safe to remedy it on the authority of JUUL (o Dni) and U, against (JEr. To
remove pnx as a gloss from J (y 1 ) (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 pnx given above may not be the original : see S. A.
Cook, /7!5>, ix, 632!, who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was due among a definite social group, and between it and its gods.
vi. 9-12 159
righteous (P^V) and faultless ( D<1 ^) : on the construction
v.t. There is perhaps a correspondence between these two
epithets and the description of the state of the world which
follows; p s i being opposed to the * violence, and D^n to
the corruption of v. llf -. p^V, a forensic term, denotes
one whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge ; D n
is sacerdotal in its associations (Ex. i2 5 , Lv. i 3 etc.),
meaning free from defect, integer (cf. I7 1 ). in his genera
tions (v.i.)] i.e. alone among his contemporaries (cf. y 1 ).
That Noah s righteousness was only relative to the standard
of his age is not implied.* walked with God\ see on 5 22 .
The expression receives a fuller significance from the Baby
lonian legend, where Ut-napis tim, like the Biblical Enoch,
is translated to the society of the gods (p. 177 below).
II f. nnnBO n ?.] is the intentional antithesis to the 31L3 narn
1NE of i 31 (De.). All flesh had corrupted its way] had
violated the divinely -appointed order of creation. The
result is violence (P^, ffi aSi/aa) ruthless outrage per
petrated 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 (p. 129), the narrative of P contains no explana
tion of the change which had thus passed over the face of
the world.
The fundamental idea of v. llf< is the disappearance of the Golden
Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world established by
the decree of i 29f- . The lower animals contribute their share to the
general corruption by transgressing- the regulation of i 30 , and com
mencing to prey upon each other and to attack man (see 9 5 ) : so Ra.
To restrict neo^a to mankind (C, Tu. Str. Dri. Ben. al.) is therefore
Vrrn?] (& tv rrj yevtvei O.VT. The f. pi. is highly characteristic of P
(Ho. Einl. 341); but apparently always as a real pi. (series of genera
tions) : ct. the solitary use of sg. in P, Ex. i 8 . Here, accordingly, it
seems fair to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of
Noah (Tu. We. Ho. al.), but of the successive generations covered by
his lifetime. The resemblance to nin ina pns (7 1 ) is adduced by We.
(Prol. 6 390) as a proof of P s dependence on J. II. D ftWtp] One of
the few instances of P s use of the art. with N. 12. D n^K] (& Ktftos 6 6.
* So Jerome : " ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed
juxta generationis suss eum justum fuisse justitiam."
l6o THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes all living
being s, and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in P s account of
the Flood (Dri. ad loc.). In 6 19 7 15 - 18 8 17 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 P and J (6 5 ) on
this matter is characteristic.
13-16. Directions for building the ark. 13. An
nouncement in general terms of some vast impending
catastrophe, involving the end of all flesh (all living beings,
as v. 12 ). 14-16. Description of the Ark. An Ark (chest)
of gopher wood] probably some resinous wood. In Heb.
HIP) is used only of Noah s ark and the vessel in which
Moses was saved (Ex. 2 3 - 5 ) ; the name ark comes to us
through JJ (area), where, however, it is also applied to the
ark of the testimony (Ex. 25 10 etc.). The Bab. Flood-
narrative has the ordinary word for ship (elippu). The
vessel is to consist internally of cells (lit. nests ), and is
to be coated inside and out with bitumen (cf. Ex. 2 3 ).
13. JD^ xa] not (as Est. 9 n ) *has come to my knowledge, but has
entered into my purpose. This is better than (with Di.) to take N? pg
absolutely (as Am. 8 2 ), and JB 1 ? as according to my purpose. D.TJ?P]
through them ; Ex. 8 20 9", Ju. 6 6 etc. pM.-rnN [arvn^p] & /cal rty 77?? ;
U cum terra ; so <S 2TJ. As Ols. says, we should expect n "?yp (FIND
[Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error probably lies deeper. Ball
emends rrnxi DHN rvn^o ; Bu. .TTIN Dfl npD [en] ^ on n^o ; Gu. DJvn^D Qjn]
rrnN. Eerdmans (AT Studien, i. 29) finds a proof of original poly
theism. He reads ui Divide jn : " we [the gods] are about to destroy
the earth." 14. ^n] <& /a/Surds ; << Nniirn. The word is the Egyptian
teb(t) = chest, sarcophagus (6ij3is, 6ipij, in ( of Ex. 2 3 - 5 ) : see Ges.
Th. \ Erman, ZDMG, xlvi. 123. Jensen (ZA, iv. 272 f.), while admitting
the Egypt, etymology, suggests a connexion with the Ass. ilippu tl-bi-
turn (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 tabu, found in the phrase ta-bi-e Bel ilani Marduk
(Del. ffwb. 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 Bab. original of Heb. n^n. See Camb. Bibl. Essays (1909),
p. 37 ff. isJ- vy.] The old trans, were evidently at a loss : r (^K) ^uXow
Terpaydvuis ; U (de) lignis Icevigatis ; Jer. ligna bituminata : the word
being &ir. \ey. Lagarde (Sem. i. 64 f. ; Symm. ii. 93 f.) considered it a
mistaken contraction from nnsj (brimstone), or rather a foreign word
of the same form which meant originally pine-wood. Others (Bochart,
VI. I3-I6 l6l
Somewhat similar details are given of the ship of Ut-
napistim (p. 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 Heb. cubit of six handbreadths (about 18 in. :
see Kennedy, DB, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are
such as modern shipbuilding- has only recently exceeded
(see Ben. 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, Oriental, und Exeget. Bibliot. xviii.
27 f.). 16. The details here are very confused and mostly
obscure. The word "inv (a?r. Aey.) is generally rendered
Might or opening for light, either a single (square)
aperture (Tu.), or "a kind of casement running round the
al.) suppose it to contain the root of /cinrdpurcroy, cypress, a wood
used by the Phoen. in shipbuilding-, and by the Egypt, for sarcophagi
(De.). D lp] Lagarde s conjecture, D Jp D jp (OS 1 , ii. 95), has been
happily confirmed from Philo, Qucest. in Gen. ii. 3 (loculos loculos : see
Bu. 255), and from a Palest. Syr. Lectionary (Nestle, cited by Ho.).
On the idiom, see G-K. 1232. 122] also &ir. \ey. } = bitumen
(ffiU), An kufr, Aram, msna, Ass. kupru (used in the Bab. Flood-
story). The native Heb. word for bitumen is ion (ii 3 i4 10 , Ex. 2 3 ).
15. apk] <& n^j-irrnN. 16. nns] <& tirurw&ywv (rdg-. naif?); all other Vns.
express the idea of light (Aq. peo-yfj.ppivdi , S. dia<J>avh, 3J fenestram,
& (J,_aCl, windows, 2T O TI.VJ). They connected it (as Aq. shows) with
D!inx, noon-day ; but if cnnx means properly summit (see G-B. ;
BDB, s.v.), there seems nothing- in Heb. to connect the root with
the idea of light. The meaning- back is supported by Ar. z ahr.
tbycbo nj^ap noK-^Ki] The suff. may refer either to the ins (whose gender
is unknown : cf. Kon. S. p. 163) or to the nnri : the latter is certainly
most natural after nV?. The prevalent explanation that the cubit
indicates either the breadth of the light-opening, or its distance below
the roof (see Di.) is mere guess-work. Bu. (following We.) removes
the first three words to the end of the v., rendering-: "and according-
to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)" : Di. objects that this would
require noun. Ball reads *?D njcgri ny]^^, "and for its (the ark s)
whole length thou shalt cover it above"; Gu. : njV;fi V JNI, "and on
a pivot (see Is. 6 4 ) thou shalt make it (the roof) revolve," a doubtful
suggestion.
II
1 62 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sides of the ark (except where interrupted by the beams
supporting the roof) a little below the roof" (Dri., so De.
Di. al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this view; but
the material arguments for it (see Di. 141) are weak, and
its etymological basis is doubtful (v.i.). Others (Ew. Gu.
G-B. al.) take it to mean the roof (lit. back : Ar. zahr)*
The clause and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above is unin
telligible 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-napistim appears to have had six decks,
divided into nine compartments (11. 61-63).
17-22. The purpose of the ark. Gunkel thinks that
v. 17 commences a second communication to Noah ; and
that in the source from which P drew, the construction of
the ark was recorded before its purpose was revealed (as in
the parallel account of J : see on 7 1 ). That, of course, is
possible ; but that P 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 17ff - are
not the continuation of 13 ~ 18 . 17. Behold 1 am about to bring
the Flood] ^3Dn : see above on f (J), and in the Note below.
18. I will establish my covenant, etc.] anticipating Q 92 -. De.
and Gu. 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 P,
17. n <JNI] cf. Dri. JPh. xi. 226. D:P Vnon (cf. 7 6 )] The D D is
certainly superfluous grammatically, but pN.T^y is necessary to the
completeness of the sentence. (5r omits D D in 7, and inserts it in 9 llb (P).
Whether it be an explanatory gloss of the unfamiliar VUD (so most), or a
peculiar case of nominal apposition (see Dri. T. 188), it is difficult to
decide : on the idea that it is meant to distinguish the water-flood from
the light-flood, see above, p. 154. The pointing c;p (JDMich. al.) is
objectionable on various grounds : for one thing-, P never speaks of the
Flood as coming from the sea. J s phrase is Sunn D : 7 7< 10 ; cf. 9 llft (P)
nntf^] juu., nv6; but elision of n in Hiph. is unusual : some Sam. MSS
have/vnB n ? (Ball). jnr] expire, peculiar to P in Hex. (cf. f l 25* "
* According to Jensen (KIB, vi. i, 487), the Bab. ark had a dome-
shaped roof (mufyfyu).
VI. I7-VII. II 163
to whom the FT 1 !? is always a solemn and permanent embodi
ment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision
(Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstg. 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 (Ho.). Thou
and thy sons, etc.} The enumeration is never omitted by P
except in 8 1 ; cf. 7 13 8 16 - 18 : ct. J in 7 1 . ipf. 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 P to a later dispensation
20. The classification (which is repeated with slight
variations in 7 14 - 21 8 19 9 2f - 10 ) here omits wild beasts (njn) :
v.i. on v. 19 . wh* does not necessarily imply that the animals
came of themselves (Ra. lEz. al.), any more than N^nn (v. 19 )
necessarily means that Noah had to catch them. 21. all
food which is (or may be) eaten] according to the prescrip
tions of i 29f -. 22. so did he\ the pleonastic sentence is
peculiar to P; cf. esp. Ex. 4o 16 (also Ex. 7 I2 28 - 50 39 32 - 42f -,
Nu. i 54 , and often).
VII. 6, 11, i3-i7a. Commencement of the Flood.
These vv. (omitting 16b [J]) appear to form an uninterrupted
section of the Priestly narrative, following immediately on
6 22 . 6. Date of the Flood by the year of Noah s life. The
number 600 is a Babylonian ner\ and it has been thought
that the statement rests ultimately on a Bab. tradition.
II. This remarkably precise date introduces a sort of diary
35 s9 49 s8 , 12 t. in all); elsewhere only in poetry (Holz. Einl. 341).
19. Tin] (on anomalous pointing of art. see G-K. 35/"(i)). WA reads
n nrr as in 8 17 ; and so (Sr, which takes the word in the limited sense of
wild animals, reading 1 [/cai d?r6 iravr&v ruv KTTJVUIV Kai d. IT. r. tpirerwv]
K. d. T. T. 6t]piuv (see 7 14 - 21 8 19 ). D Jt?] <5rJ5 DW DW as in 7 9 - 15 . So also
v. 20 . 20. ror^aD] Ins. i with juu.ffij&Uft ; the } is necessary to the
sense. ( has "?3 before each class, but MT rightly confines it to the
heterogeneous t^on (Ho.). For noim wn, juu. ffi have N.T Vy ron TTK.
21. n 1 ?:^ 1 ?] see on i 29 . 22. D n 1 ?**] ( Ktf/xos 6 d.
6. On the syntax of the time-relation, see G-K. 164 a. D:D] see 6 17 .
II. naff ruffa] in the year of 600 years ; cf. G-K. 1340. For
1 i7th day <& has 27th ; see p. 167 below. D Brn ninn] 8 3 , Mai. 3 10 ,=
K, 2 Ki. 7 - 19 = D 1 n29 K, Is. 24 18 . Apart from these phrases the
164 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the Flood, which is carried through to the end : see
below, p. 167 f. V. 6 , though consistent with n , 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 (p. 168). the fountains of the Great Deep\
(nin Dinri : see on i 2 ). 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 p. 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 Heb. writer looked
on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose
cosmological conception with the simple representation of
J, 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 llb : note the phrase nan mnn (Am. y 4 , Is. 5i 10 , Ps. 36 7 ), and the
parallelismus membrorum. He considers the words a fragment of an
older version of the leg-end which (like the Babylonian) was written in
poetry. A similar fragment is found in 8 2 .
13. On that very day\ continuing v. 11 . The idea that all
the animals entered the ark on one day (J allows a week)
has been instanced as an example of P s love of the
marvellous (Ho. Gu.). 14-16. See on 6 19f -. I7a. the Flood
word N is rare, and denotes a latticed opening, Hos. I3 3 , Is. 6o 8 ,
EC. 12 s . Here it can only mean sluices ; the KO.TO.P&KTO.L of (& "unites
the senses of waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices " (De.). 13. nrn nxya
nin] i7 - 3 - 26 , Ex. i 2 "- 41 - n , Lv. 23"- 21 - 28 - 29 - *>, Dt. 3 2 48 , Jos. 5 n (all P) ;
Ho. Einl. 346. vxh j\ irregular gender: G-K. 97 c. DPIX] Better as
(& inx (8 16 - 18 ). 14. njnn] distinguishing wild beasts from domestic
(cf. v. 21 ) ; see on 6 19 . ui iiss ^a] < om. Cf. Ezk. i; 23 39 4 . I7a. D yanR
DV] Ba. (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of
the gloss (cT>[jmN]) represent the genuine D:/O of P (6 17 7 6 ). (3r adds
n 1 ? 1 ? D jmNi. The half-verse cannot be assigned to J, because it would
be a mere repetition of v. 12 .
VII. I2-VIII. IB 165
came upon the earth] as a result of the upheaval, v. 11 . The
words forty days are a gloss based on 7 4 - 12 (./.); the
Redactor treating J s forty days as an episode in the longer
chronology : see on v. 12 (J).
18-21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.
While J confines himself to what is essential the extinction
of life and leaves the universality of the Flood to be
inferred, P not only asserts its universality, but so to speak
proves it, by giving the exact height of the waters above
the highest mountains. 18, Ip. prevailed] "132, lit. be
strong (dSi cTrcKparet, Aq. eveSwa/xcotf?/). The Flood is con
ceived 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 8 4 : 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 explana
tion is plausible enough (on the assumption that 8 4 belongs
to P) ; 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 (v. 11 ) : see p. 168.
VIII. i, 2a, 30-5, I3a, 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.
I. remembered] in mercy, as ig 29 3o 22 etc. The inclusion
of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a
touch of nature in P which should not be overlooked. ib.
The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest
of the cause of the Delug<^( 2a ). It is said in defence of the
present order that the senmrfg- of the wind and the stopping
19. ID:TI] (& iD^l, with D\O as subj. (better). So v. 20 . 20. 11:13] &
irqa (1^07?), is preferable to MT (cf. Ps. IO3 11 ). nnnn] & (and &) add
TCI v\f/T]\d as in 19 . 21. DiNn *?DI] here distinguished from IEO^D.
I. The addition of (fix /cai iro.vrCiv rCov irereivu)! K. TT. r, epirer&v is here
very much in place. isen] The *J is rare and late: Nu. xy 20 (P),
1 66 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the elemental waters are regarded as simultaneous (Di.);
but that does not quite meet the difficulty. See, further, p.
155 above. 3b. at the endof\.\\z 150 days] (7 24 ). See the foot
note. 4. The resting of the ark. on (one of) the mountains
of Ararat] 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. Ararat (Ass. Urartu) is the NE part of
Armenia; cf. 2 Ki. ig 37 = Is. 37 s8 , Jer. 5i 27 . The name
Mount Ararat, traditionally applied to the highest peak
(Massis, Agridagh : c. 17,000 ft.) of the Armenian moun
tains, rests on a misunderstanding of this passage.
The traditions regarding- the landing-place of the ark are fully
discussed by Lenorm. Or. 2 ii. i ff. : cf. Tu. 133-136 ; No. Unters. 145 ff.
The district called Ararat or Urartu is properly that named in Armenian
Ayrarat) and is probably identical with the country of the Alarodians
of Herod, iii. 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying NE of
Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on the
right (SW) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.* Another tradition,
represented by Berossus (p. 177 below) and & J5 ("lP)t, locates the
mountain in Kurdistan, viz. at 6ebel Ciudi, which is a striking
mountain SW of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Meso-
potamian plain. This view is adopted in the Koran (Sur. xi. 46),
and has become traditional among the Moslems.: The mountain
of Nisir" of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably
in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next tributary
to the S, the Adhem (Radanu) (Streck, ZA, xv. 272). Tiele and
Kosters, however (EB, 289), identify it with Elburz, the sacred
mountain of the Iranians (S of the Caspian Sea) ; and find a trace of
this name in the jdya $pos /card, TT]V Ap/j.eviav Bd/uj \ey6fji.evov indicated as
the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus Damascenus (Jos. Ant. i. 95).
What the original Heb. tradition was, it is impossible to say. The
writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the Bab.,
Ararat being here a corruption of Hara haraiti (the ancient Iranian
name of Elburz), which was afterwards confused with the land of
Urartu. No. and Ho. think it probable that & and & preserve the
oldest name (Kardu), and that Ararat if a correction made when it was
Jer. s 26 , Est. 2 1 7. 3b. DTDH nxpo] Rd. D ronn J>po (Str. Ho. Gk.).
JULX n ppo. 4. For i7th (5r has 27th (7").
* " Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes
fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri mentis, qui usque illuc
extenditur." Jerome on Is. 37 s8 .
t OP has both *nmp and N JDIN, as has Berossus.
VIII. 3B-I9 167
discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher than those
of Kurdistan.
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 v. 4 (cf. Hupf. Qu. i6f.). I3a, 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 : cf. Jer. 5o 38 ).
15-19. Exit from the ark : blessing on the
animals. I7b. A renewal of the benediction of i 22 , which
had been forfeited by the excesses before the Flood. The
corresponding blessing on man is reserved for 9 lff -. 19. The
animals leave the ark according to their families , an example
of P s love of order.
The Chronology of the Flood presents a number of intricate though
unimportant problems. The Dates, according to MT and r,* are as
follows :
1. Commencement of Flood . 6ooth year, 2nd mo., i7th day ((5 27th)
2. Climax (resting of ark) . ,, 7th ,, i7th ,, ((5Sr 27th)
3. Mountain tops visible . ioth(riith), ist ,,
4. Waters dried up . . 6oist year, ist mo., ist
5. Earth dry. ... ,, 2nd 27th
The chief points are these : (a) In <& the duration of the Flood is
exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (i) and (2) amount
to 150 days (7 24 8 3 ), the basis of reckoning is presumably the Egyptian
solar year (12 mo. of 30 days + 5 intercalated days). The 2 months
interval between (3) and (4) also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days
5. -nom TI^I vn] went on decreasing (G-K. 113 u) ; less idiomatic
than 3a (J). Tenth] ( eleventh. I3a. After nw (ffir adds m "n 1 ? (7").
15. o n 1 ?*] (5r Ktpios 6 6. 17. juu.(>fr read rrn.vVsi j so v. 19 . N*in]
Why Qre substitutes in this solitary instance Kyyi is not clear : see K6n.
i. p. 641. )i~}} nsi] (Gr ?rii nsi (Impv.), omitting the previous pN3 irian.
This is perhaps the better text : see on 9 :ff< U reads the whole as Impv.
19. rDT ronrrVa] <& (better) bpnn bcnn ^i rpyn-^i nonan-^i. DrrnnEs^D 1 ?]
(Jer. i5 3 ) ; the pi. of po (P s word in ch. i) is not in use (Ho.).
* Jub. v. 23-32 (cf. vi. 25 f.) adds several dates, but otherwise agrees
with MT, 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 i7th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month.
1 68 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of S 6 " 12 (J). In MT the total duration is 12 mo. + 10 days; hence the
reckoning- appears to be by lunar months of c. 29^ days, making- up a
solar year of 364 days.* (b) The Massoretic scheme, however, pro
duces 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 <&), or (what is more probable) the 150
days belong to an older computation independent of the Calendar. f
It has been surmised that this points to a 10 months duration of
the Flood (150 days increase + 150 days subsidence); and (Ew. Di.)
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 sub
sidence. (c) Of the separate data of the Calendar no satisfactory
explanation has yet been given. The only date that bears its signifi
cance on its face is the disappearance of the waters on the ist day of
the year ; and even this is confused by the trivial and irrelevant distinc
tion 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 iyth or
27th day, remains, in spite of all conjectures, a mystery. J (d) The ques
tion whether the months are counted from the old Heb. 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 (Jub., Jos. Ant. i. 80, <J, Ra. and
most). The arguments on one side or the other have little weight. If
the second autumn month (MarcheSwan) 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 unsuit
able for its close. P elsewhere follows the Babylonian calendar, and
there is no reason to suppose he departs from his usual procedure here
(so Tu. Gu. 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 P, and the Calendar a later adjustment (Di.) ; or, again, the
150 days might be traditional, and the Calendar the work of P himself
(Gu.). On the former (the more probable) assumption the further
question arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation of J and P. The evidence is not decisive ; but the diver
gences of (Sr from MT seem to prove that the chronology was still in
process of development after the formation of the Canon. See Dahse,
ZATWy xxviii. 7 ff., where it is shewn that a group of Greek MSS
* So Jub. vi. 32. Cf. Charles s Notes, pp. 54 f. and 56 f.
f That it is a later redactional addition (Ho.) is much less likely.
J King (JTS, 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 i7th lyyar. 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 ((Sir), which, however, would itself require explanation.
See De. 175^, 183, 184; Di. i29f.
ix. i 169
agree closely with Jub., and argued (but unconvincingly) that the
original reckoning was a solar year, beginning and ending with the
27th of the 2nd month.
IX. 1-7. The new world-order. The religious sig
nificance 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 6 llf -). 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 : (i) 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 Schiirer, iii. i28f.
Vv. 1 7 , both in substance and expression (cf. .iSsN 1 ? .T.T 02^, D3 1 ? vinj
jrnK, and esp. 3B>y pv), form a pendant to i 29f - We have seen (p. 35)
that these vv. 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 vv. 8 16 have) in J or the Bab. narrative (Gu.). But that
neither this nor i m is a secondary addition to P is clear from the
phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on i 22 - 27t as on i 29 *-.
To treat 9 4 6 as a later insertion (Ho.) is arbitrary. On the contrary,
the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of P to the
ancient traditions.
I. An almost verbal repetition of i 28 . The wives of
Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no
religious standing in the OT (so v. 8 ). It is perhaps also
significant that here (in contrast to i 22 ) the animals are
excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant
I. ffir adds at end Kal Ka.Ta.Kvpiefoa.Te O.VTTJS, as i 28 . 2. *?331 Vm] (,&
^331 (bis). The ? cannot be that of specification (y 21 8 17 9 10 - 16 etc.),
since no comprehensive category precedes ; yet it is harsh to take it
as continuing the sense of ^y ((&), and not altogether natural to render
I7O THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
vv. 10< 12 * 15ff< ). 2. Man s * dominion over the animals is re
established, but now in the form of fear and dread (cf. Dt. 1 i 25 )
towards him on their part. into your hand they are given]
conveying the power of life and death (Lev. 26^, Dt. ig 12
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 P 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 (Lev.
^27 j^io. uj . an d though to our minds a purely ceremonial
precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezk. 33 251
etc.). The theory on which the prohibition rests is re
peatedly stated (Lev. ly 11 - u , Dt. i2 23 ) : 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.* All the
same it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for
the ancient Heb. horror of eating with the blood (i Sa.
i4 32ff -f). 5, 6. The second restriction : sanctity of human
life. * Life is expressed alternately by B" 5 ] and PB3. On
DaTltPB^, v.i. 1 will require] exact an account of, or
equivalent for (42 22 , Ezk. 336, Ps. g 13 etc.). That God is
* along with (Di.). un}] AU. <& vnnj : 3. ^-nx naS nm] seems a slavish
repetition from i 29 . We should at least expect the art., which JUUL (San)
supplies. 4. IDT is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to isrS33 ;
but (& renders tv afytcm ^ux^y, and S> (rnVn> O"l_JSULO5), S. (o5 avv
\pvxv fcfy"* atfrou) as a rel. cl. 5. INI is suspicious after the preceding
IN. jum. (DDDTDNI) omits. D3WSJ 1 ?] usually taken as circumscription of
gen., emphasising the suff. : 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 *? doch am besten " (De.). vn* e"N TD] from the hand of
* See ^S 2 , 234 f. ; Frazer, # 2 , i. i33f., 352 f. ; Kennedy, EB, 1544.
f It has been thought that the offence warned against is the bar
barous African custom of eating portions of animals still alive (C J , Ra.
De. al.) ; but that is a mistake.
ix. 2-n
the avenger of blood is to J (ch. 4) a truth of nature ; to P
it rests on a positive enactment. -from the hand of every
beast] see Ex. 2i 28f -. 6a is remarkable for its assonances
and the perfect symmetry of the two members : &[ ^B^
r\2& ta DlNIt | CHNn. It is possibly an ancient judicial
formula which had become proverbial (Gu.). The 2T2C (v.i.)
read into the text the idea of judicial procedure ; others
(Tu. 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 i 26f> . 7* The section closes, as
it began, with the note of benediction.
8-17. The Covenant and its Sign. In P as in J
(8 20 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 P 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 con
cluding note, p. i73f. p. establish my covenant} in fulfilment
of 6 18 . P s formula for the inauguration of the covenant
is always H^3 D^pn or 3 jro (172, Nu. 25 12 ) instead of the
more ancient and technical 3 rn3. II. The essence of the
covenant is that the earth shall never be devastated by a
Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted by this assurance
one man that of another. The full expression would be tfcrriN WK TD
VHN (Ols.); but all languages use breviloquence in the expression of
reciprocity. The construction is hardly more difficult than in I5 10
42 26>8C ; and an exact parallel occurs in Zee. 7 10 . See G-K. 139 c\
Bu. 283 ff. The vrmi of MJ. J5U makes nonsense ; (Sx omits the previous
DIKH TDI. It would be better to move the Athnach so as to commence
a new clause with ? *< TD. 6. mxa] U om. ; { N:n iD DD pinoa : 3P is
still more explicit. 7. na mi] U et implete earn (as v. 1 ). Read na mi
after i 28 (Nestle in Ball).
10. Van] as many as ; see on 6 2 . pxn n n ^] Q& om. ^o{>] perhaps
= in short : cf. 23, see G-K. 143 e. The sense of n n = animals
in general, immediately after the same expression in the sense of
wild animals, makes the phrase suspicious (Ho.). n.
172 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
is a difficult question, on which see p. 173 below. 12-17.
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. Exx. in common life: Gn. 2i 30 , cf. 38 17f - "
(Gu.).* Here the sign is a natural phenomenon the rain
bow ; and the question is naturally asked whether the
rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so lEz.
Tu.). 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
P, 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 boiv appears in the cloud \ the apodosis com
mencing with 15 (against De.). The bow seems conceived
as lodged once for all in the cloud (so IEz.), to appear at
(& adds DVD. rms? 1 ?] juu. jrrwnf? ; so v. 15 . 12. D .I^R] ( Ktf/uos 6 0. + (with
) nr^R. 13. mu] hardly historic pf. ( I have set ), but either pf. of
instant action ( I do set ), or pf. of certainty ( I will set ); see G-K.
106 i, m, n. 14. py JJjn] lit. when I cloud with cloud ; see G-K.
52 d and 1177-. ntypn] (5rF n^p ; so (3r in v. 16 . 15. rrn] AU
DanK n^N rrnn (cf. v. 12 ).
* Hence both of P s covenants are confirmed by a sign : the
Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by the rainbow.
ix. 12-17 i73
the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of
God. 16. an everlasting covenant] so iy 7 13> 19 , Ex. 3i 16 ,
Lv. 2 4 8 , Nu. i8 19 25 13 (all P).
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" (We. Prol. 6 311) ; by Homer
it was personified as *Ipts, the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(//. ii. 786, iii. 121 ; cf. Ov. Met. 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 Bab. Creation-myth, where Marduk s bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a con
stellation. (See Je. ATLO 2 , 248; Di. 155 f. ; Gu. 138 f. ; Dri. 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
(cf. Hab. 3 9 " 11 , Ps. 7 13f> ) 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, adapta
tion. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in OT (Ezk. i 28 nsrpn
oran ova pya ,T.T -\VK : but see Sir. 43 m - 50 ), and it is pointed out (by
We. al.) that elsewhere n^g 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 vv. 1 6 , or is con
fined 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,
ZATW, xii. 3f)- Vv. 1 " 7 and 8 17 are certainly distinct addresses, and
possibly of different origin (p. 169) ; and while the first says nothing
of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipula
tions. 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 P, to whom the nna
means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative
assurance of v. 11 . In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ma
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 Is. 24"-). Kraetzschmar
(Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the
idea of vv. 8 17 is borrowed by P from J, 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 ;
16. T3] 1 ?] && 12.. n nK pa]
1 74 FLOOD
and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding
vv. 1 7 as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by P. If that
be the case, it is probable that these vv. were inserted by the priestly
author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic rvo those
elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally
binding on mankind. On the conception of the nna in J and P, see
chs. 15 and 17.
28, 29. The death of Noah.
