Chapter V (2)

=3.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――יָדוֹן] There are two traditional
interpretations: (a) ‘abide’: so LXX (καταμείνῃ), Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; (b) ‘judge’ (Symmachus κρινεῖ: so
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The former is perhaps nothing more than a
plausible guess at the meaning, though a variant text has been
suspected (ילון, ידור, יִכּוֹן, etc.). The latter traces the form to
the √ דין; but the etymology is doubtful, since that √ shows no
trace of medial ו in Hebrew (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 533 f.); and to call
it a jussive or intransitive form is an abuse of grammatical
language (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71 _r_). A Jewish derivation,
mentioned by Abraham Ibn Ezra and Calvin, connects the verb with
נָדָן, ‘sheath’ (1 Chronicles 21²⁷),――the body being compared to
the sheath of the spirit. The Arabic _dāna_ (medial _w_) = ‘be
humbled’ or ‘degraded,’ yields but a tolerable sense (Tuch,
Ewald, al.); the Egyptian Arabic _dāna_, which means ‘to do
a thing continually’ (Socin; see Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._), would
suit the context well, but can hardly be the same word. Vollers
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from
√ דנן, Assyrian _danânu_ = ‘be powerful’; the idea being that
the life-giving spirit shall no longer have the same force
as formerly, etc. It would be still better if the verb could
be taken as a denominative from Assyrian _dinânu_, ‘bodily
appearance,’ with the sense “shall not be embodied in man for
ever.”――בָּאָדָם] LXX ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, whence Klostermann
restores באדם הַזֶּה¹ = ‘this humanity,’ as distinguished from
that originally created,――an impossible exegesis, whose
sole advantage is that it gives a meaning to the גַּם in בְּשֶׂגַּם
(_v.i._).――לְעוֹלָם――לֹא (thus separated)] here = ‘not ... for ever,’
as Jeremiah 3¹², Lamentations 3³¹; elsewhere (Psalms 15⁵ etc.)
the phrase means ‘never.’――בְּשֶׂגָּם] so pointed in the majority of
MSS, is infinitive construct of שָׁגַג, ‘err,’ with suffix. This
sense is adopted by many (Tuch, Ewald, Budde, Holzinger, al.),
but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suffix to הָאָדָם, the
_enallage numeri_ (‘through _their_ erring _he_ is flesh’) would
be harsh, and the idea expressed unsuitable. If we refer it
to the angels, we can avoid an absurdity only by disregarding
the accents and joining the word with what precedes: ‘shall
not (abide?) in man for ever on account of their (the angels’)
erring; he is flesh, and,’ etc. The sentence is doubly bad in
point of style: the first member is overloaded at the end by
the emphatic word; and the second opens awkwardly without a
connecting participle. Moreover, it is questionable if the
idea of שׁגג (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the
connexion. Margoliouth (_Expositor_, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains
the obscure word by Aethiopian _shegā_ = ‘body’; but the
proposed rendering, ‘inasmuch as their body (or substance) is
flesh,’ is not grammatically admissible. The correct Massoretic
reading is בְּשֶׂגַּם (_i.e._ גַּם + שֶׁ + בְּ) = _inasmuch as he too_. The
objections to this are (a) that the relative שֶׁ is never found
in Pentateuch, and is very rare in the older literature (Judges
5⁷ 6¹⁷ 7¹² 8²⁶), while compounds like בְּ׳h do not appear before
Ecclesiastes (_e.g._ 2¹⁶); and (b) that the גַּם has no force,
there being nothing which serves as a contrast to הוּא. Wellhausen
observes that בְּ׳ must represent a causal particle and possibly
nothing more. The old translators, LXX (διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς)
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have been of the same
opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them attempt to
reproduce the גַּם. The conjectures of Olshausen (לָבַשׁ גַּם), Cheyne
(בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹת בָּשָׂר), and others are all beside the mark.――והיו ימיו וגו׳] The
only natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life
(so Josephus, Tuch, Ewald, and most since), a man’s יָמִים being
a standing expression for his lifetime, reckoning from his
birth (see chapter 5. 35²⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰ etc.). The older view
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Calvin,
al.: so Delitzsch, Klostermann), that the clause indicates the
interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was naturally
suggested by the present position of the passage, and
was supported by the consideration that greater ages were
subsequently attained by many of the patriarchs. But these
statements belong to Priestly-Code, and decide nothing as to
the meaning of the words in Yahwist.

¹ Already proposed by Egli (cited by Budde).

* * * * *

=4.= _The Nĕphîlîm were_ (or _arose_) _in the earth in those days_] Who were the נְפִלִים? The name recurs only in Numbers 13³³, where we learn that they were conceived as beings of gigantic stature, whose descendants survived till the days of Moses and Joshua. The circumstantial form of the sentence here (compare 12⁶ 13⁷) is misleading, for the writer cannot have meant that the נ׳ existed in those days apart from the alliances with the angels, and that the result of the latter were the גִּבּוֹרִים (Lenormant, al.). The idea undoubtedly is that this race _arose_ at that time in consequence of the union of the divine ‘spirit’ with human ‘flesh.’――_and also afterwards whenever_ (LXX ὡς ἂν) _the sons of the gods came in ... and they_ (the women) _bore unto them_] That is to say, the production of Nephîlîm was not confined to the remote period indicated by verse ¹ ᶠᐧ, but was continued in after ages through visits of angels to mortal wives,――a conception which certainly betrays the hand of a glossator. It is perhaps enough to remove וְגַם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן as an interpolation, and connect the אֲשֶׁר with בַּֽיָּמִים הָהֵם; though even then the phrasing is odd (_v.i._).――_Those are the heroes_ (הַגִּבּוֹּרִים) _that were of old, the men of fame_] (אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם, compare Numbers 16²). הֵמָּה has for its antecedent not אֲשֶׁר as objective to יָֽלְדוּ (Wellhausen), but הַנְּפִלִים. There is a touch of euhemerism in the notice (Wellhausen), the archaic and mythological נְפִלִים being identified with the more human גִּבּוֹרִים who were renowned in Hebrew story.

