Chapter V (1)

_The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs_
(Priestly-Code).

In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1¹‒2⁴ᵃ) and the Flood (6⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic Text) at 1656 years. The _names_ are traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ, and of numbers 4‒9 with 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite genealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code, in order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs. But that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to three or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the continuation of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found to correspond closely with those of chapter 5.――The _chronology_, on the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention of which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later chronologist (see page 136 below).――What is thoroughly characteristic of Priestly-Code is the _framework_ in which the details are set. It consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his first-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement that he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.¹ The stiff precision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formulæ, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school of writers.

¹ Only in the cases of Adam (verse ³), Enoch (²²ᐧ ²⁴) and
Lamech (²⁸ᐧ ²⁹) are slight and easily explicable deviations
from the stereotyped form admitted. The section on Noah is,
of course, incomplete.

The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא, דְּמוּת, זָכָר
וּנְקֵבָה) is seen most clearly in verse ¹ᵇᐧ ², which, however, may be
partly composed of glosses based on 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ (see on the verses).
Note also תּוֹלְדֹת (¹ᵃ), צֶלֶם, דְּמוּת (³), הוֹלִיד (throughout), הִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים
(²²ᐧ ²⁴,, compare 6⁹); the syntax of the numerals (which, though
not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see
Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 134 _i_; Davidson § 37, _R._ 3); the naming
of the child by the father (³).――The one verse which stands out
in marked contrast to its environment is ²⁹, which is shown by
the occurrence of the name יהוה and the allusion to 3¹⁷ to be an
extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the
genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶.

“The aim of the writer is by means of these particulars to give a picture of the increasing population of the earth, as also of the duration of the first period of its history, as conceived by him, and of the longevity which was a current element in the Hebrew conception of primitive times” (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ page 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attributed to the early patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised that the statements are meant to be understood literally, and that the author had in his view actual individuals. The attempts to save the historicity of the record by supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or (b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the word שָׁנָה denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see Dillmann 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no such interpretation. It is true that “the study of science precludes the possibility of such figures being literally correct”; but “the comparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a people” (Ryle, quoted by Driver page 75).

The author of Priestly-Code knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no explanation of the ‘violence’ and ‘corruption’ with which the earth is filled when the narrative is resumed (6¹²). It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak of wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it unnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds us how little _dogmatic_ importance was attached to the story of the Fall in Old Testament times. The Priestly writers may have been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of Genesis 3; they may also have thought that the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently accounted for by the known tendencies of human nature.

Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 93‒103) has endeavoured
to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory
of degeneration, according to which the first five generations
were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [=
‘descent’], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His
chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated
by Priestly-Code in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that
the Samaritan chronology (which Budde takes to be the original:
see below, page 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered,
Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.¹ Budde supports
his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are
susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable
that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have
been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true
that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into
the world.

¹ The more rapid decrease of life (in _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_) after Mahalalel ought not to be counted
as an additional argument; because it is a necessary
corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.

1, 2.
Introduction.

Consisting of a superscription (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶), followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam (¹ᵇᐧ ²).――=1a.= _This is the book of the generations of Adam_] See the critical note below; and on the meaning of תּוֹלְדֹת, see on 2⁴ᵃ.――=1b.= _When God created Man_ (or _Adam_) _he made him in the likeness of God_] a statement introduced in view of the transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse ³). On this and the following clauses see, further, 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _And called their name Adam_] _v.i._

The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In ¹ᵃ אָדָם is
presumably a proper name (as in ³ ᶠᶠᐧ), in ² it is certainly
generic (note the plural suffix), while in ¹ᵇ it is impossible
to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to
an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms
borrowed almost literally from 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where אדם is generic.
Since the only new statement is _and he called their name Adam_,
we may suppose the writer’s aim to have been to explain how אדם,
from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has
no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting
with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he
resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes
the proper name in verse ³. An original author would hardly
have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the
heading זה ספר תולדת אדם reads like the title of a _book_, suggesting
that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical
work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and
the fuller formula, as compared with the usual אלה תולדת, at least
justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of
the heading. Dillmann’s opinion, that it is a combination of
the superscription of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy with that of
Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts
point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using אדם as a
designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first
man.

* * * * *

=1.= For אדם LXX has 1º ἀνθρώπων, 2º Ἀδάμ; Vulgate conversely 1º
_Adam_, 2º _hominem_.――=2.= שְׁמָם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ שְׁמוֹ.

* * * * *

3‒5.
Adam.

Adam _begat [a son] in his likeness, etc._] (see on 1²⁶): implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image (verse ¹) from Adam to all his posterity.