The form of these vv. is exactly that of the genealogy, ch. 5 ; while
they are at the same time the conclusion of the m m"?in (6 9 ). How much
was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P s
narrative of the Flood (so that m^in is practically equivalent to bio
graphy ), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate
descendants in 6 10 ? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6 9- 10 7 6
9 28 - >2S formed a section of the original book of mWi, and that into this
skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the
priestly writers (see the notes on 2 481 ). The relation of the assumed
genealogy to that of ch. 5 would be precisely that of the m*?in of Terah
(n 27 *) to the rrfon of Shem (n 10 26 ). In each case the second gene
alogy is extremely short ; further, it opens by repeating the last link
of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5 33 6 10 ) ;
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 mSm of Terah ; that is the accepted view, and the reasons
for disputing it are those mentioned on p. 40 f. Fortunately the question
is of no great importance.
The Deluge Tradition.
i. 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. *
29. vn, Heb. MSS (London Polyglott) and JUA vm.
* 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
Bab.) 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 (p. 125 f.). The enumera
tion, however, must not be considered as closed : Naville (PSBA, 1904,
251-257, 287-294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian
LEGENDS 175
On the question of the universality of the Deluge* they have, of course,
no immediate bearing 1 , 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 insuper
able. 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 Baby
lonian culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through Christian
missionaries, f In this note we shall confine our attention to the group
of legends most closely affiliated to the Babylonian tradition.
2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is contained
in the eleventh Tablet of the GilgameS Epic.J Gilgames has arrived at
the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his ancestor UtnapiStim 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 Surippak on
tradition in a text of the Book of the Dead, containing the following
words : "And further I (the god Turn) 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" (I.e. p. 289).
* On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of such a
hypothesis, see Dri. 99 f.
f See Andree, I.e. 143 ff. ; Suess, The Face of the Earth, i. 18-72 pass.
Cf. the discussion by Woods in DB, ii. 17 ff. ; and Dri. Gen. 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 (Orig? i. 471 f., 488 ff.).
t Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of Asshur-
banipal s library; published 1873-4; and often translated since. See
KAT*, 55 ff. ; Jen. Kosmologie, 368 ff ; Zimmern in Gu. sSchoflf. u. Chaos,
423 ff. ; Jen. KIB, vi. i, n6ff. (the translation followed below); Ba.
Light from the East, 35 ff. ; Je. A 7Z<9 2 , 228 ff. ; and the abridgments
in Jast. RBA 1 , 493 ff. ; KAT*, 545 ff. ; Texte u. Bilder, i. 50 ff.
176
FLOOD
the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send the Flood
(ab&bu) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at the council, resolved
to save his favourite Utnapistim ; and contrived without overt breach of
confidence to convey to him a warning- of the impending danger, com
manding him to build a ship (elippu] of definite dimensions for the
saving of his life. The superlatively clever one (Atra-hasis, a name of
Utnapistim) 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
(1. 48 if. ) is even more obscure than Gn. 6 14 " 18 : 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 depend
ants of UtnapiStim (including artizans), with domestic and wild
animals, are then described (1. 81 ff.) ; and last of all, in the evening, on
the appearance of a sign predicted by Santas the sun-god, Utnapistim
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 11. 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."
"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 Nisir * the ship had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship ..." (11. 130-142).
This brings us to the incident of the birds (146-155):
"When the seventh dayt 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."
* See p. 166. t From the landing.
LEGENDS 177
On this Utnapis tim 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" (i6off.).
The deities then begin to quarrel, IStar and Ea reproaching Bel for
his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately, and Bel
accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of UtnapiStim. Finally,
Bel is appeased ; and entering the ship blesses the hero and his wife :
" Formerly UtnapiStim was a man;
But now shall Utnapistim and his wife be like to us the gods :
Utnapis tim 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.).*
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 Heb. tradition
as a whole was derived from Babylonia. Thus both J and P agree with
the Bab. story in the general conception of the Flood as a divine visita
tion, 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. J agrees with Bab. 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. P has also its peculiar correspondences (though
some of these may have been in J originally) : e.g. the precise instruc
tions for building the ark ; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Bab.
touch) ; the grounding of the ark on a mountain ; the blessing on the
survivors, f By the side of this close and marked parallelism, the
material differences on which Nickel (p. 185) lays stress viz. as to (a)
the chronology, (b) the landing-place of the ark, (c) the details of the
* Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend, in which
the hero is regularly named Atra-hasis, have also been deciphered.
One of them, being dated in the reign of Ammizaduga (c. 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 KIB, 288-291).
The other is a mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea s instructions
to Atra-hasis regarding the building and entering of the ark, and the
latter s promise to comply (KIB, 256-259). See KAT 3 , 551 f. The
extracts from Berossus preserved by Eus. present the Babylonian story
in a form substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgames Tablets,
though with some important variations in detail. See Euseb. Chron, i.
(ed. Schoene, cols. 19-24, 32-34 : cf. Miillcr, Fr. Hist. Gr. ii. 501 ff.).
t See more fully Driver, p. 106.
12
178 FLOOD
sending- out of the birds, (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Bab.),
and (e) the name of the hero sink into insignificance. They are,
indeed, sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between the
Heb. writers and the Gilgames Tablets ; but they do not weaken the
presumption that the story had taken the shape known to us in Baby
lonia before it passed into the possession of the Israelites. And since
we have seen (p. 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 Heb. 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 (8 22 in J, 7 llb
S 2 * in P), 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 J, and none at all in P. The difference here is not wholly
due to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical
writers : it is characteristic of the Heb. 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
P it has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory of
history peculiar to that document (p. Ixf.). The most important
divergences are naturally those which spring from the religion of the
OT 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 Heb. 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 Baby
lonian 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 Bab.
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 J
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gu. p. 66). Which re
presentation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is true, at all events,
that the Bab. parallel serves as a "measure of the unique grandeur
of the idea of God in Israel, which was powerful enough to purify
LEGENDS 179
and transform in such a manner the most uncongenial and repugnant
features" of the pagan myth (tb.) ; 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 psedagogic
and ethical purpose" (ATLO*, p. 252).
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 Qatapatha Brahmana, i. 8. i-io.* 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
(Mahabharata, iii. 187. 2ff.),t 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
Mahabharata is an incarnation of Brahma) was the symbol of the
god Ea.J 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. 2ff.). 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 f
* Translated by Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, xii. 216 ff. See
Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,
iii.), 25 ff.
t Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii. 552 ff. See
Usener, 29 ff.
+ Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence of the
Indian and Semitic legends.
The earliest allusion is Pindar, Ol. 9. 41 ff. Cf. Ovid, Met. i. 244-
415 Paus. i. 40. i, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar
modification) appears only in PJut. De sollert. an. 13. Usener, 31 ff.,
244 ff.
l8o FLOOD
indication of the amalgamation of a foreign element with local Deluge
traditions. A Syrian tradition, with some surprising- resemblances to P
in Gen., 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-Sisuthros * 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 /acor<5s 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 NOE, 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, f The late date of these coins
makes the hypothesis of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence
extremely probable. The existence of a Phoenician tradition is inferred
by Usener (2480.) 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 yth cent. B.C. There is no extant
written record of the Phoenician legend : on Gruppe s reconstruction
from the statements of Greek mythographers see above, p. 141.
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 (EB, 1063^) and Zimmern (ib. 1058 f. ; KAT 3 ,
555). Of a somewhat different order is the astrological theory advocated
by Jeremias (249 ff.). The Babylonian astronomers were aware that
* Text Aeu/coAtWa rbv 2/a/#ea, which Buttmann {Mythologus, i. 192)
ingeniously emended to A. T. l^iavQio. a modification of the Zcri0/>os of
Abydenus.
f See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Je. ATLO l y 131, 2 235-
LEGENDS l8l
in the course of ages the spring- equinox must traverse the watery
(southern) region of the Zodiac : this, on their system, signified a sub
mergence of the whole universe in water ; and the Deluge-myth symbo
lises 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, Hasls-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 (J).
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 vv. 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-
1 82 NOAH S DRUNKENNESS (j)
narrative at all. In the latter, Noah s sons are married men
who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in P, but
the same must be presumed for J) ; 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 Di. Bu.
al.). The presumption, therefore, is that vv. 20 " 27 belong 1 to
a stratum of J 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 v. 24 the offender is the youngest son
of Noah, and in v. 25 is named Canaan ; while Shem and Japheth are
referred to as his brothers. True, in v. 22 the misdeed is attributed to
Ham the father of Canaan ; but the words 3N on have all the appear
ance of a gloss intended to cover the transition from 18f * to ^ >tt ; and
the clause jyj? 3N wn cm in 18b can have no other purpose. Now 18a is
the close of J s * account of the Flood ; and 19 points forward either to
J s list of Nations (ch. 10), or to the dispersion of the Tower of Babel.
y v 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 (-Tin:, v. 26 [in spite of D rfS^ in v. 27 ] ; and *?n;i, v. 20 ) ;
and more especially by the connexion with 5 s9 (see pp. 3, i33f.). It is
clear, therefore, that a redactor (RJ) has here combined two Yahwistic
documents, and sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in
18b and .
l8, Ip. Connecting verses (see above). Noah s sons are
here for the first time named in J, in harmony, however,
with the repeated notices of P (5 32 6 10 7 13 ). On the names
see on ch. 10 (p. 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
19. pK.rSa nwu] the whole (population of the) earth was scattered.
For the construction cf. io 5 . nysj] hardly contracted Niph. from N / p<fl
[ = P 3 ] (G-K. 67 dd) ; but from ^ pi, whether this be a secondary
formation from ^/ ps (G-B. 14 465 f.), or an independent word (BOB,
659). Cf. i Sa. i 3 n , Is. ii 12 33 3 . 20. wi ^m] cf. ^ 6 1 io 8 n 44 (J)
4i 54 (E). The rendering Noah commenced as a husbandman (Dav.
83, R. 2} is impossible on account of the art. (ct. i Sa. 3 2 ) : to insert
nvnS (Ball) does not get rid of the difficulty. The construction with i
cons., instead of inf., is very unusual (Ezr. 3 8 ) ; hence Che. (J3, 3426 2 ),
* Comp. nyci with io 18 n 4 - 8 - 9 ; and psrr^ ( = the population of the
earth) with n 1 - 9 (Bu.) ; nr^? nj* n?S? with io 39 22 23 25* (Ho.).
IX. 1 8-24 183
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 p. 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 d. Ebraischen 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 civilisa
tion. Since the vine is said to be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus
(see De. Di.), 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 sur
roundings.
21. uncovered himself] the same result of drunkenness in
Hab. 2 15 , La. 4 21 . 22. There is no reason to think (with
Ho. and Gu.) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than
the Schadenfreude implied in the words. Heb. morality
called for the utmost delicacy in such matters, like that
evinced by Shem and Japheth in v. 23 24. jtji^ 133 cannot
mean his younger son ((KU) (i.e. as compared with
following Kue. (ThT, xviii. 147), proposes Ehq, 1 ? for E> N : Noah was the
first to plough the ground. That reading would be fatal to any
connexion of the section with Gn. 3, unless we suppose a distinction
between ~oy (manual tillage) and chn. Strangely enough, Ra. (on 5 29 )
repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah invented the ploughshare ;
but this is probably a conjecture based on a comparison of 3 17 with s 29 .*
22. lan] < pref. /ecu ^eXtfcoj/. 23. nWn] On the art., see G-K. 126 r.
That it was the iff which Canaan had previously taken away, and that
this notice was deliberately omitted by J (Gu.), is certainly not to be
inferred. The & is the upper garment, which was also used for
sleeping in (Ex. 22 26 etc.). 24. ] & .}] on the irreg. seghol, see G-K.
* So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication.
184 NOAH S DRUNKENNESS (j)
Shem) ; still less his contemptible son * (Ra.); or Ham s
youngest (IEz.). 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 (cf. 27 28f - 89f - 49) (on the fulfilment see the
concluding note, p. 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 (G-K. 1332 ). to his brethren]
not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear
from the following vv.) 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. Bu. (294 f.) proposed to omit ^K and
read D^ !W Tjro : Blessed of Yahwe be Shem (cf. 24 31 2 6 29
[both J]). Di. 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 DK ; ^ns* 7ft 3 (Tj-iIP would be still more acceptable) :
[May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem; see the next v. 27.
May God expand (flSP) Yepheth : a play on the name ( ri ?.1).
The use of the generic D^nta implies that the proper name
70 n. 26. ic6 may stand either for on^> (coll.) or i 1 ? : see Note 3 in
G-K. I03/ The latter is the more natural here. Ols. (MBBA, June
1870, 382) proposed to omit 26b , substituting 27a ^ (at? pen), and retain
2711 with ref. of pi. suff. to rnN. ( has avrov in 26b and atfrwv in 27h .
27. rts:] <& TrXariWi, F dilatet, etc. The *J nns in the sense be spacious
is extremely rare in Heb. (Pr. 2O 19 [?24 28 ]), and the accepted rendering
not beyond challeng-e. No. (BL, 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.).
ix. 25-27 1 85
was the peculiar property of the Shemites. and may
he dwell] or that he may dwell. The subject can hardly
be God (Jub. &, Ber. R. Ra. lEz. No. 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 (Gu.).
For the latter sense cf. Ps yS 55 , i Ch. 5 10 . A Messianic
reference to the ingathering of the Gentiles into the Jewish
or Christian fold (2T J , Fathers, De. 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 dis
covery 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 frag
ment of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from nomadic to
agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and vine-grower, is a
tent-dweller (v. 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 agri
culture 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 tillag-e, 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 5 29 , which brings it into close connexion with the account
of the Fall in ch. 3 (p. 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 OT : on the
other hand, it is impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is
1 86 NOAH S DRUNKENNESS (j)
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 (ch. 10), i.e. as corresponding roughly to what
we call the Semitic and Aryan races, has always had difficulty in dis
covering a historic situation combining Japhetic dominion over the
Canaanites with a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.* 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 pass
age as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity ; and even then it
fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Di., who explains the figure
as expressing the more kindly feeling of the Heb. 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 (We. Mey.) or the Phoenicians (Bu. Sta. Ho.). But that
the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of the Philis
tines at their own expense is incredible ; and as for the Phoenicians,
though their colonial expansion might have been viewed with compla
cency 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 (i Ki. 9 n 13 ) (Bu.) is an event little
likely to have been idealised in Heb. 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
* As regards the former, the expulsion of Phoenician colonists from
the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks (Di.) could
never have been described as enslavement (see Mey. GA*, i. 311 f.) ; and
the capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage,
etc. (De.), are events certainly beyond the horizon of the writer, unless,
indeed, we adopt Berth. s suggestion (see above), that v. 27 is very late.
For the latter, Di. 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.
IX. 27-X. 187
after the time of Alexander the Great, as an expression of the friendly
feeling of the Jews for their Hellenic conquerors.* Gu. 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 (c. 2250 B.C.), leaving its traces in
Babylonia, in Phoenicia, perhaps even in Asia Minor,f and of which the
later Canaanites of Palestine were the sediment. Shem is the Hebraeo-
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 io 15 (which Gu. assigns to the same source
as 9 20ff< ) Heth is the son of Canaan. A better defined background would
be the struggle for the mastery of Syria in the i4th cent. B.c.J If, as
many Assyriologists think probable, the Habiri of the Tel-Amarna
Letters be the onrij; of the OT, i.e. the original Hebrew stock to
which Israel belonged, it would be natural to find in Shem the repre
sentative of these invaders; for in io 21 (J) 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 Habiri, were then seeking a foot
hold 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 conjec
tures can never effect a solution of the problem.
CH. X.The Table of Peoples (P and J).
In its present form, the chapter is a redactional composi
tion, in which are interwoven two (if not three) successive
attempts to classify the known peoples of the world, and to
* See We. Comp. 14 f. ; Bu. Urg. 325 ff. ; Sta. GVI y i. 109; Mey.
GA 1 , i. p. 214 ; Bertholet, Stellung d. Isr. zu. d. Fremden, 76 f. Meyer s
later theory (INS, 220 f. ), that Japheth ( = Eg. Kefti ?) stands for the whole
body of northern invaders in the i2th cent., to whom the Philistines be
longed, does not diminish the improbability that such a prophecy should
have originated under the monarchy.
t See Mey. GA\ i. p. 212 ff. ; Wi. GI, i. 37, 130, 134; Peiser, KIB,
iv. p. viii.
Already suggested by Ben. (p. 158), who, however, is inclined to
identify the Habiri with Japheth.
1 88 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (p AND j)
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 We. (Comp. 2 6ff.). The hand of P is
easily recognised in the superscription ( la ril^fl nVn), and the methodical
uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening 1 and
closing formulas. The headings of the three sections are : ns; i| (-),
on "ill ( 6 ), and DB> ^ ( 22 ) ; the respective conclusions are found in 5<
(mutilated) 20 - 31 , v. 32 being a final summary. This framework, how
ever, contains several continuous sections which obviously belong to J.
(a) 8 12 ; the account of Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by P among
the sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong con
trast to P : note also i 1 ?; instead of T^in ( 8 ), m,r ( 9 ). (b) 13f< : the sons of
Mizraim (v. i 1 ?;). (c) 1B - 19 : the Canaanites (i^). (d) 21 - ** *> : the Shemites
^L,, 21. 25 . -^, 26^ Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold
introduction to Shem ( 21 II 22 ), and the discrepancy between 7 and 28f> re
garding n^ in and x^v*. The documents, therefore, assort themselves as
follows :
J:
8-12 . 13f. . 15-19 . 21. 28-30
Vv. 9> 16 " 18a and 24 are regarded by We. and most subsequent writers
as interpolations : see the notes. The framework of P is made the
basis of the Table ; and so far as appears that document has been pre
served in its original order. In J the genealogy of Shem ( 21 - 25 30 ) is
probably complete; that of Ham ( 13f< 15ff -) is certainly curtailed; while
every trace of Japheth has been obliterated (see, however, p. 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 Gu. ( 2 74f.), who
first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic Table, and its
connexion with the two recensions of J which appear in ch. 9. He
agrees with We. Di. al. that 9 isf - forms the transition from the story
of the Flood to a list of nations which is partly represented in ch. 10;
io lb being the immediate continuation of 9 19 in that recension of J (JJ).
But he tries to show that 9 20 27 was also followed by a Table of Nations,
and that to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in ch. 10 belong ( 8< 10 12t
is. 21. 25-29 = Je) t This conclusion is reached by a somewhat subtle
examination of v. 21 and vv. 15 19 . In v. 21 Shem is the elder brother of
Japheth, which seems to imply that Japheth was the second son of Noah
as in 9 20ff> ; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but
Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between
15 and 18b - 19 . In 19 the northern limit of the Canaanites is Zidon, whereas
in 15 Canaan includes the Hittites, and has therefore the wider geo
graphical sense which Gu. postulates for g 20 " 27 (see p. 186 above). He
also calls attention to the difference in language between the eponymous
Jt j? in 15 and the gentilic ^>n?n in 18b> 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. Vv. 8 12 may be
CH. X, 189
assigned to J c because of the peculiar use of ^nn in 8 (cf. 9 20 q? 6 ). V. 13f
must in any case be JJ, because it is inconceivable that Egypt should
ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan ; 25 29 follow 21 (J e ). V. 30
is assigned to J j 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 (i) that the distinction between
a wider and a narrower geographical conception of Canaan remains a
brilliant speculation, which is not absolutely required either by 9 20flr - or
io 16 ; 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 docu
ment ; 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 con
crete 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 Rob. Sm. AW 2 ,
3ff.)-
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 (Mizraim, Havilah, etc. in most cases it is impossible to
say whether land or people is meant) or cities (Zidon) ; some are
gentilicia (Jebusite, Hivvite, etc.) ; and some are actually retained in
THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (p AND j)
the pi. (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 ; * 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 (D"7^), or the Amorites from
one called the Amorite ( ~Pn) ; 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.f That, however, would be
a hasty and probably mistaken inference. The instances cited are
exceptional, they occur mostly in two groups, of which one ( lfiff -)
is interpolated, and the other ( 13ft ) 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 (Gu.).
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.
The geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted ;
but is considerably wider in P than in J.J J s survey ex
tends from the Hittites and Phoenicians in the N to Egypt
and southern Arabia in the S ; on the E he knows Baby
lonia and Assyria and perhaps the Kass"i, and on the W
the Libyans and the south coast of Asia Minor. P includes
in addition Asia Minor, Armenia, and Media on the N and
NE, Elam on the E, Nubia in the S, and the whole
* "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 ^Eolians, the lonians, and the
Achaeans ; 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 ^Eolians, and
Xuthus, from whose two sons, Ion and Achaeus, the lonians and
Achaeans were respectively supposed to be descended" (Dri. 112).
t See Guthe, GI, i ff.
Judging, that is, from the extracts of J that are preserved.
Kaphtorim (v. 14 ) : according to others the island of Crete.
CH. X.
Mediterranean coast on the W. 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.
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 P, a fact which has perhaps never been thoroughly
explained (see p. 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 P
the terminus a quo is the 8th cent., when the Cimmerian and Scythian
hordes ( 2f> ) first make their appearance south of the Caucasus : the
absence of the Minaeans among the Arabian peoples, if it has any
significance, would point to the same period (see p. 203). A lower
limit may with less certainty be found in the circumstance that the
names 019 and Tiy : , UT# (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jer.
and Ezk.) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly List is
pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the PC (5th cent.), but
one perhaps two centuries earlier (so Gu.). Hommel s opinion
(Aufs. u. Abh. 314 if.), 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 left* (see Je. ATLO 2 , 252). The
lists of J, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of date.
The S Arabian tribes ( 25 - 30 ) might have been known as early as the
age of Solomon (Brown, EB, ii. 1699), they might even have been
* It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable agreement
between the geographical horizon of P in Gn. 10 and that of Jer.
and Ezk. Of the 34 names of nations in P s Table, 22 occur in
Ezk. and 14 in the book of Jer. ; it has to be remembered, however,
that a large part of the book of Jer. is later than that prophet. Ezk.
has perhaps 6 names which might have been expected in P if they
had been known (:n, D ^3, yip, yW, 019, lip?), and Jer. (book) has 5
([ ]3Ttti Q l W, 019, Tips, 39). The statistics certainly do not bear out the
assertion that P compiled his list from these two books between 538
and 526 B.C. (see Di. p. 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 Ezk. than in the Table.
THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (P AND j)
known earlier, but that does not tell us when they were systematically
tabulated. The (interpolated) list of Canaanites ( 16-18 ) is assigned by
Jeremias (I.e. 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser in. ; but since a con
siderable 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 Kassite conquest of Babylonia : how
.iiuch later, we cannot tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the
description of the Assyrian cities, see p. 212. There are, besides, two
special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty into
all these investigations, (a) Since only two names (xiy and njriq) are
really duplicated in P and J,* 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 P or in J. (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, f
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common
to P and J, and to both recensions of J if there were two
(above, p. i88f.). It is probable, also, though not certain,
that each of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse
order of birth : Japheth Ham Shein ; or Canaan Japheth
Shem (see v. 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 (4 19ff< 5 32
ii 26 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, LAE, 32) ; but in any case the survey of Gn. 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, Kos, Punt, and Phoenicians
* N& N, B>13, DH^P and jy^? do not count, because they are so introduced
that the two documents supplement one another.
t For the official enumeration see Zunz, GdV 2 , 207; Steinschneider,
ZDMG, iv. 150 f. ; Krauss, ZATW, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ff.) ; cf. Poznanski,
ib. 1904, 302.
CH. X 193
(P s Hamites) as dark brown (Di. 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 apprehen
sion of an antique people, to whom as a rule all foreign tongues were
alike barbarous. So we find that the most of P 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 tha{
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 corre
spondence 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 J assigns Phoenicians 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 p. 1 88).
So far as P is concerned, the main principle is un
doubtedly geographical: Japheth representing the North and
West, Ham the South, and Shem the East. Canaan is the
solitary exception, which proves the rule (see p. 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 con
siderations 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. Lud would be a glaring-
exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is probably
not the case (p. 206). The Mediterranean coasts and islands are ap-
13
194 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (p AND j)
propriately 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 N and S that makes the position of Kittim appear anoma
lous to Di. Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is
doubtful ; p. 199), it must, on the view here taken, be assigned to Japheth.
It is true that in J traces of politico-historical grouping do appear
(mj>x and V^ in 8 12 ; onhag, D fl^9 in 13f -). As to the order within the
principal groups (of P), it is impossible to lay down any strict rule. Jen.
(ZA, 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 dis
qualified 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 ele
ments 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 con
sciousness of the unity of mankind, and the religious
primacy of Israel, by which the OT writers were animated.
Its insertion at this point, where it forms the transition from
primitive tradition to the history of the chosen people, has
X. IA . 195
a significance, as well as a literary propriety, which cannot
be mistaken (Di. 164; Gu. 77; Dri. 114).
The Table is repeated in i Ch. i 4 23 with various omissions and
textual variations. The list is still further abridged in (JEr of i Chr.,
which omits 13 18a and all names after Arpachshad in ^ On the ex
tensive literature on the chapter, see especially the commentaries of
Tu. (159 f.) and Di. (lyof.). See also the map at the end of ATLO.
The Table of P.
la. Superscription. Shem, Ham, and Yepheth] cf.
5 32 (P), 9 18 (J).
On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can be
reported. Dt? is supposed by some to be the Heb. word for name,
applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first instance as De* \43 =
men of name or distinction the titled or noble race (cf. dvo/iaaris) :
"perhaps nothing more than the ruling caste in opposition to the
aborigines." So We. (Comp.^ 14), who compares the name Aryan,
and contrasts DP ^3 33 (Jb. 30) ; cf. Bu. Urg. 328 f. ; al. Gu. (73)
mentions a speculation of Jen. that DE> is the Babylonian Sumu, in the
sense of eldest son, who perpetuates the father s name.
Din must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the earlier
Jjn? as the name of Noah s third son (p. 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 Heb. word it might mean hot
(Jos. 9 12 , Jb. 37 17 ) : hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of
the south (Lepsius, al. ; cf. Jub. viii. 30: "the land of Ham is hot").
Again, since in some late Pss. (y8 51 io5 23 - 27 io6 22 ) on is a poetic desig
nation of Egypt, it has been plausibly connected with the native kerne
or chemi= black, with reference to the black soil of the Nile valley
(Bochart, Ebers, Bu. 323 ff.).* A less probable theory is that of Glaser,
cited by Hommel (AffT, 48), who identifies it with Eg. amu, a collective
name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived by Miiller (AE,
123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang.
ns.; is connected in g 27 with *J nns, and no better etymology has been
proposed. Che. (EB, ii. 2330) compares the theophorous personal name
Yapti- Addu in TA Tab., and thinks it a modification of S*rnnfl% God
opens. But the form nns (pitti) with the probable sense of open also
occurs in the Tab. (KIB, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from >J ns
(beautiful), favoured by Bu. (358 if.), in allusion to the beauty of the
Phoenician cities, is very improbable. The resemblance to the Greek
Japetos was pointed out by Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking.
was the father of Prometheus, and therefore (through Deu-
* Cf. the rare word Din, black,
196 TABLE OF PEOPLES (?)
kalion) of post-diluvian mankind. The identification is approved by
Weizsacker (Roscher s Lex. ii. 55 if.), who holds that IdTreros, having
no Greek etymology, may be borrowed from the Semites (cf. Lenorm.
ii. 173-193). See, further, Mey. INS, 221.
A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by Wi.
in M VAG, vi. i7off.
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 enumera
tion is not ethnological in principle, yet most of the peoples
named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family.
J apheth.
1
i. Gomer. 5.
1 1
Magog. 6. Madai
7. Javan.
1
12. Tubal. 13. Meshech. 14. Tiras,
1
2. Ashkenaz.
1 |
3. Riphath. 4. Togarmah.
8. Elishah. 9. Tarshish. 10. Kittim. ii. Rodanim.
(i) nnS ((& Ta/jiep) : named along with Togarmah as a confederate of
Gog in Ezk. 38 6 , is identified with the Galatians by Jos., but is really the
Gamir of the Ass. inscr., the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest
reference to the Kt/x,/iepioi (Od. xi. 136.) 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. n f.), whose account is in its main features
confirmed by the Ass. monuments. There the Gimirrai first appear
towards the end of the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of
Urartu (see Johns, PSBA, xvii. 223^, 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,
c. 657) the Lydian Empire of Gyges (KIB, ii. 173-7). This last effort
seems to have exhausted their strength, and soon afterwards they
vanish from history.* A trace of their shortlived ascendancy remained
in Gamir, the Armenian name for Cappadocia ; f but the probability is
that the land was named after the people, and not vice versd ; and it is
not safe to assume that by nc5 P 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.
* Cf. Wi. AOF, i. 484-496 ; KAT*, 76 f, 101 ff. ; Je. ATLO 2 , 253.
f Cf. Eus. Chron. Arm. (ed. Aucher) i. p. 95 3 (Gimmeri = Cappa-
docians), and ii. p. 12 (T6fjiep } o5 Ka7r7rd5o/ccj).
x. 2, 3 197
(2) TJ?y ! N ( A.<rxw<*>) Jer. 5I 27 , after Ararat and Minni.* It has been
usual (Bochart, al.) to connect the name with the Ascania of //. 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, f
Recent Assyriologists, however, find in it the A$guza% of the monn.,
a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled in the vicinity of
lake Urumia, and are probably identical with the Scythians of Herod, i.
103, 106. Since they are first mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might
readily appear to a Heb. writer to be a younger people than the Cim
merians. See Wi. tt.cc. ; ATLO 2 , 259 f.
(3) nan ( Pi0a0, Epi0a0: but i Ch. i 6 ngn) : otherwise unknown.
According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians. Bochart and
Lagarde (Ges. Abh. 255) put it further west, near the Bosphorus, on the
ground of a remote resemblance in name to the river P?j/3a^ and the
district VyfiavTia. Che. (EB, 4114) favours the transposition of Halevy
(nTs), and compares Bit BurutaS, mentioned by Sargon along with the
MuSki and Tabali (Schr. KGF, 176).
