Chapter IV: Beginnings of History and Civilisation (2)

The truth is that in the present form of the story the figure of
Cain represents a fusion of several distinct types, of which it
is difficult to single out any one as the central idea of the
legend. (1) He is the originator of agriculture (verse ²). (2)
He is the founder of sacrifice, and (as the foil to his brother
Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offerings alone are not
acceptable to Yahwe (see on verse ³). (3) He is the individual
murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the
curse, like the Orestes, Alcmæon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek
legend (verse ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ). Up to verse ¹² that motive not only is
sufficient, but is the only one naturally suggested to the mind:
the expression נָע וָנָד being merely the negative aspect of the curse
which drives him from the ground.¹ (4) Lastly, in verses ¹³⁻¹⁶
he is the representative of the nomad tribes of the desert, as
viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisation.
Ewald pointed out the significant circumstance, that at the
beginning of the ‘second age’ of the world’s history we find
the counterparts of Abel and Cain in the shepherd Jabal and
the smith Tubal-Cain (verse ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). It seems probable that some
connexion exists between the two pairs of brothers: in other
words, that the story of Cain and Abel embodies a variation
of the tradition which assigned the origin of cattle-breeding
and metal-working to two sons of Lamech. But to resolve the
composite legend into its primary elements, and assign each to
its original source, is a task obviously beyond the resources of
criticism.

¹ For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, compare
Doughty’s description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had
accidentally slain his antagonist in a wrestling match:
“None accused Aly; nevertheless the _mesquin_ fled for
his life; and he has gone ever since thus armed, lest
the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him.”
(_Travels in Arabia Deserta_ ii. 293, cited by Stade).

IV. 17‒24.
_The line of Cain._

This genealogy, unlike that of Priestly-Code in chapter 5, is not a mere list of names, but is compiled with the view of showing the origin of the principal arts and institutions of civilised life.¹ These are: Husbandry (verse ²; see above), city-life (¹⁷), [polygamy (¹⁹) ?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-working (²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). The Song of Lamech (²³ ᶠᐧ) may signalise an appalling development of the spirit of blood-revenge, which could hardly be considered an advance in culture; but the connexion of these verses with the genealogy is doubtful.――It has commonly been held that the passage involves a pessimistic estimate of human civilisation, as a record of progressive degeneracy and increasing alienation from God. That is probably true of the compiler who placed the section after the account of the Fall, and incorporated the Song of Lamech, which could hardly fail to strike the Hebrew mind as an exhibition of human depravity. In itself, however, the genealogy contains no moral judgment on the facts recorded. The names have no sinister significance; polygamy (though a declension from the ideal of 2²⁴) is not generally condemned in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵); and even the song of Lamech (which is older than the genealogy) implies no condemnation of the reckless and bloodthirsty valour which it celebrates.――The institutions enumerated are clearly those existing in the writer’s own day; hence the passage does not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of development by a cataclysm like the Flood. That the representation involves a series of anachronisms, and is not historical, requires no proof (see Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 68).――On the relation of the section to other parts of the chapter, see page 98 above: on some further critical questions, see the concluding Note (page 122 ff.).

¹ Gunkel, however (page 47), considers the archæological
notices to be insertions in the genealogy, and treats them
as of a piece with the similar notices in 2¹⁵ 3⁷ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³.

=17. Enoch and the building of the first city.=――The question where Cain got his wife is duly answered in _Jubilees_ iv. 1, 9: she was his sister, and her name was _‛Âwân_. For other traditions, see Marmorstein, ‘_Die Namen der Schwestern Kains und Abels_,’ etc., _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 141 ff.――_and he became a city-builder_] So the clause is rightly rendered by Delitzsch, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al. (compare 21²⁰ᵇ, Judges 16²¹, 2 Kings 15⁵). The idea that he happened to be engaged in the building of a city when his son was born would probably have been expressed otherwise, and is itself a little unnatural.