It is probable that the legend of the Nephîlîm had a wider
circulation in Hebrew tradition than could be gathered from its
curt handling by the editors of the Hexateuch. In Ezekiel 32 we
meet with the weird conception of a mighty antique race who are
the original denizens of Sheol, where they lie in state with
their swords under their heads, and are roused to a transient
interest in the newcomers who disturb their majestic repose. If
Cornill’s correction of verse ²⁷ (גבורים נְפִלִים מעולם) be sound, these
are to be identified with the Nephîlîm of our passage; and the
picture throws light on two points left obscure in Genesis:
viz., the character of the primæval giants, and the punishment
meted out to them. Ezekiel dwells on their haughty violence and
warlike prowess, and plainly intimates that for their crimes
they were consigned to Sheol, where, however, they enjoy a kind
of aristocratic dignity among the Shades. It would almost seem
as if the whole conception had been suggested by the supposed
discoveries of prehistoric skeletons of great stature, buried
with their arms beside them, like those recorded by Pausanias
(i. 35. 5 f., viii. 29. 3, 32. 4) and other ancient writers
(see William Robertson Smith in Driver A critical and exegetical
commentary on Deuteronomy 40 f.).

* * * * *

=4.= הַנְּפִלִים] LXX οἱ γίγαντες; Aquila οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες; Symmachus
οἱ βίαιοι; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא. The
etymology is uncertain (see Dillmann 123). There is no allusion
to a ‘fall’ (√ נָפַל) of angels from heaven (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Jerome¹, Rashi), or to a ‘fall’ of the world through their
action (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). A connexion with נֵפֶל,
‘abortive birth’ (from נָפַל, ‘fall dead’), is not improbable
(Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Cornill (נְפִילִים מֵעוֹלָם)
in Ezekiel 32²⁷ not only yields a striking resemblance to this
verse, but supports the idea that the נ׳ (like the רְפָאִים) were
associated with the notion of Sheol.――אחרי כן אשר] cannot mean
‘after’ (as conjunction), which would require a perfect to
follow, but only ‘afterwards, when.’ On any view, יָבֹאוּ; and וְיָלְדוּ are
frequentative tenses.――בוא אל] (as euphemism) is characteristic of
Jehovist (especially Yahwist) in Hexateuch (Budde 39, _Anm._).
Compare William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia_², 198 ff.――חַגִּבּוֹרִים] literally ‘mighty ones’ (Aquila δυνατοί;
Vulgate _potentes_; LXX, Symmachus, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ do
not distinguish from נפילים). The word is thoroughly naturalised
in Hebrew speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But passages
like Ezekiel 32¹² ᶠᶠᐧ show that it had another aspect, akin to
Arabic _ǧabbār_ (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Arabic and
Syrian equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion
(Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ i. 375 _a_; Robert Payne
Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 646).――אשר מעולם] compare עַם עוֹלָם, Ezekiel
26²⁰, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down
to Sheol.――The whole verse has the appearance of a series of
antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred
from it is that there was some traditional association of
the Nephîlîm with the incident recorded in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ. At the
same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the verse
reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential
thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks
from the direct statement that the Nephîlîm were the offspring
of the marriages of verses ¹ᐧ ², and tantalises the curiosity
of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings
then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that
they existed ‘afterwards’ as well.――Budde, who omits verse ³,
restores the original connexion with verse ¹ ᶠᐧ as follows: [והיה
כאשר] יבאו בני האלהים ... [וכן] היו הנפלים בארץ בימים ההם. Some such excellent
sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was
precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished
to avoid.

¹ “Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium.”

* * * * *

VI. 5‒IX. 29.
_Noah and the Flood._

_Analysis of the Flood-Narrative._――The section on the Flood
(6⁵‒9¹⁷) is, as has often been observed, the first example in
Genesis of a truly composite narrative; _i.e._, one in which the
compiler “instead of excerpting the entire account from a single
source, has interwoven it out of excerpts taken alternatively
from Yahwist and Priestly-Code, preserving in the process
many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking
differences of representation and phraseology” (Driver 85).
The resolution of the compound narrative into its constituent
elements in this case is justly reckoned amongst the most
brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism, and affords
a particularly instructive lesson in the art of documentary
analysis (compare the interesting exposition by Gunkel² 121 ff.).
Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along
with a summary of the criteria by which the critical operation
is guided and justified. The division generally accepted by
recent critics is as follows:

Yahwist Priestly-Code
6⁵⁻⁸
⁹⁻²²
7¹⁻⁵
⁶
⁷ᐧ (⁸ᐧ ⁹)ᐧ ¹⁰
¹¹
¹²
¹³⁻¹⁶ᵃ
¹⁶ᵇ
¹⁷ᵃ
¹⁷ᵇ
¹⁸⁻²¹
²²ᐧ ²³
7²⁴ 8¹ᐧ ²ᵃ
²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ
³ᵇ⁻⁵
⁶⁻¹²
¹³ᵃ
¹³ᵇ
¹⁴⁻¹⁹
²⁰⁻²²
9¹⁻¹⁷