(4) n! ?~Hn (Qepyay-a-, Go/yya/ta) = noiain rrn, Ezk. 38 6 27 : in the latter
passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Jos. 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 (fix of this passage (Lag.
Ges. Abh. 255 ff. ; Symm. i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equi
valent Til-Garimmu (Del. Par. 246; ATLO^^ 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 Ass. etymology
(Lenorm. Orig? ii. 410).
(5) jiJD (Maywy) : Ezk. 38 2 39 6 . The generally accepted identifica
tion with the Scythians dates from Jos. and Jer., but perhaps reflects
only a vague impression that the name is a comprehensive designation
of the barbarous races of the north, somew r hat like the Umman-manda
of the Assyrians. In one of the Tel-Amarna letters (KIB, v. 5), a land
Ga-ga is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the author differenti
ated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc., does not appear.
The name ruo is altogether obscure. That it is derived from Jia = Gyges,
king of Lydia (Mey. GA 1 , i. p. 558), is most improbable ; and the
suggestion that it is a corruption of Ass. Mat Gog (Mdt Gagaia), must
also be received with some caution.
(6) no (MaScu) : the common Heb. name for Media and the Medes ;
2 Ki. 176 i8 u , Is. i3 17 2i 2 , Jer. 25* si 11 - 28 , Est. i 3 - 14 - 18f - io 2 , Dn. 8 20 a, 1 [n 1 ]
* Ass. Manual, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned along
with Aguza in KIB, ii. 129, 147.
t Lag. (Ges. Abh. 254) instances Ashken as an Armenian proper
name ; and the inscription y^v "Aai<tjvo^ on Grseco-Phrygian coins.
Whether the Heb. word is a clerical error for ns-fN (Wi. Jer.), or
the Ass. a modification of ASgunsa, the Assyriologists may decide (see
Schmidt, EB, iv. 4330 f.).
Del. Par. 246 f. ; Streck, ZA, 321 ; Sayce, HCM*, 125.
198 TABLE OF PEOPLES (p)
(Ass. Madai). The formation of the Median Empire must have taken
place about the middle of the 7th cent., but the existence of the people in
their later seats (E of the Zagros mountains and S of the Caspian Sea)
appears to be traceable in the monuments back to the gth cent. They
are thus the earliest branch of the Aryan family to make their mark
in Asiatic history. See Mey. GA 1 , i. 4220. ; KAT*, looff. ; ATLO\
254-
(7) Hr ( Iwucw) is the Greek IdFwv-oves, and denotes primarily the
Greek settlements in Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian : Ezk. 27 13 ,
Is. 66 19 . After Alexander the Great it was extended to the Hellenes
generally: Jl. 4, Zech. 9 13 , Dn. 8 21 io 20 ii 2 . In Ass. Yamanai is said
to be used but once (by Sargon, KIB, ii. 43) ; but the Persian Yauna
occurs, with the same double reference, from the time of Darius (cf.
-#sch. Pers. 176, 562). Whether the word here includes the European
Greeks cannot be positively determined.* The sons of Javan are
(v. 4 ) to be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots
known to the Heb. as commercial colonies of the Phosnicians (on which
see Mey. EB, 3736 f.). Very few of them, however, can be confidently
identified.
(8) n$ V$ ( EXtcra, E\Krcra) is mentioned only in Ezk. 27 ( N ^N) as a
place supplying Tyre with purple. The older verbal identifications
with the AtoXeis (Jos. Jer. ; so De.), EXXds (EJ), HXts, etc., are value
less ; and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage,
because of Elissa, the name of the legendary foundress of the city
(Sta. Wi. Je. al.); others (Di. al.) southern Italy with Sicily.t The
most attractive solution is that first proposed by Conder (PEFS, 1892,
45 ; cf. 1904, 170), and widely accepted, that the Alasia of the TA
Tablets is meant (see KIB, v. 80-92). This is now generally recognised
as the name of Cyprus, of which the Tyrian purple was a product : J see
below on D ro. Jensen now (KIB, vi. i, 507) places nt^K beyond the
Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it with the
Elysium of the Greeks.
(9) B^in (0a/>iris) is identified (since Bochart) with Ta/jT?7<rcr<$j
(Tartesos), the Phoenician mining and trading station in the S of Spain ;
and no other theory is nearly so plausible. The OT Tarshish was rich
in minerals (Jer. io 9 , Ezk. 27 12 ), was a Tyrian colony (Is. 23 1 - 6 - 10 ), and
a remote coast-land reached by sea (Is. 66 19 , Jn. i 3 4 2 , Ps. 72) ; and
to distinguish the Tarshish of these pass, from that of Gn. io (E)e.
Jast. al.), or to consider the latter a doublet of DTn (Che. Mii.), are but
counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia (Jos.
* Against the theory of a second jv in Arabia (which in any case
would not affect the interpretation of this pass.), see Sta. Akad.
Red. 125-142. Cf., further, ATLO*, 255.
f Cf. E on Ezk. 27 7 K^B K mnoo ; and Eus. Chr. Arm. ii. p. 13:
EXtcr<rd, oO Si/ceXo/ + et Athenienses [Arm.].
J See Muller, ZA, x. 257 ff. ; OLz. iii. 288 ff. ; Jen. ZA, 379 f. ; Jast.
DB, v. Sob.
Her. i. 163, iv. 152; Strabo, iii. 151; Plin. HN, iii, 7, iv.
1 20, etc.
x. 2,4 199
Jer. al.); but this in Semitic is nn (Tarzi). Cf. Wi. AOF, \. 445 f. ;
Miiller, OLz. iii. 291.
(10) trn? (K-nrtoi, KtTtoi)] cf. Jer. 2 10 , Ezk. 27, Is. 23 - 12 , Dn. n 30 ,
i Mac. i 1 8 5 , Nu. 24 s4 . Against the prevalent view that it denotes
primarily the island of Cyprus, so called from its chief city Kfrtoi
(Larnaka), Wi. (A OF, ii. 422 1 ; cf. KAT*, 128) argues that neither the
island nor its capital * is so named in any ancient document, and that
the older biblical references demand a site further W. The application
to the Macedonians (i Mac.) he describes as one of those false identifica
tions common in the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is
endorsed by Muller (OLz. iii. 288) and Je. (ATLO 2 , 261) : they suggest
S Italy, mainly on the authority of Dn. n 30 . The question is obviously
bound up with the identity of W^K AlaSia (v.s.).
(u) D rVT or D rrn (juu.(5r [ PoSioi] and i Ch. i 7 )] a name omitted by
Jos. If <& be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (cf. //. ii. 654 f.) :
the sing, is perhaps disguised in the corrupt pi of Ezk. 27 15 (cf. (5r).
The MT has been explained of the Dardanians (EJ, De. al.), "properly
a people of Asia Minor, not far from the Lycians " (Che. EB y 1 123). Wi.
(I.e.] proposes D m, the Dorians; and Muller D\u(i)i, Eg. Da-nd-na =
TA, Da-nu-na (KIB, v. 277), on the W coast of Asia Minor.
(12) ^ (GojSeX)] and
(13) Tjtf-Q (Mo<ro%)] are mentioned together in Ezk. 27 13 (as exporting
slaves and copper), 32 25 (a warlike people of antiquity), 38 2f - 39 1 (in the
army of Gog), Is. 66 19 ((5r) ; I^D alone in Ps. i2O 5 . Jos. arbitrarily
identifies them with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively ; but
since Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the Tt/Sctp^j/of
and M(5(r%oc, first mentioned in Her. iii. 94 as belonging to the igth
satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing a contingent to the
host of Xerxes (cf. Strabo, XI. ii. 14, 16). Equally obvious is their
identity with the Tdball and Muski of the Ass. Monn., where the latter
appear as early as Tiglath-pileser I. (c. noo), and the former under
Shalmaneser II. (c. 838), both as formidable military states. In Sargon s
inscrs. they appear together ;f and during this whole period their
territory evidently extended much further S and W than in Graeco-
Roman times. These stubborn little nationalities, which so tenaciously
maintained their identity, are regarded by Wi. and Je. as remnants of
the old Hittite population which were gradually driven (probably by
the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district SE of the Black
Sea.
(14) Dyn (Getpas)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost unanimously
taken by the ancients (Jos. {J, Jer. etc. ; and so Boch. al.) to be
the Thracians ( 6/>a/c-es) ; but the superficial resemblance vanishes when
the nominative ending s is removed. Tu. was the first to suggest the
1!vp<T-i)viol, a race of Pelasgian pirates, who left many traces of their
ancient prowess in the islands and coasts of the ^Egean, and who were
* The city, however, is called m in Phcen. inscrs. and coins from
the 4th cent. B.C. downwards ; see Cooke, NSI, pp. 56, 66?, 78, 352.
+ See KIB, i. i8f., 64 f., 142^, ii. 40 f., 56 f. ; and Del. Par. 250 f.
2OO TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
doubtless identical with the E,-trus-ca.ns of Italy.* This brilliant con
jecture has since been confirmed by the discovery of the name Turusa
amongst the seafaring- peoples who invaded Egypt in the reign of
Merneptah (Mey. GA\ i. 260; W. M. Miiller, AJE, 356 fF.).
6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group : in Africa
and S Arabia, but including the Canaanites of Palestine.
Ham.
1 I I
i. Kush. 2. Mizraim. 3. Put. 4. Canaan.
i i n r~ i
5. Seba. 6. Havilah. 7. Sabtah. 8. Ra mah. 9. Sabtekah.
r ~i
10. Sheba. u. Dedan.
(i) ^3 ((& Xofs, but elsewhere KWloir-es> -La)] the land and people
S of Egypt (Nubia), the Ethiopians of the Greeks, the K6 of the Eg.
monuments : f cf. Is. iS 1 , Jer. i3 23 , Ezk. 29, Zeph. 3 etc. Ass. Kusu
occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscrs. of Esarhaddon and
Asshurbanipal ; and only four passages of Esarhaddon are claimed by
Wi. for the hypothesis of a south Arabian Kusu (KA 7 s , 144). There is
no reason to doubt that in this v. the African Kush is meant. That the
5. The subscription to the first division of the Table is not quite in
order. We miss the formula ns J3 n 1 ?*? (cf. vv. 20t 31 ), which is here
necessary to the sense, and must be inserted, not (with We.) at the
beginning of the v., but immediately before cnsnio. The clause
D un n^KD is then seen to belong to v. 4 , and to mean that the Mediter
ranean coasts were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied
by sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one
time Phoenician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the writer confused
the lonians with Phoenicians. He may be thinking of the native popula
tion of regions known to Israel through the Phoenicians, or of the
Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising enterprise is now believed to be
of earlier date than the Phoenician (Mey. EB, 3736 f.). ITISJ] construed
like nxsj in 9 19 (J) ; ct. io 32 . D un "N] only again Zeph. 2 n . Should we
read DTJ "N (Is. n 11 24", Est. lo 1 )? (for ig, perhaps from *J 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 Phcen.). In Heb. the pi. came to be used of distant
lands in general (Is. 4i 1- 5 42* 5i 5 etc., Jer. 3i 10 etc.)
* Thuc. iv. 109 ; Her. i. 57, 94 ; Strabo, V. ii. 2, iii. 5 : other reff. in
Tu. adloc.
f See Steindorff, BA, i. 593 f.
X. 5, 6 201
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, OS 1 ,
6 if., 24). See, further, on v. 8 (p. 207 f.).
(2) onyp (Me<rpcui>)] the Heb. form of the common Semitic name of
Egypt (TA, Missari, Misri, MaSri, Mizirri; Ass. [from 8th and yth
cent. ] Muf ur ; Bab. Misir ; Syr. __5 LD ; Ar. Misr). Etymology and
meaning are uncertain : Rommel s suggestion (Gesch. 530 ; cf. Wi. AOF,
i. 25) that it is an Ass. appellative = frontier, is little probable. The
dual form of Heb. is usually explained by the constant distinction in
the native inscrs. between Upper and Lower Egypt, though onxD is
found in connexions (Is. n 11 , Jer. 44 15 ) which limit it to Lower Eg. ; and
many scholars now deny that the termination is a real dual (Mey.
GA, i. 42, An. ; Jen. ZDMG, xlviii. 439). On the vexed question of a
N Arabian Musri, it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be
passages of OT where that view is plausible, but this is not one of
them ; and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Eg. and Arabia
on the part of OT writers is a nightmare which it is high time to be
quit of.
(3) BIB (<J>oi;5, but elsewhere At/Sues)] mentioned 6 times (incl. <& of
Is. 66 19 ) in OT, as a warlike people furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt
(Nah. 3 9 , Jer. 46 9 , Ezk. 3O 5 ) or Tyre (Ezk. 27 10 ) or the host of Gog(38 5 ),
and frequently associated with s^3 and 1&. The prevalent view has been
that the Lybians, on the N coast of Africa W of Egypt, are meant ((5,
Jos. al.), although Nah. 3 9 and probably Ezk. 30 (ffi) show that the
two peoples were distinguished. Another identification, first proposed
by Ebers, has recently been strongly advocated : viz. with the Pwnt of
Eg. monuments, comprising the whole African coast of the Red Sea
(W. M. Miiller,^, 114*?., andZ>#, iv. 176 f. ; Je. 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 (Jen. ZA, x. 325 ff.).
(4) fyj? (Xavaav)] 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, PAOS, 1890, Ixviiff.). In Eg. monuments the
name, in the form pa-Ka-n--na {pa is the art.), is applied to the strip
of coast from Phoenicia to the neighbourhood of Gaza ; but the ethno
graphic derivative extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria
(Miiller, AE, 205 ff.). Similarly in TA Tablets Kinahhi, Kinahna, etc.,
stand for Palestine proper (JFAT 3 , 181), or (according to Jast. EB, 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 Heb.,
is reckoned to the Hamites is not to be explained by the tradition (Her. i.
I, vii. 89, etc.) that the Phoenicians came originally from the Red Sea ;
for that probably implies no more than that they were connected with
2O2 TABLE OF PEOPLES (?)
the Babylonians ( Epvdprj 9d\ao-(ra = 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 Eg. : in that case, as
Di. 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 ch. 9. When, with
the extension of geographical knowledge, it became necessary to
assign the Canaanites to a larger group (p. 187 above), it was inevitable
that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as
possible.
Of the descendants of Kush (v. 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 (JAT 3 , 137, 144), it is perhaps impossible to decide.
(5) H}p (2a|8a)] Is. 43 s 45 14 , Ps. ya 10 ; usually taken to be Meroe *
(between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature attributed to the
people in Is. 45 14 (but cf. i8 2 - 7 ) is in favour of this view ; but it has
nothing else to recommend it. Di. al. prefer the Saba referred to by
Strabo (xvi. iv. 8, 10 ; cf. Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7f.) on the African side of
the Red Sea (S of Suakim). Je. (ATLO*, 265) considers the word as
the more correct variant to JOt? (see below).
(6) n^iq (Ei [e]iXa[r])] often (since Bochart) explained as sand-land
(fr. Sin) ; named in v. 29 (J) as a Joktanite people, and in 25 18 (also J) 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 N Arabia, not too far to the E. We may
conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract of loose red
sand (nefud) which stretches N of Teima and S of el-Gof. This is
precisely where we should look for the XctiAorcuoi 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 (= Dumah = el-Gof : see p. 353) as a town of the Avalitce.
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 v. 29
(see Mey. INS, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from the
Joktanite n, and to identify the former with the AjSaXtrcu, 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 N as the head of the
Persian Gulf (Glaser) or the ENE part of the Syrian desert (Frd. Del.).
Nothing can be made of Gn. 2 11 ; and in I Sa. 15 (the only other occur
rence) the text is probably corrupt.
(7) nrao (2a/3a0a)] not identified. Possibly Ed/Sara, Sabota, the
capital of Hadramaut (see on v. 26 ) (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2 ; Pliny, HN, vi. 155,
xii. 63), though in Sabaean this is written nut? (see Osiander,
* Jos. Ant. ii. 249. In i. 134 f. he seems to confuse N3D and
X. 7 203
xix. 253; Homm. SA Chrest. 119); or the Sd00a of Ptol. vi. 7. 30,
an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) W of El-Katif.
(8) nojn ( Pe7/ia or Pe7x/ta,)] coupled with tat? (? and n rin) in Ezk.
27 22 as a tribe trading in spices, precious stones, and gold. It is doubt
less the nojh (Ragmaf) of a Minaean inscr.,* which speaks of an attack
by the hosts of Saba and Haulan on a Minaean caravan en route between
Ma an and Ra mat. This again may be connected with the Pa/i/xai rrcu
of Strabo (xvi. iv. 24) N of Hadramaut. The identification with the
P^yfajjita 7r6Xts (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptol. vi. 7. 14 (Boch.
al. ; so Glaser) is difficult because of its remoteness from Sheba and
Dedan (v.t.), and also because this appears on the inscr. as Rgmt
(Glaser, 252).
(9) Npnap (2aa/ca0a)] unknown. Za/Avdrfjcq in Carmaniaf (Ptol. vi.
8. 7f., n) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically. Je. sug
gests that the word is a duplicate of nrap.
(10) K}$ (2a/5a)] (properly, as inscrs. show, N2D : see No. 5 above) is
assigned in v. 29 to the Joktanites, and in 25 3 to the Ketureans. It is
the OT name of the people known to the classical geographers as
Sabseans, the founders of a great commercial state in SW Arabia, with
its metropolis at Marib (Mariaba), some 45 miles due E of San a, the
present capital of Yemen (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2, 19; Pliny, HN, vi. 154 f.,
etc.). " They were the centre of an old S Arabian civilisation, regarding
the former existence of which the Sabaean inscriptions and architectural
monuments supply ample evidence" (Di. 182). Their history is still
obscure. The native inscrs. commence about 700 B.C. ; and, a little
earlier, Sabaean princes (not kings) appear on Ass. monuments as
paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser iv. (B.C. 738) and Sargon (B.C. 7is).
It would seem that about that time (probably with the help of the
Assyrians) they overthrew the older Minaean Empire, and established
themselves on its ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do
not appear to have consolidated their power in N Arabia, though their
inscrs. have been found as far N as el-Gof. To the Hebrews, Sheba
was a far country (Jer. 6 20 , Jl. 4 8 ), famous for gold, frankincense, and
precious stones (i Ki. io lff -, Is. 6o 6 , Jer. 6 20 , Ezk. 27 22 , Ps. 72 15 ) : in all
these passages, as well as Ps. 72, Jb. 6 19 , the reference to the southern
Sabaeans is clear. On the other hand, the association with Dedan (25 3 ,
Ezk. 38 13 and here) favours a more northern locality ; in Jb. i 15 they
appear as Bedouin of the northern desert ; and the Ass. 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
pass, last quoted preserve the tradition of an earlier time, before the
* Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Homm. SA Chrest. 103) = Glaser, 1155:
translated by Miiller, ZDMG, xxx. 121 f., and Homm. AA, 322, AHT,
249 f.
t Boch. : so Glaser, ii. 252 ; but see his virtual withdrawal on p. 404.
t It is important that neither in their own nor in the Ass. inscrs.
are the earliest rulers spoken of as kings.
Cf. KIB, ii. 21, 55.
204 TABLE OF PEOPLES (p)
conquest of the Minaeans had led to a settlement in Yemen. V. 28 (J),
however, presupposes the southern settlement.*
(n) m (Aadav, Aedav ; but elsewhere Aaidav, etc.)] a merchant tribe
mentioned along- with Sheba in 2$ 3 (= i Ch. i 32 ) and Ezk. 38 13 ; with
Tema (the modern Teima, c. 230 miles N of Medina) in Is. 2i 13 , Jer. 25 2:i ,
and (Or of Gn. 25 3 ; and in Jer. 49**, Ezk. 25 13 as a neighbour of Edom.
All this points to a region in the N of Arabia ; and as the only other
reference (Ezk. 27 20 ) in 27 15 the text is corrupt is consistent with this,
there is no need to postulate another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Boch.
al.) or anywhere else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites
"in the neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Higr, extending- perhaps
beyond Teima," a region intersected by the trade-routes from all parts
of Arabia (see the map in EB, iv. 5160) ; and where the name is probably
perpetuated in the ruins of Daidan, W of Teima (Di.). The name
occurs both in Minaean and Sabasan inscrs. (Glaser, 397 ff. ; Muller,
ZDMG, xxx. 122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers. The
older tradition of J (2^} recognises a closer kinship of the Israelites
with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Jokshan and descendants
of Abraham through Keturah (v. ad loc.\ (An intermediate stage seems
represented by io - 5 " 29 , where S Arabia is assigned to the descendants of
Eber). P follows the steps of 2^ 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 1^ (see below) the nations here
mentioned all lie on the E. of Palestine, and are probably
arranged in geographical order from SE to NW, till they
join hands with the Japhethites.
Shem.
r
i. Elam.
2.
Ass
bur.
3-
!
Arpachshad.
4-
Lud.
1
5. Ar
6. Uz. 7. Hul. 8. Gether. 9. Mash.
(i) oVy (Afoa.fj.) ] Ass. Elamtu,^ the name of "the great plain E of
the lower Tigris and N of the Persian Gulf, together with the mountain
ous region enclosing it on the N and E " (Del. Par. 320), corresponding
to the later Elymais or Susiana. The district round Susa was in very
* See Mey. GA 1 , i. 403; Glaser, ii. 399 ff. ; Sprenger, ZDMG,
xliv. 501 ff. ; Margoliouth, DB, i. 133. iv. 479 ff. ; Horn. AHT, 77 ff.,
and in EBL, 728 ff. ; KA7*, 148 ff. ; ATLO", 265.
f Commonly explained as highland (Schr. Del. ff-wb. etc.), but
according to Jen. (2A, vi. I7O 2 , xi. 351) = front-land, i.e. East land.
X. 7, 22 2O5
early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic settlers ruled by
viceroys of the Babylonian king s ; 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.* The reason for including this non-Semitic race
among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political. The
other OT reff. are Gn. H 1 - 9 , Is. n u 2i 2 22 6 , Jer. 25 49 34ff -, Ezk. 3 2 24 ,
Dn. 8 2 .
(2) w ; N] Assyria. See below on v. 11 (p. 211).
(3) T^ 531N (*Ap0aa5)] identified by Boch. with the A/5pa7rax?rts which
Ptol. (vi. i. 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 Albdk. This name
appears in Ass. as Arapha (Arbaha, etc.),f and on Eg. monuments of
the i8th dynasty as Ararpaha (Miiller, AE, 278 f.). Geographically
nothing could be more suitable than this identification : the difficulty is
that the last syllable n is left unaccounted for. Jos. recognised in the
last three letters the name of the Chaldeans (Ty|),t 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 (EB, 3i8),
resolving the word into two proper names : 1B")K or nsnx (= Ass. Arbaha}
and 1^3, the latter here introducing a second trio of sons of Shem.
On this view the Arpaksad of v. 24 i i 10ff> must be an error (for nfco ?) caused
by the textual corruption here, (b) An older conjecture, approved by Ges.
(Th.), Knobel, al., compares the six with Ar. urfat (= boundary ).||
Eth. arfat (= wall ) ; n?3 TW would thus be the wall (or boundary)
of Kesed. (c) Hommel (AHT, 212, 294-8) takes the middle syllable pa
to be the Egyptian art., reading Ur-pa-Kesed = Ur of the Chaldees
(n 28 ), an improbable suggestion, (d) Del. (Par. 255 f.) and Jen. (ZA,
xv. 256) interpret the word as arba-kisddu = [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 P, a surprising
omission, no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The
question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed in 22 22 .
The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the Chaldeans in the S of
Babylonia is admitted by Dri. (p. 223) ; and if there was another Kesed
near Harran, the fact must be taken account of in speculating about
the meaning of Arpakgad.
* See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, Textes elamites-
semitiques (1900), pp. ix-xv [= vol. ii. of de Morgan, Delegation en Perse :
Memoires]. Cf. Sayce, ET, xiii. 65.
t KIB, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89; cf. Del. Par. 124^
+ Ap0aci577s 5 roi)s vvv XaX5aous Ka\ovfj.vov
vr&v : Ant. i. 144.
A different conjecture in EB, 3644 ; TBI, 178.
|| Note Tu. s objections, p. 205.
206 TABLE OF PEOPLES (?)
(4) H 1 ? (jiu. i 1 ?, (3r Aoi>5)] usually understood of the Lydians (Jos. Boch.
al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a people in the
extreme W of Asia Minor comes to be numbered among the Shemites.
An African people, such as appears to be contemplated in v. 13 , would
be equally out of place here. A suggestion of Jen. s deserves con
sideration : that TiV is the Lubdu, a province lying "between the upper
Tigris and the Euphrates, N of Mt. Masius and its western extension,"
mentioned in KIB, i. 4 (1. 9 fr. below, rd. Lu-up-di), 177 (along with
Arrapha), 199. See Wi. AOF, ii. 47; Streck, ZA> xiv. 168; Je. 276.
In the remaining refs. (Is, 66 19 , Jer. q6 9 , Ezk. 27 3o 5 ), the Lydians of
Asia Minor might be meant, in the last three as mercenaries in the
service of Eg. or Tyre.
(5) DHN ( Apa/i, Apayitwj )] a collective designation of the Semitic
peoples speaking Aramaic dialects,* so far as known to the Hebrews
(No. EB> 276 fF.). The actual diffusion of that family of Semites was
wider than appears from OT, which uses the name only of the districts
to the NE of Palestine (Damascus especially) and Mesopotamia (Aram-
Naharaim, Paddan-Aram) : these, however, were really the chief centres
of Aramaean culture and influence. In Ass. the Armaiu (Aramu, Artmu,
Arumu) are first named by Tiglath-pileser I. (c. uoo) as dwelling in
the steppes of Mesopotamia (KIB> i. 33) ; and Shalmaneser n. (c. 857)
encountered them in the same region (ib. 165). But if Wi. be right
(KAT 3 , 28 f., 36), they are referred to under the name Ahlami from a
much earlier date (TA Tab. ; Ramman-nirari i. \c. 1325] ; ASur-ris"-
is"i [c. 1150] : see KIB, v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Wi. regards the second
half of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramaean
nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and Syria.
In i Ch. i 17 the words DIN 331 (v. 23 ) are omitted, the four following
names being treated as sons of Shem :
(6) py ( Os, Oflf)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22 21 ( Of, Of) is
classed as the firstborn of Nahor : therefore presumably somewhere NE
of Palestine in the direction of Harran. The conjectural identifications
are hardly worth repeating. The other Biblical occurrences of the
name are difficult to harmonise. The Uz of Jb. i 1 (Atftrms), and the
Horite tribe mentioned in Gn. 36 20 , point to a SE situation, bordering
on or comprised in Edom ; and this would also suit La. 4 21 , Je. 25 20
(pyn !), though in both these passages the reading is doubtful. It is
suggested by Rob. Sm. (KM* t 61) and We. (Held. 146) that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian god Aud; and by the former
scholar that the OT py denotes a number of scattered tribes worship
ping that deity (similarly Bu. Hiob. ix.-xi. ; but, on the other side, see
No. ZDMG, xl. i83f.).
(7) ^in (Oi/X)] Del. (Par. 259) identifies with a district in the neigh
bourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by Asshur-nasir-pal. The word
(hu-li-ia), however, is there read by Peiser as an appellative = desert
, i. 86 f., nof.) ; and no other conjecture is even plausible.
(8) "ina is quite unknown.
* oOs "EXX^ves Stfpous irpo<rayopeijov<riv as Jos. correctly explains.
X. 22, 2 3 , 3i, 32, 8 207
(9) ete (jju. HE D, ( Moo-ox, in accord with i Ch. i 17 MT ?#D)] perhaps
connected with Mons Masius, TO Mao-toy 5pos of Ptol. (v. 18. 2) and Strabo
(xi. xiv. 2), a mountain range N of Nisibis now called Tur- Abdin or
Keraga Dagh (Bo. Del. Par. 259, Di. al.). The uncertainty of the
text and the fact that the Ass. monuments use a different name render
the identification precarious. Jen. (KIB> vi. i, 567) suggests the moun
tain MaSu of GilgameS IX. ii. if., which he supposes to be Lebanon
and Anti-Libanus. The Mdt MaS of KIB, ii. 221, which has been
adduced as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read mad-bar
(KAT*, I9i 2 ; cf. Jen. ZA, x. 364).
31, 32. P s closing formula for the Shemites ( 31 ) ; and his
subscription to the whole Table ( 32 ).
The Table off.
IX. i8a, X. ib. Introduction. See pp. 182, 188.
A slight discontinuity in v. 1 makes it probable that lb is inserted from
J. If so, it would stand most naturally after 9 18a (Di.), not after 19 .
It seems to me that 19 is rather the Yahwistic parallel to io 32 (P),
and formed originally the conclusion of J s Table (cf. the closing"
formulae, io 29 22^ 25 4 ).
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 Gibbor 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 Gibbor on the earth implies a dif
ferent conception from 6 4 . There, the Gibborim are identi
fied with the semi-divine Nephilim : here, the Gibbor 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 Ar. gabbar.
If the Pis of v. 6f - be Ethiopia (see p. 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 Baby-
8. Yip: (Nf/3pu>5)] The Heb. naturally connects the name with the
-no = rebel (C J , Ra. al.) : see below, p. 209. h *?,:n wn] he was the
2C>8 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
Ionia, and it is extremely improbable that it represents a Heb. tradition.