* * * * *

=3.= וַיּוֹלֶד] inserted בֵּן as object (Olshausen al.). הוֹלִיד confined
to Priestly-Code in Pentateuch; Yahwist, and older writers
generally, using יָלַד both for ‘beget’ and ‘bear.’――בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ]
LXX κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴ νεἰκόνα αὐτοῦ.――avoiding
ὁμοίωσις (see the note on 1²⁶).――=4.= ויהיו ימי אדם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
inserted ἃς ἔζησε, as in verse ⁵. Peshiṭtå reads וַיְחִי אדם (but
see Ball’s note) as in verses ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ etc. But verses ³⁻⁵ contain
several deviations from the regular formula: note אשר חי in verse
⁵, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse
order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.

* * * * *

6‒20.
Seth to Jered.

The sections on =Seth=, =Enoš=, =Ḳenan=, =Mahalalel,= and =Yered= rigidly observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed comment, except as regards the names.

=6‒8.= _Šēth_: compare 4²⁵. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and
Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 217‒220, and Charles, _Book of
Jubilees_, 33 ff.――=9‒11.= _’Ĕnôš_: see on 4²⁶.――=12‒14.=
_Ḳênān_ is obviously a fuller form of _Ḳáyin_ in the parallel
genealogy of 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; and possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or
‘artificer’ (compare Syrian (‡ Syriac word): see on 4¹). Whether
the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no
means of judging. It is important to note that קינן or קנן is the
name of a Sabæan deity, occurring several times in inscriptions:
see Mordtmann, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
Cölestins_ 127 f., 152.――=15‒17.= _Mahălal’ēl_ (= ‘Praise of
God’) is a compound with the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מַֽהֲלָל (Proverbs 27²¹).
But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have
done here: Μαλελεηλ = מְהַלֶּלְאֵל, _i.e._ ‘Praising God.’ Proper names
compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament
(see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_
14²; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 201), but are
common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that the genealogy must
be late (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 7 f.) is not certain,
because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed
and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that
it is a corruption of _Amil-Arûru_ in the list of Berossus (see
_Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 29). מ׳
is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11⁴.――=18‒20.=
_Yéred_ (1 Chronicles 4¹⁸) would signify in Hebrew ‘Descent’;
hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to
the earth (_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 6²):
compare _Jubilees_ iv. 15; _Enoch_ vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde’s
interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether עִירָד or
יֶרֶד be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both
to an original Babylonian _‛I-yarad_ = ‘descent of fire.’

21‒24.
Enoch.

The account of =Enoch= contains three extraordinary features: (a) The twice repeated וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים. In the Old Testament such an expression (used also of Noah, 6⁹) signifies intimate companionship (1 Samuel 25¹⁵), and here denotes a fellowship with God morally and religiously perfect (compare Micah 6⁸, Malachi 2⁶ [הָלַךְ]), hardly differing from the commoner ‘walk _before_ God’ (17¹ 24⁴⁰) or ‘_after_ God’ (Deuteronomy 13⁵, 1 Kings 14⁸). We shall see, however, that originally it included the idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (b) Instead of the usual וֵיָּמֹת we read וְאֵינֶנּוּ כּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים; _i.e._ he was mysteriously translated ‘so as not to see death’ (Hebrews 11⁵). Though the influence of this narrative on the idea of immortality in later ages is not to be denied (compare Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴), it is hardly correct to speak of it as containing a presentiment of that idea. The immortality of exceptional men of God like Enoch and Elijah suggested no inference as to the destiny of ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among other nations (Gunkel). (c) His life is much the shortest of the ante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the duration of his life (365 years) is connected with the number of days in the solar year; and the conjecture has been remarkably verified by the Babylonian parallel mentioned below.

The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later
Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage
alone; everything goes to show that the record has a mythological
basis, which must have continued to be a living tradition
in Jewish circles in the time of the Apocalyptic writers. A
clue to the mystery that invests the figure of Enoch has been
discovered in Babylonian literature. The 7th name in the list
of Berossus is Evedoranchus (see _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 532),――a corruption (it seems certain) of
Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a ritual tablet from the
library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364: translated in _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 533 f.) as king of
Sippar (city of Šamaš, the sun-god), and founder of a hereditary
guild of priestly diviners. This mythical personage is described
as a ‘favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],’ and is said to have been
received into the fellowship of Šamaš and Ramman, to have been
initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and instructed
in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his
son. The points of contact with the notice in Genesis are (1)
the special relation of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (compare
the 365 of verse ²³); and (2) his peculiar intimacy with the
gods (‘walked with God’): there is, however, no mention of a
translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and earth
is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric
knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sirach 44¹⁶
he is already spoken of as אות דעת לדור ודור. Compare _Jubilees_ iv.
17 ff. (with Charles’s note _ad loc._); and see Lenormant _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 223; Charles, _Book of Enoch_ (1893),
_passim_.