The minutiæ of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be
dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given
above represents the results of Budde (to whom the finishing
touches are due: _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 248 ff.) Gunkel
and Holzinger. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he
assigns 7¹⁷ wholly to Yahwist, and 7²³ᵇ to Priestly-Code; and
Wellhausen, except with regard to 7¹⁷ (Yahwist) 8³ᐧ ¹³, which
are both assigned entirely to Priestly-Code. The divergences
of Kuenen and Cornill are almost equally slight; and indeed
the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches
of Hupfeld, Nöldeke, and Schrader.――This remarkable consensus
of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines
of evidence: (1) _Linguistic._ The key to the whole process
is, of course, the distinction between the divine names
יהוה (6⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 7¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇ 8²⁰ᐧ ²¹) and אלהים (6⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²²
7¹⁶ᵃ 8¹ᐧ ¹⁵ 9¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Besides this, a number of
characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus
Yahwist’s איש ואשתו (7²) answers to Priestly-Code’s זכר ונקבה¹ (6¹⁹
7⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹⁶); מחה (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³) to שִׁחֵת and השחית (6¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵); מות
(7²²) to גָוַע¹ (6¹⁷ 7²¹); כל־היקום (7⁴ᐧ ²³) to כל־בשר¹ (6¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 7²¹
and often); קל (8⁸ᐧ ¹¹) and שוּב (7³ᵃ) to חסר (8⁵); חרב (8¹³ᵇ) to יבש
(8¹⁴) [but see on 8¹³ᵇ]; נשמת חיים (8²²) to רוח חיים (6¹⁷); לְחַיּוֹת (7³)
to לְהַֽחֲיוֹת (6¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰); כל־ביתך (7¹) to the specific enumerations of 6¹⁸
7⁽⁷⁾ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸. (Compare the list in Holzinger _Genesis erklärt_
page 68).――(2) _Diversity of representation._ In Yahwist clean
and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the
ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7², compare 8²⁰); in
Priestly-Code one pair of every kind without distinction is
admitted (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). According to Yahwist, the cause of
the Flood is a forty-days’ rain which is to commence seven days
after the command to enter the ark (7⁴ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 8²ᵇᐧ ⁶)――the latter
passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40
days. In Priestly-Code we have (7¹¹ 8²ᵃ) a different conception
of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁴ 8³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴,
a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase
for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one
year (see page 167 ff.).――(3) _Duplicates._ The following
are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6⁵⁻⁸ ∥ 6¹¹⁻¹³
(occasion of the Flood); 7¹⁻⁵ ∥ 6¹⁷⁻²² (command to enter the
ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7⁷ ∥ 7¹³ (entering of the
ark); 7¹⁰ ∥ 7¹¹ (coming of the Flood); 7¹⁷ᵇ ∥ 7¹⁸ (increase of
the waters: floating of the ark); 7²² ᶠᐧ ∥ 7²¹ (destruction of
terrestrial life); 8²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ ∥ 8¹ ᶠᐧ (abatement of the Flood); 8¹³ᵇ
∥ 8¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (drying of the earth); 8²⁰⁻²² ∥ 9⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (promise that
the Flood shall not recur).――(4) The final confirmation of
the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but
continuous narratives, which exhibit the distinctive features
of the two great sources of the primitive history, Yahwist
and Priestly-Code. The Yahwist sections are a graphic popular
tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning
faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to
bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the
comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed
to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an
unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove
(see 8⁹) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often
breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms
are freely introduced into the conception of God (6⁶ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁶ᵇ
8²¹); and the religious institutions of the author’s time
are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.――Still more
pronounced are the characteristics of Priestly-Code in the
other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm
of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign
of the rainbow (9¹²⁻¹⁷) is retained, its æsthetic beauty has
evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and
calculated,――the size of the ark, the number of the persons and
the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of
the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical
determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real
interest of the writer is in the new departure in God’s dealings
with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,――the
modification of the original constitution of nature, 9¹⁻⁷, and
the establishment of the first of the three great covenants,
9⁸⁻¹⁷. The connexion of the former passage with Genesis 1 is
unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of
Noah’s sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and
uncleanness amongst animals.²

¹ Phrases characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code
generally.

² Traces of Priestly-Code’s general vocabulary are very numerous. Besides some of those (marked by ¹) already enumerated in contrast to Yahwist, we have תּוֹלְדֹת (6⁹); דֹּרֹת (6⁹ 9¹²); הוֹלִיד (6¹⁰); הקים ברית (6¹⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷) and נתן ב׳ (9¹²); אִתּו in enumerations (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ etc.); מין (6²⁰ 7¹⁴); רֶמֶשׂ, רָמַשׂ (6²⁰ 7⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9²ᐧ ³); שֶׁרֶץ, שָׁרַץ (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷); לְאָכְלָה (6²¹ 9³); בעצם היום הזה (7¹³); מאד מאד (7¹⁹); בְּ of specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶); פרה ורבה (8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷); למשפחתיהם (8¹⁹); ברית עולם (9¹⁶).――Of the style of Yahwist the positive indications are fewer: מצא חן (6⁸); מחה in the sense ‘destroy’ (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³) [see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 101]; עצב (6⁶); על־פני האדמה (7⁴ᐧ ²³ 8⁸ᐧ ⁽{?} ¹³ ᴸˣˣ⁾); בעבור (8²¹). See the commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, etc.

The success of the critical process is due to the care and
skill with which the Redactor (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ⁺ᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ)
has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a
synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of
information that could with any plausibility be utilised for
his narrative. The sequence of Priestly-Code he appears to have
preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions.
Of Yahwist he has preserved quite enough to show that it was
originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was
naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main
document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunæ
except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6⁸
and 7¹), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8¹³ᵇ
and ²⁰). The middle part of the document, however, has been
broken up into minute fragments, and these have been placed in
position where they would least disturb the flow of narration.
Some slight transpositions have been made, and a number of
glosses have been introduced; but how far these last are due
to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we
cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely
admitted, and small discrepancies are disregarded; the only
serious discrepancy (that of the chronology) is ingeniously
surmounted by making Yahwist’s 40 days count twice, once as a
stage of the increase of the Flood (7¹²) and once as a phase
of its decrease (8⁶).¹ This compound narrative is not destitute
of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying
the literature the primary documents are obviously of first
importance. We shall therefore treat them separately.

¹ The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (_Les Origines de
l’histoire_ i. 415), that the double period occurred in the
original Yahwist, has no foundation.

_The Flood according to Yahwist._

=VI. 5‒8. The occasion of the Flood=:――Yahwe’s experience of the deep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human nature. It is unnecessary to suppose that a description of the deterioration of the race has been omitted, or displaced by 6¹⁻⁴ (Holzinger). The ground of the pessimistic estimate of human nature so forcibly expressed in verse ⁵ is rather the whole course of man’s development as hitherto related, which is the working out of the sinful knowledge acquired by the Fall. The fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech, the marriages with the angels, are incidents which, if not all before the mind of the writer of the Flood-story, at least reveal the gloomy view of the early history which characterises the Yahwistic tradition.――=5.= _the whole bent_ (literally ‘formation’) _of the thoughts of his heart_] It is difficult to say whether יֵצֶר is more properly the ‘form’ impressed _on_ the mind (the disposition or character), or ‘that which is formed’ _by_ the mind (imagination and purpose――_Sinnen und Trachten_): compare 8²¹, Deuteronomy 31²¹, Isaiah 26³ (Psalms 103¹⁴?), 1 Chronicles 28⁹ 29¹⁸; _v.i._――=6.= The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) and vexation (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) because He had created man is unusually strong. Although in the sense of mere change of purpose, the former is often ascribed to God (Exodus 32¹⁴, Jeremiah 18⁷ᐧ ⁸ 26³ᐧ ¹³, Joel 2¹³, Jonah 3¹⁰ etc.), the cases are few where divine regret for accomplished action is expressed (1 Samuel 15¹¹). The whole representation was felt to be inadequate (Numbers 23¹⁹, 1 Samuel 15¹¹); yet it continued to be used as inseparable from the religious view of history as the personal agency of Yahwe.――=7.= God’s resolve to _blot out_ (מָחָה) the race: not as yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.――=8.= _But Noah had found favour, etc._] doubtless on account of his piety; but see on 7¹. The Yahwistic narrative must have contained some previous notice of Noah, probably at the end of a genealogy.

