Chapter V · The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs (Priestly-Code). (continued 2)

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 Israels⁶ 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 2^{3. 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, Targum^{Onkelos-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 2^{3. 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 Sacra¹, 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, Targum^Onkelos), 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 , ‘windows,’ Targum^Onkelos 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.

17‒22. The purpose of the ark.—Gunkel thinks that verse ¹⁷ commences a second communication to Noah; and that in the source from which Priestly-Code drew, the construction of the ark was recorded before its purpose was revealed (as in the parallel account of Yahwist: see on 7¹). That, of course, is possible; but that Priestly-Code slurred over the proof of Noah’s faith because he had no interest in personal religion can hardly be supposed. There is really nothing to suggest that ^{17 ff.} are not the continuation of ^13‒16.—17. Behold I am about to bring the Flood] הַמַּבּוּל: see above on 7⁷ (Yahwist), and in the Note below.—18. I will establish my covenant, etc.] anticipating 9^{9 ff.}. Delitzsch and Gunkel distinguish the two covenants, taking that here referred to as a special pledge to Noah of safety in the coming judgement; but that is contrary to the usage of Priestly-Code, to whom the בְּרִית is always a solemn and permanent embodiment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision (Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 197 f.). The entering of the ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled by Noah under the covenant, but the condition which makes the establishment of the promised covenant possible (Holzinger).—Thou and thy sons, etc.] The enumeration is never omitted by Priestly-Code except in 8¹; compare 7¹³ 8^{16. 18}: contrast Yahwist in 7¹.—19 f. One pair of each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean kinds belongs on the theory of Priestly-Code to a later dispensation—20. The classification (which is repeated with slight variations in 7^{14. 21} 8¹⁹ 9^{2 f. 10}) here omits wild beasts (חַיָּה): v.i. on verse ¹⁹.—יָבֹאוּ does not necessarily imply that the animals came of themselves (Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.), any more than תָּבִיא (verse ¹⁹) necessarily means that Noah had to catch them.—21. all food which is (or may be) eaten] according to the prescriptions of 1^{29 f.}.—22. so did he] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare especially Exodus 40¹⁶ (also Exodus 7⁶ 12^{28. 50} 39^{32. 42 f.}, Numbers 1⁵⁴, and often).

17. ואני הנני] compare Driver The Journal of Philology xi. 226.—המבול מַיִם (compare 7⁶)] The מים is certainly superfluous grammatically, but על־הארץ is necessary to the completeness of the sentence. LXX omits מים in 7⁶, and inserts it in 9^11b (Priestly-Code). Whether it be an explanatory gloss of the unfamiliar מבול (so most), or a peculiar case of nominal apposition (see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 188), it is difficult to decide: on the idea that it is meant to distinguish the water-flood from the light-flood, see above, page 154. The pointing מִיָּם (Michaelis al.) is objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, Priestly-Code never speaks of the Flood as coming ‘from the sea.’ Yahwist’s phrase is מי המבול: 7^{7. 10}; compare 9^11a (Priestly-Code).—לְשֶׂחֵת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, לשחית; but elision of ה in Hiphil is unusual: some Samaritan MSS have לחשחית (Ball).—יִגְוַע] ‘expire,’—peculiar to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch. (compare 7²¹ 25^{8. 17} 35²⁹ 49³³,—12 total in all); elsewhere only in poetry (Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 341).—19. הָחַי] (on anomalous pointing of article, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 35 f (1)). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch reads החיה as in 8¹⁷; and so LXX, which takes the word in the limited sense of wild animals, reading [καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν] καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν θηρίων] (see 7^{14. 21} 8¹⁹).—שׁנים] LXX, Peshiṭtå שנים שנים as in 7^{9. 15}. So also verse ²⁰.—20. מכל־רמש] Inserted וְ with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, Targum^Onkelos; the וְ is necessary to the sense.—LXX has כל before each class, but Massoretic Text rightly confines it to the heterogeneous רמש (Holzinger). For רמש האדמה, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX have אשר רמש על הא׳.—21. לאכלה] see on 1²⁹.—22. אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.