That קַיִן is the subject of וַיְהִי only appears from the phrase
כְּשֵׁם בְּנוֹ towards the end. Budde (120 ff.) conjectures that the
original text was כִּשְׁמוֹ, making Enoch himself the builder of
the city called after him (so Holzinger). The emendation is
plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of _two_ steps in
civilisation――agriculture and city-building; and it satisfies
a natural expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should
hear what _he_ became, not what his father became after his
birth,――especially when the subject of the immediately preceding
verbs is Cain’s wife. But the difficulty of accounting for the
present text is a serious objection, the motive suggested by
Budde (123) being far-fetched and improbable.――The incongruity
between this notice and verses ¹¹⁻¹⁶ has already been mentioned
(page 100). Lenormant’s examples of the mythical connexion of
city-building with fratricide (_Les Origines de l’histoire_²,
i. 141 ff.) are not to the point; the difficulty is not that
the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More
relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes
of outlaws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling
of Rome (_Fort. Rev._ 1899, April, 650‒4). But the anomaly is
wholly due to composition of sources: the Cain of the genealogy
was neither a nomad nor a fratricide. It has been proposed
(Holzinger, Gunkel) to remove ¹⁷ᵇ as an addition to the
genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would
put city-building before cattle-rearing; but the Phœnician
tradition is full of such anachronisms, and shows how little they
influenced the reasoning of ancient genealogists.――The name חֲנוֹךְ
occurs (besides 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Chronicles 1³) as that of a Midianite
tribe in 25⁴ (1 Chronicles 1³³), and of a Reubenite clan in
46⁹ (Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³). It is also
said that חנך is a Sabæan tribal name (Gesenius-Buhl¹² _s.v._),¹
which has some importance in view of the fact that קֵינָן (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ)
is the name of a Sabæan deity. As the name of a city, the word
would suggest to the Hebrew mind the thought of ‘initiation’
(_v.i._). The city חנוך cannot be identified. The older
conjectures are given by Dillmann (page 99); Sayce (_Zeitschrift
für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 404; _Hibbert Lectures_, 185)
and Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 624; but see now _Traditions
and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 106) connect it with _Unuk_, the
ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.

¹ Omitted in 13th edition.

* * * * *

=17.= On וידע, see on verse ¹.――The verb חָנַךְ appears from Arabic
_ḥanaka_ to be a denominative from _ḥanak_ (Hebrew חֵךְ), and
means to rub the palate of a new-born child with chewed dates:
hence tropically ‘to initiate’ (Lane, _s.v._; Wellhausen _Reste
arabischen Heidentums_ 173). In Hebrew it means to ‘dedicate’
or ‘inaugurate’ a house, etc. (Deuteronomy 20⁵, 1 Kings 8⁶³:
compare חֲנֻכָּה, Numbers 7¹¹, Nehemiah 12²⁷ etc.); and also to
‘teach’ (Proverbs 22⁶). See, further, on 5¹⁸.

* * * * *

=18.= The next four generations are a blank so far as any advance in civilisation is concerned. The only question of general interest is the relation of the names to those of chapter 5.

On the first three names, see especially Lagarde, _Orientalia_,
ii. 33‒38; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 123‒9.――עִירָד] LXX
Γαιδαδ (= עֵידָד), Peshiṭtå עִידָר (the latter supported by Philo),
corresponds to יֶרֶד in 5¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. The initial guttural, and the want
of a Hebrew etymology, would seem to indicate עירד as the older
form which has been Hebraized in ירד; but the conclusion is not
certain. If the root be connected with Arabic _‛arada_ (which
is doubtful in view of LXX’s Γ), the idea might be either
‘fugitive’ (Dillmann al.), or ‘strength, hardness, courage’
(Budde). Sayce (_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii.
404) suggests an identification with the Chaldean city _Eridu_;
Holzinger with עֲרָד in the Negeb (Judges 1¹⁶ etc.).――The next two
names are probably (but not certainly: see Gray, _Studies in
Hebrew Proper Names_, 164 f.) compounds with אֵל. The first is
given by Massoretic Text in two forms, מְחוּיָאֵל and מְחִיָּ[י]אֵל. The
variants of LXX are reducible to three types, Μαιηλ (מחייאל),
Μαουιηλ (מחויאל), Μαλελεηλ (= מהללאל, 5¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ). Lagarde considers
the last original, though the first is the best attested.
Adopting this form, we may (with Budde) point the Hebrew מַחְיִי אֵל
or מְחַיִּי אֵל = ‘God makes me live’: so virtually Philo ἀπὸ ζωῆς θεοῦ,
and Jerome _ex vita Deus_ (cited by Lagarde). Both Massoretic
forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: ‘destroyed (or smitten)
of God’ (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Driver
_Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 14).――מְתוּשָׁאֵל is
now commonly explained by Assyrian _mutu-ša-ili_, ‘Man of God,’¹
though the relative ša presents a difficulty (Gray, _l.c._).
The true LXX reading is Μαθουσαλα (= מְתוּשֶׁלַח, 5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Μαθουσαηλ
occurs as a correction in some MSS――לֶמֶךְ] again inexplicable from
Hebrew or even Arabic. Sayce (_Hibbert Lectures_ 186) and Hommel
connect it with _Lamga_, a Babylonian name of the moon-god,
naturalised in South Arabia.²

¹ Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 262 f., Dillmann,
Budde, al. Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625. It does not
appear that _mutu-ša-ili_ occurs as an _actual_ name.