The assumption of a S Arabian Kush 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 J, who
peoples S Arabia with descendants of Shem ( 2U 25ff> ). It is therefore
not unlikely that, as many Assyriologists think,* J s aha is quite inde
pendent of the Hamitic Kush of P, and denotes the Kas or KasSu, a
people who conquered Babylonia in the i8th cent., and set up a dynasty
(the 3rd) which reigned there for 600 years t (KAT^, 21). It is conceiv
able that in consequence of so prolonged a supremacy, Ka might have
become a name for Babylonia, and that J s knowledge of its history
did not extend farther back than the Kas S ite dynasty. Since there is no
reason to suppose that J regarded Ka as Hamitic, it is quite possible
that the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.
p. Nimrod was not only a great tyrant and ruler of men, but
a hero of the chase (TV " |i i^^). The v. breaks the connexion
between 8 and 10 , and is probably an interpolation (Di. al.);
although, as De. remarks, the union of a passion for the
chase with warlike prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype
of the Assyrian monarchs, an observation amply illus
trated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on the monu
ments. Therefore it is said] introducing a current proverb ;
cf. i Sa. ig 24 with io 12 ; Gn. 22 14 etc. " When the Hebrews
first to become ; see on 4 26 9 20 . 9. While Di. regards the v. as an
interpolation from oral tradition, Bu. (Urg. 390 ff.) assigns it to his J 1 ,
and finds a place for it between 6 4 and n 1 , a precarious sugges
tion. mrr 1 ] <& + rou #eou. \JE^>] before Yah we. The phrase is
variously explained : (i) unique, like O n 1 ?^ 1 ? in Jn 3 3 (Di. al.); (2) in
the estimation of Y. (cf. 2 Ki. 5* etc.); (3) in despite of Y. (Bu.);
(4) with the assistance of Y. the name of some god of the chase
having stood in the original myth (Gu.) ; (5) in the constant presence
of Y. an allusion to the constellation Orion (Ho.). The last view is
possible in 9b , but hardly in a , because of the n .i. A sober exegesis
will prefer (i) or (2).
* See Del. Par. 51-55; Schr. KAT*, 87 f. ; Wi. ATU, 146 ff. ; Jen.
ZA, vi. 340-2 ; Sayce, ffCM*, 148!?., etc.
t Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by Sennacherib
(KIB, ii. 87). They are thought to be identical with the Kocro-cuoi of the
Greeks (Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17 f.; Arrian, Anab. vii. 15; Dio-
dorus, xvii. n i, xix. 19, etc.) ; and probably also with the KLtrcrioi of Her.
vii. 62, 86, etc. (cf. v. 49, 52, vi. 119). Cf. Del. Par. 31, 124, 127 ff. ;
Mey. GA 1 , 129; Wi. GBA, 78 ff.; Schr. KGF, 176 f. ; Oppert, ZA,
iii. 421 ff. ; Jen. ZDMG, 1. 244 f., etc.
X. 9 209
wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they
spoke of him as Mike Nimrod " (Dri.). The expression
nVT \Js6 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 We.,* still commends
itself to some Assyriologists (Pinches, DB, iii. 552 f. ; cf. KAT 3 , 581);
but the material points of contact between the two personages seem too
vague to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with Nazi-
Maruttas", a late (c. 1350) and apparently not very successful king- of the
Kas s ite 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 Gilgames^t
the legendary tyrant of Erech (see v. 10 ), whose adventures are recorded
in the famous series of Tablets of which the Deluge story occupies
the eleventh (see p. 175 above, and KAT*, 566 ff.). Gilgames" is a true
Gibbor "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 (K1B, vi. i, 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 repre
sented on seals and palace-reliefs in victorious combat with a lion (see
ATLO 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 G7$. TU. BAR
might prove to be the Bab. equivalent of the Heb. Nimrod, would seem
to have been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct
pronunciation as GilgameS (but see Je. I.e.). 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 GilgameS to his father Ut-napis*tim
occurs in a late Nimrod legend, preserved in the Syrian Schatzhohle
(see Gu. Schopf. I46 2 ; Lidz. ZA, vii. 15). On the theory which con
nects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tu. ad loc. ; Bu. Urg.
395 f. ; KAT*, 58i 2 ; and on the late Jewish and Mohammedan leg-ends
generally, Seligsohn, JE, ix. 309 ff.
* Sayce (TSBA, ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equiva
lent of Marduk, Amar-ud, from which he thought Nimrudu would be
a regular (Ass.) Niphal form. We. (Comp. z 309 f.) explains the 3 as an
Aram. impf. preformative to the *J inn, a corruption from Mard-uk which
took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia, through whom the myth
reached the Hebrews.
f So Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen. i76ff. ; Je. Isdubar-Nimrod.
14
2IO TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
10. The nucleus of his empire was Babylon . . . in the
land of Shinar\ It is not said that Nimrod founded these
four cities (ct. v. 11 ). The lise of the great cities of Baby
lonia was not only much older than the Kasite dynasty, but
probably preceded the establishment of any central govern
ment ; 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 byname,
but cannot be located ; and the last is altogether uncertain.
Sn? (Ba/SuXwi/)] the Heb. form of the native Bab-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 Hammurabi, the sixth king of its first
dynasty (c. 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 S. of Baghdad.
ip v x ( Opex)] the Bab. Uruk or Arku, now Warka, also on the
Euphrates, about 100 miles SE of Babylon. It was the city of GilgameS
(v.s.).
nj* ( A/>xa$: cf. p yOT and ptyzrn)] The name (Akkad) frequently
occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase turner and Akkad,
= South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also mentioned
by Nebuchadnezzar I. (KIB, iii. lyoff.), though its site is uncertain.
Its identity with the Agad of Sargon I. (c. 3800 B.C.), which was
formerly suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.
Del. and Zim. suppose that it was close to Sippar on the Euphrates, in
the latitude of Baghdad (see Par. 209 ff. ; KA T 3 , 422*, 4238 ; A TLO 2 , 270).
n^>3 (XaXavvTj)] Not to be confused with the ruSa of Am. 6 2 ( = ^>9,
Is. io 9 ), which was in N Syria. The Bab. Kalne has not yet been
discovered. Del. (Par. 225) takes it to be the ideogram Kul-unu (pro
nounced Zirlahu], of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jen. (ThLz.
1895, 510) asserts that the real pronunciation was Kullab(a), and pro
poses to read so here (n^jpii).
yyp (Zev[v~\aa.p)\ apparently the old Heb. name for Babylonia proper
(u 2 I4 1 9 , Jos. 7 21 , Is. n n , Zee. 5", Dn. i 2 ), afterwards DHBG pN or
simply *?33 [ ]. That it is the same as Sumer (south Babylonia : v.s.) is
improbable. More plausible is the identification with the Sanfyar of TA
Tab. (KIB, v. 83) = Eg. Sahara (Miiller, AE, 279); though Wi. (AOF,
i. 240, 399; KAT*, 31) puts it N of the Taurus. &ebel Singar (6 Z.iy-
70/30$ 6pos : Ptol. v. 1 8. 2), W of Nineveh, is much too far north for the
biblical Shin ar, unless the name had wandered.
IX, 12. The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.
11. HB N Ny;] he went out to Asshur (so &], Cal. and all moderns).
The rendering Asshur went out ((GrU^JD , Jer. al.) is grammatically
X. IO-I2 21 I
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 organ
isation 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 Kassite kings
(KAT*, 21). In Mic. 5 5 Assyria is described as the land of
Nimrod.
That "i & : N is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, N of the
Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now KaV at Serkdt, about half
way between the mouths of the two Zabs), is plain from the context,
and the contrast to iy:v in v. 10 .
*mu] (Ass. Ntnua, Nind, <& Nt^em; [-t]) the foremost city of Assyria,
was a royal residence from at latest the time of As"sur-bel-kalu, son of
Tiglath-pileser I. (nth cent.); but did not apparently become the
political capital till the reign of Sennacherib (Wi. GBA, 146). Its site
is now marked by the ruined mounds of Nebl Yunus (with a village
named Nunia) and Kuyunjik, both on the E side of the Tigris opposite
Mosul (see Hilp. EBL, n, 88-138).
vj; run-) ( Poo>/3tbs TroAti/)] has in Heb. appellative significance = broad
places of a city (U plateas civitatis). A similar phrase on Ass
monuments, rcbit Nind, is understood to mean suburb of Nineveh ;
and it has been supposed that ]} ~\ is a translation of this designation into
Heb. As to the position of this suburb authorities differ. Del. (Par.
260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on the N or NE side of Nineveh,
towards Dur-Sargon (the modern Khorsabad) ; and Johns (EB, iv.
4029) even identifies it with the latter (cf. KIB, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on
the other hand, places it at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as
a sort of tete du pont (see A TLO 2 , 273). No proper name at all
resembling this is known in the neighbourhood of Nineveh.
nhs (XaXa%, KaXax) is the Ass. Kalhu or Kalah, which excavations
have proved to be the modern Nimrtid, at the mouth of the Upper Zab,
20 miles S of Nineveh (Hilp. I.e. inf.). Built by Shalmaneser I.
(c. 1300), it replaced As"s"ur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay,
and was restored by As"ur-nasir-pal (883-59) (KJ, i. 117)- From that
time till Sargon, it seems to have continued the royal residence.
J en (Aa<re/i, Aacri;, etc.)] Perhaps = Ris-in i ( 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 Ras ul-Ain is said still to be found
correct, and gives a good sense (cf. Is. 23"). But (i) irc to (v. 10 ) re
quires an antithesis (see on i 1 ) ; and (2) in Mic. 5 5 Nimrod is the hero
of Assyria.
212 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
(G. Hoffmann in Nestle, ZDMG, Iviii. isSff.)- This is doubtless the
RiS-ini of Sennacherib {K1B> ii. 117); but its identity with JDI is
phonetically questionable, and topographically impossible, on account
of the definition between Nineveh and Kelah.
The clause nVlJfl vyn Kin is almost universally, but very improbably,
taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to be
regarded as a single city. Schr. (KAT*, 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 (KAT* y 75*; Gu. 2 78; cf. Johns, EB,
3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii. 3 ; cf. Jon. 3 3t )
must proceed on some such notion ; and it is possible that that mig-ht
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 nWun vyn
of Jn. i 2 , which was put in the margin opposite nij ^, and crept into the
text in the wrong place (ATLO 2 , 273).*
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 O^V& = Egypt, see v. 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 9 18f< belong (see p. 188 f.).
(1) D -i& (A-ovdicifi: i Ch. i n D"-r6)] Not the Lydians of Asia Minor
(A TLO 2 , 274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion ; but (if
the text be correct) some unknown people of NE Africa (see on v. 22 ,
p. 206). The prevalent view of recent scholars is that the word is a
mistake for D^S, the Lybians. See Sta. Ak. Red. 141 ; Miiller, AE,
iiSf. ; OLz, v. 475; al.
(2) Q pjy. (JUUL D ory ; (& A/i/-[ Ei -]e / u.eTtei,u[V])] Miiller reads D DJ^ or
(after ffir) D nDJS ; i.e. the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of Knmt in the
Libyan desert (Wahat el-Kliarigah}.^ For older conjectures see Di.
* With the above hypothesis, Schr. 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 As"s"ur, the ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he
lived after 1300 ; and from the omission of Sargon s new residence Dur-
Sargon, it is probable that he wrote before 722. But the latter argument
is not decisive, since Kelah and Nineveh (the only names that can be
positively identified) were both flourishing cities down to the fall of the
Emp<re.
t OLz. 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 (a p"ijri, 14 ) is an interpolation.
X. I 3 , 14 213
(3) D ?n^ (Aaieijw)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the (31 1 ?)
of Nah. 3 9 , Dn. n 43 , 2 Ch. I2 3 i6 8 , [Ezk. 3 o 5 ?]. Miiller thinks it a
variant of D^ 1 ? (i).
(4) frnnsj (Ne00aA*ei/i)] Miiller proposes D mns = P-to-n-he, cow-
land, the name of the Oasis of Fardfra. But there is a strong- pre
sumption that, as the next name stands for Upper Egypt, this will be a
designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman (ZATIV, x. u8f.), who reads
D nons = p-t-mahi, the north-land, at all periods the native name of
Lower Egypt. More recently Spiegelberg (OLz. ix. 276 ff.) recognises
in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without textual change
Na-patfih = the people of the Delta.
(5) D p"ifl9 (IlaT-poo-amet/i)] the inhabitants of cin^i? (Is. n 11 , Jer. 44 1 1C ,
Ezk. 3o 14 ), i.e. Upper Egypt: P-to-re$i = south-land (Ass. paturisi):
see Erman, I.e.
(6) D n^pj (XcKT/Aajj/iefyi)] Doubtful conjectures in Di. Mtiller restores
with help of (3r c JDDJ, which he identifies with the Nacra^twi/es of Her. 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 inscr. of
Ombos (see on Kaphtorim, below) ; Man, 1903, No. 77.
(7) D J-1^9 (4>i>Aicmet/i)] The Philistines are here spoken of as an
offshoot of the Kasluhim, a statement scarcely intelligible in the
light of other passages (Jer. 47"*, Am. g 7 ; cf. Dt. 2 23 ), according to which
the Ph. came from Kaphtor. The clause B D3>p ^^ nc>N is therefore in
all probability a marginal gloss meant to come after nnnaa. The Ph.
are mentioned in the Eg. monuments, under the name Purasati, as the
leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign of Ramses ill.
(c. 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by land and sea from the coasts
of Asia Minor and the islands of the ^gean ; and the Philistines
established themselves on the S 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 Miiller, AE, 387-
90, and MVAG, v. 2 ff. ; Moore, EB, iii. 3713 ff.
(8) onnfls (Xa00opiei^)] Kaphtor (Dt. 2, Am. 9 7 , Jer. 47 4 ) has usually
been taken for the island of Crete (see Di.), mainly because of the
repeated association of D rn? (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the
Philistine territory ( i Sa. 3O 14 - 16 , Ezk. 25 16 , Zeph. 2 5 ). There are con
vincing reasons for connecting it with Keftiu (properly the country
behind ), an old Eg. name for the lands of the Great Ring (the
Eastern Mediterranean), or the isles of the Great Green, i.e. SW Asia
Minor, Rhodes, Crete, and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the NW of
Egypt (see Miiller, AE, 337, 344-53, 387 ff. ; and more fully H. R. Hall
in Annual of the British School at Athens, 1901-2, pp. 162-6). The pre
cise phonetic equivalent Kptar has been found on a late mural decora
tion at Ombos (Sayce, HCM*, 173; EHH, 291 ; Miiller, MVAG, 1900,
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.
214 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
5 If.)- " Keftiu is the old Eg. name of Caphtor (Crete), Keptar a Ptole
maic doublet of it, taken over when the original meaning" of Keftiu had
been forgotten, and the name had been erroneously applied to Phoenicia "
(Hall, Man, Nov. 1903, No. 92, p. 162 ff.). In OLz., M. questions the
originality of the name in this passage : so also Je. ATLO 2 , 275.*
15-19. The Canaanites. The peoples assigned to the
Canaanitish group are (i) the Phoenicians (P^V), (2) the Hittites
(nn), and (3) a number of petty communities perhaps summed
up in the phrase VSp-?? ninB^ O in 18b . It is surprising to
find the great northern nation of the Hittites 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 Heth
over the little Canaanite kingships. On the other hand,
one hesitates to adopt Gu. s theory that }yjD is here used in a
wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the
Hittite empire (p. 187). There is evidence, however, of a
strong settlement of Hittites near Hermon (see below), and
it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and
so inserted here.
Critically, the vv. are difficult. We. (Comp^ 15) and others remove
i6-i8a as a g-i oss . because (a) the boundaries laid down in 19 are exceeded
in 17 - 18a , and (b] the mention of a subsequent dispersion of Canaanites
( 18h ) 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 1C ; and
what could have induced a glossator to insert four of the most northerly
Phosnician cities, passing by those best known to the Hebrews? Is it
15. via?] cf. 22 21 (J). 18. nnx] adv. of time, as i8 5 24 55 3O 21 etc. =
I?"iqg: see BOB, 2gf.wbj] Niph. fr. J pa ; see on 9 19 : cf. n 4 - 8 - 9 .
i^?n nngpo] can hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phcen.
colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, EB, ii. 1698 f.). 19. H:JK] as
one comes (see G-K. 144/0 might be taken as in the direction of
(so Di. Dri. al.) ; but there does not appear to be any clear case in
which the expression differs from 5|Ni:riy = as far as (cf. lo 30 13* 25 18
[all J], i Sa. is 7 with Ju. 6 4 n 33 , i Sa . if-, 2 Sa. 5 25 , i Ki. i8 46 ). mxnH]
* V. 18f> present so many peculiar features the regular use of the
pi., 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.
X. is, i6 215
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 Phoenicia, and were afterwards dis
persed over the region defined by 19 . The change from JiN3 in 1B to
jyjsn in 18b - 19 is hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gu.)
}Ty] The oldest of the Phoenician cities ; now Saida, nearly 30 miles
S of the promontory of Beirut. Here, however, the name is the eponym
of the idonians (D :TX), as the Phoenicians were frequently called, not
only in OT (Ju. i8 7 3 3 , i Ki. 5 20 i6 31 etc.) and Homer (//. vi. 290 f., etc.),
but on the Ass. monuments, and even by the Phoenicians themselves
(Mey. EBj iv. 4504).
nn (rbv XerTcuW)] elsewhere only in the phrases n }$, n nhifi (ch. 23
pass. 25 10 27 46b 49 32 [all P]) ; other writers speak of [D] nn. The Hittites
(Eg. Heta, Ass. ffatti) 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 (c. 1930
B.C.) (King, Chronicles cone, early Bab. Kings, p. 72 f.). Not long after
the time of Thothmes in. (1501-1447), they are found in N Syria. With
the weakening of the Eg. supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period, they
pressed further S, occupying the Orontes valley, and threatening the
Phoenician coast- cities. The indecisive campaigns of Ramses II. seem to
have checked their southward movement. In Ass. records they do not
appear till the reign of Tiglath-pileser I. (c. 1 100), when they seem to have
held the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with Car-
chemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries of intermittent
warfare, they were finally incorporated in the Ass. Empire by Sargon n.
(c. 717). See Paton, Syr. and Pal. 104 ff. The OT allusions to the
Hittites are extremely confusing, and cannot be fully discussed here :
see on i5 19 - 21 23 3 . Besides the Palestinian Hittites (whose connexion
with the people just spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an
extensive Hittite country to the N of Palestine (2 Sa. 24 6 [<K L ], I Ki.
lo 29 , 2 Ki. 7 6 al.). The most important fact for the present purpose is
the definite location of Hittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of
Hermon (Jos. n 8 [(S B - a1 -] and Ju. 3 3 [as amended by Mey. al.]), cf.
Ju. i 26 ?). It does not appear what grounds Moore (Ju. 82) has for
the statement that these Hittites were Semitic. There is certainly no
justification for treating (with Jast. EB, 2094) nn in this v. 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) on;?] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem : Jos. I5 8 iS 28 , Ju.
ig 10 , 2 Sa. 5 6 9 etc.
(2) "PH-I] An important politico-geographical name in the Egyptian
and cuneiform documents (Eg. Amor, etc., Ass. Amurru). In the TA
Tablets the land of Amurru denotes the Lebanon region behind the
Phoenician coast-territory. Its princes Abd-Airta and Aziru were
then the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the north,
conducting successful operations against several of the Phoenician
cities. It has been supposed that subsequently to these events the
2l6 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
Amorites pressed southwards, and founded kingdoms in Palestine both
E and W of the Jordan (Nu. 2i 13ff> , Jos. 24** etc.) ; though Muller has
pointed out some difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (AE, 230 f.).
In the OT there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name
to highlanders (Nu. i3 29 , Dt. i 7 ), but this is more than neutralised by
other passages (Ju. i 34 ). The most significant fact is that E (followed
by D) employs the term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of
Palestine generally (cf. Am. 2 9f> ), whom J describes as Canaanites.
Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite domination, it is
difficult to suggest an explanation of E s usage, unless we can take it
as a survival of the old Bab. name Amurru (or at least its ideographic
equivalent MAR. 777) for Palestine, Phoenicia and Coele-Syria. See,
further, Muller, AE, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Wi. GI, i. 51-54, KA T 3 , 178 ff. ; Mey.
ZATW, i. 122 ff. ; We. Comp* 341 ; Bu. Urg. 344 ff. ; Dri. Deut. nf.,
Gen. i25f. ; Sayce, DB, i. 84 f. ; Paton, Syr. and Pal. 25-46, U5ff.,
147 f.; Mey. GA\ i. ii. 396.
(3) Ta-i:n] only mentioned in enumerations (i5 21 , Dt. y 1 , Jos. 3 24",
Neh. Q 8 ) without indication of locality. t?:n:i, D WIJ, s?j")3 occur as prop.
names on Punic inscrs. (Lidzbarski, Nord-sem. Epigr. 4054, 622 4 f., 6733 ;
Ephem. i. 36, 308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with NT lY/yyeo-a.
(4) WD (T. Eucuoi/)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the neighbourhood
of Shechem (34 2 ) and Gibeon (Jos. 9 7 ) ; in Ju. 3 3 , where they are spoken
of in the N, i?nn should be read, and in Jos. n 3 Hittites and Hivvites
should be transposed in accordance with ( B . The name has been
explained by Ges. (Th.) and others as meaning dwellers innin (Bedouin
encampments : cf. Nu. 32 41 ) ; but that is improbable in the case of a
people long settled in Palestine (Moore). We. (Heid. 154) more plausibly
connects it with njn= serpent (see on 3 20 ), surmising that the Hivvites
were a snake-clan. Cf. Lagarde, OS, 187, 174, 1. 97 (Ewuoi ovcoXtoi u>s
The 5 remaining names are formed from names of cities, 4 in the
extreme N of Phoenicia, and the last in Coele-Syria.
(5) ?"$ ? (*" P n y n > r T - ApovKcuovJ] is from the city "Apicrj tv ry At/3dj>y
(Jos. Ant, i. 138), the ruins of which, still bearing the name Tell Arka, are
found on the coast about 12 miles NE of Tripolis. It is mentioned by
Thothmes ill. (in the form r-ka-n-tu : see AE, 247 f.), and in TA letters
(Irkata : KIB, v. 171, etc.) ; also by Shalmaneser II. (KIB, i. 173 ; along
with Arvad and Sianu, below], and Tiglath-pileser IV. (ib. ii. 29 ; along
with Simirra and Sianu).
(6) ren (T. Affevvalov)] inhabitants of | r p, Ass. Sianu {KIB, ll.cc.).
Jer. (Qucest.} says it was not far from Arka, but adds that only the name
remained in his day. The site is unknown : see Cooke, EB, iv. 4644 f.
(7) lyi*? (T. Apddiov)] Arwad (Ezk. 27 8> u ) was the most northerly
of the Phoenician cities, built on a small island (Strabo, XVI. ii. 13 ;
KIB, i. 109) about 35 miles N of Tripolis (now Ruad). It is named
frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in ancient
times, in Eg. inscrs. (AE, i86f.), on TA Tab., and by Ass. kings from
Tiglath pileser I. to Asshurbanipal (KAT 2 , 104 f. ; Del. Par. 281); see
also Her. vii. 98.
X. 17-19, 21 217
(8) ^ovn (r. 2,afj,apaiov)] Six miles S of Ruad, the modern village of
Sumra preserves the name of this city : Eg. Samar; TA, Sumur ; Ass.
Simirra; Gr. Zt^v/m. See Strabo, xvi. ii. 12; AE, 187; KAT*, 105;
Del. Par. 281 f.
(9) Dnn (r. A^ua^O] from the well-known Hamath on the Orontes ;
now Ifama.
The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in v. :9 is very obscure.
It describes two sides of a triangle, from Zidon on the N to Gaza or
Gerar in the SW ; and from thence to a point near the S end of the
Dead Sea. The terminus yyh (( Aatra) is, however, unknown. The
traditional identification (2T-J, Jer.) with KaXXippdy, near the N end of
the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, BH (very improbably),
suggests y 1 ?} (i4 2 ). We. (Comp. 2 15) reads rvy*} or c^ 1 ? (Jos. i9 47 cvh) = to
Dan (B^), the conventional northern limit of Canaan, thus completing
the E side of the triangle. Gerar were certainly further S. than Gaza
(see on 2O 1 ) ; 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 njjnjjis a gloss (Gu. al.). On the situation of Sodom, etc.,
see on ch. 19. On any construction of the v. the northern cities of 17> 18a
are excluded. JUUL has an entirely different text : Vrun nrun iy D-ISD iruD
pnnn c\n nyi ms iru, an amalgam of i5 18 and Dt. n 24 .
21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites. The genealogy of
Shem in J resolves itself entirely into a classification of the
peoples whose origin was traced to f Eber. These fall into
two main branches : the descendants of Peleg (who are not
here enumerated), and the Yoktanites or S 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 P, who assigns the S Arabians to
Ham, the family with which Israel had least desire to be
associated.
ay is the eponym of Dnriy (Hebrews), the name by which the Israel
ites are often designated in distinction from other peoples, down to
the time of Saul* (see G-K. 2 b : the pass, are cited in BDB, s.v.}. It
is strange at first sight that while the nay :a of v. 21 include all Shemites
known to J, the gentilic word is historically restricted to Israelites.
The difficulty is perhaps removed by the still disputed, but now widely
* After i Sa. it occurs only Dt. I5 12 , Jer. 34 9 - 14 , Jon. i 9 . But see
the cogent criticisms of Weinheimer in ZATW, 1909, 275 ff., who pro
pounds the view that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.
\
2l8 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
accepted, theory that Habiri in the TA letters is the cuneiform equiva
lent of the OT enay. The equation presents no philological difficulty :
Ass. $ often represents a foreign y ; and Eerdmans statement (A T
Studien, ii. 64), that the sign fya never stands for y (if true) is worthless,
for ffa-za-ki-ya-u = wp(n shows that Ass. a may become in OT *, and
this is all that it is necessary to prove. The historical objections
vanish if the Habiri 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 Pfa-bi-ri
occurs only in a limited group of letters, those of Abd-hiba 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 Wi. and others are right in
equating the two, the Habiri 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 Aramaean invasion which was then
overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above, p. 206; cf. Wi. A OF,
iii. 90 ff., KA r 3 , 196 ff.; Paton, Syr. and Pal. in ff.). There is thus a
strong probability that onny was originally the name of a group of
tribes which invaded Palestine in the I5th cent. 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 (cf. tnjn nay, Jos. 24?*- 14f> ) ; and
on that assumption, the river is certainly not the Tigris (De.), and
almost certainly not the Jordan (We. Kau. Sta.), but (in accordance
with prevailing tradition) the "inj of the OT, the Euphrates, beyond
which lay Harran, the city whence Abraham set out. Hommel s view
(AHT, 252 fF.) has no probability (cf. Dri. I39 2 ). The vb. nay, however,
does not necessarily mean to cross (a stream) ; it sometimes means
simply to traverse a region (Jer. 2 6 ) ; and in this sense Spiegelberg
has recently (1907) revived an attractive conjecture of Goldziher (Mythos,
p. 66), that onay signifies wanderers nomads (OLz. x. 6i8ff.).*
21. The father of all the sons of *Eber~\ The writer has
apparently borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants
21. It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is extremely likely
that the introduction to the section on Shem in J would require modifica
tion to prevent contradiction with v. 22f - (P). Then, the omission of the
logical subj. to iV; is suspicious. The Pu. of this vb. never dispenses
* In Egyptian texts from Thothmes in. to Ramses IV., the word
Apuriu (^ Apr iii) occurs as the name of a foreign population in Egypt ;
and had been identified by Chabas with the Hebrews of OT. The
identification has been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed
cogent ; but has recently been revived by Hommel (AffT, 259), and
X. 21, 24 219
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 abstrac
tion. the elder brother of Yepheth] The Heb. 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 J
the sequence of age was broken (Bu. 305 f.), or because
Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Di.).
The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gu.,
who finds in the remark an indication that this Table
followed the order: Canaan Japheth Shem (see p. 188).
24 is an interpolation (based on 1 1 12 " 14 ) intended to harmonise
J with P. It cannot be the continuation of 21 as it stands
(since we have not been informed who Arpaks ad was), and
still less in the form suggested below. It is also obviously
inconsistent with the plan of P s Table, which deals with
with the subj. nor does the Hoph. ; the Niph. does so once (Gn. ly 17 [P]) ;
but there the ellipsis is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact
of birth. Further, a wn is required as subj. of the cl. 1:1 UN. The
impression is produced that originally "ay was expressly named as the
son of Shem, and that the words ui UN Nin referred to him (perhaps
ui UN Nin najrriN i 1 ?; 0261). Considering- the importance of the name, the
tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly possible to retain
the clause ui nN ; and to delete it as a gloss (although it has been pro
posed by others : see OH} I admit to be difficult, just because of the
obscurity of the expression. Nin DJ] cf. 4 2S . man ns TIN] U correctly
fratre J. majore. The Mass, accentuation perhaps favours the gram
matically impossible rendering of <&. (d5eX0y I. roG /ze^oi/os), 2, al. ;
which implies that Japheth was the oldest of Noah s sons, a notion
extorted from the chronology of n 10 cpd. with 5 32 7 11 (see Ra. IEz.).
It is equally inadmissible (with IEz.) to take Srun absolutely ( = Japheth
the great). See Bu. 304 ff. 24. n^srnx] ( pref. i 1 ? p pi
(with arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (Bib. u. Aeg.,
1904, 146 ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to tyabirt, and the
new facts brought to light by the TA Tablets, the hypothesis certainly
deserves to be reconsidered (cf. Eerdmans, I.e. 52 ff. , or Expos., 1909,
ii. i97 ff -)-
22O TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
nations and not with individual genealogies (note also T?)
instead of ityn).
25. The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and
Southern Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to
Aramaeans and Arabs : we may compare with Jast. (DB, v.
82 a) the customary division of Arabia into Sd?n (Syria) and
Yemen. The older branch, to which the Israelites belonged,
is not traced in detail : we may assume that a Yahwistic
genealogy (|| to n 16ff - [P]) existed, showing the descent of
Abraham from Peleg ; and from scattered notices (ig 803 -
22 20ff. 25 lff> etc.) we can form an idea of the way in which
the northern and central districts were peopled by that
family of Hebrews. On 373, see below. For in his days
the earth was divided ( n jr? 3 )] a popular etymology naturally
suggested by the root, which in Heb. (as in Aram. Arab,
etc.) expresses the idea of division (cf. the vb. in Ps. 55 10 , Jb.