VII. 6, 11, 13‒17a. Commencement of the Flood.—These verses (omitting ^16b [Yahwist]) appear to form an uninterrupted section of the Priestly narrative, following immediately on 6²².—6. Date of the Flood by the year of Noah’s life. The number 600 is a Babylonian ner; it has been thought that the statement rests ultimately on a Babylonian tradition.—11. This remarkably precise date introduces a sort of diary of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see below, page 167 f. Verse ⁶, though consistent with ¹¹, is certainly rendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that we have here to do with a fusion of authorities within the Priestly tradition (page 168).—the fountains of the Great Deep] (תְּהוֹם רַבָּה: see on 1²). Outbursts of subterranean water are a frequent accompaniment of seismic disturbances in the alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31‒33); and a knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the feature here expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas, however, it is conceived as an eruption of the subterranean ocean on which the earth was believed to rest (see page 17). At the same time the windows of heaven were opened] allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean to mingle with the lower. The Flood is thus a partial undoing of the work of creation; although we cannot be certain that the Hebrew writer looked on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose cosmological conception with the simple representation of Yahwist, who sees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive rain.

Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and structure of ^11b: note the phrase תהום רבה (Amos 7⁴, Isaiah 51¹⁰, Psalms 36⁷), and the parallelismus membrorum. He considers the words a fragment of an older version of the legend which (like the Babylonian) was written in poetry. A similar fragment is found in 8².

6. On the syntax of the time-relation, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 a.—מַיִם] see 6¹⁷.—11. בשנת—שנה] ‘in the year of 600 years’; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 o.—For ‘17th day’ LXX has ‘27th’; see page 167 below.—אֲרֻבֹּת השמים] 8², Malachi 3¹⁰, = א׳ בשמים, 2 Kings 7^{2. 19} = מִמָּרוֹם, Isaiah 24¹⁸. Apart from these phrases the word א׳ is rare, and denotes a latticed opening, Hosea 13³, Isaiah 60⁸, Ecclesiastes 12³. Here it can only mean ‘sluices’; the καταράκται of LXX “unites the senses of waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices” (Delitzsch).

13. On that very day] continuing verse ¹¹. The idea that all the animals entered the ark on one day (Yahwist allows a week) has been instanced as an example of Priestly-Code’s love of the marvellous (Holzinger, Gunkel).—14‒16. See on 6^{19 f.}.—17a. the Flood came upon the earth] as a result of the upheaval, verse ¹¹.—The words forty days are a gloss based on 7^{4. 12} (v.i.); the Redactor treating Yahwist’s forty days as an episode in the longer chronology: see on verse ¹² (Yahwist).

13. בעצם היום הזה] 17^{23. 26}, Exodus 12^{17. 41. 51}, Leviticus 23^{14. 21. 28. 29. 30}, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁸, Joshua 5¹¹ (all Priestly-Code); Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 346.—שְׁלשֶׁת] irregular gender: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 97 c.—אִתָּם] Better as LXX, Peshiṭtå אִתּוֹ (8^{16. 18}).—14. הַחַיָּה] distinguishing wild beasts from domestic (compare verse ²¹); see on 6¹⁹.—כל צפור וגו׳] LXX omitted. Compare Ezekiel 17²³ 39⁴.—17a. ארבעים יום] Budde (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of the gloss ([ארבע]מים) represent the genuine מַיִם of Priestly-Code (6¹⁷ 7⁶). LXX adds וארבעים לילה. The half-verse cannot be assigned to Yahwist, because it would be a mere repetition of verse ¹².