² Hommel, _Die altisraelitische überlieferung in
inschriftlicher beleuchtung_ 117 n.: “Lamga ist ein
babylonischer Beiname des Sin; daraus machten die Sabäer,
mit volksetymologischer Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka
(wahrsch. glänzen), einen Plural Almâku.”

* * * * *

=18.= On accusative אֵת with passive see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116
_a_, _b_.――יָלַד in the sense of ‘beget’ is a sure mark of the
style of Yahwist (see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
99).――מְתוּ] archaic nominative case (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_)
of an old Semitic word (also Egyptian according to Erman) מֵת =
‘man’ (male, husband, etc.): compare Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._

* * * * *

=19. The two wives of Lamech.=――No judgment is passed on Lamech’s bigamy, and probably none was intended. The notice may be due simply to the fact that the names of the wives happened to be preserved in the song afterwards quoted.

Of the two female names by far the most attractive explanation
is that of Ewald (_Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_,
vi. 17), that עָדָה means Dawn (Arabic _ġadⁱⁿ_, but LXX has Ἀδα),
and צִלָּה (feminie of צֵל) Shadow,――a relic of some nature-myth
(compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² 183 f.).
Others (Holzinger) take them as actual proper names of inferior
stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech; pointing out that עדה
recurs in 36² ᶠᶠᐧ as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This
ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the
passage. For other explanations, see Dillmann page 100.

=20‒22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.=――At this point the genealogy breaks up into three branches, introducing (as Ewald thinks) a second age of the world. But since it is nowhere continued, all we can say is that the three sons represent three permanent social divisions, and (we must suppose) three modes of life that had some special interest for the authors of the genealogy. On the significance of this division, see at the close.――=20.= _Yābāl_, son of ‛Adah, _became the father_ (_i.e._ originator: Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ רַב) _of tent- and cattle-dwellers_ (_v.i._); _i.e._ of nomadic shepherds. מִקְנֶה, however, is a wider term than צאן (verse ²), including all kinds of cattle, and even camels and asses (Exodus 9³). The whole Bedouin life is thus assigned to Jabal as its progenitor.――=21.= _Yûbāl_, also a son of ‛Adah, is the father of _all who handle lyre and pipe_; the oldest and simplest musical instruments. These two occupations, representing the bright side of human existence, have ‛Adah (the Dawn?) as their mother; recalling the classical association of shepherds with music (see Lenormant i. 207).――=22.= Equally suggestive is the combination of _Tûbal-ḳáyin_, the smith, and _Na‛ămāh_ (‘pleasant’), as children of the dark Ẓillah; compare the union of Hephæstos and Aphrodite in Greek mythology (Dillmann al.).――The opening words of ᵃ{β} are corrupt. We should expect: _he became the father of every artificer in brass and iron_ (see footnote). The persistent idea that Tubal-cain was the inventor of weapons, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, and most, which has led to a questionable interpretation of the Song, has no foundation. He is simply the metal-worker, an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as a species of black-art,¹ and by Semitic nomads held in contempt.

¹ See Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_
(1878), 157.

On the names in these verses see the interesting discussion
of Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 192 ff.――The
alliterations, _Yābāl_――_Yûbāl_――_Tûbal_, are a feature of
legendary genealogies: compare Arabic Habîl and Ḳabîl, Shiddîd
and Shaddâd, Mâlik and Milkân, etc. (Lenormant. 192). יבל
(LXX Ἰωβελ -ηλ) and יובל (Ἰουβαλ) both suggest יֹבֵל (Hebrew and
Phœnician), which means primarily ‘ram,’ then ‘ram’s horn’ as
a musical instrument (Exodus 19¹³), and finally ‘joyous music’
(in the designation of the year of Jubilee). On a supposed
connexion of יבל with הֶבֶל in the sense of ‘herdsman,’ see above,
page 103.――תּוּבַל is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for
metal-working (see on 10²); and it is generally held that their
_heros eponymus_ supplies the name of the founder of metallurgy
here; but the equation is doubtful. A still more precarious
combination with a word for smith (_tumā́l_, _dubalanza_, etc.)
in Somali and other East African dialects, has been propounded
by Merker (_Die Masai_, 306). The compound תובל קין (written in
Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either ‘Tubal [the] smith’
(in which case קין [we should expect הקין] is probably a gloss), or
‘Tubal of (the family of) Cain.’¹ LXX has simply Θοβελ; but see
the footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the Τελχῖνες,
the first workers in iron and brass, and the makers of Saturn’s
scythe (Strabo, XIV. ii. 7); and the pair of brothers who,
in the Phœnician legend, were σιδήρου εὑρεταὶ καὶ τῆς τούτου
ἐργασίας.――נַֽעֲמָה (LXX Νοεμα) seems to have been a mythological
personage of some importance. A goddess of that name is known
to have been worshipped by the Phœnicians.² In Jewish tradition
she figures as the wife of Noah (_Bereshith Rabba_), as a demon,
and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of _vocal_ music
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ: compare Lagarde _Onomastica Sacra_, 180, 56:
Νοεμὶν ψάλλουσα φωνῇ οὐκ ἐν ὀργάνῳ [Nestle, _Marginalien und
Materialien_, 10]).