38 25 ). There is no very strong reason to suppose that the
dispersion (sn^D, 2T J 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. Jub. viii. 8 ff.), or
that the allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoktanites
from their northern kinsmen.
&5 (<a\e/f, 3>aXe7, <J>a\e%)] as a common noun means watercourse
or artificial canal (Ass. palgu) : Is. so 26 , Ps. i 3 6s 10 , Jb. 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 (Knob.) ; el-Faljr, a district in NE Arabia near the head
of the Persian Gulf (Lag. Or. ii. 50) ; el-Aflag, S of Gebel Tuwaik in
central Arabia (Homm. AA, 222 2 ).
ji?i?; ( leKTav}] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer (Goldz.
Mythos, p. 67) from ^ katana = l be settled. The Arab genealogists
identified him with Kahtdn, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who
was (or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, DB, ii. 743). On the modern stock of el-Kahtan, and its
sinister reputation in the more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see
Doughty, Arab. Des. \. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.
26-30. The sons of Yoktan number 13, but in (f (see on
25. nV;] joxffi- n 1 ? ; but D :n *$ is possibly ace. after pass, as 4 18
etc. (G-K. 121 a, b) vn irnn] similarly 22 21 (J). 26. Some MSS
have JTiDisn, as if = court of death.
X. 25-28 221
below) only 12, which may be the original number.
The few names that can be satisfactorily identified (Sheleph,
Hazarmaiveth, Sheba> Havilah) point to S Arabia as the
home of these tribes.
(1) TiiD^N ( EXjttuSad)] unknown. The *?*< is variously explained as
the Ar. art. (but this is not Sabaean), as El= God, and as dl=
family ; and mio as a derivative of the vb. for love (ivadda), equivalent
to Heb. TT (Wi. MVAG, vi. 169) ; cf. Glaser, Skizze, ii. 425 ; DB, i. 67.
(2) *\h$ (2aXe0)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabasan inscrs.,
and also by Arab, geographers : see Homm. SA Chrest. 70 ; Osiander in
ZDMG, xi. 153 ff., perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers.
Cognate place-names are said to be still common in S Arabia (Glaser).
(3) "ISl^n ( A.crap/m.wd)] The modern province of Pfadramaut, on the S
coast, E of Yemen. The name appears in Sabsean inscrs. of 5th and 6th
cent. A.D., and is slightly disguised in the Xar/m/Aamrcu of Strabo (xvi.
iv. 2), the Chatramotitce of Pliny, vi. 154 (Atramifce, vi. 155, xii. 52?).
(4) n "3.) ( IctpaS)] uncertain. The attempts at identification proceed on
the appellative sense of the word (= moon ), but are devoid of plausi
bility (see Di.).
(5) DTnq (.ux Dim, (Or Odoppa)] likewise unknown. A place called
Dauram close to San a has been suggested : the name is found in
Sabsean (Glaser, 426, 435).
(6) *?JIN (JUA *?rN, (& At fTjX)] mentioned by Ezk. (27 19 : rd. *?riNp) as a
place whence iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to
be the same as Azal, which Arab, tradition declares to be the old name
of Sana, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427, 434, etc.) disputes
the tradition, and locates Ozal in the neighbourhood of Medina.*
(7) n ^7 T ) (Ae/cXa)] Probably the Ar. and Aram, word (dakal, N^pi,
for date-palm, and therefore the name of some noted palm-bearing
oasis of Arabia. Glaser (MVAG, 1897, 438) and Hommel (AA, 282 f.)
identify it with the QOLVLKUV of Procopius, and the modern Gof es-Sirhdn t
30 NL (as far N as the head of the Red Sea).
(8) Sjij; (JUA and i Ch. i 22 ^yil, (5i L Fcu/SaX)] supposed to be the word
Abil, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser, 427). The name
is omitted by many MSS of (, also by ( B in i Ch. i 22 (see Nestle,
MM, 10), where some Heb. MSS and j have ^3iy.
(9) ^NC SN ( A/StjueT/X)] apparently a tribal name ( = father is God ), of
genuine Sabsean formation (cf. infiyDnN, ZDMG, xxxvii. 18), not hitherto
identified.
* In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is worthy of
attention that the account of Asshurbanipal s expedition against the
Nabatseans (KIB, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three places,
Hurarina, Yarki, and Azalla, which could not, of course, be as far S as
Yemen, but might be as far as the region of Medina. In spite of the
phonetic differences, the resemblance to Hadoram, Yerah, and Ozal is
noteworthy. See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff.
222 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
(10) Nrrf ] see on v. 7 (p. 203). The general connexion suggests that
the Sabseans are already established in Yemen ; although, if Uzal be as
far N as Medina, the inference is perhaps not quite certain.
(u) nfjiN (Oi70/>)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing
country (Is. I3 12 , Ps. 45", Jb. 22 28 16 , i Ch. 2 9 4 [Sir. 7 18 ]), 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
(i Ki. 9 28 lo 11 - 22 ; cf. 22 49 ). 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, ii. 357-83). Of other identifications
the most important are : Abhira in India, E 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 i4th or i5th cent. A.D. (see D.
Randall-Maciver, Mediceval 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 Homm. AHT, 236* ; Hiising, OLz, vi.
367 ff. ; Jen. ZDMG, 1. 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 Che. in EB, Hi. 3513 ff. ; Price,
DB, iii. 626 ff. ; and Dri. Gen? xxvi. f., 131.
(12) n^iq] see p. 202.
(13) yy? ( Iw/3a/3)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare
the Sabaean name Yuhaibab.
The limits (probably from N to S) of the Yoktanite territory are
specified in v. 30 ; but a satisfactory explanation is impossible owing- to
the uncertainty of the three names mentioned in it (Di.). N^P (Mcwo-Tje)
has been supposed to be Mesene (^ . Vn. Maisan], within the Delta of
the Euphrates-Tigris (Ges. Th. 823; Tu.); but the antiquity of this
name is not established. Di., following (3r, reads N^D (see on 25 14 ) in
N Arabia. This as northern limit would just include Diklah, if
Glaser s identification, given above, be correct. rn$p (Sw^Tj/m) is
generally acknowledged to be %afar in the S of Arabia. There were
two places of the name : one in the interior of Yemen, N of Aden ; the
other (now pronounced Isjar or Isfar] on the coast of Mahra, near
Mirbat. The latter was the capital of the Himyarite kings (Ges. Th.
968 ; DB, iv. 437 ; EB, iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is
a matter of little consequence. Dij-jn nn] It is difficult to say whether
this is an apposition to D^ID (Tu. al.), or a definition of nso, or is a
continuation of the line beyond 12D. On the first view the * mountain
might be the highlands of central Arabia (Negd) ; the second is recom
mended by the fact that the eastern Zafar lies at the foot of a high
mountain, well adapted to serve as a landmark. The third view is not
X. 28-30, XI. 1-9 223
assisted by rendering- n3.va in the direction of (see on v. 19 ) ; for in any
case Zafar must have been the terminus in a southern direction. The
commonly received opinion is that mpn in is the name of the Frank
incense Mountain between Hadramaut and Mahra (see Di.).
XI. 1-9. The Tower of Babel (J).
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 mani
festations of human genius and enterprise.
Gu. has apparently succeeded in disentangling 1 two distinct but
kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (cf. mrr, vv. 5 6 - s> 9 - y ), 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. Gu. s division will be
best exhibited by the following continuous translations :
A. The Babel-Recension : ( l )And B. The Tower-Recension: . . .
it was, when all the earth had one ( 2 ) And when they broke up from
speech and one vocabulary, ( 3a ) that the East, they found a plain in the
they said to one another, Come ! Let land of Shin ar, and settled there,
us make bricks and burn them [And they said, Let us build] ( 4a l) )
thoroughly. (**<>, y] And they said, a tower, with its top reaching to
Come! Let us build Tts a city, and heaven, lest we disperse over the
make ourselves a name. ( 6aa ) And face of the whole earth. ( 3b ) And
Yahwe said, Behold it is one people, they had brick for stone and asphalt
and all of one language. ( 7 ) Come I for mortar. ( 5 ) And Yahwe came
Let us go down and confound there down to see the tower which the
their language, so that they may sons of men had built. [And He
not understand one another s speech, said . . .] ( 6a b ) and this is but the
( 8b ) and that they may cease to build beginning of iheir enterprise ; and
the city. ( 9a ) Therefore is its name now nothing will be impracticable
called Babel (Confusion), for to them which they purpose to do.
there Yahwe confused the speech ( 8a ) So Yahwe scattered them over
of the whole earth the face of the whole earth. [?There-
fore the name of the tower was
called Piz (Dispersion), for] ( 9b )
from thence Yahwe dispersed them
over the face of the whole earth.
224 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
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 (^ II 9b ) with which
B closes. Gu. s bold conjecture that between the two there was an
etymological play on the name of the tower (f? or ps) certainly
removes the objection ; but the omission of so important an item of the
tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.* Against this,
however, we have to set the following- considerations : the absence of
demonstrable lacunas in A, and their infrequency even in B ; the facts
that only a single phrase (] Tj?rrn$ in v. 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 II 3b ; 4a V || "> ; -rn (5) |j
rn-y ( 7 ) ; 6a <*> II 6a V b ; * II 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 Yah we 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.
The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the
Ethnographic Table of ch. 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcil
able 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 (cf. Drue? 1 ? 1 ?, etc., in P, io 5> 20> 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 J (if there
be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
We. Bu. Sta. al.) ; although it must be said that the idea here is little
less at variance with the classification by professions of 4 20 22 than with
ch. 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.) I, 2. The expres-
I. vn is not verbal pred. to pN.T73, but merely introduces the
circumstantial sent., as in 15" 42 35 etc. (Dav. 141 and J?. 1 ). Such
a sent, is usually followed by n-im, but see i Ki. 132. It may certainly
be doubted if it could be followed by another \TI with inf. cl. (v. 2 ) ; and
this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gu. s analysis. If there be
any distinction between n$y and nnrn, the former may refer to the
* In Jub. x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from the city, is
" Overthrow "
XI. 1-3 225
sion suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and
wide over the earth, though forming one great nation (DP,
v. 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 (v. 2 ; cf. rnxn \J3, v. 5 ). broke up from
the East\ v.i. a plain] the Euphrates-Tigris valley ; where
Babylon ice erai tv 7reSio> /xeyaXw (Her. i. 178). the land of
Shirt ar\ see on io 10 . 3a. With great naivete", the (city-)
legend describes first the invention of bricks, and then (v. 4 )
as an afterthought the project of building with them. The
bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see p. 47 above)
speaks of a time when " no brick was laid, no brick-mould
(nalbantu] formed": see KIB, vi. i, 38 f., 360. 3b shows
that the legend has taken shape amongst a people familiar
with stone-masonry. Comp. the construction of the walls
of Babylon as described by Her. (i. 179).* The accuracy
pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary (Di.), or (Gu.) r v to
language as a whole, and ~\ to its individual elements. D iny on;n]
4 a single set of vocables ; <& t^uvT] /xta ( + 7ra<nf = 0^, as v. 6 ). Else
where (ay 44 29 20 [with DV?;]) DHHN means single in the sense of few ;
in Ezk. 37 17 the text is uncertain (see Co.). On the juxtaposition of
subj. and pred. in the nom. sent., see Dav. 29 (e}.-~ 2. Q-ij?. 1 ? oypj?]
rendered as above by (ErUj?^- . Nearly all moderns prefer as they
wandered in the east or eastward ; justifying- the translation by
I3 11 , which is the only place where onpD means eastward with a vb. of
motion. That pD never means from the east is at least a hazardous
assertion in view of Is. 2 6 g 11 . yoj (cf. Ass. nisti, remove, depart,
etc.) is a nomadic term, meaning pluck up [tent-pegs] (Is. 33 20 ) ;
hence break up the camp or start on a journey (Gn. 33 12 35 5>16<21
37 17 etc.) ; and, with the possible exception of Jer. 3I 23 (but not
Gn. I2 9 ), there is no case where this primary idea is lost sight of.
Being essentially a vb. of departure, it is more naturally followed by
a determination of the starting-point than of the direction or the goal
(but see 33 17 ) ; and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption
that the cradle of the race was further E than Babylonia (see 2 s ; and
cf. Sta. Ak. Red. 246, and n. 43). nyp?] (Syr. A^n^, Ar. bak at)
in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Dt. 34 3 , Zech. i2 n , Is. 40*,
etc.). The derivation from ^/ ypn, split, is questioned by Barth
(ES, 2), but is probable nevertheless. 3. nan] impve. of *J 3,T, used
interjectionally (G-K. 690), as in vv. 4 - 7 - 38 16 , Ex. i 10 (all J), is given
by Gu. as a stylistic mark of the recension A (J e ?). Contr. the
* Cf. Jos. c. Ap. i. 139, 149; Diod. ii. 9; Pliny, HN y xxxv. 51.
15
226 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
oi the notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Bab.
houses and temples (A TLO 2 , 279) 4. With its top reaching
to heaven] The expression is not hyperbolical (as Dt. i 28 ),
but represents the serious purpose of the builders to raise
their work to the height of the dwelling-place of the gods
(Jub. x. 19, etc.).
The most conspicuous feature of a Bab. sanctuary was its aikkurat,
a huge pyramidal tower rising-, often in 7 terraces, from the centre
of the temple area, and crowned with a shrine at the top (Her. i.
181 f. : see Jast. RBA, 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
(KAT*, 6i6f. ; ATLO 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 p. 228 f. below) ; and, on the other hand, the
resemblance between the language of the inscrs. and that of Genesis
is too striking to be dismissed as accidental. That the tower of
Gn. 1 1 is a Bab. 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 (cf. Horn. Od. xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt
foreign to the passage.
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 (IEz.). The idea is missed
by (SU and 5 J , which render ere we be dispersed.
verbal use 29 21 3O 1 (both E), 47, and pi. (inn) 47 16 , Dt. t 18 32*,
Jos. i8 4 . On the whole, the two uses are characteristic of J and E
respectively; see Holz. Einl. 98 f. D J3^> n^? 1 ?:] Ex. 5 7 * 14 . So in Ass.
labdnu libittu (KIB, ii. 48, etc. ), although libittu is used only of the
wwburned, sun-dried brick. See No. ZDMG, xxxvi. 181 ; Hoffmann,
ZATW, ii. 70. ngifrb] dat. of product (Di.); iff = burnt mass (cf. Dt. 29^,
Jer. 5i 2B )._-icn (14, Ex. 2 3 )] the native Heb. name for bitumen (see on
6 {4 ). ih] (note the play on words) is strictly clay, used in Palestine as
mortar. 4. c:s ; 3 it?K-ii] 5 of contact, as in 3 yjj (De.). Dp n ^jyi] acquire
lasting renown ; cf. 2 Sa. 8 18 , Jer. 32 20 , Neh. 9. The suggestion that
D2> here has the sense of monument, though defended by De. Bud.
(Urg. 375 >2 ), al. (cf. Sieg.-St. s.v.), has no sufficient justification in usage.
In Is. 55 13 s6 5 (cf. 2 Sa. i8 18 ), as well as the amended text of 2 Sa 8 13
XI. 4-9 227
5-Q. Yahwe s Interposition. The turning-point in the
development of the story occurs at vv. 6 - 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, cf. 28 12f -, Ex. ig 11 - 20 34* 24, i Ki. 22 19 ,
2 Ki. 2 11 ; and with v. 5 cf. i8 21 , Ex. 3 8 .
On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of
Sta. (Ak. Red. 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 v. 8 the name Yahwe
has been substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to
inspect the latest human enterprise ; v. 6 is his report to the heavenly
council on his return ; and v. 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 Heb. writer is likely to have bestowed on a
document so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Bab.
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 Gu. 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 enter
prises which might be undertaken in the future. 9. Babet\
(JSi rightly 2 v<yxycri<$ ; v.i.
(see Dri. Sam. 217 f.), the ordinary sense suffices. psj] the word, ace.
to Gu., is distinctive of the recension B : cf. vv. 8a>9b . 6. ui IHK oy jn]
incomplete interjectional sent. (G-K. 147 b). nis^S D^np nj] lit. this
is their beginning to act. On the pointing nn, see G-K. 67 w.
5_ijf^ N<>] imitated in Jb. 42*. -120] lit. be inaccessible (cf. Is. 22 10 ,
Jer. si 63 ); hence impracticable. ID];] contr. for lai; (G-K. %6 t jdd].
7. ui .ITU] (5r retains the pi. in spite of the alleged reading in
Mechilta nSaw .TTIN (see p. 14 above). n^3,j] (see last note) : fr. *] ^3
= mix (not divide, as & [._\.21J]). *6 n^] G-K. 165 5. yop]
= understand : 42 23 , Dt. 2S 49 , Is. 33, Jer. 5 15 etc. 8. It is perhaps
better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to point iVnfl^ (juss. of
purpose : G-K. 109 f), continuing the direct address of 7b . ryn]
AM. pr. n, and (with <) adds Snaon-nw. 9. K-JJJ] one called (G-K. 144 d).
*?2?] mixture or confusion. The name is obviously treated as a
contraction from *?3^3, a form not found in Heb., but occurring in
Aram. (cf. & v. 9 , and E v. 7 ) and Arab. On the Bab. etymology of
the name, see io 10 . Qb. m.T] <& + b 0e6s.
228 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
Origin and Diffusion of the Legends.
r. The double legend is a product of naive 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 dis
comfiture, 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 cosmo
politan 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 un
finished Temple-tower (zikkurat], built by a vast expenditure of human
toil, and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (p. 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 unsophisti
cated 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 ( = Balbet) suggests an
Aramaean origin (Ch. Gu.). 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 Mar-
duk in Babylon,* and of E-zida, the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the
opposite bank of the river (see Tiele, ZA, 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" (KIB, iii. 2. 5). The
* On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, Expos. , 1909, ii.
p. 91 ff.
XI. 1-9 229
latter expression recurs in an inscr. of Nebuchadnezzar (BA, iii. 548)
with reference to the same zikkurat, and is thought by Gu. ( 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 (KIB, 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 inscr.
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 (KIB, iii. 2. 53, 55). The temple of
Borsippa is entombed in Birs Nimrud a huge ruined mound still rising
153 feet above the plain (see Hil. EBL, 13, 30 f.) which local (and
Jewish) tradition identifies with the tower of Gn. ir. This view has
been accepted by many modern scholars (see EB, 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 pos
sible 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 (c. 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabu-
na id tells us he rebuilt on the old foundation "with asphalt and bricks "
(KIB, iii. 2. 95; EBL, i73ff.). 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, p. 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.
2. In regard to its religious content, the narrative occupies the same
standpoint as 3 20> 22 and 6 1 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 " (Dri.). 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 Is. 2 12 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 OT thought
of God, as well as to evince a lack of sympathy with one of the pro-
foundest 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 :
230 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
haec perpetua mundi dementia est, neglecto coelo immortalitatem
quaerere in terra, ubi nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calv.).
3. Parallels. No Babylonian version of the story has been dis
covered ; and for the reason given above (p. 226) it is extremely unlikely
that anything- resembling the biblical form of it will ever be found
there.* In Greek mythology there are dim traces of a legend ascribing
the diversities of language to an act of the gods, whether as a punish
ment on the creatures for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo,
De Conf. ling.}) or without ethical motive, as in the I43rd fable of
Hyginus.f 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. J The difference to
which most importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phrase
ology ( the gods ) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,
Abyd.) ; 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 Nephilim of 6 4 ?), and the destruc
tion of the tower by a storm are easily explicable as accretions to the
legend of Genesis. The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid
of Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,|| has a special in
terest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the Mexican
pyramids and the Babylonian zikkurats. If this fact could be accepted
* The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen.
163 ff. (cf. HCM^t I53f.)> 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. 2i9f. ; Je. ATLCP, 286.
f " Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est
... id est nationes distribuit, turn discordia inter mortales esse ccepit,
quod Jovi placitum non est."
J Cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, 187); Alex
ander Polyhistor (Eus. Chron. i. 23 [ed. Schoene]) ; Abydenus (ib. \. 33) ;
Jos. Ant. \. 118; Eupolemos (Eus. Prcep. Ev. ix. 17); and Book of
Jub. x. 18-27. The lines of the Sib y! (" 99 ) mav be quoted as a
typical example of this class of legends :
leal jSotfXoj r dvaprjvai els ovpavbv dffTep6evra.
aurka 5 addvaros jj,eyd\T)i> tirtdrjKev dvdjKrjv
irvetfj.a.(nv atrap ^TTCLT dve/xot /j^yav
ptyav, Kal dvrjTOiffiv 6r dXX^Xois tpiv
Totivexd rot Ba/SvXcDva fiporoi 7r6Xei otfvo/j.
So Gu. 2 88 f. On the other side, cf. Gruppe, Griechische Culte und
Mythen, i. 677 ff. ; Sta. Ak. Red. 277 f. ; Je. ATLO\ 383 ff.
|| Vues des Cordilleres (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff.
XL 10 231
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.
XI. 10-26. The Genealogy of S hem (P).
Another section of the Toledoth, spanning the interval
between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the
most carefully planned of P s genealogies next to ch. 5 ;
with which it agrees in form, except that in MT the frame
work is lightened by omitting the total duration of each
patriarch s life. In jux this is consistently supplied ; while
(JK merely adds to MT the statement KOL dvretfavev. The
number of generations in MT is 9, but in (& 10, corre
sponding with ch. 5. Few of the names can be plausibly
identified ; these few are mostly geographical, and point
on the whole to NW Mesopotamia as the original home of
the Hebrew race.
In (3r the number 10 is made up by the addition of Kenan between
ArpakSad and Shelah (so lo 24 ). That this is a secondary alteration
is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in i Ch. i 18 - 24 (5r ; (b) Kenan
already occurs in the former genealogy (5^*) ; and (c) the figures
simply duplicate those of Shelah. It has been proposed to count Noah
as the first name (Bu. 41 2 f.), or Abraham as the loth (Tu. De.) ; but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence be
tween thel ists of ch. 5 and i i loff< An indication of the artificial character
of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nahor, once
as the father, and again as the son, of Terah (see Bosse, Chron.
Systeme, 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in ch. 5 (correspond
ing with 4 25f> )> P has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of
which a fragment may have been preserved in w. 28 " 30 . We. (Comp. 2 9,
Pro!. 6 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of P s
list when Arpakad and Shelah (see on io 21 24 ) and the first Nah6r are
omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the
Yahwistic genealogy lying behind ch. 5 was 7-membered ; and J s
parallel to n loff - could not in any case be the continuation of 4 16 22 .
10. IK^SIN] see on io 22 . He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem ;
which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with ch. io, the
arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations.
Hommel (AA, 222 1 ), maintaining his theory that Arp. = Ur-Kasdim,
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 !
7i3n IPX crn^y>] The discrepancy between this statement and the chron-
232 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (?)
ology of 5 32 7 11 9 28f - is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arith
metical calculations (Ra. al.), or by the assumption that in the other
passages round numbers are used (Tu. De.). The clause is evidently
a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose of making the birth of
Arpakgad, rather than the Flood, the commencement of a new era.
It fits in admirably with the scheme of the B. of Jub., which gives an
integral number of year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arp.,
and from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see p. 234 below).
12. n^tff (SaAa)] probably the same word which forms a component of
n^np (5 21ff ) an d therefore originally a divine name. This need not
exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the name of a deity being fre
quently transferred to his worshippers or their territory. A place Salah
or Salah in Mesopotamia is instanced by Knobel (Di.). Others regard
it as a descriptive name = offshoot or dismissal ; but very improb
ably. 14. i^y] see on io 21 . 16. ^?] io 25 . Hommel (I.e.] combines the
two names and takes the compound as a notice of Shelah s birthplace :
Shelah from Eber-peleg = Eber-hannahar, the region W of the lower
Euphrates (see pp. 218, 220 above). 18. ?jn ( Payav)] unknown ; certainly
9 M
not *_jiCTl5o| (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from ^Kfljrj (36 4 , Ex. 2 18
etc. : so Homm.) ; and Mez considers it a divine name. An Aramaean
tribe Ruua is frequently mentioned in Assyr. inscrs. as dwellers on the
banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Del. Par.
238 ff.). 20. Jnif (Sepovx)] a- well-known city and district about half-way
between Carchemish and Harran, mentioned by Syr. and Arab, writers
under the name Sarug. The name (Sarugi) also occurs several times
in the census of the district round Harran (yth cent. B.C.), published by
Johns under the title of An Assyrian Domesday Book : see pp. 29, 30,
43, 48, 68. 22. n inj (Na^w/))] is in J the brother of Abraham (22 20 ; cf.
Jos. 24 2 ) ; in P he is both the grandfather and the brother (n 26 ). The
name must have been that of an important Aramaean tribe settled in or
around Harran (27^ 28 10 2Q 4 ). Johns compares the place-name Til-
Nahiri in the neighbourhood of Sarugi ; also the personal names Nahiri
and Nahar&u found in Assyrian Deeds (I.e. 71 ; Ass. Deeds, iii. 127 ; cf.
KAT 3 , 477 f.). As a divine name Na%a/) is mentioned along with other
Aramaean deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage (KAT*, 477) ;
and Jen. (ZA, xi. 300) has called attention to the theophorous name
, *^ V, in the Doctrine of Addai, as possibly a corruption of
t ^V. 24. mn (0ct/3p<x)] is instanced by Rob. Sm.* as a totem
clan-name ; \*j)L(?} being the Syr. and turahfi, the Ass. word for wild
goat. Similarly Del. (Prol. 80), who also refers tentatively to Til-sa-
turahi, the name of a Mesopotamia!! town in the neighbourhood of
Harran. Knobel compares a place Tharrana, S of Edessa (Di.); Jen.
(ZA, vi. 70; Hittiter und Armenier, 150 ff. [esp. 154]) is inclined to
identify Terah with the Hittite and N Syrian god (or goddess) Tarfyu,
Tap/to, etc. (cf. KAT*, 484). 26. j& reads 75 instead of 70.
* KM\ 220 (afterwards abandoned). Cf. Noldeke, ZDMG, xl.
167 f. : "sicher unmoglich."
XI. 12-26
233
The Chronology. The following Table shows the variations of the
three chief recensions (MT, JUUL and (5), tog-ether with the chronology of
the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts company with the
Sam., and follows a system peculiar to itself (see p. 134 ff. above) :
MT.
Sam.
LXX.
Jub.
c
o
in
(/)
IOO
1
<
Cfl
C3
1
<
3
g
ist Son.
After.
ist Son.
i. Shem
500
IOO
500
600
IOO
500
102?
2. ArpakSad
Kaivav .
3. Shelah .
35
403
135
303
438
433
J 35
130
130
430
33
330
66?
57
7 1
3
43
130
303
4. Eber
34
430
134
270
404
J 34
37
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
IOO
230
130
200
57
8. Nah6r .
29
119
79
69
148
79
129
[L- 125]
62
9. Terah .
From Flood (or
birth of Arp. )
to b. of Abr. .
70
135
70
75
145
7
US
70
390
290
1040
940
...
1170
[L. 1174]
1070
:
669
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 p. 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much. Klostermann maintains his
scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis of ffir, (a) by allowing a year
for the Flood ; (b) by adopting the reading of j, 75 instead of 70, in
the case of Terah ; and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for
79 as the age of Nahor at the birth of Terah. This makes from the
Flood to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2X 12x49. By an equally
arbitrary combination of data of MT and ($r, 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 Jub. shows clear in
dications of a reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpaksad
is said (vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may con
clude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the iO2nd year of Shem. This
234 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (?)
gives a period of 187 year- weeks from the Creation to the birth of
Arp., followed by another of 81 (567-^7) to the birth of Abraham. We
observe further that the earlier period embraces 1 1 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 ac
cordingly 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 paper * became known to me only while these sheets
were passing through the press. His main results are as follows :
(i) In MT 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, Terah is excluded entirely,
and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arp. are ignored.
This gives : from the birth of Shem to that of Abraham 320 (8 x 40)
years; thence to b. of Jacob 160(4x40); to Exodus 560 (14x40); to
founding of Temple 480 (12x40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000
(50 x 40). This system is, of course, later than the Exile ; but Bo. con
cedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200 (30x40) years
from the b. of Abr. 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
Terah in the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of ArpakSad.
This gives 1556 years to b. of Shem + 390 (b. of Abr.) + 75 (migration
of Abr.) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus) + 480 (founding of
Temple) + 20 (dedication of do.) = 3166. Now 3166 12 x 260 -f 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 365^ days, requiring the interposition of 5^ days each
year ; and the 46 years are the equivalent of these 5^ days in
the system here followed. (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5^ days
Cjx 260 21 X26 7X 13
= = = - 45i [say 46] years.) The first third of this
Great Year ends with the b. of Noah 1056 = 4 x 260+ 16 ( of 46). The
second third nearly coincides with the b. of Jacob ; but here there
is a discrepancy of 5 years, which Bo. 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) (5r reckons with a Great
Month of 355 years (the number of days in the lunar year), and a Great
Year of 12 x 355 = 4260 years from the Creation to the founding of the
Temple, made up as follows: 2142 + n73t + 7S + 2 15 + 2 15 + 440 + = 4260.
* Die Chronologischen Systeme im AT und bei Josephus (MVAG t
1908, 2).
f Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and the
b. of ArpakSad.
J See i Ki. 6 1 ((5).
XI. 27-32 235
Significant subdivisions cannot be traced. (3) JLJU. returns to the earlier
Heb. reckoning by generations, its terminus ad quern being the measur
ing out of Gerizim, which, according to the Sam. Chronicle published
by Neubauer, took place 13 years after the Conquest of Canaan. Thus
we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215 + 215 + 42 (desert wandering) * + 13
(measurement of Gerizim) = 2807 = 70 X 40 + 7. t (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 x 49.]