18‒21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.—While Yahwist confines himself to what is essential—the extinction of life—and leaves the universality of the Flood to be inferred, Priestly-Code not only asserts its universality, but so to speak proves it, by giving the exact height of the waters above the highest mountains.—18, 19. prevailed] גָּבַר, literally ‘be strong’ (LXX ἐπεκράτει, Aquila ἐνεδυναμώθη). The Flood is conceived as a contest between the water and the dry land.—20. fifteen cubits] is just half the depth of the ark. The statement is commonly explained in the light of 8⁴: when the Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its depth, and therefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was just over one of the highest mountains; so that on the very slightest abatement of the water it grounded! The explanation is plausible enough (on the assumption that 8⁴ belongs to Priestly-Code); but it is quite as likely that the choice of the number is purely arbitrary.—24. 150 days] the period of ‘prevalence’ of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (verse ¹¹): see page 168.

19. וַיְכֻסּוּ] LXX וַיְכַסּוּ, with מַיִם as subject (better). So verse ²⁰.—20. גָּבְרוּ] LXX גָּבְהוּ (ὑψώθη), is preferable to Massoretic Text (compare Psalms 103¹¹).—הֶהָרִים] LXX (and Peshiṭtå) add τὰ ὑψηλά as in ¹⁹.—21. וכל האדם] here distinguished from כל־בשר.

VIII. 1, 2a, 3b‒5, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.—The judgement being complete, God remembers the survivors in mercy. The Flood has no sooner reached its maximum than it begins to abate (^3b), and the successive stages of the subsidence are chronicled with the precision of a calendar.—1. remembered] in mercy, as 19²⁹ 30²² etc. The inclusion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a touch of nature in Priestly-Code which should not be overlooked.—1b. The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest of the cause of the Deluge (^2a). It is said in defence of the present order that the sending of the wind and the stopping of the elemental waters are regarded as simultaneous (Dillmann); but that does not quite meet the difficulty. See, further, page 155 above.—3b. at the end of the 150 days] (7²⁴). See the footnote.—4. The resting of the ark.—on (one of) the mountains of ’Ărārāṭ] which are probably named as the highest known to the Hebrews at the time of writing; just as one form of the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek, Parnassus. Araraṭ (Assyrian Urarṭu) is the North-east part of Armenia; compare 2 Kings 19³⁷ = Isaiah 37³⁸, Jeremiah 51²⁷. The name Mount Araraṭ, traditionally applied to the highest peak (Massis, Agridagh: c. 17,000 feet) of the Armenian mountains, rests on a misunderstanding of this passage.

The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully discussed by Lenormant Les Origines de l’histoire² ii. 1 ff.: compare Tuch 133‒136; Nöldeke Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament 145 ff.—The district called Araraṭ or Urarṭu is properly that named in Armenian Ayrarat, and is probably identical with the country of the Alarodians of Herodotus iii. 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying North-east of Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on the right (South-west) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.¹ Another tradition, represented by Berossus (page 177 below) and Targum^Onkelos Peshiṭtå קַרְדּוּ², locates the mountain in Kurdistan, viz. at Ǧebel Ǧûdî, which is a striking mountain South-west of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain. This view is adopted in the Koran (Surah xi. 46), and has become traditional among the Moslems.—The ‘mountain of Niṣir’ of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next tributary to the South, the Adhem (Radânu) (Streck, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xv. 272). Tiele and Kosters, however (Encyclopædia Biblica, 289), identify it with Elburz, the sacred mountain of the Iranians (South of the Caspian Sea); and find a trace of this name in the μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Ἀρμενίαν Βάρις λεγόμενον indicated as the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus Damascenus (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 95).—What the original Hebrew tradition was, it is impossible to say. The writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the Babylonian, Araraṭ being here a corruption of Hara haraiti (the ancient Iranian name of Elburz), which was afterwards confused with the land of Urarṭu. Nöldeke and Holzinger think it probable that Targum^Onkelos and Peshiṭtå preserve the oldest name (Ḳardu), and that Araraṭ is a correction made when it was discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher than those of Kurdistan.