¹ So Ewald, who thinks the קין belongs to each of the three
names.

² Lenormant 200 f.; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im
Altertum_ i. 265; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
Cölestins_ 150.

* * * * *

=20.= ישֵׁב אֹהֶל וּמִקְנֶה] LXX οἰκούντων ἐν σκηναῖς κτηνοτρόφων, perhaps
reading אהלי מקנה as in 2 Chronicles 14¹⁵ (so Ball). Vulgate
(_atque pastorum_) takes מַקְנֶה as a participle; Peshiṭtå inserts
(‡ Syriac word), and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ומרי, before ‘cattle’;
similarly Kuenen proposed וקנה מקנה. The zeugma is somewhat hard,
but is retained by most commentaries for the sake of conformity
with verse ²¹ ᶠᐧ; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _bb_, 118 _g_.――=21.=
וְשֵׁם אָחִיו] compare 10²⁵ (Yahwist) (1 Chronicles 7¹⁶).――אבי וגו׳] LXX
καταδείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν.――כִּנּוֹר וְעוּגָב] Vulgate _cithara et
organo_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כנורא ואבובא
(∥ נבלא). See Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_², 237‒246;
Wellhausen _Psalms_ (_Polychrome Bible_), 219 f., 222 f.; Riehm,
_Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 1043 ff. The כנור is
certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (1 Samuel
16²³ etc.), probably the lyre (Greek κινύρα). The עוגב (associated
with the כנור in Job 21¹² 30³¹: elsewhere only Psalms 150⁴) is
some kind of wind instrument (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ),――a flute
or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan’s pipe (σύριγξ).――=22.= גם הוא]
_in genealogies_ (as here, 4²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ [Judges 8³¹])
is characteristic of Yahwist.――תובל קין] LXX Θοβελ· καὶ ἦν. Other
versions have the compound name, and on the whole it is probable
that καὶ ἦν is a corruption of Καιν, although the next clause
has Θοβελ alone.――לֹטֵשׁ וגו׳] LXX καὶ ἦν σφυροκόπος, χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ
καὶ σιδήρου, Vulgate _qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta
opera aer. et f_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
רבהון דכל ידעי עיבידת נ׳ וב׳. To get any kind of sense from Massoretic Text,
it is necessary either (a) to take לֹטֵשּׁ (‘sharpener’ or ‘hammerer’)
in the sense of ‘instructor’; or (b) take חֹרֵשׁ as neuter (‘a
hammerer of every cutting implement of,’ etc.); or (c) adopt the
quaint construction (mentioned by Budde 138): ‘a hammerer of all
(sorts of things),――a (successful) artificer in bronze,’ etc.!
All these are unsatisfactory; and neither the omission of כל
with LXX (Dillmann), nor the insertion of אבי before it yields
a tolerable text. Budde’s emendation (139 ff.) ויהי למך חֹרֵשׁ וגו׳ [for
קין] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his utterly
improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was originally
designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in
the words קין לטש, for which we should expect, הוא היה אבי (Olshausen,
Ball). The difficulty is to account for the present text: it
is easy to say that לטש and קין are glosses, but there is nothing
in the verse to require a gloss, and neither of these words
would naturally have been used by a Hebrew writer for that
purpose.――בַּֽרְזָל] The Semitic words for ‘iron’ (Assyrian _parzillu_,
Aramaic פַּרְזָל (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _farzil_) have no Semitic
etymology, and are probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On
the antiquity of iron in West Asia, see Ridgeway, _Early Age of
Greece_ i. 616 ff.

* * * * *

=23, 24. The song of Lamech.=――A complete poem in three distichs, breathing the fierce implacable spirit of revenge that forms the chief part of the Bedouin’s code of honour. It is almost universally assumed (since Herder) that it commemorates the invention of weapons by Tubal-cain, and is accordingly spoken of as Lamech’s ‘Sword Song.’ But the contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion (Wellhausen); and the position in which it stands makes its connexion with the genealogy dubious. On that point see, further, below. It is necessary to study it independently, as a part of the ancient legend of Lamech which may have supplied some of the material that has been worked into the genealogy.――The verses may be rendered:

²³Adah and Zillah, hear my voice!
Wives of Lamech, attend to my word!
For I kill a man for a wound to me,
And a boy for a scar.
²⁴For Cain takes vengeance seven times,
But Lamech seventy times and seven!