* * * * *

=22.= ויתהלך――את־האלהים] LXX εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ (LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ adds καὶ
ἔζησεν Ἐνωχ), Symmachus ἀνεστρέφετο, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase),
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הליך בדחלתא דיי: Aquila and Vulgate render literally.
The article before א׳ is unusual in Priestly-Code (see 6⁹ᐧ ¹¹).
The phrase must have been taken from a traditional source, and
may retain an unobserved trace of the original polytheism (‘with
the gods’).――=23.= ויהי] Read ויהיו (MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX, etc.).――=24.= ואיננו] indicating mysterious
disappearance (37²⁹ ᶠᐧ 42¹³ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁹ [Elohist] 1 Kings 20⁴⁰); see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _m_.――לקח] LXX μετέθηκεν, Vulgate _tulit_,
but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אמית. The verb became, as Duhm (on Psalms 49¹⁶)
thinks, a technical expression for translation to a higher
existence; compare 2 Kings 2¹⁰, Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴. The Rabbinical
exegesis (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi) understood it
of removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch
which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the
Apocalyptic influence.

* * * * *

25‒32.
Methuselah to Noah.

=25‒27.= _Methuselah._――מְתוּשֶׁלַח commonly explained as ‘man of the
dart (or weapon),’ hence tropically ‘man of violence,’ which
Budde (99) regards as a deliberate variation of מתושאל (4¹⁸)
intended to suggest the wickedness of the later generations
before the Flood (see above, page 129). Lenormant (247) took
it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign of the Zodiac;
according to Hommel, it means ‘sein Mann ist das Geschoss’ (!),
and is connected with the planet Mars.¹ If the 8th name in
the list of Berossus be rightly rendered ‘man of Sin (the
moon-god),’² a more probable view would be that שֶׁלַח is a divine
proper name. Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a
corruption of _šarraḫu_, said to be an ancient name of the
moon-god³ (compare Cheyne, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625, 4412).

¹ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_
[1902], 29. Here _Amemphsinus_ is resolved into _Amel-Nisin_:
formerly (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology_, xv. [1892‒3] 245) Hommel propounded the view
now advocated by Zimmern (see next note).

² Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 532.

³ _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen
Inhalts_ ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (_l.c._) relies on the fact
that _šarḫu_ (‘all-powerful’) is an epithet of various gods
(Delitzsch _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 690 a).

* * * * *

=27.= After מתושלח LXX inserts ἃς ἔζησεν (compare verse ⁵).

* * * * *

=29.= An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech on the birth of Noah.――_This_ (זֶה; compare זֹאת in 2²³) _shall bring us comfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands_ [proceeding] _from the ground, etc._] The utterance seems to breathe the same melancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise narrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of 4²³ ᶠᐧ.

There is an obvious reference backwards to 3¹⁷ (compare עִצְּבוֹן,
הָאֲדָמָה――אֵֽרֲרָהּ). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which
certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech
spoke), but to Noah’s discovery of vine-culture: 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (Budde
306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and
the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the
connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence
that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different
strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann’s objection, that
a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under
the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9¹³, Psalms
104¹⁵.――In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of
the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident
of 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, the verse has considerable critical importance. It
furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic
narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.――The
fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which
suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical
structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).

=28‒31.= _Lamech._――The scheme is here interrupted by the
insertion of verse.

* * * * *

=29.= יְנַֽחֲמֵנוּ] LXX διαναπαύσει ἡμᾶς: hence Ball, Kittel יְנִיהֵנוּ.
The emendation is attractive on two grounds: (a) it yields an
easier construction with the following מן; and (b) a more correct
etymology of the name נֹח. The harshness of the etymology was felt
by Jewish authorities (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 25; compare Rashi);
and Wellhausen (_De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles
2. 4 enumerantur_ 38³) boldly suggested that נֹח in this verse
is a contracted writing of נֹחָם = ‘comforter.’――Whether נֹחַ (always
written defectively) be really connected with נוּחַ = ‘rest’ is
very uncertain. If a Hebrew name, it will naturally signify
‘rest,’ but we cannot assume that a name presumably so ancient
is to be explained from the Hebrew lexicon. The views mentioned
by Dillmann (page 116) are very questionable. Goldziher
(_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
xxiv. 207 ff.) shows that in mediæval times it was explained by
Arab writers from Arabic _nāḥa_, ‘to wail’; but that is utterly
improbable.――מַֽעֲשֶׁנוּ] Some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ have מַֽעֲשֵׂינוּ (plural); so LXX, etc.

* * * * *

=32.= The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is explained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed datum (7⁶ᐧ ¹¹), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah were saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an excessive lateness _either_ to the birth of Shem, _or_ to the birth of Shem’s first-born.