¹ “Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui usque illuc extenditur.” Jerome on Isaiah 37³⁸.

² Targum^Jonathan has both קרדוניא and ארמניא, as has Berossus.

1. The addition of LXX καὶ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ παντῶν τῶν ἑρπετῶν is here very much in place.—וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ] The √ is rare and late: Numbers 17²⁰ (Priestly-Code), Jeremiah 5²⁶, Esther 2¹ 7¹⁰.—3b. מקצה חמשים] Read מקץ החמשים (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch מקץ ח׳.—4. For 17th LXX has 27th (7¹¹).

5. the tops of the mountains] i.e. (as usually explained) the other (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation would be that the statement is made absolutely, from the viewpoint of an imaginary spectator; in which case it is irreconcilable with verse ⁴ (compare Hupfeld Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung 16 f.).—13a, 14. On New Year’s day the earth’s surface was uncovered, though still moist; but not till the 27th of the 2nd month was it dry (arefacta: compare Jeremiah 50³⁸).

5. היו הלוך וחסור] ‘went on decreasing’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 u); less idiomatic than ^3a (Yahwist).—Tenth] LXX eleventh.—13a. After שנה LXX adds לחיי נח (7¹¹).

15‒19. Exit from the ark: blessing on the animals.—17b. A renewal of the benediction of 1²², which had been forfeited by the excesses before the Flood. The corresponding blessing on man is reserved for 9^{1 ff.}.—19. The animals leave the ark according to their families,—an example of Priestly-Code’s love of order.

The Chronology of the Flood presents a number of intricate though unimportant problems.—The Dates, according to Massoretic Text and LXX,¹ are as follows:

1. Commencement of Flood, 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day (LXX 27th)

2. Climax (resting of ark), 600th year, 7th month, 17th day (LXX 27th)

3. Mountain tops visible, 600th year, 10th (LXX 11th) month, 1st day

4. Waters dried up 601st year, 1st month, 1st day

5. Earth dry 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day

¹ Jubilees v. 23‒32 (compare vi. 25 f.) adds several dates, but otherwise agrees with Massoretic Text, except that it makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives no date for the resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on the 17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month.

The chief points are these: (a) In LXX the duration of the Flood is exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and (2) amount to 150 days (7²⁴ 8³), the basis of reckoning is presumably the Egyptian solar year (12 months of 30 days + 5 intercalated days). The 2 months’ interval between (3) and (4) also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days of 8^6‒12 (Yahwist). In Massoretic Text the total duration is 12 months + 10 days; hence the reckoning appears to be by lunar months of c. 29½ days, making up a solar year of 364 days.¹—(b) The Massoretic scheme, however, produces a discrepancy with the 150 days; for 5 lunar months fall short of that period by two or three days. Either the original reckoning was by solar months (as in LXX), or (what is more probable) the 150 days belong to an older computation independent of the Calendar.² It has been surmised that this points to a 10 months’ duration of the Flood (150 days’ increase + 150 days’ subsidence); and (Ewald, Dillmann) that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days’ interval between (2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the period of subsidence.—(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The only date that bears its significance on its face is the disappearance of the waters on the 1st day of the year; and even this is confused by the trivial and irrelevant distinction between the drying up of the waters and the drying of the earth. Why the Flood began and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or 27th day, remains, in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.³ (d) The question whether the months are counted from the old Hebrew New Year in the autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian) calendar, from the spring, has been discussed from the earliest times, and generally decided in favour of the former view (Jubilees, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 80, Targum^Jonathan, Rashi, and most).⁴ The arguments on one side or the other have little weight. If the second autumn month (Marchešwan) is a suitable time for the commencement of the Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season in Palestine and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuitable for its close. Priestly-Code elsewhere follows the Babylonian calendar, and there is no reason to suppose he departs from his usual procedure here (so Tuch, Gunkel, al.).—(e) The only issue of real interest is how much of the chronology is to be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there be two discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the reckoning of Priestly-Code, and the Calendar a later adjustment (Dillmann); or, again, the 150 days might be traditional, and the Calendar the work of Priestly-Code himself (Gunkel). On the former (the more probable) assumption the further question arises whether the additions were made before or after the amalgamation of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The evidence is not decisive; but the divergences of LXX from Massoretic Text seem to prove that the chronology was still in process of development after the formation of the Canon.—See Dahse, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is shewn that a group of Greek MSS agree closely with Jubilees, and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the 2nd month.