=23a.= Holzinger raises the question whether the words ‘Adah and Zillah’ belong to the song or the prose introduction; and decides (with Vulgate) for the latter view, on the ground that in the remaining verses the second member is shorter than the first (which is not the case). The exordium of the song might then read:

Hear my voice, ye women of Lamech!
Attend to my word!――

the address being not to the wives of an individual chieftain, but to the females of the tribe collectively. It appears to me that the alteration destroys the balance of clauses, and mars the metrical effect: besides, strict syntax would require the repetition of the לְ.――=23b.= The meaning is that (the tribe?) Lamech habitually avenges the slightest personal injury by the death of man or child of the tribe to which the assailant belongs. According to the principle of the blood-feud, אִישׁ and יֶלֶד (י׳ is not a fighting ‘youth,’――a sense it rarely bears: 1 Kings 12⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Daniel 1⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ,――but an innocent man-child [Budde, Holzinger]) are not the actual perpetrators of the outrage, but any members of the same clan. The parallelism therefore is not to be taken literally, as if Lamech selected a victim proportionate to the hurt he had received.――=24.= Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the fierceness of its vendetta (7 times); but the vengeance of Lamech knows no limit (70 and 7 times).

The Song has two points of connexion with the genealogy: the
names of the two wives, and the allusion to Cain. The first
would disappear if Holzinger’s division of ²³ᵃ were accepted;
but since the ordinary view seems preferable, the coincidence
in the names goes to show that the song was known to the authors
of the genealogy and utilised in its construction. With regard
to the second, Gunkel rightly observes that glorying over an
_ancestor_ is utterly opposed to the spirit of antiquity; the
Cain referred to must be a rival contemporary tribe, whose
grim vengeance was proverbial. The comparison, therefore,
tells decidedly against the unity of the passage, and perhaps
points (as Stade thinks) to a connection between the song
and the legendary cycle from which the Cain story of ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ
emanated.――The temper of the song is not the primitive ferocity
of “a savage of the stone-age dancing over the corpse of his
victim, brandishing his flint tomahawk,” etc. (Lenormant);
its real character was first divined by Wellhausen, who, after
pointing out the baselessness of the notion that it has to do
with the invention of weapons, describes it as “eine gar keiner
besonderen Veranlassung bedürftige Prahlerei eines Stammes
(Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie die Araber sich
besonders gern ihren Weibern gegenüber als grosse Eisenfresser
rühmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech” (_Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
305). On this view the question whether it be a song of triumph
or of menace does not arise; as expressing the permanent
temper and habitual practice of a tribe, it refers alike to
the past and the future. The sense of the passage was strangely
misconceived by some early Fathers (perhaps by LXX, Vulgate),
who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated
murder committed by Lamech. The rendering of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ is
based on the idea (maintained by Kalisch) that Lamech’s purpose
was to represent his homicide as justifiable and himself as
guiltless: ‘I have not slain a man on whose account I bear guilt,
nor wounded a youth for whose sake my seed shall be cut off.
When 7 generations were suspended for Cain, shall there not be
for Lamech his son 70 and 7?’ Hence arose the fantastic Jewish
legend that the persons killed by Lamech were his ancestor Cain
and his own son Tubal-cain (Rashi al.; compare Jerome _Epistula
Hieronymi ad Damasum papam_, 125).¹――The metrical structure of
the poem is investigated by Sievers in _Metrische Studien_, i.
404 f., and ii. 12 f., 247 f. According to the earlier and more
successful analysis, the song consists of a double tetrameter,
followed by two double trimeters. Sievers’ later view is
vitiated by an attempt to fit the poem into the supposed
metrical scheme of the genealogy, and necessitates the excision
of עדה וצלה as a gloss.

¹ See, further, Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_ i.
186 ff.