* * * * *

=5.= יהוה LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (so verse ⁸).――וכל־יצר וגו׳] LXX loosely:
καὶ πᾶς τις διανοεῖται (יֹצֵר?) ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐπὶ
τὰ πονηρά; Vulgate _cuncta cogitatio_. Another Greek rendering
(ὁ Ἑβρ., see Field, _ad loc._) is φυσικὸν τοῦ ἀνθ.; but in 8²¹
the same translator has τὸ πλάσμα τῆς καρ. ἀνθ. On the later
Jewish theologoumenon of the יצר הרע (the evil impulse in man, also
called יצר simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish
commentaries (Rashi on 8²¹) is found here; see Taylor, _Sayings
of Jewish Fathers_², 37, 148 ff.; Frank C. Porter, _Biblical
and Semitic Studies; critical and historical essays by the
members of the Semitic and Biblical faculty of Yale University_
(1901), 93 ff.――כל־היום] ‘continually’; see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
400 b.――=6.= יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός (so verse ⁷).――ויתעצב] Genesis 34⁷;
compare Isaiah 63¹⁰ (Piel). Rashi softens the anthropomorphism
by making the impending destruction of the creatures the
immediate object of the divine grief.――=7.= אמחה] compare
7⁴ᐧ ²³. In the full sense of ‘exterminate’ (as distinct from
‘obliterate’ [name, memory, etc.]) the verb is peculiar to
Yahwist’s account of the Flood; contrast Numbers 5²³ 34¹¹
(Priestly-Code).――The verse is strongly interpolated. The
clauses אשר בראתי and מאדם ... השמים are in the style of Priestly-Code
(compare 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9² etc.); and the latter is, besides,
an illogical specification of האדם. They are redactional glosses,
the original text being אמחה את־האדם מעל פני האדמה כי נחמתי כי עשיתים (Budde
249 ff.; Dillmann 125).――=8.= מצא חן בעיני] characteristic of, though
not absolutely confined to, Yahwist: 19¹⁹ 32⁶ 33⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ 34¹¹ 39⁴
47²⁵ etc. (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 97 f.).

* * * * *

=VII. 1‒5. Announcement of the Flood.=――The section is an almost exact parallel to 6¹⁷⁻²² (Priestly-Code). Verse ¹ presupposes in Yahwist a description of the building of the ark, which the redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of Priestly-Code. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah the purpose it is to serve: verse ⁴ is obviously the first intimation that has been given of the approaching deluge. The building of the ark in implicit obedience to the divine command is thus a great test and proof of Noah’s faith; compare Hebrews 11⁷.――=1.= _Thou and all thy house_] Yahwist’s brevity is here far more expressive than the formal enumerations of Priestly-Code (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸). The principle involved is the religious solidarity of the family; its members are saved for the righteousness of its head (compare 19¹²).――_thee have I seen (to be) righteous_ (צַדִּיק, see on 6⁹)] Budde and others take this to be a judgement based on Noah’s obedience in building the ark; but that is hardly correct. The verb is not מצא but ראה, which has precisely the same force as the וירא of 6⁵. Compare also 6⁸.――=2.= _clean_ (טְהוֹר) means, practically, fit for sacrifice and human food; the technical antithesis is טָמֵא, which, however, is here avoided, whether purposely (Delitzsch 174) or not it is impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once supposed (see Tuch), a proof of Yahwist’s interest in Levitical matters, but, on the contrary, of the naïveté of his religious conceptions. He regards it as rooted in the nature of things, and cannot imagine a time when it was not observed. His view is nearer the historical truth than the theory of Priestly-Code, who traces the distinction to the positive enactments of the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), and consequently ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 4³ ᶠᐧ 8²⁰ 12⁷ etc.――שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה] _by sevens_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _q_); _i.e._ ‘7 (individuals) of each kind’ (Delitzsch, Stade, al.), rather than ‘7 pairs’ (_Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),――in spite of the following איש ואשתו. It is a plausible conjecture (Rashi, Delitzsch, Strack) that the odd individual was a male destined for sacrifice (8²⁰).――=3a= presents an impure text (_v.i._), and must either be removed as a gloss (Kuenen, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) or supplemented with LXX (Ball, Bennett).――=3b.= _to keep seed alive, etc._] reads better as the continuation of ² than of ³ᵃ.――=4.= With great rhetorical effect, the reason for all these preparations――the coming of the Flood――is reserved to the end. Yahwist knows no other physical cause of the Deluge than the 40 days’ rain (compare verse ¹²).――=5.= Compare 6²² (Priestly-Code).

* * * * *

=1.= יהוה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå
אלהים; LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――צדיק] predicate accusative; Davidson §
76.――=2.= For שנים, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read שנים שנים,――probably correctly.――איש
ואשתו (_bis_)] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ זכר ונקבה,
assimilating Yahwist to Priestly-Code.――=3a.= The distinction to
be expected between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly
by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and Peshiṭtå,
which insert הטהור after השמים; and fully by LXX, which goes
further and adds the words καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν τῶν μὴ
καθαρῶν δύο δύο ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. Ball accepts this, thinking
the omission in Massoretic Text due to homoioteleuton. But
the phrase זכר ונקבה shows that ³ᵃ has been manipulated; and it
is on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional.
Birds _may_ be included in the הבהמה of verse ²; though Budde’s
parallels (Exodus 8¹³ ᶠᐧ 9⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵, Jeremiah 32⁴³ 33¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 36²⁹,
Psalms 36⁷) are not quite convincing.――=3b.= לְחַיּוֹת] Priestly-Code
uses Hiphil (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ).――זֶרַע] as Jeremiah 31²⁷.――=4.= לימים] On
לְ as denoting the _close_ of a term (compare verse ¹⁰), see
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ =6b.=――הַיְקוּם] a rare word (only 7²³,
Deuteronomy 11⁶), meaning ‘that which subsists’ (√ קום). LXX
ἀνάστεμα (other examples in Field, ἐξανάστασιν), Vulgate
_substantia_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). On the form see Barth,
_Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_ 181; König ii.
146; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 85 _d_.