¹ So Jubilees vi. 32. Compare Charles’s Notes, pages 54 f. and 56 f.

² That it is a later redactional addition (Holzinger) is much less likely.

³ King (The Journal of Theological Studies, v. 204 f.) points out the probability that in the triennial cycle of Synagogue readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story fell to be read about the 17th Iyyar. This might conceivably have suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it would bring down the latter to a somewhat late period), or a modification of an original 27th (LXX), which, however, would itself require explanation.

⁴ See Delitzsch 175 f., 183, 184; Dillmann 129 f.

15. אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.—17. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְכל־החיה; so verse ¹⁹.—הוצא] Why Qrê substitutes in this solitary instance הַיְצֵא is not clear: see König i. page 641.—וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ] LXX וּפְרוּ וּרְבוּ (Improved), omitting the previous ושרצו בארץ. This is perhaps the better text: see on 9^{1 ff.} Vulgate reads the whole as Improved.—19. כל־הרמש—רמש] LXX (better) וכל־הבהמה וכל־העוף וכל הרֶפֶשׂ הרֹמֵשׂ.—למשפחתיהם] (Jeremiah 15³); the plural of מין (Priestly-Code’s word in chapter 1) is not in use (Holzinger).

IX. 1‒7. The new world-order.—The religious significance of the Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the following sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal age of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The original harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter were prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the Flood (see on 6^{11 f.}). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in which the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only two restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the degenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the ‘life’ of an animal, and (2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast.

The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of the passage when they formulated the idea of the ‘Noachic commandments,’ binding on men generally, and therefore required of the ‘proselytes of the gate’; though they increased their number. See Schürer, iii. 128 f.

Verses ^1‒7, both in substance and expression (compare לכם יהיה לאכלה, נתתי לכם את־כל, and especially ירק עשב), form a pendant to 1^{29 f.} We have seen (page 35) that these verses are supplementary to the cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel (as verses ^8‒16 have) in Yahwist or the Babylonian narrative (Gunkel). But that neither this nor 1^{29 f.} is a secondary addition to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on 1^{22. 27 f.} as on 1^{29 f.}. To treat 9^4‒6 as a later insertion (Holzinger) is arbitrary. On the contrary, the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of Priestly-Code to the ancient traditions.