I. _The Chronology of Chapter 5._――In this chapter we have
the first instance of systematic divergence between the three
chief recensions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the LXX. The
differences are best exhibited in tabular form as follows (after
Holzinger):

FB = Age at birth of first-born
Ad = Years lived after birth of first-born
Tot = Total age

Samaritan Year (A.M.)
Massoretic. (Jubilees). LXX. of Death.
───────────── ───────────── ───────────── ────────────────
FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot MT. Sam. LXX.

1. Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930
2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142
3. Enos 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340
4. Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535
5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690
6. Jered 162 800 962 62 785 847 162 800 962 1422 1307 1922
7. Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487
8. Methuselah 187 782 969 67 653 720 167¹ 802¹ 969 1656 1307 2256
9. Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2207
10. Noah 500 500 500
Till Flood 100 100 100

Year of Flood 1656 1307 2242

¹ So LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ. LXXᴬ and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a
later correction.

These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to
carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the
business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on
which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which
of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code.
That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that
can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of
investigation along which the solution has been sought.

1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the
remarkable relation discovered by Oppert¹ between the figures of
the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the
next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to
the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These
are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of
365¼ days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew
chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and
to have reduced it by treating each _lustrum_ (5 years) as the
equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than
a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say.
(b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,²
who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology,
the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:³
_i.e._ 26⅔ generations of 100 years, or ⅔ of a world-cycle of
4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of
calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably
traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn
of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of
Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt
are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from
the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been
propounded by Bousset (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xx. 136‒147). Working on lines marked out by
Kuenen (_Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows,
from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9³⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 10⁴⁵ ᶠᐧ, Josephus _Antiquities
of the Jews_ viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and _Assumption of Moses_,
1² 10¹², that a chronological computation current in Jewish
circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M.
3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071;
and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and
Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years).
Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in
the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis
11²⁴) it substituted (with LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed
215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian
sojourn (Exodus 12⁴⁰); and, finally, it dated the dedication of
the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6¹ LXX).
For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above.

¹ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen._, 1877, 201‒223; also his article in _Jewish
Encyclopædia_ iv. 66 f.

² See Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_
111 ff.; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶
308.

³ Made up as follows:――1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham:
see the Table on page 233) + 100 (birth of Isaac: Genesis
21⁵) + 60 (birth of Jacob: 25²⁶) + 130 (age of Jacob at
Descent to Egypt: 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸) + 430 (sojourn in Egypt: Exodus
12⁴⁰) = 2666.――The number of generations from Adam to Aaron
is actually 26, the odd ⅔ stands for Eleazar, who was of
mature age at the time of the Exodus.

These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as
to the priority of the Massoretic Text. It would obviously be
illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and
the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the
original system of Priestly-Code. The natural inference is that
both were actually in use in the first century A.D., and that
consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A
presumption in favour of Massoretic Text would be established
only if it could be shown that the numbers of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX are either dependent on
Massoretic Text, or involve no chronological scheme at all.

2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to
the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years
of Genesis 11¹⁰, we obtain from the Creation to the birth
of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that
this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of
_Jubilees_ (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we
assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12⁴⁰ to be the original reading
(as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find
that _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ counts from
the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.¹ The odd
7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we
obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly
be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three
decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the
birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by
180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360.
Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work
of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it
not possible that this was his original chronological period;
and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von
Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended
to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat
important objection to the originality of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ is, however, the disparity between
chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠ with regard to the ages at the birth of
the first-born.

¹ 1307 + 940 (see page 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40
= 3007·

3. A connexion between LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ is suggested by the fact that the first period of
LXX (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (1300 + 940 = 2240),
though it does not appear on which side the dependence is.
Most critics have been content to say that the LXX figures are
enhancements of those of Massoretic Text in order to bring the
biblical chronology somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of
Egypt or Chaldæa. That is not probable; though it does not seem
possible to discover any distinctive principle of calculation
in LXX. Klostermann (_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, v. 208‒247
[= _Der Pentateuch_ (1907) 1‒41]), who defends the priority of
LXX, finds in it a reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years;
but his results, which are sufficiently ingenious, are attained
by rather violent and arbitrary handling of the data. Thus, in
order to adjust the ante-diluvian list to his theory, he has
to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to the Flood,
and substitute the 120 years of Genesis 6³! This reduces the
reckoning of LXX to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the
Flood, we obtain 1764 = 3 × 12 × 49.

See, further, on 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (page 234 f.).