* * * * *

=7‒10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.――Entrance into the ark and description of the Flood.=――Yahwist’s narrative has here been taken to pieces by the Redactor, who has fitted the fragments into a new connexion supplied by the combined accounts of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The operation has been performed with such care and skill that it is still possible to restore the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive narrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The sequence of events is as follows: At the end of the seven days, the Flood comes (verse ¹⁰); Noah enters the ark (⁷) and Yahwe shuts him in (¹⁶ᵇ). Forty days’ rain ensues (¹²), and the waters rise and float the ark (¹⁷ᵇ). All life on the earth’s surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in the ark survive (²² ᶠᐧ).

The rearrangement here adopted (¹⁰ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᵇᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³) is
due mainly to the acute criticism of Budde (_Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 258 ff.), who has probably added the last
refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation.
Some points (_e.g._ the transposition of verses ⁷ and ¹⁰) are,
of course, more or less doubtful; others (_e.g._ ¹⁶ᵇ) are seen
to be necessary as soon as the components of Yahwist have been
isolated. The most difficult thing is to clear the text of the
glosses which inevitably accompanied the work of redaction; but
this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of
certainty and agreement amongst recent commentaries. The most
extensive interpolations are part of verse ⁷, the whole of
verses ⁸ and ⁹, and part of ²³. For details see the footnote.

* * * * *

=7.= וּבָנָיו――אִתּוֹ] The enumeration is in the manner of Priestly-Code
(obsolete also אִתּוֹ); the words either replace וכל־ביתו (as verse ¹),
or are a pure insertion;――in either case redactional.――מי המבול]
so 7¹⁰ (Yahwist), 9¹¹ (Priestly-Code) (contrast הַמּ׳ מַיִם, 6¹⁷
7⁶).――מַבּוּל] LXX κατακλυσμός; Vulgate _diluvium_; Peshiṭtå and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ טופנא (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ טובענא). The word has usually
been derived from יבל, ‘streaming’ (see Gesenius _Thesaurus
philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris
Testamenti_, Dillmann); but is more probably a foreign word
without Hebrew etymology (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 732). Delitzsch (_Wo lag das
Paradies?_ 156) proposed the derivation from Assyrian _nabâlu_,
‘destroy,’ which is accepted by König (ii. 153), Ball (page 53),
and others. The Babylonian technical equivalent is _abûbu_,
which denotes both a ‘light-flood’ and a ‘water-flood’: the
double sense has been thought to explain Priestly-Code’s addition
of מַיִם to the word (see on 6¹⁷). A transformation of the one name
into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 495¹, 546²). In Psalms
29¹⁰ מבול appears to be used in a general sense without a historic
reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm, _ad loc._). ――=8, 9=
present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and unclean
points to Yahwist; but all other features (אלהים [though a
reading יהוה seems attested by _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and MSS of LXX]; זכר ונקבה;
the undiscriminated שנים שנים; the categorical enumeration [to
which LXX adds the birds at the beginning of verse ⁸]) to
Priestly-Code. In Priestly-Code the verses are not wanted,
because they are a duplicate of ¹³⁻¹⁶: they must therefore be
assigned to an interpolator (Budde al.).

* * * * *

=10.= _At the end of the 7 days_ (compare verse ⁴)] The interval (we may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and provisioning the ark.――_the waters of the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל, a technical name for the Deluge, common to both sources (_v.i._).――=7.= Noah enters the ark _on account of the ... Flood_: hence verse ⁷ presupposes verse ¹⁰. The same order of events is found in Priestly-Code (¹¹ᐧ ¹³) and in the Babylonian legend: “when the lords of the darkness send at evening a (grimy?) rain, enter into the ship and close thy door” (1. 88 f.).――=16b= (which must in any case follow immediately on verse ⁷) contains a fine anthropomorphism, which (in spite of the Babylonian parallel just cited) it is a pity to spoil by deleting יהוה and making Noah the implicit subject (Klostermann _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, i. 717).――=12.= _forty days and forty nights_] This determination, which in Yahwist expresses the entire duration of the Flood, seems to have been treated by Redactor as merely a stage in the increase of the waters (compare 8⁶). It obviously breaks the connexion of Priestly-Code. The Babylonian deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).――=17b.= Parallel to ¹⁸ (Priestly-Code).――=22, 23.= A singularly effective description of the effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived as universal.

* * * * *

=10.= On the construction of the sentence, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 164 _a_, and on verse ⁶ below.――=12.= גֶּשֶׁם] (√ _ǧasuma_ = ‘be
massive’) commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezra 10⁹,
Canticles 2¹¹): see George Adam Smith _Historical Geography
of the Holy Land_, 64.――=16b.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + τὴν
κιβωτόν.――=17b.= Since ¹⁸ belongs to Priestly-Code (ויגברו, מאד),
its duplicate ¹⁷ᵇ must be from Yahwist, where it forms a natural
continuation of ¹². ¹⁷ᵃ, on the other hand (in spite of the 40
days), must be assigned to Priestly-Code (see page 164).――=22.=
נשמת רוח חיים] is an unexampled combination, arising from confusion
of a phrase of Yahwist (נשמת חיים, 2⁷) with one of Priestly-Code
(רוח חיים, 6¹⁷ 7¹⁵). The verse being from Yahwist (compare חָרָבָה
instead of יַבָּשָׁה; מתו instead of ויגוע, ²¹), רוח is naturally the word
to be deleted.――=23a= as a whole is Yahwist (מחה, יקום, על־פני האדמה);
but the clause מאדם ... השמים seems again (compare 6⁷) to be
redactional, and the three words following must disappear with
it. ²³ᵇ might be assigned with almost equal propriety to Yahwist
or to Priestly-Code.――וַיִּמַֿח] (apocopated imperfect Qal) is a better
attested Massoretic reading than וַיִּמַּח (Niphal). It is easier,
however, to change the pointing (to Niphal) than to supply
יהוה as subject, and the sense is at least as good.――Gunkel’s
rearrangement (²³ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ᵇ) is a distinct improvement: of the
two homologous sentences, that without וְ naturally stands second.

* * * * *

=VIII. (1b?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6‒12, 13b. Subsidence of the waters.=――The rain from heaven having ceased, the Flood gradually abates. [The ark settles on some high mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts and unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a dove to ascertain the condition of the earth.