XI. 27-32. The Genealogy of Terah (P and J).
The vv. are of mixed authorship ; and form, both in
P and J, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In P
( 27 - 31 - 32 ), the genealogical framework encloses a notice of the
migration of the Tera^ites from Ur-Kasdim to Harran, to
which i2 4b - 5 may be the immediate sequel. The insertion
from J ( 28 ~ 30 ) finds an equally suitable continuation in I2 lff> ,
and is very probably the conclusion of J s lost Shemite
genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of
J is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the
tradition which makes Ur-Kasdim the home of the ancestors
of the Hebrews (see concluding note, p. 239)
On the analysis, cf. esp. Bu. Urg. 414 ff. Vv. 27 and 32 belong quite
obviously to P ; and 31 , from its diffuse style and close resemblance
to P s regular manner in recording the patriarchal migrations (12 3i 18
36 46 6 : see Hupf. Qu. igf.), may be confidently assigned to the same
source. 28a presents nothing distinctive of either document ; but in 28b
mSio pN is peculiar to JE (see the footnote on the v.). ^ is J because
presupposed in 22 20ffl ; and its continuation ( 30 ) brings as an additional
criterion the word rrjEj; (cf. 25 21 29 31 ), which is never used by P. The
extract from J is supplementary to P, and it might be argued that at
least 28a was necessary in the latter source to explain why Lot and not
Haran went with Terah. Bu. points out in answer (p. 420) that with
still greater urgency we desiderate an explanation of the fact that
Nahor was left behind : if the one fact is left unexplained, so a fortiori
might the other.
The formula n n^n nVx] does not occur again till 25 12 ; and it is very
widely held that in v. 27 it stands as the heading of the section of P
* After Jos. 5 6
t The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see p. 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.
236 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (?, j)
dealing- with the life of Abraham. That is wholly improbable. It is
likely enough that a heading- (D.TQK n N) has been somewhere omitted
(so We. Bu. Ho. 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 T6ledoth has been
broken up and dislocated by the redaction, is as plausible a solution as
any that can be thought of. See, further, on 25 19 .
27. On the name Abram, see on i7 5 ; on Nahor, v. 22
above. Haran begat Lof] A statement to the same effect
must have been found in J (see i2 4a ). Haran has no signifi
cance in the tradition except as expressing the relationship
of Lot, Milkah, and Yiskah within the Hebraic group.
That pn is formed from pjn (v.i.) by a softening of the initial guttural
(We. Pr. 6 313) is an improbable conjecture (see Bu. 443 2 ). The name
occurs elsewhere only in .TJT? (Nu. 32 36 : cf. o^rrrva, Jos. i3 27 )* in the
tribe of Gad : this has suggested the view that fin was the name of a
deity worshipped among the peoples represented by Lot (Mez : cf. Wi.
AOF, ii. 499). The name ci 1 ? is also etymologically obscure (? Ar. !af
= cleave to ). A connexion with the Horite clan jai 1 ? in Gn. 36 20 - 2 ~- w
is probable.
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 (Ant. i. 151 ; Eus. OS, 285, 50 ff.).
"HK (v. 31 I5 7 , Neh. 9 7 : ffir x^P a T&V XaXoa/wi/) is now almost
universally identified with the ancient S Babylonian city of Uru, whose
remains have been discovered in the mounds of el-Rfukayyar, on the
right bank of the Euphrates, about 25 miles SE from Erech and 125
from Babylon (see Hilp. EBL, 172!?.). The evidence for this view is
28. \45 Vi7] is coram (<& tvu-rriov), rather than ante (U : so Tu.), or in
the lifetime of (5 ju^-K^D) ; cf. Nu. 3 4 : see BOB and G-B. s.v.
C :$. irnViD p v x] so 24 7 (J), 3i 13 ( E ); cf - J er - 22 10 4 6 18 , Ezk. 2 3 15 , Ru. 2".
A commoner phrase in Pent, is 101 IN, I2 1 24"* 3i 3 32, Nu io 30 (all J).
From the way in which the two expressions alternate, it is probable
that they are equivalent ; and since D alone certainly means kindred
(43 7 [J], cf. Est. 2 10> 20 8 6 ), it is better to render land of one s parentage
than land in which one was born [> here and I2 1 ] (cf. Bu. 4I9 2 ). P
has the word, but only in the sense of progeny (48 6 , Lv. i8 9 [H]).
* Though Wi. (AOF, ii. 499) contends that both names are corrup
tions of D Jiin.
XI. 27-30 237
very strong-. Uru is the only city of the name known from Assyri-
ology (although the addition of the gen. triea suggests that others were
known to the Israelites : G-K. 125 h) : it was situated in the properly
Chaldasan territory, was a city of great importance and vast antiquity,
and (like Harran, with which it is here connected) was a chief centre of
the worship of the moon-god Sin (KAT? i2t)f.). The only circumstance
that creates serious misgiving is that the prevalent tradition of Gen.
points to the NE as the direction whence the patriarchs migrated to
Canaan (see below) ; and this has led to attempts to find a northern
Ur connected probably w r ith the Mesopotamian Chaldaeans of 22 22 (see
Kittel, Gesch. i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition identifies it with Edessa
(Urhai, Urfa). It is generally recognised, however, that these considera
tions are insufficient to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.
D ^3] Bab. KaSdu, Ass. Kaldu (Xa\5-cu ot), is the name of a group of
Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramaeans, who are
found settled to the SE of Babylonia, round the shore of the Persian Gulf.
In the i ith cent, or earlier they are believed to have penetrated Babylonia,
at first as roving, pastoral nomads (KA 7* 3 , 22 ff.), but ultimately giving
their name to the country, and founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.
By the ancients D iBa was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nikolaos
Damasc. in Jos. Ant. i. 152 ; Eupolemos in Eus. Prap. Ev. ix. 17 ;
Jer. al.) ; but amongst the Jews "UN came to be regarded as an appella
tive = fire (in igne Chaldceorum, which Jer. 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 (Jub. xii. 12-14; J er - Qucest., ad loc. ; &J, Ber.R. 38, Ra.).
2p. While we are told that Nahor s wife was his brother s
daughter, it is surprising that nothing is said of the
parentage of Sarai. According to E (2o 12 ), 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 J (Ewald). It would seem, however, that
tradition represented marriage between near relations as
the rule among the Terahites (2o 12 24 3ff - 2Q 19 ).
With regard to the names, n ^ seems to be an archaic form of
n~iV princess (see on i7 15 ), while n^p means queen. In Bab. the
relations are reversed, Sarratube mg the queen and malkatuthe princess.
It cannot be a mere coincidence that these two names correspond
to two personages belonging to the pantheon of Harran, where Sarratu
was a title of the moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title
29. npn] sing., according to G-K. 146/1 30. mpy] as 25 21 29" (J) ;
not in P (see i6 la ). ijn] JUA i 1 ? . Only again as Kethib of Or. MSS in
2 Sa. 6 23 . It is possibly here a scribal error, which eventually influenced
the other pass.
238 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (?, j)
of IStar, also worshipped there (Jen. ZA> xi. 299 f. ; KAT*, 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, v. 28 *- express (i) the dissolution of an older
tribal group, Haran ; (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Lot)
through the protection of a stronger tribe ; and (3) the absorption of
another (Milkah) in a kindred stock. Of n$y. nothing is known. The
Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another name (implied in
Jos. Ant. i. 151 ; tCJ, Jer. Ra. lEz. al.) is worthless. Ewald s conjecture
that she was the wife of Lot is plausible, but baseless.
31, 32. The migration from Ur-Kasdim to Canaan is
accomplished in two stages. Terah, as patriarchal head of
the family, conducts the expedition as far as Harran, where
he dies. The obvious implication is that after his death
the journey is resumed by Abram (i2 5 ); although jux alone
gives a chronology consistent with this view (v. supra].
Nahor, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdim ;
and in the subsequent narratives P (in opposition to J) seems
carefully to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between
Nahor and the city of Harran.
prj (with virtually doubled n : cf. (& Xappav ; Gr. K&ppai ; Lat. Carra,
Charra ; Ass. Harranu ; Syr. and Arab. Harran) was an important
centre of the caravan trade in NW Mesopotamia, 60 miles E of
Carchemish, situated near the Balih, 70 miles due N from its confluence
with the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in OT (i2 4f - [P],
27 43 2 gio 2 g4 rj]j 2 Ki. i9 12 , Ezk. 27 23 t), and now ruined, it was a city of
great antiquity, and retained its commercial importance in classical
and mediaeval times. The name in Ass. appears to be susceptible of
several interpretations way, caravan (TA Tab.), joint-stock
enterprise (Del. ffd-wb. s.v., KAT 5 , 2<f] 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.
Harran was also (along with Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who
had there a temple, E-fyul-hul, described by Nabuna id as "from
remote days" a "dwelling of the joy of his (Sin s) heart" (KIB, in. 2.
97), and who was known in NW Asia as the "Lord of Harran"
(Zinjirli inscr. : cf. Lidzbarski, Hb. 444, An.}. See, further, Mez, Gc-sch.
d. St. ffarran , Tomkins, Times of Abraham, 55 ff. etc. This double
connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion is the most
31. irta] nVj (Syr. ]A\n, Ar. kannat) means both spouse and
daug-hter-in-law : in Syr. and Ar. also sister-in-law, a fact adduced
by Rob. Sm. as a relic of Baal polyandry (KM"*, 161, 2O9 1 ). on* iN:n]
gives no sense. Read with JUUL^T (/cat ^r/yayev oiroiJs) U, opk KjfVi, or
5, anx *. .!. 32. mn-p:] Q5c + 4v Xafipdv.
XI. 31, 32 239
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 P and J (in the present text)
make Ur-Kasdim the starting-point of the Abrahamic migration, J has
no allusion to a journey from Ur to Harran. 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 Harran, and that Tixa
DHBO is here a gloss intended to harmonise J and P. Now, there is a
group of passages in J which, taken together, unmistakably imply
that Abraham was a native of Harran, and therefore started from
thence to seek the promised land. In 24* 7 - 10 , the place of A. s nativity
is Aram-Naharaim, and specially the city of Nah5r ; while a com
parison with 27^ 28 10 29* leaves no doubt that the city of Nahor was
Harran. P, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his theory of a
double migration with a halt at Harran ; and the persistency with
which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nahor (25 20 28 2>5ff -) is a
proof that the omission of Nah6r from the party that left Ur was
intentional (Bu. 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 P,
though consistently maintained, is not natural ; for (i) all the antecedents
(n 10 " 26 ) point to Mesopotamia as the home of the patriarchs; and (2)
the twofold migration, first from Ur and then from Harran, has itself
the appearance of a compromise between two conflicting traditions.
The simplest solution would be to suppose that both the references to
Ur-Kasdim in J (n 28 15 ) are interpolations, and that P had another
tradition which he harmonised with that of J by the expedient just
mentioned (so We. Di. Gu. Dri. al.). Bu. holds that both traditions
were represented in different strata of J (J 1 Harran, J 2 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 P could never have thought of the circuitous
route from Ur to Canaan by way of Harran. That argument has little
weight with those who are prepared to believe that P had other
traditions at his disposal than those we happen to know from J and E.*
In itself, the hypothesis of a dual tradition within the school of J is
perfectly reasonable ; but in this case, in spite of Bu. s close reasoning,
it appears insufficiently supported by other indications. The view of
We. is on the whole the more acceptable.
* The suggestion has, of course, been made (Wi. AOF. \. 980.;
Paton, Syr. and Pal. 42) that E is the source of the Ur-Kasdim tradition j
but in view of Jos. 24 2 that is not probable.
THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
CHS. XII-XXV. 18.
Critical Note. In this section of Genesis the broad lines of demarca
tion between J, E, and P 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 E and P respectively. These questions have
been brought to the front by the commentary of Gu., who has made it
probable that the Yahwistic document contains two main strata, one
(J h ) fixing- Abraham s residence at Hebron, and the other (J b ) regarding
him as a denizen of the Negeb.
i. The kernel of J h is a cycle of legends in which the fortunes of
Abraham and Lot are interlinked : viz. I2 1 8 ; i^ 2 - 5 -^; x g ; ig 1 28 ; iQ 30 38 .
If these passages are read continuously, they form an orderly narrative,
tracing the march of Abraham and Lot from Harran 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 i2 9 -i3 1 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
I2 9ffi at a subsequent stage of J 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 i2 9ff - is distinguished from J h , 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 ch. 16, which, as breaking the con
nexion of ch. 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned to J b . (To this source
Gu. also assigns the Yahwistic component of ch. 15; but that chapter
shows so many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have
belonged to either of the primary sources.) After ch. 19, the hand of J
appears in the accounts of Isaac s birth (2I 1 7 *) and Abraham s treaty
with Abimelech (2I 22 34 *): the latter is probably J b (on account of the
Negeb), while the former shows slight discrepancies with the pre
diction of ch. 1 8, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign
240
XII.-XXV. 18 241
it also to J b . With regard to ch. 24, it is impossible to say whether it
belongs to J h or J b : we assign it provisionally to the latter.* The bulk
of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two parallel
series as follows :
Jb. I2 l-8. I3 2-18*. j gl-16. 20-22a. 83b . ^1-28. , gSO-38 .
Jb. I2 9_, 3 1 ; ,6; 2 1 1 7 *; 2 1 22 34 *; 2 4 *. f
The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are ch. 15* (see above) ;
and the two genealogies, 22 * and 25 1 8 , both inserted by a Yahwistic
editor from unknown sources. Other passages (i3 14 ~ 17 i8 17 19 - 23b " 33a
22 i5 " 18 ) which appear to have been added during the redaction (RJ or RJ E )
will be examined in special notes ad locc.
2. The hand of E is recognised in the following sections : 15* ; 20 ;
2I i-7*. 2I 8 21 ; 2I 22 34 *; 22 1 19 (24*?). Gu. has pointed out that where
J and E run parallel to one another, E s affinites are always with
J b and never with J h (cf. the variants I2 9ff " || 20; 16 || 2i 8 " 21 ; and the
compositions in 2I 1 7 and 2i 22 34 ). This, of course, might be merely a
consequence of the fact that E, like J b , makes the Negeb (Beersheba)
the scene of Abraham s history. But it is remarkable that in ch. 26 we
find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to E and J b , with Isaac as hero
instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed to the writer
whom we have called J h , 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.
Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative hypo
thesis 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
* Gu. analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to each source.
The question is discussed in the Note, pp. 340 f., where the opinion is
hazarded that the subordinate source may be E, in which case the other
would naturally be J b .
f It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis of the
Yahwistic portions of chs. i-i i (pp. 2-4). In each case J appears as a
complex document, formed by the amalgamation of prior collections of
traditions ; and the question naturally arises whether any of the com
ponent 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 J h in the biography of Abraham
may be the continuation of J e in the primitive history. Both use the
phrase call by the name of Yahwe (V 6 i2 8 [i3 4 ], [but cf. 2I 33 (J b )]) ;
and the optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of Noah
(9 26ff -) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of J h . 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 I2 7
(Shechem), 12" (Bethel), is 18 (Hebron), 2 6- 5 (Beersheba).
16
242 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
added) the second is ethically and religiously on a higher level than the
first. These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of J h
and J b (see on ch. 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 J h , 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 P (i2 4b - 5 i 3 6 - nb - 12ab ; i6 la - 3 - 5 ; 17 ; i 9 29 ; 2i lb - 2b 5 ;
23 ; 25 7 11 * ; 25 12 * 17 ) consists mostly of a skeleton biography based on the
older documents, and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole
raison d etre 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. P s affinities are chiefly with J h , with whom he shares the
idea that Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the
sections peculiar to P, ch. 17 is parallel to 15, and 25 12 " 17 has probably
replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael. Ch. 23 stands alone
as presumably an instance where P has preserved an altogether in
dependent tradition.
Ch. 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of the
recognised sources of the Pent., and has accordingly been omitted from
the above survey. The question of its origin is discussed on pp. 271 ff.
below.
CHS. XII. XIII. The migrations of Abram (J and P).
Leaving" his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram
enters Canaan and erects altars at Shechem and Bethel
(I2 1 " 8 ). From Bethel he migrates to the Negeb, and thence,
under stress of famine, to Egypt ; where by a false repre
sentation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife s honour
(i2 9 -i3 1 ). 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 (i3 2 ~ 17 ). Abram
journeys southward and settles in Hebron ( 18 ).
Analysis. The slender thread of P s narrative is represented by i2 4b> 6
, 3 e. nb isaba. note the date in I2 4b ; the form of 12; eb-j, rirj, 12 13";
E>93, * person, I2 5 ; JJ? pH, 1 2 I3 12 ; N ^> i3 8 ; n$?n ny, i3 12 ; and see on the
vv. below. These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events
between the exodus from Harran and the parting of Abram and Lot.
With a slight and inherently plausible transposition (i2 5 - 4b ; Bu. p. 432)
thev might pass for the immediate continuation of n 32 , if we can
suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted by P (see Gu. 231).
The rest of the passage is Yahwistic throughout : obs. the consistent
use of mrv ; the reference to Paradise, 13; the anticipation of ch. 19 in
I3 10 - 13 ; and the following expressions: rnjto, I2 1 ; ? TTigj, i2 3 ; nn?s? p *?3
XII. 1-3 243
2 13 - 16 ; y nrfrro, ia 18 ; ITJIH 13?,
1-jio.n. It falls naturally into three sections : (a) i2 1 4a - 6 8 ; (b) la 10 -^ 1 ;
(c) 1 3 s - 5< 7 lla - 12b /3- 18 ; i2 9 and i3 :i - 4 being redactional links (RJ) uniting- b
to a on the one side and c on the other. The purely mechanical con
nexion of b with a and c was first shown by We. (Comp. z 24 f.).* 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 i2 10 20 , see p. 251 below.
XII. 1-8. The journey to Canaan and the promise
of the Land. I. The opening v. 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
fathers 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 (Heb. n 8f -). 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 chs. 2-11,
whose sombre tone is only once (9 26f -) relieved by a similar
gleam of hope. and will make thy name greai\ 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
Ezk. 33 24 . The inference has been drawn that the figure of
2 2 [E]; cf. Ca. 2 10 - 13 )] see G-K. 1195. On jnjto (ffi
see n 28 . 2. np-j? n;m] Impve. expressing consequence (G-K.
no t) is here questionable, because the preceding vbs. are simple
futures. The pointing as consec. pf. (n;ni) was suggested by Giesebrecht
So Di. Ho. Gu.
244 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
Abraham represents a late development of the patriarchal
legends (cf. We. Prol. Q 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 (i Ki. i8 36 has also to be considered).
The antiquity of the name is now placed beyond doubt
by an archaeological 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-hu-q-ru-a a-ba-ra-m
D"QK fjpn, Field of Abram. It has not been identified;
but from its place in the list it must have been in the S of
Palestine (see Breasted, AJSL^ xxi. 35 f. ; and cf. Meyer,
INS, 266).* and be thou a blessing (cf. Zee. 8 13 )] Rather:
audit (the name) shall be a blessing (point n*n^ 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 Vns. ; cf. Sir. 44 21 , Ac. 3 25 , Gal. 3 8 ).
The better translation, however, is that of Ra., adopted by
most modern comm. : 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 48 20 , Is. 65 16 , Ps. 72 17 ; and the opposite,
(A Tliche Schcitzung d. Gottesnamens, 15); see Gu. adv. 3. iJ j pD] sing-. ;
but the pi. of some MSS, joxffir!F5 (T)> is more probable ; cf. 27 29 , Nu.
24. 5)3 *3i3ji] <5r Kal evXoyrjd^a-ovTai ei> croi, and so all Vns. The rendering
depends on the grammatical question whether the Niph. has pass, or
refl. sense. This form of the vb. does not occur except in the parallels
i8 18 (with 13) and 28 14 (lJ2,1!?i *|a). In 22 18 26 4 it is replaced by Hithp.,
which is, of course, refl., and must be translated bless themselves ;
the renderings feel themselves blessed (Tu. KS. Str.), or wish them
selves blessed (De.) are doubtful compromises. These passages,
however, belong- to secondary strata of J (as does also i8 18 , and perhaps
28 14 ), and are not necessarily decisive of the sense of i2 8 . But it is
significant that the Pu., which is the proper pass, of ?p3, is consistently
avoided ; and the presumption appears to be distinctly in favour of the
* See, further, pp. 292 f. below.
XII. 3-6 245
Jer. 29 22 ). " So the ancient mind expressed its admiration
of a man s prosperity" (Gu.). The clause is thus an expan
sion 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 n 27 )
establishes a literary connexion with the Lot narratives of
chs. 13. 19. 5 is P s parallel to 4a (v.z.) ; the last sentence
supplying an obvious gap in J s narrative. and they came,
etc.\ This time (ct. n 31 ) the goal is actually reached. On
the probable route from Harran to Canaan, see Dri. 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
sense given in the text above. The idea is well expressed by Ra. :
-p3 "p rrsiD nn Knpc3B> -p ID-QJI Vn pi D.TDKD Nnn un 1 ? IDIK DIN lairs inn
W3D31 D 1BN3 D n^N 1D TD6 Wlff (Gn. 48 20 ). 4. ^ l] > r CLLO ( = fe^ll),
adopted by Ba. 5. The parallel to 4 * in the distinctive form (see on n 31 )
and phraseology of P. The vb. tfan is peculiar to P (3i 18 36 6 46 6 ) ;
Bhrj is a word of the later language, found in P (7 1.), in Gn. 14 (5 1.) and
as a gloss in 15"; in Ch. Ezr. Dn. (i5t.): see Ho. Einl. 347. It is
supposed to denote primarily riding beasts, like Heb. Eton, Aram.
P
I *"n, Nfc/3"l, Ass. rukuSu (Haupt, Hebraica, iii. 1 10) ; then property in
general. e>5j] in the sense of person is also practically confined to P
in Hex. (Ho. 345). ^] = < acquired, as 31 1 , Dt. 8 17 , Jer. 17" etc.
The idea of* proselytising (CJ) is rightly characterised by Ra. as
Haggada. jyj? H$] " em f as ^ sicheres Kennzeichen fiir P" (Ho. 340).
In JE JJ733 appears never to be used in its geographical sense except in
the story of Joseph (42. 44-47. 5o 5 ) and Jos. 24 3 . jyj? N3;i] ffir L om.,
probably from homoioteleuton. 6. H^? 1 ] so * L > but Cr A> a1 -, read
n^x|? (i3 17 ). For .TTID, S and S read NI.OO. The convallem illustrem of
U is an amalgamation of (Or (TTJV dpuv TTJV v\f/ij\^v [oho ?]) and C (ne^n
miD= plains of M. ); the latter is probably accounted for by aversion
to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. 2P has VO nm nt^o ;
on which see Levy, Chald. Wb. 33. The absence of the art. (ct. ny33
.TTisn, Ju. 7 1 ) seems to show that the word is used as norn. pr. Ji 1 ?^] unlike
its Aram, equivalents (.^j |, }^K), which mean tree in general, is never
used generically, but always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In
the Vns. oak and terebinth are used somewhat indiscriminately
(see v. Gall, CSt. 24 ff.) for four Heb. words : p^N, jiW, n^N, n^N (only
Jos. 24 26 ). The theory has been advanced that the forms with e are
alone correct; that they are derivatives from Vx, god, and denote
246 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His
worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in J there is
no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars :
see p. 1.
The original motive of this and similar leg-ends 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 (Ex. 2O 24 [E]). / 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 v. 6 in the use of the
word Dips, which has there the technical sense of sacred place, as in
22 4 28 11 35 1 (<), Ex. 3 5 , i Sa. 7 lfi (& ^yictoy^ois), Jer. f 2 (cf. Ar. makam).
Shechem is the first and most northerly of four sanctuaries the others
being Bethel, Hebron (J h ), and Beersheba (E, J b ) connected with the
name of Abraham. The name (Skwm, with pi. termination)* occurs in
an Eg. inscr. as early as the 1 2th dynasty. It was an important place in
the Tel-Amarna period (see Steuernagel, Einivanderung, 1 20 f. ; Knudtzon,
BA, iv. 127), and figures prominently in OT legend and history. On its
situation (the modern Ndbulus] between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, see
J5J3, iv. 4437 f. The .TYID p 1 ?* ( = oracle-giving terebinth ) was evidently
an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore
a survival of primitive tree-worship. f Besides Dt. n 30 (a difficult pass.,
originally the sacred tree without distinction of species. J The J I^N of
Gn. 35 8 is called a palm in Ju. 4 5 , and D^N (pi. of nJ>N?) (Ex. I5 27 etc.)
derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the Mass, tradition
may not be uniformly reliable, n^N and pW appear to be distinguished in
Hos. 4 13 , Is. 6 13 (Di.) ; and the existence of a form pWt is confirmed by
alldnu, which is said to be an Ass. tree-name (G-B. 14 36 b). It is
probable from Zee. n a , Ezk. 27 6 etc., that p^N is the oak. With regard
to the other names no convincing theory can be formed, but a connexion
with *?K (Wit) is at best precarious. 6b is probably a gloss: cf. i3 7b .
7. -i** l] juuffiFS add ^. V^B nx^n] so 35 1 (E).
* It is possible that this (ODDS ) is the oldest form in Heb. also ; since
< often has the pi. Ski/ia (33 18 35* 5 etc.).
t "Where a tree is connected with a well it was probably the
original object of honour" (Curtiss, Prim. Sem. ReL 1 91). On the
obtaining of oracles from trees, see Rob. Sm. fiS 2 , 195. Comp. Ju. 4 5 ,
2 Sa. 5 24 ; and the oak of Zeus at Dodona. Duhm s brilliant generali
sation (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.
i We. Pr. 234 ; Sta. GVI, i. 455 ; v. Gall, I.e. ; cf. Schwally, ThLzg.,
1899* 35 6 -
XII. 6-8 247
see Dri. ad loc., and v. Gall, Cult-St. 107 ff.), it seems to be mentioned
as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names : n^xn, n^Nn (a mere
difference of pointing-, v.i.}, Gn. 35 4 , Jos. 24 26 ; D jfiyo p"?N ( terebinth of
soothsayers ), Ju. 9" ; and nyc N ( t. of the pillar [n^xsn]) Ju. 9 6 . The
tree is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of
Beersheba, 2i 33 ), an additional indication that Abram was not origin
ally the patron or well of the shrine. The sacred stone under the tree (the
3^ of Ju. 9 6 ?) was believed to have been set up by Joshua (Jos. 24 26 ).
The sanctuary of Shechem was also associated with Jacob (33 18 35 4 ), and
especially with Joseph, who was buried there (Jos. zq 3 2 ), and whose
grave is still shown near the village of Balata (balldt= ( oak ) : see v.
Gall, 117.
8. Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and spread his
tent (26 25 33 19 35 21 ) near Bethel^ about 20 m. from Shechem ;
there he built a second altar, and called by the name of
Yahwe\ see on 4 26 . 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 (Je. ATLO 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 (ch. 28). Here the parting from Lot took place
(ch. 13).
On Bethel (Beitin), see on 28 10fr - 35* ; cf. Jos. f. Di. distinguishes
the site of Abram s altar (E of Bethel and W 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 E of the city (so Gu.), perhaps at
Burg Beitin^ the traditional scene of Abram s encampment (GASm.
EB, i. 552). On the somewhat uncertain situation of ^n (always with
art. = .vy, Neh. n 31 , i Ch. 7 s8 ; and n:j?, Is. ro 28 ), see Buhl, GP, 177.
XII. 9-XIII. I. Abram in Egypt. The first of three
variants of what must have been a very popular story in
ancient Israel (cf. 20. 26 6ff< ). 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
8. pnyn] intr. Hiph. as 26 22 (J).
248 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
seems to take us down to the bed-rock of Hebrew folklore.
p. to the Negeb} The dry region between the Judaean
highland and the wilderness of et-Tlh, extending from 10 or
12 m. N of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Kadesh
(v.i.). It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-
breeding Bedouin, and the remains of buildings and irriga
tion works prove that it was once much more extensively
cultivated than at present. 10. the famine was severe (lit.
1 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, GJ y 16).^ The purchase of corn for home
consumption (42 lff -) 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
9. jnoji "n^n] Dav. 86, R. 4; G-K. 113 u. The idea of continuous
journeying- lies not in JTIDJ (see on n 2 ), but in "p^n (cf. Ju. i4 9 ). n|j|n] (
tv rfj tpfiw : Aq. vfaovoe : S. els v6rov. The word, from a ^/ meaning
dry, occurs as a proper name of S Palestine (Ngb) in a document of
the reign of Thothmes m. (Muller, AE, 148; Mey. ZATW, vi. i). Its
use to denote the S direction is rare in JE, and apparently confined to
later additions (i3 u a8 14 , Jos. i8 5 ). The geographical limits of the
region can, of course, only be roughly determined, chiefly from the list
of its cities in Jos. I5 21 " 32 : on this, and its physical characteristics, see
Che. EB, 3374 ff. ; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, ii. 351 f. (1871).
IO. D^ "\uh (Jer. 42 15ff- )] properly dwell as a client or protected guest
(na = Ar. gar: cf. OTJC 2 , 342 1 ). The words, however, are often used in
the wider sense of temporary sojourn (i5 13 , Jer. i4 8 ), and this may be
the case here. II. Kj-nan] i6 2 iS 27 - 31 ig 2 - 8 - 1 " 2 7 a (all J). The free use
of K} (c. 40 t. in Gen.) is very characteristic of J (Ho. EinL no). 13.
nN nhyj oratio obliqua without 5, G-K. 157 a. (&, on the contrary, 6 rt
* Cf. Authority and Archeology , p. 59 ; DJ5, ii. 53 i b (note t)>
774 b -
XII. 9-io 249
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 (Aeg. u. d. B. Moszs, 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.\ cf. v. 13 .
This feature of the reward is a standing element of the
tradition ; but in ch. 20 it is only bestowed after the
misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in 26 12ff> its
connexion with the incident is loosened.