II. _The Ten Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus._――The number
_ten_ occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of
many peoples¹ as that of the kings or patriarchs who reigned or
lived in the mythical age which preceded the dawn of history.
The Babylonian form of this tradition is as yet known only from
a passage of Berossus extracted by Apollodorus and Abydenus;²
although there are allusions to it in the inscriptions which
encourage the hope that the cuneiform original may yet be
discovered.³ Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus
is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach
considerable importance to any correspondence that can be made
out between his list and the names in Genesis 5. A detailed
analysis was first published by Hommel in 1893,⁴ another was
given by Sayce in 1899.⁵ The first-named writer has subsequently
abandoned some of his earlier proposals,⁶ substituting others
which are equally tentative; and while some of his combinations
are regarded as highly problematical, others have been widely
approved.⁷

¹ Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phœnicians, Egyptians,
Chinese, etc. See Lüken, _Die Traditionen des
Menschengeschlechts oder die Uroffenbarung Gottes unter
den Heiden_, 146 ff.; Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_
i. 224 ff.

² Preserved by Eus. _Chronicon_ [edited by Schœne] i. 7 ff.,
31 f. See Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii.
499 f.

³ See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 221 f.

⁴ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xv.
243‒246.

⁵ _The Expositor Times_, 1899, 353.

⁶ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_
[1902], 23 ff.

⁷ See Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_⁸,
531 ff.; Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and
Notes_ 50 f.; Nikel, _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 164
ff.

The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are:
1. Ἄλωρος, 2. Ἀλάπαρος, 3. Ἀμήλων [Ἀμίλλαρος], 4. Ἀμμένων,
5. Μεγάλαρος [Μεγάλανος], 6. Δάωνος [Δάως], 7. Εὐεδώραχος,
8. Ἀμέμψινος, 9. Ὠτιάρτης [Read Ὠπάρτης], 10. Ξίσουθρος. Of
the suggested Babylonian equivalents put forward by Hommel, the
following are accepted as fairly well established by Jeremias
and (with the exception of number 1) by Zimmern: 1. _Aruru_ (see
page 102), 2. _Adapa_ (page 126), 3. _Amelu_ (= Man), 4. _Ummanu_
(= ‘workman’), 7. _Enmeduranki_ (page 132), 8. _Amel-Sin_ (page
133), 9. _Ubar-Tutu_ (named as father of Ut-Napištim), and
10. _Ḫasisatra_, or _Atraḫasis_ (= ‘the superlatively Wise,’――a
title applied to Ut-Napištim, the hero of the Deluge). On
comparing this selected list with the Hebrew genealogy, it
is evident that, as Zimmern remarks, the Hebrew _name_ is in
no case borrowed directly from the Babylonian. In two cases,
however, there seems to be a connexion which might be explained
by a _translation_ from the one language into the other: viz. 3.
אֱנוֹשׁ (= Man), and 4. קֵינָן (= ‘workman’); while 8 is in both series
a compound of which the first element means ‘Man.’ The parallel
between 7. חֲנוֹךְ ∥ _Enmeduranki_, has already been noted (page 132);
and the 10th name is in both cases that of the hero of the Flood.
Slight as these coincidences are, it is a mistake to minimise
their significance. When we have two parallel lists of equal
length, each terminating with the hero of the Flood, each having
the name for ‘man’ in the 3rd place and a special favourite of
the gods in the 7th, it is too much to ask us to dismiss the
correspondence as fortuitous. The historical connexion between
the two traditions is still obscure, and is complicated by the
double genealogy of chapter 4; but that a connexion exists it
seems unreasonable to deny.

III. _Relation of the Sethite and Cainite Genealogies._――The
substantial identity of the names in Genesis 4¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ with
numbers 3‒9 of chapter 5 seems to have been first pointed out
by Buttmann (_Mythologus_, i. 170 ff.) in 1828, and is now
universally recognised by scholars. A glance at the following
table shows that each name in the Cainite series corresponds to
a name in the other, which is either absolutely the same, or is
the same in meaning, or varies but slightly in form:

Illustration: (‡ Sethite versus Cainite Genealogy)