The continuity of Yahwist’s narrative has again been disturbed
by the redaction. Verse ⁶ᵃ, which in its present position has
no point of attachment in Yahwist, probably stood originally
before ²ᵇ, where it refers to the 40 days’ duration of the Flood
(Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 5). It was removed by Redactor
so as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of
the mountain-tops and the drying of the ground.――There are two
small points in which a modification of the generally accepted
division of sources might be suggested. (1) ¹ᵇ (the wind causing
the abatement of the waters) is, on account of אלהים, assigned
to Priestly-Code. But the order ¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵃ is unnatural, and
transpositions in Priestly-Code do not seem to have been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with Yahwist’s conception
of the Flood than with Priestly-Code’s; and but for the name
אלהים the half-verse might very well be assigned to Yahwist,
and inserted between ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ. (2) Verse ⁴ is also almost
universally regarded as Priestly-Code’s (see Budde 269 f.).
But this leaves a lacuna in Yahwist between ³ᵃ and ⁶ᵇ, where a
notice of the landing of the ark must have stood: on the other
hand, ⁵ᵇ makes it extremely doubtful if Priestly-Code thought
of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only objection
to assigning ⁴ to Yahwist is the chronology: if we may suppose
the chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a
later hand (see page 168), there is a great deal to be said for
the view of Hupfeld and Reuss that the remainder of the verse
belongs to Yahwist.¹――The opening passage would then read as
follows:

¹ It may be noted that in _Jubilees_ v. 28 no date is given
for the landing of the ark.

* * * * *

=3a.= הלוך ושוב] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_. LXX has misunderstood
the idiom both here and in verse ⁷.

* * * * *

=6a.= _At the end of 40 days_, =2b.= _the rain from heaven was restrained_; =1b.= _and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters abated._ =3a.= _And the waters went on decreasing from off the earth_, =4.= _and the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat_.――On the landing-place of the ark, see page 166 below.

=6b‒12.= The episode of the sending out of the birds appears in many forms of the Deluge-tradition; notably in the Babylonian. It is here related as an illustration of Noah’s wisdom (Gunkel). Tuch quotes from Pliny, vi. 83 (on the Indians): “siderum in navigando nulla observatio; septentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emittentes sæpius, meatumque earum terram petentium comitantur.”――=7.= _He sent out a raven_] The purpose of the action is not stated till verse ⁸; partly for this reason, partly because the threefold experiment with the dove is complete and more natural, the genuineness of the verse has been questioned (Wellhausen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). Dahse, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 5 f., calls attention to the fact that in LXXᴹ the verse is marked with the obelus. The Babylonian account has three experiments, but with different birds (dove, swallow, raven).――=8.= _And he sent out a dove_] perhaps immediately; see LXX below. But if verse ⁷ be a later insertion, we must supply _and he waited 7 days_ (see verse ¹⁰).――=9.= The description of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and beauty of imagination.――=10.= _Seven other days_] implying a similar statement before either verse ⁷ or verse ⁸.――=11.= _a freshly plucked olive leaf_] The olive does not grow at great altitudes, and was said to flourish even under water (Tuch). But it is probable that some forgotten mythological significance attaches to the symbol in the Flood-legend (see Gunkel page 60). Compare the classical notices of the olive branch as an emblem of peace: Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 116 (_Paciferaeque manu ramum prætendit olivæ_); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. 16.――=12.= The third time the dove returns no more; and then at last――=13b.= Noah ventures to remove the _covering_ of the ark, and sees that the earth is dry.

* * * * *

=7.= הערב] on the article see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_; but
compare Smith’s note, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_²,
126.――LXX here supplies τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ κεκόπακεν τὸ ὕδωρ, as in
verse ⁸.――ויצא יצוא ושוב] LXX καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑ πέστρεψεν; so Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå (accepted by Ball): see on ³ᵃ.――=8.= מֵאִתּוֹ] LXX ὀπίσω
αὐτοῦ (= אַֽחֲרָיו); assuming that both birds were sent forth on
the same day.――=10.= וַיָּחֶל] compare וַיִּיָּחֶל, verse ¹² (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ has ויחל both times). Both forms are
incorrect: read in each case וַיְיַחֵל (Budde, Dillmann, al.).――=13b.=
מִכְסֵה] possibly described in Yahwist’s account of the building
of the ark. Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle
(Priestly-Code); but compare מְכַסֶּה, Ezekiel 27⁷.――חרבו] LXX ins.
τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπό.

* * * * *

=20‒22. Noah’s sacrifice.=――Yahwist’s account of the leaving of the ark has been suppressed. Noah’s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not of thanksgiving but (as verse ²¹ shows) of propitiation: its effect is to move the Deity to gracious thoughts towards the new humanity. The resemblance to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and instructive (see page 177): the incident appears also in the Greek and Indian legends.――=20.= _an altar_] Literally ‘slaughtering-place.’ The sacrificial institution is carried back by Yahwist to the remotest antiquity (see on 4³ ᶠᐧ 7² ᶠᐧ), but this is the first mention of the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see page 105 above.――עֹלֹת] _holocausts_,――that form of sacrifice which was wholly consumed on the altar, and which was naturally resorted to on occasions of peculiar solemnity (_e.g._ 2 Samuel 24²⁵).――=21.= _smelled the soothing odour_] רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (κνίση, _nidor_)¹ becomes a technical term of the Levitical ritual, and is never mentioned elsewhere except in Priestly-Code and Ezekiel. This, Gunkel points out, is the only place where Yahwe is actually described as _smelling_ the sacrifice; but compare 1 Samuel 26¹⁹. It is probably a refinement of the crude eudæmonism of the Babylonian story (see page 177 below); and it is doubtful how far it elucidates primitive Hebrew ideas of the effect of sacrifice. That “the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely the occasion of this gracious purpose” (Knobel), may be sound theology, but it hardly expresses the idea of the passage.――=21b= is a monologue (אֶל־לִבּוֹ).――כִּי יֵצֶר וגו׳ (see on 6⁵) may be understood either as epexegetical of בַּֽעֲבוּר הָאָדָם (a reason why Yahwe _might_ be moved to curse the ground, though he will not [Holzinger]), or as the ground of the promise _not_ to visit the earth with a flood any more. The latter is by far the more probable. The emphasis is on מִנְּעֻרָיו, _from his youth_; the innate sinfulness of man constitutes an appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured by an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests all progress toward better things (compare Isaiah 54⁹).――=22.= The pledge of Yahwe’s patience with humanity is the regularity of the course of nature, in which good and bad men are treated alike (Matthew 5⁴⁵). A division of the year into six seasons (Rashi), or even into two halves (Delitzsch), is not intended; the order of nature is simply indicated by a series of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be interrupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance closes Yahwist’s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior resolve of Yahwe; whereas in Priestly-Code it assumes the form of a ‘covenant’ (9¹¹),――a striking instance of the development of religious ideas in the direction of legalism: compare Jeremiah 31³⁵ ᶠᐧ 33²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ.