The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs : 2O 14
24 35 3o 43 32 15f - (cf. Jb. i 3 42 12 ), and were perhaps regarded by this nar
rator as the foundation of Abram s subsequent wealth. The animals
mentioned were all known in ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the
d5. atrov el^L ^"p:?] In Hex. only 3O 27 39 (J) and 3 t. in Dt. : elsewhere
4 t. 15- iJns] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in OT except
Shishak (i Ki. i4 25 ) and Seve" (2 Ki. ly 4 ). It corresponds exactly to
Eg. Pero ( Great House ), denoting originally the palace or court, and
is not applied to the person of the king earlier than the i8th dynasty
(Erman, LAE, 58 ; Griffith, DB, iii. 819 ; Mil. EB, iii. 3687). It is needless
to go further in search of an etymology, though Renouf, PSBA, xv. 421,
may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the " Pir u king of
Musuri " mentioned by Sargon (KIB y ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected
by Cheyne (EB, 3164, and TBAI, 223 ; cf. Wi. MVAG, iii. 2ff.). Even
supposing it proved that this is the proper name of a N Arabian prince,
the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon ; and it
is inconceivable that the Heb. designation for the kings of Egypt should
have been determined by an isolated and accidental resemblance to a
native word. 16. After 11331 juu. inserts IND 133 njpo, and puts
250 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
camel, which is neither represented nor named in the monuments before
the Greek period.* This, Mliller 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 (Ho. Gu.) that
the slaves were intermediate in value between these animals is jejune,
and is, besides, contradicted by 24 35 3O 43 . It is possible that D V^ ninx
has been added at the end by a glossator ; but see 24^ 30**, and cf.
juu. below.
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 inter
vention is here purely providential : in 2o 3ff< it takes the form
of a personal communication, while in the attenuated version
of 26 6ff - it has become superfluous and is omitted. smote ivifh
great plagues] severe bodily maladies ; cf. 2O 17 , Ex. n 1 , Ps.
39 11 etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of his sickness
we are left to conjecture ; Jos. (Ant. i. 164 f.) pretty nearly
exhausts the possibilities of the case when he mentions
sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation of Sarai.
Gu. is probably right in suggesting that something has been
omitted between 17 and 18 . 18, ip. To the vigorous expos
tulation 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 Gu. (151)
would have us believe. The idea of God, however, is im
perfectly 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 (Am. 3 2 ). 20. Pharaoh gave men charge concerning
before nnbqj, 17. V3j;i] The Pi. only of smiting with disease : 2 Ki. 15*,
2 Ch. 26 20 (Pu. Ps. 73 6 ). D Via] Q& + KO.I irevrjpo is. irrsvw] possibly a
gloss from 2O m (KS. al.) ; see on 2 9 . 19. njPK}] so that I took ; Dri.
^- 74 a, 1 16, Obs. 2. WJK] Qb + V^. 20. AU< add at the end ioy tsify,
as in MT of I3 1 : the phrase is interpolated in both places.
* Cf. Ex. 9 3 (J) ; and see Sayce, EHH, 169 (the notice unhistorical) ;
Erman, LAE t 493. Ebers statement as to the name is corrected by
Muller, AE, 142, EB, i. 634.
XII. I7-XIII. 6 251
Abram] i.e. provided him with an escort (n?K> as i8 16 3i 27 ).
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 (IEz.), bringing
fresh judgements on the realm. XIII. I. The narrative
closes with the return of Abram to his home in the Negeb
(cf. i2 9 ).
Source of I2 10 20 . It has already been pointed out (p. 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 (i) a secondary expansion of J by a later hand (We.) ; (2) a
misplaced chapter of J s main narrative belonging properly to a subse
quent stage of the history ; or (3) an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic
collection (Gu. [J b ]). To (i) 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 ex
aggerate (e.g. ch. 14) ; especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram
is not at Hebron but in the Negeb. Gu. s theory, which is not open to
these objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis of J.
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 : cf. 2i 25 26 20ff -. 2. Silver and
gold} 24 85 20 16 23 16 . 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 ; cf. Ar.
ahl, Sab. ^riK (Miiller, ZDMG, xxxvii. 341 ; Homm. SA
Chrest. 121). 3, 4. A redactional addition (p. 243), bringing
the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional scene of the
separation. 6. P s account of the parting : cf. ^6 7 . It has
often been noticed that he makes no mention of a quarrel ;
just as J says nothing of the straitness of the land (v.i.).
3. vj^c] simply by stages ; not by the same stages by which he
had come (<F Ra.): cf. Ex. i; 1 4O 36 - 88 etc. 5. D ^nxi (G-K. 93 r,
23 h}} (5 A KTT)vri, prob. Gr. corruption ot (ncrjvai (so many MSS). 6. N^J]
AU HHBO better. Cf. 36 (P). 6ty3 is by some (KS. Ho.) assigned to J,
252 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
8, 9- The thought of strife between relatives (E^K D T j**) is in
tolerable 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 narra
tives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham and
Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.
10, Iia, I2b/3. Lot s choice. lifted up his eyes and saw, etc.]
The Burg Beitln (p. 247), a few minutes SE from the village,
is described as " one of the great view-points of Palestine "
(GASm. EB, 552), from which the Jordan valley and the N
end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible. the -whole Oval of
the Jordan\ cf. Dri. Deut. 421 f.
IT1-D 13? (only here and t Ki. 7^ = 2 Ch. 4"), or i|?n simply (v. 13
I9 iv.25. 28f } Dt. 34.3, 2 Sa. i8 23 ), is not (as Di. 230) the whole of the Arabah
from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the
Jordan valley towards its S end, defined in Dt. 34 3 as the plain of
Jericho (see ffG, 505 ff. ; Buhl, GP, 112). The northern limit is in
determinate ; the southern depends on the site of Zoar (v. 10 ), whether
N or S 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 import
ant 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 v. 10 . Apart from the assumption of a
radical transformation of the physical features of the region, the words
before Yahive destroyed S. and G. have no significance. As a mere note
of time they would merely show the connexion of the story with ch. 19,
and might very well be a gloss (Ols. Di.). See below, pp. 273 f. go ar
is the S limit of the Kikkar, and, if situated at the S end of the Lake
(as is most probable), would not be seen from Bethel.
but on insufficient grounds (cf. Hupf. Qu. 21 f.) .^h, 3;r] jux D 3B".
The name is coupled with Jjy?n m 34 30 , Ju. i 4 - 5 (J), and often appears
in enumerations of the pre-Israelite inhabitants (i5 20 etc.). If, as is
probable, it be connected with n? (Dt. 3, i Sa. 6 18 , Est. 9"), rrtrj?
(Ezk. 38", Zee. 2 8 , Est. 9 19 ), it would mean hamlet-dwellers as dis
tinguished from Canaanites, occupying fortified cities (see on ^nn, io 17 ).
That the P. were remnants of a /w-Canaanite population is hardly to
be inferred from the omission of the name in io 16f- , or from its
association with the Rephaim in Jos. I7 15 : this last notice is wanting
in (5r y B and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, Jud. 17). 9. tfVq] (Erj$ nini.
^Di^n ppNj] Ball suggests the pointing ^NJp ^n, po n (infs. abs.). x
reads n^NDBTT nro n DNI nrD m n^NDt?n QN. io. n^r] juu. "62 ; fflr L om.
n^ D] in the sense of watered region only again Ezk. 45 15 (where
XIII. 7-17 253
like the land of Egypt] coming after like the garden of
Yahnve (2 10 ~ 14 ; cf. Is. 5i 3 ) it is an anti-climax, which might
be excused (as Di. thinks) because the first comparison was
pitched too high. But the last half of the v. seems greatly
overloaded, and it is not improbable that both nifotf ^Bp and
o r K3 are to be removed as glosses. On the luxuriant fertility
and abundant water-supply of the district, see HG t 483 f. ;
Buhl, 39; Seetzen, Reisen, i. 417. Iia. Lot departed east
ward] see on n 2 and the footnote infra. I2b/3. The im
mediate continuation (in J) of lla : and moved his tent up to
Sodom] the intervening words being from P (cf. ^33H "ny
instead of HP 5 ? f 3). 13. This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom
is another anticipation of ch. 19 ; but it is introduced here
with great effect as showing how Lot had over-reached him
self 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 (v. 10 ), while
Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had
unconsciously chosen the good part. 15. It is very doubtful
if the ufiy IV can be considered (with Di.) a new element of
the promise as compared with I2 7 . 16. the dust of the
earth} 28 14 .
This solemn assurance of the possession of the land ( 14 * 17 ) is some
what of a contrast to the simple promises of i2 2 - 7 ; and has affinities
with a series of passages which appear to represent a later phase of
religious reflexion (see on ch. 15, p. 284). Other reasons are adduced
for thinking that :4 ~ 17 are the work of a younger hand than the original
J. (a) It is not the habit of J to cite divine oracles without a specifica
tion of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place (but
see I2 lff -). (b) The conception of Abram as wandering over the land
is not that of J b , who fixes his permanent dwelling-place at Hebron.
(c) While Bethel commands a view of the Jordan valley, it affords no
the text is corrupt) and Sir. 39 23 . Should we read n^D? -"13$$] see
io 19 . IKS] 5 ^A^ = Tanis (jitf) in Egypt (Nu. I 3 22 , Is. 19"- 1S etc.),
which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an error caused by the pre
ceding Dn$p. II. Dnjgp (cf. II 2 )] (& airb dvaroX&v, U ab oriente. But
the only possible sense here is eastward ; hence Sta. (Ak. Reden,
292) and Gu. emend to np-ip. nb, in spite of its resemblance to 9a }
must be assigned to P, being necessary to the completeness of that
account, and because it disturbs the connexion of lla with 12b . _
16. ^K]= SO that (G-K. 166 b). 17. ffi adds at end /cai
254 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, P)
wide prospect of the land as a whole. We. (Comp.* 25 f.) admits that
these general impressions are not such as to procure universal assent.
In point of fact they are rather overstated ; and Di. s answers may
satisfy those who refuse to carry critical operations further than is
absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, We. s impression is probably
correct, and has commended itself to KS. Ho. Gu. al.* The vv.
may be omitted not only without injury to the context, but with the
obvious advantage of bringing- out the reference of 18 to 12ft . 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.
l8. Abram moves his tent to the terebinth(s] of Mamre,
in Hebron, and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In
the main narrative of J h the statement was immediately
followed by ch. 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 I2 7 ).
The site of the tree (or trees, v.t.) 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, HE, ii. 4). Josephus (BJ, iv. 533) mentions
a very large terebinth said to have existed airb TTJS AcHcrews /J-^XP 1 v ^ v >
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
f/ardm Rdmet el-Halll, 2 m. N 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-Rdme in the vicinity
of the Hardnty this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of
ffov els rbv aluva, approved by Ball. 18. 1095 iS* (i4 18 iS 1 )] see on
i2 6 . (ffi TT)V Spuv TTJV Ma/i/J/nJi . , also reads the sing., which may be
right, though i8 4 cannot be cited in support of it. In J, Mamre is said"]
to be in Hebron, in P (where the tree is never mentioned) it is a ;
name of Hebron, and in i4 13 - 24 it becomes the name of an Amorite>
chief, the owner of the trees. So & here, as shown by the addition of
* The only point on which it is impossible to follow We. is his
assumption that Hebron is the fixed residence of Abram in all strata
of J, and that the notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgama
tion of E (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron) with J. There
was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic legends, in which he is
represented as living in the Negeb (see already on I2 9ff- ). So far as
mere literary criticism goes, there is no reason why the addition should
not be prior to R JE .
xin. i8-xiv. 255
Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic.
The present Oak of Abraham, about 2 m. NW, is as old as the
i6th cent. See Robinson, BR, i. 216; Buhl, GP, 160, 162; Baedeker,
Pal. and Syr. 3 138, 142 j Dri. DB, iii. 224 f. ; v. Gall, CSt. 52.
CH. 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
( 17 - 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 con
ception ; 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
256 ABRAM S VICTORY
impression that Abram forfeits the character of Muslim and
prophet (We.) even when he assumes the role 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 P (eton, " 12 16 21 ; n:g T 1 ?;, 14 ; vsi [= < person ], 21 )
or E (nnxn, 7 - 13 ; "]I$3, 24 ), contains several expressions which are eithe*
unique or rare (see the footnotes): Tpaij, 14 (&TT. \ey.) ; pnn, 14 ; a^En, 1J
n^ p, j v^j; Sx, 18 20 - 22 ; jap, 20 ; T]D, 4 .* (b) The numerous antiquarian glosses
and archaic names, suggesting- the use of an ancient document, have no
parallel except in Dt. a 10 12 - 20 23 3 9 - u - 13b - 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 Gen. is now universally acknowledged, and
need not be further argued here. Some writers postulate the existence
of a literary kernel which may either (i) have originated in one of the
schools J or E,t or (2) have passed through their hands.J In neither
form can the theory be made at all plausible. The treatment of docu
mentary material supposed by (i) is unexampled in Gen. ; and those who
suggest it have to produce some sufficient reason why a narrative of
(say) E required to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be
sure, no experience of how E or J 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 objec
tions to P s authorship are equally strong, the style and subject being
alike foreign to the well-marked character of the Priestly narration.
Ch. xiv. is therefore an isolated boulder in the stratification of the
Pent., a fact which certainly invites examination of its origin, but is
not in itself an evidence of high antiquity.
1-4. The revolt of the five kings. i. The four names
I. V? ?] (& tv rrj jSacriXeig. ; U in illo tempore, reading all the names in
the nom. (r has the first in gen. and the rest nom. ; r A further inserts
* The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even in the
translation of (5r, which has some unusual renderings : I TTTTOS for ^o~j,
11. is. 21 (nowhere else in OT) ; <pdpay for pcy, 3 (not again in Pent. : twice
in Jos. and 4 t. in Book of Isa.) ; Trepdr??? (a?ra| Xe7.) for nziy, 13 , though
this might be explained by the unexpected occurrence of the gentilic in
this connexion (Aq. TrepcurTjs).
t So Di. Kittel (GH y i. 124, 1586.), and (with reserve) Ho., all of
whom think of E as the most likely source.
J So Wi. GI, ii. 26-48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform
document of legendary and mythical character, which was worked over
first by E and then by J (see below, p. 272).
XIV. I, 2 257
(see below) do double duty, as gen. after ^2 and as
subj. to D WV a faulty syntax which a good writer would
have avoided (v.i.). The suggestion that the first two names
are gen. and the last two subj.,* has the advantage of
putting Kedorld omer, the head of the expedition (* 5 - 9 - 17 ),
in the place of honour ; but it is without warrant in the Heb.
text ; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from
participation in the campaign (against 5 - 9 - 17 ), it necessitates
a series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.
2. The group of five cities (Pentapolis, Wis. io 6 ) is thought
to be the result of an amalgamation of originally independent
traditions.
In ch. 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as destroyed
(i 9 24 - 28 [i8 20 ] ; so i 3 10 , Is. i 9f -, Jer. 2 3 14 etc.) and Zoar (i 9 17ff -) as spared.
Admah and Zeboim are named alone in Hos. n 8 , in a manner hardly
consistent with the idea that they were involved in the same catastrophe
as S. and G. The only passages besides this where the four are
associated are io 19 and Dt. 2Q 22 , although neighbour cities of S. and
G. are referred to in Jer. 49 18 5o 40 , Ezk. i6 46ff -. If, as seems probable,
there were two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original
tradition Admah and Zeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see
Che. EB, 66 f.). The old name of Zoar, y^a (Destruction?), appears
nowhere else.
The four names in v. 1 are undoubtedly historical, although the monu
mental evidence is less conclusive than is often represented, (i) ^EnpN
( A.(JLa.p(f>a\) is thought to be a faulty transcription of ffammurabi
(Ammurab[p]i), the name of the 6th king of the first Bab. dynasty,
who put an end to the Elamite domination and united the whole country
under his own sway (c. 2100 B.c.).f The final h presents a difficulty
which has never been satisfactorily explained ; but the equivalence is
icai between the second and third. The reading of the Sixtine ed.
(first two names in gen. coupled by KaL), which is appealed to in support
of Wi. 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 /ScurcA^ws. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel
sure." I 2. j; 1 ?!] (5r BoAXa, etc. 3%$] <5 Zevvaap. ?y] (Sr Su/*oo/3,
I 1 P
2u/io/3, juu. iDNDE ( name has perished ), & i-pL. N n] the first
of the 1 1 instances of this Kethib in Pent, (see on 2 12 ).
* Wi. GI, ii. 27, 30 ; Peiser, MVAG, 1897, 308 ff. ; approved by Gu.
t See Introd. pp. xiv f.
% Private communication from Mr. M Lean.
17
253
ABRAM S VICTORY
widely recognised by Assyriologists.* It is, however, questioned by
Jen.f, absolutely rejected by Bezold, and pronounced problematical
by Mey. GA 2 , I. ii. 551. (On -yrf, see io 10 .) (2) tfn* (cf. Dn. 2 14 , Jth.
i 6 ), 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, Rim-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by
Hammurabi in the 3ist year of the latter s reign (KAT*, 16, 19). The
two brothers, sons of the Elamite Kudurmabug-, were first distinguished
by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 (Sumer. iLnd Akkad. Kunigsinschr. 2iof. ;
cf. King, Chronicles concerning early Bab. Kings, vol. i. 68 2 ; Mey. GA* t
I. ii. p. 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused;
and Schrader s attempt to identify Rim-Sin with Arioch, though
accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious
Assyriologists, e.g. Jen. (ZDMG, 1896, 2476.), Bezold (op. cit. 27, 56),
and Zimmern (KAT*, 367). The objections do not hold against the
equation Arioch = Eriagu Arad-Sin, provided Arad-Sin be kept distinct
from Rim-Sin. The discovery by Pinches || in 1892 of the name
Eri-[E]akii or Eri-Ekua stands on a somewhat different footing. The
tablets on which these names occur are admittedly late (not earlier than
the 4th cent. B.C.); the identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in
question by King ; H 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 Hammurabi. 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 v. are supposed to occur. (3) -ip y^-n? (Xodo\\oyo/j.op) unquestion
ably stands for Kudur-lagamar, a genuine Elamite proper name, con
taining the name of a known Elamite divinity Lagamar (KAT 3 , 485),
preceded by a word which appears as a component of theophorous
Elamite names (Kudur-mabug, Kudur-Nanfyundi, 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-uh-ga-mar) in a letter of Hammurabi to Sinid-
innam, king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation
of King (op. cit. xxv-xxxix. Cf. also Del. BA, iv. 90). There remains
the prior discovery of the Pinches fragments, on which there is men
tioned thrice a king of Elam whose name, it was thought, might be
read Kudur-lah-mal or Kudur-lah-gu-mal.** The first element (Kudur)
* See Schr. SBBA, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff. f ZDMG, 1896, 252.
J Die bab.-ass. Keilinschriften, etc., 1904, pp. 26, 54.
SBBA, 1894, xv. 279 ff.
|| See his OT in the light, etc., 223 ff. ; cf. Homm. AHT, 181 ff. ;
and Sayce s amended trans, in PSBA, 1906, 193 ff, 241 ff. ; 1907, 7 ff.
II Letters and Inscrs. of Hammurabi, 5. p. liii. Jen., Peiser, and
Bezold also pronounce against the identification.
** This reading is questioned by King ; see liv-lvi, or the extract in
Dri. Gen., Addenda on p. 57. Sayce now (I.e. p. 194 ff .) proposes to
XIV. i, 2 259
is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyri-
ologists.* There is, moreover, nothing- to show that the king in
question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of Hammurabi. |
(4) ^1^ (C EL Qo-pyaX, j$ Vv ^^/) was identified by Pinches with a
" Tu-ud-fyul-a, son of Gaz. . . .," who is named once on the tablets
already spoken of (see Schr. SBBA y 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 Tudfyula was a king, or that he was contemporary with
Hammurabi and Rim-Sin (King, op. cit.}. DM3 can hardly be the usual
word for nations ((BrUfE), either as an indefinite expression (Tu.) or
as a " verschamtes et cetera" (Ho.). We seem to require a proper
.0 P<-. *
name (J6 has f \ii) ; and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson,
that Guti (a people N of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309)
thinks that cyia TjVo is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title
lar kisSati.
The royal names in v. 2 are of a different character from those of v. 1 .
Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis
gives a sinister interpretation to all four (3T-J, Ber. R. 42, Ra.) ; and
even modern scholars like Tu. and No. recognise in the first two a play
on the words in (evil) and yen (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 Heb. (see the footnote) ; (b) the nameless-
ness 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 inscr. of Tiglath-pileser iv. (Del. Par. 294, KIB,
ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artifici
ality which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in v. 8 ,
it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on
that view), unhistorical. j>Vf is elsewhere a royal name (36 32 ).
read Kudur-lakhkha-mal ; but the reading appears to be purely con
jectural ; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing can be built
upon it.
* e.g. by King, Zimmern (KA T 9 , 486 1 ), Peiser (who reads it Kudur-
tur-bit, I.e. 310), Jen., Bezold, al.
t 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 Rim-Sin) in the
time of Hammurabi ; but in our ignorance of the situation that difficulty
must not be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Dri., Gen 7 ,
Add. 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.
260 ABRAM S VICTORY
3. all these] not the kings from the East (Di. Dri.), but
(see v. 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 v. 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 pre
mature mention of the preparations for battle in v. 8 . the
Vale of Siddini\ The name is peculiar to this narrative, and
its meaning is unknown (v.z.). 1 t .e writer manifestly shares
the belief (i3 10 ) that what is now the Dead Sea was once
dry land (see p. 273 f. below). The Sea of Salt] one of the
OT names for the Dead Sea (Nu. 34 3 , Dt. 3 17 , Jos. 3 16 i5 5
etc.): see PEFS, 1904, 64. Wi. s attempt to identify it
with Lake Huleh is something of a tour deforce (Gf, ii. 36 f. ;
cf. io8f.). 4. they rebelled} by refusal of tribute (2 Ki. i8 7
241-20 e tc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the
earlier part of Hammurabi s reign is perfectly credible in
the light of the monumental evidence (p. 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 influ
ences than authentic historical information.
5-7. The preliminary campaign. One of the sur-
3. m( ?x nnn] apparently a pregnant constr. (G-K. 119 e)= came
as confederates to ; but this is rather harsh. *?x after nan naturally
refers to that to which one is joined (Ex. 26 3 ; of a person, Sir. 1 2 14 ) :
that being- impossible here, inn must be understood absolutely as Ju.
2O 11 (v. Moore or Bu. ad loc,) and the W may have some vague local
reference: all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the V. of S.
D^iyn p^y] (J5 TTJV <f>dpayya rr)v a\vicr)v, apparently a conjecture from the
context, U vallem silvestrem. C has N ^pn (from -"n ^), 3T J N omS;
& v. of the Sodomites : on the renderings of Aq. and 0. see Field s
Note, p. 30 f. It is evident the Vns. did not understand the word.
Noldeke (Unters. i6o 3 ), Renan (Hist. i. 116), We. (Gesch. 6 105), Je.
(ATIO 2 , 351), al. think the true form is ant?: valley of demons. 4.
tf^] Acc. of time (G-K. 118 z) ; but JUA nhwx is better. -no] rare in
Hex. (Nu i 4 9 , Jos. 22 16 - 18 - 19 - 29 [PJ); and mostly late. 5. D NET] The
art. should be supplied, with jux. <5r TOVS yly arras ; so E OJ . p rr
XIV. 3~7 26 1
prising* 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 south
wards on the E of the Jordan ; but then, instead of attack
ing the Pentapolis, they pass it on their right, proceeding
southward to the head of the Gulf of Akaba. Then they
turn NW to Kadesh, thence NE 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 expe
dition was to secure command of the caravan routes in W Arabia,
especially that leading through the Arabah from Syria to the Red Sea
(see Tu. 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 Heb. 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 E of the Jordan and the land of Edom (AHT, 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 Noldeke, 163 f.)
The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient
The reading of the Sixtine and Aldine edd. of (Ur, A(rrapu>0 Kal
Kappcu; , which even Di. 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 ed. It is doubtless a conflation of Kapvaiv
and the /ecu Nca^ (? Kaivaiv) of (Sr E> al - (Nestle, ZDPV, xv. 256; cf. Moore,
JBL, xvi. i55f.). DMNPI] (& tQv-r] l<rxvpd=vmy : so SEJ. 2. has Zotfo/u*
/xety=D Z5iDi. on?] &F& read on? (&/j.a aurois, etc.). Some MSS of jux
have DH3, which Jerome expressly says is the real reading of the Heb.
text. 6. D-i-in?] jui(SF "13*?. Duplication of n is rare and doubtful
(Ps. 3o 8 , Jer. i7 3 ) in sing, of this word, but common in const, pi. Buhl
strikes out Tyfc as an explanatory gloss, retaining D^n?. px^ "?&] $&&
render terebinth of Paran, and so virtually U&J, which have plain
(see on 12"). If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, *? N
is used collectively in the sense of great tree (here palms ). 7. For
^(2, S<2T OJ (also Saadya) have Dpi, apparently identifying it with Petra :
see Tuch s Note, p. 271 f. rriip] (5rj$ n^, princes.
262 ABRAM S VICTORY
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.
D JIP nnp-fy ( Astarte of the two horns : * Eus. Prcep. Ev. i. 10 ; or A. of
the two-peaked mountain f) occurs as a compound name only here. A
city ASfarofk in Bashan, the capital of Og s kingdom, is mentioned in
Dt. i 4 , Jos. 9 10 i2 4 i3 12 - 31 , i Ch. 6 s6 [- .TW^3, Jos. 2i- 7 ]. Karnaim is named
(according to a probable emendation) in Am. 6 13 , and in i Mac. 5 26 - 43f> ,
2 Mac. I2 21 . It is uncertain whether these are two names for one
place, or two adjacent places of which one was named after the other
( Astaroth of [i.e. near] Karnaim) ; and the confusing statements of
the OS (84 5ff - 86 32 io8 17 209" 268 98 ) throw little light on the question.
The various sites that have been suggested Sheikh Sad, Tell Agtarah,
Tell el- As"ari, and El-Muzerib lie near the great road from Damascus
to Mecca, about 20 m. E of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, GAP, 248 ff.;
Dri. DB, i. i66f. ; GASm. in EB, 335 f.). Wetzstein s identification
with Bozrah (regarded as a corruption of Bostra, and this of rnpc ; j,;3,
Jos. 2 1 27 ), the capital of the Hauran, has been shown by No. (ZDiMG,
xxix. 43I 1 ) to be philologically untenable. Of a place on nothing- is
known. It is a natural conjecture (Tu. al.) that it is the archaic name
of Rabbath, the capital of Ammon; and Sayce (HCM, i6of.) thinks
it must be explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source
of the word pay. On the text v.i. D!JV"!P rn^ is doubtless the
Moabite or Reubenite city np, mentioned in Jer. 48 2S , Ezk. 25 9 , Nu.
32 s7 , Jos. I3 19 (OS, Kapcadaet/j., Ka/)ia0a), the modern Kuraiydt, E
of the Dead Sea, a little S of the Wadi Zerka Main, m? (only
here and v. 17 ) is supposed to mean plain (Syr. |Zo_) ; but that
is somewhat problematical. On the phrase "\"y & Dyin, see the foot
note. While ~ry & alone may include the plateau to the W of the
Arabah, the commoner fyty "in appears to be restricted to the
mountainous region E of that gorge, now called es-Sera (see Buhl,
Gesch. d. Edomiter, 28 ff.). fix^ *? N (v.i.) is usually identified with n^ N
(Dt. 2 8 , 2 Ki. I4 22 i6 6 ) or nrt K (i Ki. 9 - 6 , 2 Ki. i6 6 ), at the head of the E 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 esp. Tu. 264 f.). The
grounds of the identification seem slender ; and the evidence does not
carry us further than Tu. s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the N
of the desert is meant (see Che. EB, 3584). The wilderness is the
often mentioned Wilderness of Paran (2i 21 , Nu. io 12 etc.), i.e. the
desolate plateau of et-T?h, stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus
of Suez. There is obviously nothing in that definition to support the
theory that El-Pdran is the original name of the later Elath. enp (i6 14
20 1 etc.), or yrp p (Nu. 34*, Dt. i 2 - 19 2 14 ). The controversy as to the
* See Muller, AE, 313; Macalister, PEFS, 1904, 15.
t Moore, JBL, xvi. i56f.
J Trumbull places it at the oasis of K aid at Nahl, in the middle of
et-Tlh, on the Hagg route halfway between Akaba and Suez {Kadesh-
Barnea, p. 37).
XIV. s-7 263
situation of this important place has been practically settled since the
appearance of Trumbull s Kadesh-Barnea m 1884(566 Guthe, ZDPV, viii.
183 ff.). It is the spring- now known as Ain Kadis, at the head of the
Wadi of the same name, "northward of the desert proper," and about
50 m. S of Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, op. cit.
272-275). The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about
80 m., with a difficult ascent of 1500 ft. The alternative name B^p py
( Well of Judgement ) is found only here. Since &?$ means holy* and
B^p judicial decision, it is a plausible conjecture of Rob. Sm. that the
name refers to an ordeal involving the use of holy water (Nu. 5") from
the sacred well (fiS 2 , 181). The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have
occupied a prominent place in the earliest Exodus tradition (We.
Prol. 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. in Ji^n
is, according to 2 Ch. 2O 2 , En-g^di (Ain &idi) t about the middle of
the W 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, BR> 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 m. WSW of the S end of the Dead Sea. The
identification, however, requires three steps, all of which involve
uncertainties : (i) that ncn n = the icn of Ezk. 47 19 48^ ; (2) that this is
the Thamara of OS (8s 3 , 2io 86 ), the Qa^apw of Ptol. xvi. 8 j and (3) that
the ruins of this are found at Kurnub. Cf. EB, 4890 ; Buhl, GP, 184.