Apart from verse ²³ ᶠᐧ, the most remarkable feature of the
genealogy is the division of classes represented by the three
sons of Lamech. It is difficult to understand the prominence
given to this classification of mankind into herdsmen, musicians,
and smiths, or to imagine a point of view from which it would
appear the natural climax of human development. Several recent
scholars have sought a clue in the social conditions of the
Arabian desert, where the three occupations may be said to
cover the whole area of ordinary life. Jabal, the first-born
son, stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks
and herds,¹――the _élite_ of all nomadic-living men, and the
‘flower of human culture’ (Budde 146). The two younger sons
symbolise the two avocations to which the pure nomad will not
condescend, but which are yet indispensable to his existence
or enjoyment――smith-work and music (Stade 232). The obvious
inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic
people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in
Canaan (Budde); though Holzinger considers that it embodies a
specifically Ḳenite tradition in which the eponymous hero Cain
appears as the ancestor of the race (so Gordon, _The Early
Traditions of Genesis_, 188 ff.).――Plausible as this theory is
at first sight, it is burdened with many improbabilities. If
the early Semitic nomads traced their ancestry to (peasants
and) city-dwellers, they must have had very different ideas from
their successors the Bedouin of the present day.² Moreover, the
circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a very incomplete
parallel to the classes of verses ²⁰⁻²². Though the smiths form
a distinct caste, there is no evidence that a caste of musicians
ever existed among the Arabs; and the Bedouin contempt for
professional musicians is altogether foreign to the sense of the
verses, which certainly imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal’s
art. And once more, as Stade himself insists, the outlook of the
genealogy is world-wide. Jabal is the prototype of all nomadic
herdsmen everywhere, Jubal of all musicians, and Tubal (the
Tibareni?) of all metallurgists.――It is much more probable that
the genealogy is projected from the standpoint of a settled,
civilised, and mainly agricultural community. If (with Budde)
we include verses ² and ¹⁷ᵇ, and regard it as a record of human
progress, the order of development is natural: husbandmen,
city-dwellers, wanderers [?] (shepherds, musicians, and smiths).
The three sons of Lamech represent not the highest stage of
social evolution, but three picturesque modes of life, which
strike the peasant as interesting and ornamental, but by no
means essential to the framework of society.――This conclusion is
on the whole confirmed by the striking family likeness between
the Cainite genealogy and the legendary Phœnician history
preserved by Eusebius from Philo Byblius, and said to be based
on an ancient native work by Sanchuniathon. Philo’s confused and
often inconsistent account is naturally much richer in mythical
detail than the Hebrew tradition; but the general idea is the
same: in each case we have a genealogical list of the legendary
heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and occupations
is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phœnician tradition
is the more original may be doubtful; in any case “it is
difficult,” as Driver says, “not to think that the Hebrew and
Phœnician representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle
of tradition, which in its turn may have derived at least some
of its elements from Babylonia” (_The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_ page 74).³

¹ But against this view, see page 112 above, and Meyer, _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff.

² Holzinger evades this objection by deleting verse ¹⁷ᵇ,
and reducing the genealogy to a bare list of names; but
why should the Ḳenites have interposed a whole series of
generations between their eponymous ancestor and the origin
of their own nomadic life?

³ Compare Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited
by Heinichen, page 39 ff.). The Greek text is printed in
Müller’s _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ iii. 566 f.
French translations are given by Lenormant _Les Origines
de l’histoire_ i. 536 ff., and Lagrange, _Études sur les
Religions Semitiques_¹, 362 ff. (the latter with a copious
commentary and critical introduction).――The passage in
Eusebius is much too long to be quoted in full, but the
following extracts will give some idea of its contents
and its points of similarity with Genesis: Of the two
protoplasts Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος, it is recorded εὑρεῖν δὲ
τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων τροφήν.――The second pair,
Γένος and Γενεά, dwelt in Phœnicia, and inaugurated the
worship of the sun.――Of the race of Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος were
born three mortal children, Φῶς, Πῦρ, and Φλόξ: οὗτοι ἐκ
παρατριβῆς ξύλων εὗρον πῦρ, καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν ἐδίδαξαν.――Then
followed a race of giants, of whom was born [Σα]μημροῦμος
(= שׁמי מרום) ὁ καὶ Ὑ ψουράνιος, who founded Tyre. Of him we
read: καλύβας τε ἐπινοῆσαι ἀπὸ καλάμων, καὶ θρύων, καὶ
παπύρων· στασιάσαι δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν Οὔσωον, ὃς σκέπην τῷ
σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ...
Δένδρου δὲ λαβόμενον τὸν Οὔσωον καὶ ἀποκλαδεύσαντα, πρῶτον
τολμῆσαι εἰς θάλασσαν ἐμβῆναι· ἀνιερῶσαι δὲ δύο στήλας ...
αἷμά τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε θηρίων.――The further
history of invention names (a) Ἀγρεύς and Ἁλιεύς, τοὺς
ἁλείας καὶ ἄγρας εὑρετάς; (b) ... δύο ἀδελφοὺς σιδήρου
εὑρετὰς, καὶ τῆς τούτου ἐργασίας· ὧν θάτερον τὸν Χρυσὼρ
λόγους ἀσκῆσαι, καὶ ἐπῳδὰς καὶ μαντείας; (c) Τεχνίτης
and Γήϊνος Αὐτόχθων: οὗτοι ἐπενόησαν τῷ πηλῷ τῆς πλίνθου
συμμιγνύειν φορυτὸν, καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ αὐτὰς τερσαίνειν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ στέγας ἐξεῦρον; (d) Ἀγρός and Ἀγρούηρος (or Ἀγρότης):
ἐπενόησαν δὲ οὗτοι αὐλὰς προστιθέναι τοῖς οἴκοις καὶ
περιβόλαια καὶ σπήλαια· ἐκ τούτων ἀγρόται καὶ κυνηγοί;
(e) Ἄμυνος and Μάγος: οἳ κατέδειξαν κῶμας καὶ ποίμνας;
(f) Μισώρ (מישר) and Συδύκ (צדק): οὗτοι τὴν τοῦ ἁλὸς χρῆσιν
εὗρον. (g) Of Μισώρ was born Τάαυτ, ὃς εὗρε τὴν τῶν πρώτων
στοιχείων γραφήν; and (h) of Συδύκ, the Διόσκουροι: οὗτοι,
φησὶ, πρῶτοι πλοῖον εὗρον.――After them came others οἳ καὶ
βοτάνας εὗρον, καὶ τὴν τῶν δακετῶν ἴασιν, καὶ ἐπῳδάς.――It
is impossible to doubt that some traditional elements have
been preserved in this extraordinary medley of euhemerism
and archæology, however unfavourably it may contrast with
the simplicity of the biblical record.