While these resemblances undoubtedly point to some common
original, the variations are not such as can be naturally
accounted for by direct borrowing of the one list from the other.
The facts that each list is composed of a perfect number, and
that with the last member the single stem divides into three
branches, rather imply that both forms were firmly established
in tradition before being incorporated in the biblical documents.
If we had to do merely with the Hebrew tradition, the easiest
supposition would perhaps be that the Cainite genealogy and the
kernel of the Sethite are variants of a single original which
might have reached Israel through different channels;¹ that the
latter had been expanded by the addition of two names at the
beginning and one at the end, so as to bring it into line with
the story of the Flood, and the Babylonian genealogy with which
it was linked. The difficulty of this hypothesis arises from
the curious circumstance that in the Berossian list of kings,
just as in the Sethite list of patriarchs, the name for ‘Man’
occupies the _third_ place. It is extremely unlikely that such
a coincidence should be accidental; and the question comes
to be whether the Assyriologists or the biblical critics can
produce the most convincing explanation of it. Now Hommel (_Die
altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 26 ff.)
argues that if the word for Man is preceded by two others, these
others must have been names of superhuman beings; and he thinks
that his interpretation of the Babylonian names bears out this
anticipation. The first, _Aruru_, is the creative earth-goddess,
and the second, _Adapa_ (= Marduk) is a sort of Logos or
Demiurge――a being intermediate between gods and men, who bears
elsewhere the title _zir amiluti_ (‘seed of mankind’) but is
not himself a man.² And the same thing must, he considers, hold
good of Adam and Seth: Adam should be read אֱדֹם, a personification
of the earth, and Seth is a mysterious semi-divine personality
who was regarded even in Jewish tradition as an incarnation of
the Messiah. If these somewhat hazardous combinations be sound,
then, of course, the inference must be accepted that the Sethite
genealogy is dependent on the Babylonian original of Berossus,
and the Cainite can be nothing but a mutilated version of it. It
is just conceivable, however, that the Babylonian list is itself
a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy, which
passed independently into Hebrew tradition.³

¹ Hommel’s view (_Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte
Testament_, 29 f.) is that the primary list was Chaldean,
that the Sethite list most nearly represents this original,
and that the Cainite springs from a modification of it under
Babylonian influence. It would be quite as plausible to
suggest that the Cainite form came through Phœnicia (see the
notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na‛amah), and the Sethite from
Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).

² But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 362.

³ Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent
of _Aruru_ was not Adam but _Ḥavvah_, as earth and
mother-goddess (see pages 85 f., 102), and that this name
stood at the head of the list. That in the process of
eliminating the mythological element Ḥavvah should in one
version become the wife, in another remain the mother, of
the first man (Adam or Enoš), is perfectly intelligible;
and an amalgamation of these views would account for the
duplication of Adam-Enos in 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ 5. The insertion of
a link (Seth-Adapa) between the divine ancestress and
the first man is a difficulty; but it might be due to a
survival of the old Semitic conception of mother and son
as associated deities (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_², 298 ff.). It is obvious that
no great importance can be attached to such guesses, which
necessarily carry us back far beyond the range of authentic
tradition.

VI. 1‒4.
_The Origin of the Nĕphîlîm._

This obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates how in the infancy of the human race marriage alliances were believed to have been formed by supernatural beings with mortal women (verses ¹ᐧ ²); and how from these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods (verse ⁴), who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is implied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings, intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (verse ³).

The fragment belongs to the class of ætiological myths. The
belief in Nĕphîlîm is proved only by Numbers 13³³ (Elohist?);
but it is there seen to have been associated with a more widely
attested tradition of a race of giants surviving into historic
times, especially among the aboriginal populations of Canaan
(Deuteronomy 1²⁸ 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ 9², Joshua 15¹⁴, Amos 2⁹ etc.).
The question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist,
and the passage before us supplied the answer. But while the
ætiological motive may explain the retention of the fragment
in Genesis, it is not to be supposed that the myth originated
solely in this reflexion. Its pagan colouring is too pronounced
to permit of its being dissociated from two notions prevalent
in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin literature:
viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were men
of gigantic stature;¹ and (2) that marriages of the gods with
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.²
Similar ideas were current among other peoples. The Ḳoran has
frequent references to the peoples of ‛sons of Godal races noted
for their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were
attributed the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation
of rock-dwellings, and who were believed to have been destroyed
by a divine judgment.³ The legend appears also in the Phœnician
traditions of Sanchuniathon, where it is followed by an obscure
allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse which appears to have
some remote connexion with Genesis 6².⁴

¹ Homer _Iliad_ v. 302 f.; Herodotus i. 68; Pausanias i. 35.
5 f., viii. 29. 3; 32. 4; Lucretius ii. 1151; Virgil
_Aeneid_ xii. 900; Pliny, _Natural History_, vii. 73 ff. etc.
Compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 350 ff.

² Homer _Iliad_ xii. 23: ἡμιθέων γένος ἀνδρῶν; Plato,
_Cratylus_, 33: πάντες [_sc._ οἱ ἥρωες] δήπου γεγόνασιν
ἐρασθέντος ἢ θεοῦ θνητῆς ἢ θνητοῦ θεᾶς (text uncertain):
see Jowett, i. 341.

³ _Surah_ vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, lxxxix: see Sale,
_Preliminary Discourse_ § 1.