¹ _Iliad_ i. 317: κνίση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ;
compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ xii. 153.

* * * * *

=20.= ליהוה] LXX τῷ θεῷ.――=21.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (_bis_).――ריח
הניחח] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)――conflate?――לְקַלֵּל] a different
verb from that used in 3¹⁷ 4¹¹ 5²⁹ (ארר). Holzinger points out
that Piel of קלל is never used with God as subject (compare
Genesis 12³); and for this and other reasons regards ²¹ᵃ as
an unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the
prophecy of 5²⁹. But ²¹ᵃ can only refer to the Flood, while
the curse of 5²⁹ belongs to the past: moreover, an interpolator
would have been careful to use the same verb. The sense given
to קִלֵּל is fully justified by the usage of Pual (Psalms 37²²,
Job 24¹⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰).――בעבור] LXX διὰ τὰ ἔργα, as 3¹⁷.――כי יצר וגו׳]
LXX ὅτι ἔγκειται ἡ διάνοια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιμελῶς κτλ. See on
6⁵.――=22.= עֹד] LXX omitted; Ball, עַד――.ישבתו] ‘come to an end’:
see on 2².

* * * * *

_The Flood according to Priestly-Code._

=VI. 9‒12. Noah’s piety; The corruption of the earth.=――=9.= _This is the genealogy of Noah_] The formula is usually taken as the heading of the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the Flood; but see on 9²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――Noah is characterised as _righteous_ (צַדִּיק) and _faultless_ (תָּמִים): on the construction _v.i._ There is perhaps a correspondence between these two epithets and the description of the state of the world which follows; צדיק being opposed to the ‘violence,’ and תמים to the ‘corruption’ of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ. צדיק, a forensic term, denotes one whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; תמים is sacerdotal in its associations (Exodus 12⁵, Leviticus 1³ etc.), meaning ‘free from defect,’ _integer_ (compare 17¹).――_in his generations_ (_v.i._)] _i.e._ alone among his contemporaries (compare 7¹). That Noah’s righteousness was only relative to the standard of his age is not implied.¹――_walked with God_] see on 5²². The expression receives a fuller significance from the Babylonian legend, where Ut-napištim, like the Biblical Enoch, is translated to the society of the gods (page 177 below).――=11 f.= וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה] is the intentional antithesis to the וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד of 1³¹ (Delitzsch).――_All flesh had corrupted its way_] had violated the divinely-appointed order of creation. The result is _violence_ (חָמָס, LXX ἀδικία)――ruthless outrage perpetrated by the strong on the weak. A “nature red in tooth and claw with ravin” is the picture which rises before the mind of the writer; although, as has been already remarked (page 129), the narrative of Priestly-Code contains no explanation of the change which had thus passed over the face of the world.

¹ So Jerome: “ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam,
sed juxta generationis suæ eum justum fuisse justitiam.”

The fundamental idea of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ is the disappearance of the
Golden Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world
established by the decree of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. The lower animals contribute
their share to the general ‘corruption’ by transgressing the
regulation of 1³⁰, and commencing to prey upon each other and
to attack man (see 9⁵): so Rashi. To restrict כל־בשר to mankind
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, Strack, Driver, Bennett al.) is therefore
unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes ‘all
living beings,’ and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in
Priestly-Code’s account of the Flood (Driver _ad loc._). In 6¹⁹
7¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ 8¹⁷ it means animals apart from man; but that in the same
connexion it should also mean mankind apart from animals is not
to be expected, and could only be allowed on clear evidence.――The
difference of standpoint between Priestly-Code and Yahwist (6⁵)
on this matter is characteristic.

* * * * *

=9.= צדיק תמים] (so Job 12⁴). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is
hardly safe to remedy it on the authority of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ותמים) and Vulgate, against LXX.
To remove צדיק as a gloss from Yahwist (7¹) (Ball) is too bold.
Perhaps the sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one
nominal and the other verbal: ‘Noah was a righteous man; perfect
was he,’ etc.――The forensic sense of צדיק given above may not
be the original: see S. A. Cook, _The Journal of Theological
Studies_, ix. 632¹, who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was ‘due’ among a definite social group, and between it and its
gods.――בְּדֹרֹתָיו] LXX ἐν τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ. The feminine plural is
highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung
in den Hexateuch_ 341); but apparently always as a _real_ plural
(series of generations): contrast the solitary use of singular
in Priestly-Code, Exodus 1⁶. Here, accordingly, it seems fair
to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of
Noah (Tuch, Wellhausen, Holzinger, al.), but of the successive
generations covered by his lifetime. The resemblance to צדיק בדור הזה
(7¹) is adduced by Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 390) as a proof of Priestly-Code’s dependence
on Yahwist.――=11.= הָאלהים] One of the few instances of
Priestly-Code’s use of the article with א׳――=12.= אלהים] LXX
Κύριος ὁ θεός.