* * * * *

=23.= The Introduction of the song is imitated in Isaiah
28³² 32⁹; compare also Deuteronomy 32¹. The words הֶֽאֱזין and
אִמְרָה are almost exclusively poetical.――On the form שְׁמַעַן, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 46 _f_.――הָרַגְתִּי is perfect of experience
(Davidson § 40 (_c_); Driver _A Treatise on the use of the
Tenses in Hebrew_ § 12), rather than of single completed
action, or of certainty (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Budde,
al.).――כִּי is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to
attention.――לְפִצְעִי, לְחַבּוּרָתִי] On this use of לְ see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
_s.v._ 5, f.: LXX εἰς τραῦμα [μώλωπα] ἐμοί; Vulgate _in vulnus
[livorem] meum._――=24.= כִּי] again introducing the reason, which,
however, “lies not in the words immediately after כי, but in the
second part of the sentence” (Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3, c):
compare Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Jeremiah 30¹¹.――יֻקּם on accusative, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _g_. The Niphal יִקֹּם would yield a better
sense: ‘avenges himself’ (Budde, Dillmann, Holzinger).

IV. 25, 26.
_Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy._

The verses are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy (see above, page 99), of which another fragment has fortunately been preserved in 5²⁹ (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of Priestly-Code, it may be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten generations. That that of Yahwist was not a dry list of names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has survived. The preservation of 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ is no doubt due to the important notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (²⁶ᵇ), the redactor having judged it more expedient in this instance to retain Yahwist’s statement intact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in Yahwist would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the Yahwist document into its component strata might have run a different course.

=25.= _And Adam knew, etc._] see on verse ¹. That יָדַע denotes properly the _initiation_ of the conjugal relation (Budde) is very doubtful: see 38²⁶, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹.――_And she called_] see again on verse ¹.――_God has appointed me seed_] (the remainder of the verse is probably an interpolation). Compare 3¹⁵. Eve’s use of אלהים is not ‘surprising’ (Dillmann); it only proves that the section is not from the same source as verse ¹. On the other hand, it harmonises with the fact that in 3¹ ᶠᶠᐧ אלהים is used in dialogue. It is at least a plausible inference that both passages come from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name יהוה up to 4²⁶ (see page 100).

The verse in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a
knowledge of the Cain and Abel narrative of 4¹⁻¹⁶; but it
is doubtful if the allusions to the two older brothers can
be accepted as original (see Budde 154‒159). Some of Budde’s
arguments are strained; but it is important to observe that the
word עוד is wanting in LXX, and that the addition of אחר תחת הבל
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of
_substitution_ being quite foreign to the connotation of the
verb שׁית. The following clause כי הרגו קין reads awkwardly in the
mouth of Eve (who would naturally have said אשר ה׳ ק׳), and is
entirely superfluous on the part of the narrator. The excision
of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in
itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of
Cain in verse ¹: שת לי אלהים זרע, ‘God has appointed me seed’ (_i.e._
posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3¹⁵, where both the
significant words שׁית and זרע occur. But this explanation really
implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this
writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a
substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator
is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further
shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense
Cain has ceased to be the ‘seed’ of Eve.――As a Hebrew word
(with equivalents in Phœnician, Arabic, Syrian, Jewish-Aramaic:
compare Nöldeke _Mandäische Grammatik_ page 98) שֵׁת would mean
‘foundation’ (not _Setzling_, still less _Ersatz_); but its
real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel’s attempt (_Die
altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, page 26 ff.)
to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of
Berossus (below, page 137) involves too many doubtful equations,
and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In
Numbers 24¹⁷ שֵׁת appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text
is doubtful (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_,
219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah
may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3¹⁵, and does
not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel.