⁴ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (see page 124 above):
ἀπὸ γένους Αἰῶνος καὶ Πρωτογόνου γεννηθῆναι αὖθις παῖδας
θνητοὺς, οἷς εἶναι ὀνόματα Φὼς καὶ Πῦρ καὶ Φλόξ ... υἱοὺς
δὲ ἐγέννησαν οὗτοι _μεγέθει τε καὶ ὑπεροχῇ κρείσσονας_ ...
ἐκ τούτων, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη Σαμημροῦμος ὁ καὶ Ὑψουράνιος·
ἀπὸ μητέρων δὲ, φησὶν, ἐχρημάτιζον τῶν τότε γυναικῶν ἀνέδην
μισγομένων οἷς ἂν ἐ[ν]τύχοιεν.

That the _source_ is Yahwist is not disputed.¹ Dillmann, indeed,
following Schrader (_Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ 276),
thinks it an extract from Elohist which had passed through the
hands of Yahwist; but borrowing by the original Yahwist from
the other source is impossible, and the only positive trace of
Elohist would be the word נפילים, which in Numbers 13³³ is by some
critics assigned to Elohist. That argument would at most prove
overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.――The precise
position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions cannot
be determined. The introductory clause “when mankind began to
multiply,” etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an
account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason
why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴
or 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ (against Holzinger), though certainly not that of
Priestly-Code in chapter 5. The idea that it is a parallel
to the story of the Fall in chapter 3 (Schrader, Dillmann,
Wellhausen, Schultz) has little plausibility, though it
would be equally rash to affirm that it _presupposes_ such an
account.――The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably
due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or
later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was
objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than
was needful to account for the origin of the giants.

¹ The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except
יהוה, verse ³); but the following expressions, as well as the
structure of the sentences (in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ), are, on the whole,
characteristic of Yahwist: הֵחֵל, עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה (¹), בָּאָרָץ, הָיָה גִּבּוֹר (⁴):
see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 6 ff., 39 A.

There remains the question whether the passage was from the
first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has
been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of
its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm
that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the
Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall
see to be improbable) that the 120 years of verse ³ refer to an
impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view
were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable
that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of
the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded.
The critical probability, therefore, is that 6¹⁻⁴ belongs to a
stratum of Yahwist which knows nothing of a flood (page 2 ff.).
The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion
to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however
(_Philologus_, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ix. 134 ff.), claims to
have recovered from Greek sources a Phœnician legend of
intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some
striking affinities with Genesis 6¹⁻⁴, and which leads up to an
account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe’s combinations
I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a
late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances
the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of
the hypothetical Phœnician legend. Even, therefore, if his
speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether
the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly
by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the
divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce
the sequence of events given in Genesis. That this is not
inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins
the biblical name ΝΩ appears as that of the hero of the Deluge
(see page 180 below).

=1, 2.= The sense of these verses is perfectly clear. The _sons of God_ (בני האלהים) are everywhere in Old Testament members (but probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some freedom) _angels_ (_v.i._).

“The angels are not called ‘sons of God’ as if they had actually
derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor
in a less exact way, because though created they have received a
nature similar to God’s, being spirits; nor yet as if on account
of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the
family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name _Elohim_
or _sons_ (_i.e._ members of the race) _of the Elohim_ is a name
given directly to angels in contrast with men ... the name is
given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently,
they are Elohim in an inferior sense” (Davidson, _Job_,
_Cambridge Bible_, page 6).

* * * * *

=1.= וַיְהִי כִּי] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch; 26⁸ 27¹ 43²¹
44²⁴, Exodus 1²¹ 13¹⁵, Joshua 17¹³. See Budde 6. The apodosis
commences with verse ².――הֵחֵל] see Holzinger _Einleitung in den
Hexateuch_ 97.――על־פני האדמה] see _Oxford Hexateuch_ i. 187.――=2.=
בני [ה]אלהים] Job 1⁶ 2¹ 38⁷, [Daniel 3²⁵]; compare ב׳ אלים, Psalms 29¹
89⁷. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings
denoted is evident,――‘belonging to the category of the gods.’ On
this Semitic use of בן, see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_², 17; _The Prophets of Israel_² 85,
389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by LXX (οἱ ἄγγελοι [also
υἱοὶ] τοῦ θεοῦ), Theodotion, _Jubilees_ v. 1, Enoch vi. 2 ff.
(Jude ⁶, 2 Peter 2⁴), Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 73;
Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.
[Peshiṭtå transliterates (‡ Syriac phrase) as in Job 1⁶ 2¹.]
(2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another,
according to which the ‘sons of the gods’ are members of
aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank:
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (בני רברביא), Symmachus (τῶν δυναστευόντων),
_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra [Aquila (υἱοὶ τῶν
θεῶν) is explained by Jeremias as ‘_deos_ intelligens _sanctos_
sive _angelos_’]. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent
Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles’s
valuable Note, _Book of Jubilees_ 33 ff.) has been to take the
phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line
of Seth: Julius Africanus, most Fathers, Luther, Calvin, al.:
still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations
it is decisive that בנות האדם cannot have a narrower reference in
verse ² than in verse ¹; and that consequently בני ה׳ cannot denote
a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, _Les
Origines de l’histoire_² 291 ff.; the Commentary of Delitzsch
(146 ff.), Dillmann (119 f.), or Driver (82 f.). On the
eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were
a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenormant 304 ff.――ויקחו ... נשים]
= ‘marry’: 4¹⁹ 11²⁹ 25¹ 36² etc.――מכּל אשר] ‘_consisting of_ all
whom,’――the rare מן _of explication_; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._
3b (e); compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _w_²: Genesis 7²² 9¹⁰.