* * * * *

=13‒16. Directions for building the ark.=――=13.= Announcement in general terms of some vast impending catastrophe, involving _the end of all flesh_ (all living beings, as verse ¹²).――=14‒16.= Description of the Ark.――_An Ark_ (chest) _of gopher wood_] probably some resinous wood. In Hebrew תֵּבָה is used only of Noah’s ark and the vessel in which Moses was saved (Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵); the name _ark_ comes to us through Vulgate (_arca_), where, however, it is also applied to the ark of the testimony (Exodus 25¹⁰ etc.). The Babylonian Flood-narrative has the ordinary word for ship (_elippu_).――The vessel is to consist internally of _cells_ (literally ‘nests’), and is to be coated inside and out with _bitumen_ (compare Exodus 2³). Somewhat similar details are given of the ship of Ut-napištim (page 176). Asphalt is still lavishly applied in the construction of the rude boats used for the transport of naphtha on the Euphrates (see Cernik, quoted by Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, 27).――=15.= Assuming that the _cubit_ is the ordinary Hebrew cubit of six handbreadths (about 18 inches: see Kennedy, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are such as modern shipbuilding has only recently exceeded (see Bennett 140); though it is probably to be assumed that it was rectangular in plan and sections. That a vessel of these proportions would float, and hold a great deal (though it would not carry cannon!), it hardly needed the famous experiment of the Dutchman Peter Janson in 1609‒21 to prove (see Michaelis, _Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek_ xviii. 27 f.).――=16.= The details here are very confused and mostly obscure. The word צֹהַר (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) is generally rendered ‘light’ or ‘opening for light,’――either a single (square) aperture (Tuch), or “a kind of casement running round the sides of the ark (except where interrupted by the beams supporting the roof) a little below the roof” (Driver, so Delitzsch, Dillmann, al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this view; but the material arguments for it (see Dillmann 141) are weak, and its etymological basis is doubtful (_v.i._). Others (Ewald, Gunkel, Gesenius-Buhl al.) take it to mean the _roof_ (literally ‘back’: Arabic _ẓahr_).¹ The clause _and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above_ is unintelligible as it stands: some suggestions are given in the footnote.――The _door_ of the ark is to be _in its_ (longer?) _side_; and the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories. The ship of Ut-napištim appears to have had six decks, divided into nine compartments (lines 61‒63).

¹ According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1, 487), the Babylonian ark had a dome-shaped roof (_muḫḫu_).

* * * * *

=13.= בָּא לְפָנַי] not (as Esther 9¹¹) ‘has come to my knowledge,’
but ‘has entered into my purpose.’ This is better than (with
Dillmann) to take קֵץ בָּא absolutely (as Amos 8²), and לפני as
‘according to my purpose.’――מִפְּנֵיהֶם] _through them_; Exodus 8²⁰ 9¹¹,
Judges 6⁶ etc.――[מַשְׁחִיתָם] את־הארץ LXX καὶ τὴν γῆν; Vulgate _cum
terra_; so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. As Olshausen says,
we should expect מֵעַל ה׳ (מֵאֵת [Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error
probably lies deeper. Ball emends מַשְׁחִית אֹתָם וִאֵת־ה׳; Budde מַשְׁחִיחָם כי [הם]
מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה׳; Gunkel וְהִנָּם מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה. Eerdmans (_Alttestamentliche
Studien_, i. 29) finds a proof of original polytheism. He
reads הִנֶנּוּ מַשְׁחִיתִם וגו׳: “we [the gods] are about to destroy the
earth.”――=14.= תֵּבָה] LXX, Peshiṭtå κιβωτὸς; ♦Targum תיבותא. The word
is the Egyptian _ṭeb(t)_ = ‘chest,’ ‘sarcophagus’ (θίβις, θίβη,
in LXX of Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵): see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_; Erman,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlvi.
123. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 272 f.), while
admitting the Egyptian etymology, suggests a connexion with
the Assyrian _ilippu ṭí-bi-tum_ (a kind of ship). I am informed
by Dr. C. H. W. Johns that while the word is written as the
determinative for ‘ship,’ it is not certain that it was
pronounced _elippu_. He thinks it possible that it covers the
word _tabû_, found in the phrase _ta-bi-e Bêl ilâni Marduk_
(Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ 699 a), which he is
inclined to explain of the processional barques of the gods. If
this conjecture be correct, we may have here the Babylonian
original of Hebrew תֵּבָה. See _Cambridge Biblical Essays_
(1909), page 37 ff.――עֲצֵי־גֹפֶר] The old translators were evidently
at a loss: LXX (ἐκ) ξύλων τετραγώνων; Vulgate _(de) lignis
lævigatis_; Jerome _ligna bituminata_: the word being ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον. Lagarde (_Semitica_ i. 64 f.; _Symmicta_ ii. 93 f.)
considered it a mistaken contraction from גָפְרִית (brimstone),
or rather a foreign word of the same form which meant
originally ‘pine-wood.’ Others (Bochart, al.) suppose it to
contain the root of κυπάρισσος, ‘cypress,’ a wood used by the
Phœnicians in shipbuilding, and by the Egyptians for sarcophagi
(Delitzsch).――קִנִּים] Lagarde’s conjecture, קנים קנים (_Onomastica
Sacra_¹, ii. 95), has been happily confirmed from Philo,
_Quaestiones in Genesis_ ii. 3 (_loculos loculos_: see Budde
255), and from a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Nestle, cited by
Holzinger). On the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_.――כֹּפֶר]
also ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, = ‘bitumen’ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ), Arabic _ḳufr_, Aramaic כופרא Assyrian _kupru_
(used in the Babylonian Flood-story). The native Hebrew word
for ‘bitumen’ is חֵמָר (11³ 14¹⁰, Exodus 2³).――=15.= אֹתָהּ] LXX
אָת־הַתֵּבָה.――=16.= צֹהַר] LXX ἐπισυνάγων (reading צֹבֵר?); all other
versions express the idea of _light_ (Aquila μεσημβρινόν,
Symmachus διαφανές, Vulgate _fenestram_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
word), ‘windows,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ניהור). They connected it (as
Aquila shows) with צָֽהֳרַיִם, ‘noon day’; but _if_ צהרים means properly
‘summit’ (see Gesenius-Buhl; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v. _),
there seems nothing in Hebrew to connect the root with the
idea of light. The meaning ‘back’ is supported by Arabic
_ẓahr_.――ואל־אמה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מלמעלה] The suffix may refer either to the צהר
(whose gender is unknown: compare König _Historisch-comparative
Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_ page 163) or to the תֵּבָה: the
latter is certainly most natural after כִּלָּה. The prevalent
explanation――that the cubit indicates either the breadth of the
light-opening, or its distance below the roof (see Dillmann)――is
mere guess-work. Budde (following Wellhausen) removes the first
three words to the end of the verse, rendering: “and according
to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)”: Dillmann objects
that this would require הָאמה. Ball reads וְאֶל־אָרְכָּהּ תְכַסֶּנָּה מל׳, “and for
its (the ark’s) whole length thou shalt cover it above”; Gunkel:
ואל־א׳ תְּגֻלֶּנָה, “and on a pivot (see Isaiah 6⁴) thou shalt make it (the
roof) revolve,”――a doubtful suggestion.

♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed

* * * * *