* * * * *

=25.= אָדָם] here for the first time unambiguously a proper name.
There is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the
generic to the individual sense is made by Priestly-Code only in
5¹⁻³, and is just as likely to have been made by Yahwist.――LXX
reads Εὕαν in place of עוֹד; Peshiṭtå has both words.――Before
ותלד LXX, Peshiṭtå insert וַתַּהַר.――ותקרא] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ ויקרא.――כִּי] LXX λέγουσα; so Vulgate and even
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ.

* * * * *

=26.= On the name אֱנוֹשׁ (= _Man_, and therefore in all probability the _first_ member of an older genealogy), see below.――_Then men began to call, etc._] Better (with LXX, etc., _v.i._): _He was the first to call on the name of Yahwe_ (compare 9²⁰ 10⁸), _i.e._ he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe; compare 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ 26²⁵ (all Yahwist). What historic reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed when it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on the part of a religious community (Delitzsch); and the idea that it is connected with a growing sense of the distinction between the human and the divine (Ewald, Delitzsch, al.) is a baseless fancy. It means that ’Enôš was the first to invoke the Deity under this name; and it is interesting chiefly as a reflexion, emanating from the school of Yahwist, on the origin of the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception is more ingenuous than that of Elohist (Exodus 3¹³⁻¹⁵) or Priestly-Code (6³), who base the name on express revelation, and connect it with the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.

The expression קרא בשם י׳ (literally ‘call by [means of] the name
of Yahwe’) denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation
(or rather _evocation_) of the Deity by the solemn utterance
of His name. It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a
real bond exists between the person and his name, such that the
pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on the
former.¹ The best illustration is 1 Kings 18²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the
test proposed by Elijah is _which name_――Baal or Yahwe――will
evoke a manifestation of divine energy.――The cosmopolitan
diffusion of the name יהוה, from the Babylonian or Egyptian
pantheon, though often asserted,² and in itself not incredible,
has not been proved. The association with the name of Enoš might
be explained by the supposition that the old genealogy of which
Enoš was the first link had been preserved in some ancient
centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh?).

¹ See Giesebrecht, _Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des
Gottesnamens und ihre religiongeschichtliche Grundlage_,
especially page 25 ff., 98 ff.

² W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, pages 239, 312; Delitzsch _Babel und Bibel_
[translated by M‘Cormack] page 61 f.; Bezold, _Die
Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften Und Ihre Bedeutung
Für Das Alte Testament_ etc. page 31 ff.; Oppert,
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii. 291 ff.; Daiches,
_ib._ xxii. (1908), 125 ff.; Algyogyi-Hirsch, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 355 ff.;
Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ i. 29;
Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², i. (2te Hälfte), 545 f.
Compare, further, Rogers, _Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria_ (1908), page 89 ff.

* * * * *

=26.= גם הוּא] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _h_) LXX omitted.――אֱנוֹשׁ]
like אדם, properly a collective: Enôš is a personification of
mankind. The word is rare and mostly poetic in Hebrew (especially
Job, Psalms); but is common in other Semitic dialects (Arabic,
Aramaic, Nabatean, Palmyren, Sabaean, Assyrian). Nestle’s opinion
(_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6 f.), that it is in Hebrew
an artificial formation from אֲנָשִׁים, and that the genealogy
is consequently late, has no sort of probability; the only
‘artificiality’ in Hebrew is the occasional individual use.
There is a presumption, however, that the genealogy originated
among a people to whom אנוש or its equivalent was the ordinary
name for mankind (Aramæan or Arabian).――אז הוחל] so Aquila,
Symmachus; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אז החל;
LXX οὗτος ἤλπισεν (from √ יחל) implies either זה החל or הוא ה׳; so
Vulgate (_iste coepit_) and _Jubilees_ iv. 12; Peshiṭtå has
(‡ Syriac phrase). The true text is that read by LXX, etc.;
and if the alteration of Massoretic Text was intentional
(which is possible), we may safely restore הוּא הֵחֵל after 10⁸.
The Jewish exegesis takes הוּחַל in the sense ‘was profaned,’ and
finds in the verse a notice of the introduction of idolatry
(Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.),――although the construction
is absolutely ungrammatical (Abraham Ibn Ezra).――After יהוה LXX
adds carelessly τοῦ θεοῦ.