* * * * *

In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps called אלהים simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility of the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable interpretations mentioned in the note below.――=2.= These superhuman beings, attracted by the beauty of _the daughters of men_ (_i.e._ mortal women) _took to themselves as wives_ (strictly implying permanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) _whomsoever they chose_. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels; and consists partly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly in high-handed disregard of the rights of God’s lower creatures.――It is to be noted, in contrast with analogous heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively masculine.

=3.= A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a limit on the term of man’s life.――_My spirit shall not_ [... _in_?] _man for ever_; [...?] _he is flesh, and his days shall be 120 years_.

A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to
the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote),
and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes.
The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The
original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects
on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,――and that
opens up a wide field of speculation;¹――and possibly also an
account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty
parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all
that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the
general sense of the verse, assuming the text to be fairly
complete, and a real connexion to exist with verses ¹ᐧ ².――(i.)
Everything turns on the meaning of the word רוּחַ, of which four
interpretations have been given: (1) That רוּחִי is the Spirit
of Yahwe as an _ethical_ principle, striving against and
‘judging’ the prevalent corruption of men (as in Isaiah 63¹⁰);
so Symmachus, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Luther, al. There is nothing
to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the
verb ידון associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned.
(2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who
understands רוּחִי subjectively of the divine feeling (_Gemüt_)
excited by human sin² (similarly Rashi). (3) The commonest view
in modern times (see Dillmann) has been that רוּחַ is the divine
principle of _life_ implanted in man at creation, the tenor of
the decree being that this shall not ‘abide’³ in man eternally
or indefinitely, but only in such measure as to admit a
maximum life of 120 years. There are two difficulties in this
interpretation: (a) It has no connexion with what precedes, for
everything the verse contains would be quite as intelligible
apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to
them.⁴ (b) The following words הוא בשׂר have no meaning: as a
reason for the withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve
a _hysteron proteron_; and as an independent statement they are
(on the supposition) not true, man as actually constituted being
both flesh and spirit (2⁷). (4) The most probable sense is that
given by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 305 ff.), viz. that
רוח is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in
contrast to בָּשָׂר, which is the element proper to human nature
(compare Isaiah 31³): so Holzinger, Gunkel. The idea will then
be that the mingling of the divine and human substances brought
about by illicit sexual unions has introduced a disorder into
the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to ‘abide’ permanently,
but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.――(ii.)
We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its
natural sense of the duration of individual life (_v.i._), be
consistent with the conclusion just reached. Wellhausen himself
thinks that it is not: the fusion of the divine and human
elements would be propagated _in the race_, and could not be
checked by a shortening of the lives of individuals. The context
requires an announcement of the annihilation of the race, and
the last clause of the verse must be a mistaken gloss on the
first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a
strong reason _either_ for revising Wellhausen’s acceptation of
³ᵃ, _or_ for understanding ³ᵇ as an announcement of the Flood.
But a shortening of the term of life, though not a logical
corollary from the sin of the angels, might nevertheless be a
judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinction of the
giants within a measurable time; and indirectly impose a limit
on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have
accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings.⁵
In view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be
unwise to press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a
strain on the interpretation of either.

¹ Compare Cheyne’s imaginary restoration in _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 3391, with the reconstructed Phœnician myth of
Gruppe in _Philologus_, 1889, i. 100 ff.

² Reading לֹא יִדֹּם רוּחי, ‘shall not restrain itself’ (literally ‘be
silent’). See _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1894, 234 ff.
(= _Der Pentateuch_ [1907] 28 ff.).

³ On this traditional rendering of ידון, see the footnote, page
143.

⁴ Budde’s argument that the verse is detachable from its
present context is, therefore, perfectly sound; although his
attempt to find a place for it after 3²¹ is not so successful
(see page 3 above).

⁵ Just as in 3²²ᐧ ²⁴ man is allowed to retain the gift of
illicitly obtained knowledge, but is foiled by being denied
the boon of immortality. The same point of view appears in
11¹⁻⁹: in each case the ruling motive is the divine jealousy
of human greatness; and man’s pride is humbled by a subtle
and indirect exercise of the power of God.

* * * * *