The six peoples named in vv. 5 " 7 are the primitive races which,
according to Heb. tradition, formerly occupied the regions traversed
by Chedorlaomer. (i) The D K2i are spoken of as a giant race dwelling
partly on the W (is 20 , Jos. i7 15 , 2 Sa. 2i 16 , Is. 17*), partly on the E,
of the Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of
the Rephaim (Dt. 3 11 , Jos. i2 4 etc.). (2) The D W, only mentioned here,
are probably the same as the Zamzummim of Dt. 2 20 , the aborigines of
the Ammonite country. The equivalence of the two forms is considered
by Sayce (ZA, iv. 393) and others to be explicable only by the Baby
lonian confusion of m and TV, and thus a proof that the narrative came
ultimately from a cuneiform source. (3) D p Nn] a kind of Rephaim,
aborigines of Moab (Dt. 2 10f -). (4) nnn] the race extirpated by the
Edomites (36 20flr -, Dt. 2 12 - 22 ). The name has usually been understood to
mean troglodytes (see Dri. Deut. 38) ; but this is questioned by Jen.
(ZA y x. 332 f., 346 f.) and Homm. (AffT, 264 2 ), who identify the word with
guru, the Eg. name for SW Palestine.* (5) p^pjjn] the Amalekite
territory (."ny), was in the Negeb, extending towards Egypt (Nu. 13
i4 43 - 45 , i Sa. 27 8 ). In ancient tradition, Amalek was the firstling of
peoples (Nu. 24 20 ), although, according to Gn. 36 12 its ancestor was
a grandson of Esau. (6) "P^n] see on io 16 ; and cf. Dt. i 44 , Ju. i 36 .
*Cf. Miiller, AE t 136 f., 148 ff.
264 ABRAM S VICTORY
While there can be no question of the absolute historicity of the last
three names, the first three undoubtedly provoke speculation. Rephaim
is the name for shades or ghosts ; Emim probably means terrible ones ;
and Zamzummim (if this be the same word as Zuzim), murmurers.
Schwally (Leben nach d. Tode, 64 f., and more fully ZATW, xviii. 127*?.)
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 Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut. 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 Gn. 14 the evidence is not more decisive.
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 tipon wells of
bitumen\ The notice is a proof of intelligent popular reason
ing rather than of authentic information regarding actual
facts. The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the pro
duction of bitumen, masses of which were found floating on
the surface (Strabo, xvi. ii. 42; Diod. ii. 48, xix. 98;
Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still are after earthquakes,
but " only in the southern part of the sea" (Robinson,
BR, 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. II, 12. Sodom
and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is taken captive. The
10. rrma rh^3] On the nominal appos. and duplication, see Dav. 29,
R. 8 ; G-K. 123 e (cf. 130 e). (5 L has the word but once. rvibjy] better
as jjuffir ]) 7]ta. rnn] On the peculiar v> see G-K. 275-, 90* . XX.
pri] ffir t-mrov (i.e. eon) ; the confusion appears in 16> 21 , but nowhere else
in OT. 12. Dn3N n$ff3] (& inserts the words immediately after ai 1 ?, an
indication that they have been introduced from the margin. It is to be
XIV. 8-13 265
account leaves much to be supplied by the imagination.
The repetition of inp s T and w.^3 in two consecutive sentences
is a mark of inferior style ; but the phrase tms Sf ?*Tl3, which
anticipates the introduction of Abram in v. 13 , is probably a
gloss (v.i.).
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 m. off, but Abram
had Met 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 Habiri of the Tel Amarna period
were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on io 21 );
though it is difficult to believe that there were Habiri in
Palestine more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ham
murabi (against Sellin, NKZ, xvi. 936 ; cf. Paton, Syria and
PaL 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. Mamre the
Amorite\ see on i3 18 . In J (whose phraseology is here
followed) N?.*? ? is the name of the sacred tree or grove ; in
P it is a synonym of Hebron ; here it is the personal name
of the owner of the grove. In like manner Eskol is a
personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol ( grape-
cluster, Nu. i3 23f -) ; and ( Aner may have a similar origin.
The first two, at all events, are " heroes eponymi of the most
unequivocal character" (No. Unters. 166), a misconcep
tion of which no contemporary would have been capable.*
noted also that Lot is elsewhere called simply the brother of Abram
( 14- 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. e ^n] Ezk. 24 26 33 21 (cf. Tjen, 2 Sa. i5 13 ). For the idiom, see
G-K. i26r. "jay?] ( T Trepdry (only here), Aq. r$ TrepatTrj.l^] jux
* Di. s remark (p. 235), that " it makes no difference whether Mamre
or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram," is hard to understand. If
266 ABRAM S VICTORY
the confederates of Abram (ffi O-WW/AOTCU)] The expression yP3
nnn does not recur; cf. nyttP ^3, Neh. 6 18 . Kraetzschmar s
view (Bundesvorstg* 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 v. 24 , another example of the writer s laxity in narration.
14. As soon as Abram learns the fate of his brother (i.e.
1 relative }, he called up his trained men (? : on P"]*! and l^n,
v.t.) and gave chase. three hundred and eighteen] The num
ber cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be
historical. It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewis h
Gematria, 318 being the numerical value of the letters of
ity^X (i5 2 ) (Ber. R. 43: see Nestle, ET, xvii. 44 f. [cf.
139 f.]). A modern Gematria finds in it the number of the
days of the moon s visibility during the lunar year (Wi. GI,
ii. 2*7). to Dan] Now Tell el-Kadi, at the foot of Hermon.
E"uy, (& AVVO.V. 14. p"V}] Lit. emptied out, used of the unsheathing
of a sword (Ex. is 9 , Lv. 26 33 , Ezk. 5 2 - 12 etc.), but never with pers. obj. as
here. Tu. cites the Ar. garrada, which means both unsheath a sword
and detach a company from an army (see Lane) ; but this is no real
analogy. AU. has pv}= scrutinize (Aram.). (5r ^pldfj.Tjfffv (so U) and 3T
I ll ( equip : so 5 and &J) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural.
Wi. (AOF, i. io2 2 ) derives from Ass. diku = ca.\\ up troops ; so Sellin,
937. Ball changes to n pS l. v:nq] air. Xe7., (Gr rovs /5tovs, U expedites,
J&3T young men. The *J "pn suggests the meaning initiated (see
on 4 17 ), hence trained, experienced, etc. Sellin (937) compares
the word fyanakuka= 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 p. 116), it may have nothing to do with war, but denote
simply those belonging to the household, the precise equivalent of
fV3 :& The latter phrase is found only in P (I^IM- a. 87 f Lv> 2 ,ii)
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 after
wards 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 J would have re
corded Abram s settlement at Hebron in the terms of I3 18 , 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 ch. 14.
XIV. 14-iS 26;
This name originated in the period of the Judges (Jos. ig 47 ,
Ju. i8 29 ); 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 under
stood) into three bands, the favourite tactical manoeuvre
in Hebrew warfare (Ju. 7 16 , i Sa. n 11 i3 17 , Jb. i 17 , i Mac.
5 33 ) : but see the footnote. smote them, and pursued them as
far as Hobati\ Hobah (cf. Jth. i5 5 ) has been identified by
Wetzstein with Hoba, c. 20 hours journey N of Damascus.
Sellin (934) takes it to be the Ubi of the TA Tablets, the
district in which Damascus was situated (KIB, 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.
17, 18-20. Abram and Melkizedek. "The scene be
tween Abram and Melkizedek is not without poetic charm :
the two ideals (Grosse) 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" (Gu. 253).
17. The scene of the meeting is rnt? pDV, interpreted as the
kings vale. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Sa. i8 18
as the site of Absalom s pillar, which, according to Josephus
(Ant. vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situa
tion harmonises with the common view that Salem is
Jerusalem (see below) ; and other information does not
exist. 18. Melkizedek, king of Salem, etc.} The primitive
and Jer. 2 14 . 15. pipiri] (cf. i Ki. i6 21 ). The sense given above is not
altogether natural. Ball emends p3"]!l. Wi. (67, ii. 27 2 ) suggests a pre
carious Ass. etymology, pointing as Piel, and rendering and he fell
upon them by night : so Sellin. SKD^I?] Lit. on the left. The sense
north is rare : Jos. ig 27 (P), Ezk. i6 4ti , Jb. 23*.
17. rrup (without art.) must apparently be a different word from
that in v. 5 . Hommel and Wi. emend n.^ (Sarre, the Ass. word for
king ). 18. pn}H?5>3] usually explained as King of Righteousness
(Heb. y 2 ), with z as old gen. ending retained by the annexion ; but
more probably = My king is Zidk, Zidk being the name of a S
268 ABRAM S VICTORY
combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been
abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.*
The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early
times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested
(comp. the patesis of Babylonia). Salem is usually under
stood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. i. 180;
2E OJ , Jer. [Qu.] y lEz. al.), as in Ps. 76*, the only other place
where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view
is the typical significance attached to Melkizedek in
Ps. i io 4 , which is hardly intelligible except on the supposi
tion that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty
or hierarchy of Jerusalem.
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 (Ju. ig 10 , i Ch. n 4 ); but the shortened
form Salem is as yet unattested. It has been suggested that the cunei
form 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 R. m. from Scythopolis (where, according
to Je. [Ep. ad Evagr.~\, the ruins of Melkizedek s palace were to be
seen) have no claim to acceptance.
On the name pvJJ 7S (God Most High}, see below, p. 270 f.
bread and wine] comp. * food and drink (akali Ukari)
provided for an army, etc., in the TA Tablets: KIB, 5o 22
207 16 209 12f - 242 16 (Sellin, 938). ip, 20. The blessing of
Arabian and Phoenician deity (Baudissin, Stud. i. 15 ; Baethgen,
Beitr. 128). That Zedek was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see
Is. i 21 - 26 , Jer. 3I 23 so 7 , Ps. n8 19 ) there is no reason to believe. 19. rnj?
has two senses in the OT (if, indeed, there be not two distinct roots :
see G-B. 14 s.v.): (a) create or produce (Ps. i39 13 , Pr. 8 22 , Dt. 32 6
[? Gn. 4 1 ]) ; (i) purchase or acquire by purchase (frequent). The
idea of bare possession apart from purchase is hardly represented
(? Is. i 3 ) ; 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 4 1 . 20. After ~n^, (Oi L ins.
* 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" (p. 31).
XIV. i8, 20 269
Melkizedek 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 inter
pretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the
antique blessing and curse (cf. 3 14ff - 4 llf - 9 25ff - 27 27ff - 39f -).
Creator of heaven and eartJi\ so ffi5J. There is no reason
to tone down the idea to that of mere possession ((JT, al.);
v. infra. By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges
the legitimacy of Melkizedek s priesthood (Heb. 7 4 ), 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 Jub. xiii.
25-27 : comp. Gn. 28 22 ).
The excision of the Melkizedek episode (see Wi. GI, ii. 29), which
seems to break the connexion of v. 21 with v. 17 , is a temptingly facile
operation ; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The designation of
Yah we as God Most High in the mouth of Abram (v. 22 ) is unintellig
ible apart from 18f> . 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 (Melkizedek) and the secular
(king of Sodom) authority. Hommel s ingenious and confident solution
(AHT, 1586.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and
resolves 17 24 wholly into an interview between Abram and Melkizedek,
is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. Sellin s view (p. 939 f.),
that vv. 18 " 20 are original and 17- 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 Melkizedek has given rise
to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and modern times. The
Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem ({J, Talm. 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 Heb. 7 lff> , exercised a certain influence on Christian
theology (see Jerome, Ep. ad Evagrium ; cf. JE, viii. 450). From a
critical point of view the question of interest is whether M. belongs
to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, created
to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood in Jerusalem
(Well. Comp.^ 312). In opposition to the latter view, Gu. rightly
points out that Judaism is not likely to have invented as the prototype
m,T. |ap] only Hos. n 8 , Is. 646 (<&, etc.), Pr. 4 9 . The etymology is
uncertain, but the view that it is a denom. fr. j:, shield (*J pj, BDB)
is hardly correct (see Earth. S, 4).
2/0 ABRAMS VICTORY
of the Hig-h 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 M. 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.*
To the writer of Ps. no, M. was "a type, consecrated by antiquity, to
which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must conform "
(Dri. 167) ; and even if that Ps. be not pre-Exilic (as Gu. supposes),
but as late as the Maccabaean 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 Melkizedek
in a supposed parallel between the dirdrup, ct/^rw/), ayvea\oyr]Tos of
Heb. y 3 and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)
of Abdhiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis iv. : "Neither my father nor
my mother set me in this place ; the mighty arm of the king estab
lished me in my father s house, "f Abdhiba might have been a
successor of Melkizedek ; 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 Abdhiba a political
turn, and is made use of to express his absolute dependence on the
Egyptian king. But it must be observed that Abdhiba s language is
perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic sense ; its agreement with the
words of the NT 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 vv. in Gen.
El * Ely on. 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 *$ ^8 (i? 1 ), o^V * (2i 33 ), *?N-jsr vrSi* *?K
(33 2 ) ^ n 3 ^ (35 7 )> and j^j; W (here and Ps. 7 8 35 ).t jv^ ( = upper/
highest ) is not uncommonly used of God in OT, either alone
(Nu. 24 16 , Dt. 32 8 , Ps. i8 14 etc.) or in combinations with m.T or D n 1 ?**
(Ps. 7 18 (?), 47 3 57 3 etc.). That it was in actual use among the
Canaanites is by no means incredible : the Phoenicians had a god
"EXiovv Ka\ovfj.fvos "lY KTTos (Eus. Pr(ep. Ev. i. 10, u, 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
* Gu. instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction by which
the imperial prestige of the Caesars was transferred to Charlemagne
and his successors. Josephus had the same view when he spoke of M.
as Xavavaluv dvvdvTrjs, and the first founder of Jerusalem (J5J, vi. 438).
f Homm. ART, 155*?. ; Sayce, Monn. 175; EHH, 28 f. ; Exp.
Times, vii. 340 ff., 4786., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts, and
letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).
J See Baethgen, Beitr. 291 f. Comp., in classical religion, Zeus
MeilichioSj -Xenios, Jupiter Terminus^ -Latiaris, etc.
XIV. i;, 21-24 271
that the Maccabees were called dpxtep^ Qeov itytVrou (Jos. Ant. xvi.
163; Ass. Mosis, 6 1 ).* This title, the frequent recurrence of jv^y as a
divine name in late Pss.,the name Salem in one such Ps.,and Melkizedek
in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences which go to show
that the Melkizedek legend was much in vogue about the time of the
Maccabees.
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. / lift up -my hand] the gesture
accompanying an oath (Ex. 6 8 , Nu. i4 30 , Dt. 32*, Ezk. 2O 23 ,
Dn. i2 7 etc.). to Yahive, El ( Elydn\ A recognition of
religious affinity with Melkizedek, as a fellow-worshipper
of the one true God. The mn% however, is probably an
addition to the text, wanting in (j and Si while jux has
DTl^n. 23. lest thou shouldst say, etc.] An earlier writer
(cf. i2 16 ) 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 con
descending allowance for the weakness of inferior natures
is mentioned to enhance the impression of Abram s
generosity (Gu.).
The Historic Value of Ch. 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 OT criticism (Homm.
AHT, 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 archaeological 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
22. -nbnq] On the pf., G-K. 106 /. 23. On the DN of negative
asseveration, 149 a, c. The second DNi, which adds force to the
negation, is not rendered by (5r or U. 24. "]J^?] lit. not unto me!
(in Hex. only 4i 16 - 44 [E], Jos. 22 19 [late]). <F<S seem to have read
P"5 1^? as a compound prepositional phrase (= except ).
* Siegfried, ThLz., 1895, 304. On the late prevalence of the title, see
also DB y iii. 450, EB, i. 70 (in and near Byblus), and Schurer, SBBA,
1897, p. 200 ff.
272 HISTORICITY OF
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 : (i) 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 v. 14 ). The presence of archaeological
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.* (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 1
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 considera
tion most relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from
Assyriology that the names in v. 1 are historical. The evidence on this
question has been given on p. 257 ff., and need not be here recapitulated.
* It is to be observed that in no single case is the correctness of the
gloss attested by independent evidence (see vv. 2< 3 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 17 ). Those who
maintain the existence of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with
the theory of Wi., 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 GI t ii. 28 ff. The question cannot be
further discussed here.
CH. XIV 273
We have seen that every one of the identifications is disputed by
more than one competent Assyriologist (see, further, Mey. GA 2 , I. ii.
p. 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 confirma
tion 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 informa
tion 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 v. 3 being thus admitted, we have to
inquire how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.
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 : (i) The inherent improbability or
incredibility of many of the incidents recorded. This line of criticism was
most fully elaborated by Noldeke in 1869 (Untersuchungen, 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 p. 261). (b) It is
difficult to resist the impression that some of the personal names
especially BZra and Birsha (see on v. 2 ), and Mamre and Eshcol (v. 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 p. 267). (ct) It
appears to be assumed in v. 3 that the Dead Sea was formed subsequently
to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in
Israel (cf. i3 10 ), 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
18
274 HISTORICITY OF
(S of el-Lisan), which by a partial subsidence of the ground might have
been formed within historic times.* 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
P and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older
Israelite historians" (Moore, EB, 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 consolida
tion 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 " (Gu. 255).
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
* Cf. Dri. s elaborate Note, p. i68ff. ; also Robinson, BR, ii. 187 f. ;
Gautier, EB, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, DB, i. 576.
CH. XIV 275
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.* 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 (NKZ, 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 1 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 vv. 14f> (p i, T:n,
p"?n) 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 docu
ment 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.
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 v. 1 are supposed to have been discovered is as
late as the 4th or 3rd cent. 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 Gn. 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 v. 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 Melkizedek, the importance, the revolt,
and even the existence, of the Cities of the KikLiir, 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 archaeology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal
* P. 256 above.
276 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (jE)
with quite distinct aspects of the problem ; and the fallacy lies in treat
ing- the chapter as a homogeneous and indivisible unity : it is like dis
cussing- 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 archaeologist 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. No., who has stated the case
against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any man, ex
pressly 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^).* 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.
CH. XV.Gotfs Covenant with Abram (JE).
In a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram s mis
givings regarding the fulfilment of the divine promises are
removed by solemn and explicit assurances, and by a symbolic
act in which the Almighty binds Himself by the inviolable
ceremonial of the berlth.\ In the present form of the chapter
there is a clear division between the promise of a son and heir
( 1 " 6 ) and the promise of the land ( 7 ~ 21 ), the latter alone being
strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.
Analysis. See, besides the comm., We. Comp. z 23 f. ; Bu. Urg. 416* ;
Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 75 ff. ; Kraetzschmar, op. cit. 58 ff. The chapter
shows unmistakable signs of composition, but the analysis is beset with
peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable, difficulties. We may begin by
* The same admission was made by We. as long ago as 1889
(Comp.* 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 v. 1 has not been denied by any leading- critic (e.g. Ew.
No. Di. We.), even before the discoveries of later years. For an
exposure of Sayce s extraordinary travesty of Noldeke s arguments,
the reader should consult Dri. Gen. 7 , Addenda to p. 173.
f "Die Berith ist diejenige kultische Handlung-, durch die in feierlicher
Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend welcher Art absolut
bindend und unverbriichlich g-emacht wurden" (Kraetzschmar, Bvndes-
vorstellung) 40 f.).
xv. i 277
examining the solution proposed by Gu. He assigns la- * b r 2a- 8b- * 6> 9<
10. 12a a . b. 17. 18a. b a to J . lb a)3 . 3a. f2b?] 5. 11. l^p. 13a. 14 ( to m ,). 16 to . anc j 7. 8.
isb. i4b. 15. isbp. 19-21 to a redactor. On this analysis the J fragments
form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at v. 7
being caused by R s insertion of 7f- But (i) it is not so easy to get
rid of 7f V. 8 is, and 6 is not, a suitable point of contact for 9ff - ; and
the omission of 7f> would make the covenant a confirmation of the
promise of an heir, whereas 18 expressly restricts it to the possession of
the land. And (2) the parts assigned to J contain no marks of the
Yahwistic style except the name m.T ; they present features not else
where observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas character
istic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points may be here noted :
(a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram ( K 4 ) ;
(b) the address m,r JIN ( 2a [cf. 8 ]) ; (c) the theological reflexion on the
nature of Abram s righteousness ( 6 : cf. Dt. 6 25 24 13 ) ; (d) the idea of the
Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of JE, and
common in Dt.) ; to which may be added (e) the ideal boundaries of the
land and the enumeration of its inhabitants ( 18b - 21 ), both of which are
Deuteronomistic (see on the vv. below). The ceremonial of 9f< 17 is no
proof of antiquity (cf. Jer. 34 17ff> ) } and the symbolic representation of
Yahwe s presence in 17 is certainly not decisive against the late author
ship of the piece (against Gu.). It is difficult to escape the impression
that the whole of this J narrative (including 7f- ) is the composition of an
editor who used the name m.T, but whose affinities otherwise are with
the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.
This result, however, still leaves unsolved problems, (i) It fails to
account for the obvious doublets in 2t 3 . 2b and 3a are generally recog
nised as the first traces in the Hex. of the document E, and 5 (a night
scene in contrast to 12t 17 ) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2)
With regard to t 12? l 13 16 , which most critics consider to be a redactional
expansion of J, I incline to the opinion of Gu., that n< 13 ~ 16 form part of
the sequel to the E narrative recognised in * 2b - 5 (note noKn, v. 16 ). (3)
The renewed introduction of Yah we in v. 7 forms a hiatus barely con
sistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by
Bacon s suggestion that the proper position of the J material in l ~ 9 is
intermediate between i5 18 and i6 l . But though this ingenious theory
removes one difficulty it creates others, and it leaves untouched what
seems to me the chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both
in 1-6 and 7 21 . The phenomena might be most fully explained by the
assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic
editor (probably R JE ), and afterwards combined with extracts from its
own original ; but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward
with any confidence.
1-6. The promise of an heir (J), and a numerous
posterity (E). I. The v. presupposes a situation of
I. nWn cmmn [ ]inK] frequent in E (22 1 40 1 48 1 , Jos. 24 29 ), but also
used by J (22 20 39 7 ). mrvij ] n;n (cf. v. 4 )] not elsewhere in the Hex. ;
278 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (JE)
anxiety on the part of Abram, following 1 on some meri
torious action performed by him. It is not certain that any
definite set of circumstances was present to the mind of the
writer, though the conditions are fairly well satisfied by
Abram s defenceless position amongst the Canaanites im
mediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gu.).
The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of
ch. 14 (Jewish Comm. and a few moderns) are far-fetched
and misleading. the word of Yahwe came] On the formula
v.i. The conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel
in J ; and even E, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a
&033 (2o 7 , g.v.), does not describe his intercourse with God
in technical prophetic phraseology. The representation is
not likely to have arisen before the age of written prophecy.
in a vision] probably a night-vision (see v. 5 ), in which case
the expression must be attributed to E. The mediate
character of revelation, as contrasted with the directness of
the older theophanies (e.g. ch. 18), is at all events character
istic of E. thy shield] a figure for protection common in
later writings: Dt. 33 29 , Ps. 3* y 11 oft., Pr. 2 7 3O 5 . thy
reward [will be] very great] a new sentence (ffij&)> not ( as U>
EV) a second predicate to 33K. 2. seeing I go hence childless}
found occasionally in the older writing s (i Sa. i5 10 , 2 Sa. 24 n ), but
chiefly in later prophets and superscriptions : specially common in Jer.
and Ezk. niqp] Only Nu. 2^- 16 , Ezk. i3 7 . The word is thus not at
all characteristic of E, thoug-h the idea of revelation through dreams
and visions (n^HD, Nu. I2 6 ; n^. Wi nN"]D, Gn. 46 2 ) undoubtedly is. Consider
ing- the many traces of late editing- in the chapter, it is highly
precarious to divide the phrases of v. 1 between J and E. nsin (inf.
abs.) as pred. is unusual and late (Ps. i3o 7 , EC. n 8 ). JXJL rmK, I will
multiply, is perhaps preferable. 2. ni.T JIN] (cf. 8 ) is common in the
elevated style of prophecy (esp. Ezk.), but rare in the Pss. In the
historical books it occurs only as a vocative (exc. i Ki. 2 26 ) : Jos. 7 , Ju.
622 I6 5> 8) _ Dt> 3 24 ^ 2 Sa> ylS. 19. 20. 28. 29 } , Ki . ^ Q f these the fifst
three are possibly J ; the rest are Deuteronomic. itjrW pi] ffir has 6 5t
vies Mdcre/c TTJS oiKoyevovs /xou, OVTOS Aa/ma/cds EAt^ep, a meaningless sen
tence in the connexion, unless supplemented by /cX7?poi/o/*^<ret /xe, as in some
MSS of Philo (before oSros). & paraphrases : (j-dCDOk)5> 5].^ i \]o
w^.\ Z^_i OO1 t_.rA > *^ ^^. pK D is a air. \ey., which appears not to
have been understood by any of the Vns. (Sr treats it as the name of
Eliezer s mother, Aq. (TTOT/^OZ/TOS) as - n^, 1 ? ; 0F^J g"ive it the sense
xv. 2-5 279
So all Vns., taking- ^n in the sense of die (Ps. 39 14 :
cf. Ar. halaka], though the other sense (* walk = live )
would be quite admissible. To die childless and leave no
name on earth (Nu. 27*) is a fate so melancholy that even
the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope
or joy. 2b is absolutely unintelligible (v.t.). The Vns.
agree in reading 1 the names Eliezer and Damascus, and
also (with the partial exception of (S) in the general under
standing that the clause is a statement as to Abram s heir.
This is probably correct ; but the text is so corrupt that
even the proper names are doubtful, and there is only a
presumption that the sense agrees with 3b . 3. In the
absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as a member
of the family, might inherit (Sta. GVI, i. 391 ; Benzinger,
Arch.** 113). n??~I? is a member of the household, but not
necessarily a home-born slave (JV3 Tp) } i4 14 ). 5. The promise
of a numerous seed (cf. 3a - 13 ) is E s parallel to the announce
ment of the birth of a bodily heir in J (v. 4 ). the stars] a
favourite image of the later editors and Deuteronomy (22 17
of steward, which may be a mere conjecture like the avyyevrjs of 2.
Modern comm. generally regard the word as a modification of je O
(Jb. 28 18 ?)with the sense of possession TV? ]! = son of possession
= possessor or inheritor (so Ges. Tu. KS. Str. al.) ; but this has
neither philological justification nor traditional support. A *J pt?o (in
spite of p^pp, Zeph. 2 9 ) is extremely dubious. The last clause cannot be
rendered either This is Eliezer of Damascus, or This is Damascus,
namely Eliezer (De.). & and 3T adopt the summary expedient of
turning the subst. into an adj., and reading Eliezer the Damascene
(similarly E/3/3. in Field). It is difficult to imagine what Damascus
can have to do here at all ; and if a satisfactory sense for the previous
words could be obtained, it would be plausible enough (with Hitz. Tu.
KS. al.) to strike out paw [Kin] as a stupid gloss on pg D. Ball s emenda
tion, "iji; 1 ^ ptfayfl NH jv2 pa>Di, and he who will possess my house is a
Damascene Eliezer, is plausible, but the sing. J| with the name of a
city is contrary to Heb. idiom. Bewer (JBL, 1908, pt. 2, i6off. ) has
proposed the reading ingenious but not convincing jqi ^> px n^pa cn;u.
2a and ^ are parallels (note the double N noN i), of which the former
obviously belongs to J, the latter consequently to E. Since 3b is J rather
than E (cf. ahi with v. 4 ), it follows that ^ > must be transposed if the
latter be E s parallel to 3b . 3. PV] in the sense of be heir to : cf. 2i 10
(E), 2 Sa. i 4 7 , Jer. 49 1 , Pr. 3O 23 . 4. TOD (ffi 1?9?)] of the father, 2 Sa.
7 12 16", Is. 4 8 19 ; of the mother, 25 23 (J), Is. 49 1 , Ru. i 11 , Ps. 71". 5.
nsnnn] in J, i 9 17 2 4 29 39 12 - 13 - ]5 - 18 (Jos. 2 19 ?) ; but also Dt. 2 4 U 25* etc.
280 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (jE)
26*, Ex. 32 13 , Dt. i 10 io 22 28 62 ). 6. counted it (his implicit
trust in the character of Yahwe) as righteousness} i Mac. 2~ )2 .
npnv is here neither inherent moral character, nor piety in
the subjective sense, but a right relation to God conferred
by a divine sentence of approval (see We. Pss., SBOT, 174).
This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification
by faith (Ro. 4 3 - 9 - 22 , Gal. 3 6 ; cf. Ja. 2 23 ) must, of course, be understood
in the light of OT conceptions. The idea of righteousness as de
pendent on a divine judgment (3$ : n) could only have arisen on the basis
of legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands later
in theological development than Dt. 6 25 24 13 , and has its nearest
analogies in Ps. io6 31 24. The reflexion is suggested by the question
how Abram, who had no law to fulfil, was nevertheless righteous ;
and, finding the ground of his acceptance in an inward attitude towards
God, it marks a real approximation to the Apostle s standpoint. Gu.
(161) well remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of
this abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram s faith
came to light.
7-21. The covenant. 7, 8. The promise of the land,
Abram s request for a pledge (ct. v. 6 ), and the self-introduc
tion of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the com
mencement of an interview), are marks of discontinuity
difficult to reconcile with the assumption of the unity of the
narrative. Most critics accordingly recommend the excision
of the vv. as an interpolation.
So Di. KS. Kraetzschmar, Gu. al. Their genuineness is maintained
by Bu. De. Bacon, Ho. ; We. thinks they have been at least worked
over. The language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The "JN ( 7 ) is not
a sufficient ground for rejection (see Bu. 439) ; and although D ttya mx in
a J-context may be suspicious, we have no right to assume that it did
not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition (see p. 239 above). But
nnenV nn 1 ? is a decidedly Deuteronomic phrase (see Off, i. 205) : on JiK
JUT, see on v. 2 . On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage
these linguisti 
TVNews
OpenLibrary