1. An almost verbal repetition of 1²⁸. The wives of Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the Old Testament (so verse ⁸). It is perhaps also significant that here (in contrast to 1²²) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant—verses ^{10. 12. 15 ff.}).—2. Man’s ‘dominion’ over the animals is re-established, but now in the form of fear and dread (compare Deuteronomy 11²⁵) towards him on their part.—into your hand they are given] conveying the power of life and death (Leviticus 26²⁵, Deuteronomy 19¹² etc.).—3. The central injunction: removal of the prohibition of animal food.—moving thing that is alive] an unusually vague definition of animal life.—Observe Priestly-Code’s resolute ignoring of the distinction between clean and unclean animals.—4. The first restriction. Abstention from eating blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained, is a fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Leviticus 7²⁷ 17^{10. 14}); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 33^{25 f.} etc.). The theory on which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 17^{11. 14}, Deuteronomy 12²³): the blood is the life, and the life is sacred, and must be restored to God before the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic views of the blood are primitive and widespread; and amongst some races formed a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.¹ All the same it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for the ancient Hebrew horror of eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14^{32 ff.}²).—5, 6. The second restriction: sanctity of human life. ‘Life’ is expressed alternately by דָּם and נֶפֶשׁ.—On לנפשתיכם, v.i.—I will require] exact an account of, or equivalent for (42²², Ezekiel 33⁶, Psalms 9¹³ etc.). That God is the avenger of blood is to Yahwist (chapter 4) a truth of nature; to Priestly-Code it rests on a positive enactment.—from the hand of every beast] see Exodus 21^{28 f.}.—6a is remarkable for its assonances and the perfect symmetry of the two members: שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם | בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ. It is possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become proverbial (Gunkel). The ♦Targum (v.i.) read into the text the idea of judicial procedure; others (Tuch, al.) suppose the law of blood-revenge to be contemplated. In reality the manner of execution is left quite indefinite.—6b. The reason for the higher value set on the life of man. On the image of God see on 1^{26 f.}.—7. The section closes, as it began, with the note of benediction.

¹ See Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 234 f.; Frazer, The Golden Bough², i. 133 f., 352 f.; Kennedy, Encyclopædia Biblica, 1544.

² It has been thought that the offence warned against is the barbarous African custom of eating portions of animals still alive (Targum^Jonathan, Rashi, Delitzsch, al.); but that is a mistake.

1. LXX adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1²⁸.—2. בכל—ובכל] LXX, Peshiṭtå ובכל (bis). The בְּ cannot be that of specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9^{10. 16} etc.), since no comprehensive category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing the sense of על (LXX), and not altogether natural to render ‘along with’ (Dillmann).—נִתָּנוּ] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch LXX נְתַתִּיו:—3. נתתי לכם את־כל] seems a slavish repetition from 1²⁹. We should at least expect the article, which The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (הכל) supplies.—4. דמו is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to בנפשו; but LXX renders ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς, and Peshiṭtå ( ), Symmachus (οὗ σὺν ψυχῇ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) as a relative clause.—5. ואך is suspicious after the preceding אך. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (ואת־דמכם) omits.—לנפשתיכם] usually taken as circumscription of genitive, emphasising the suffix: ‘your blood, your own’—in contrast with the animals. It is better to render ‘according to your persons,’ i.e. individually;—“dem eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive Fassung des ל doch am besten” (Delitzsch).—מיד איש אחיו] ‘from the hand of one man that of another.’ The full expression would be מיד איש את־נפש אחיו (Olshausen); but all languages use breviloquence in the expression of reciprocity. The construction is hardly more difficult than in 15¹⁰ 42^{25. 35}; and an exact parallel occurs in Zechariah 7¹⁰. See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 c; Budde 283 ff. The ואחיו of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate makes nonsense; LXX omits the previous ומיד האדם. It would be better to move the Athnach so as to commence a new clause with מיד איש.—6. באדם] Vulgate omitted; Targum^Onkelos בסהדין ממימר דיניא: Targum^Jonathan is still more explicit.—7. ורבו בה] Vulgate et implete eam (as verse ¹). Read ורדו בה after 1²⁸ (Nestle in Ball).

8‒17. The Covenant and its Sign.—In Priestly-Code as in Yahwist (8^20‒22) the story of the Flood closes with an assurance that the world shall never again be visited by such a catastrophe; and in both the promise is absolute, not contingent on the behaviour of the creatures. In Priestly-Code it takes the form of a covenant between God and all flesh,—the first of two covenants by which (according to this writer) the relations of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the content and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the concluding note, page 173 f.—9. establish my covenant] in fulfilment of 6¹⁸. Priestly-Code’s formula for the inauguration of the covenant is always הֵקִים בְּרִית or נָתַן בּ׳ (17², Numbers 25¹²) instead of the more ancient and technical כָּרַת בּ׳.—11. The essence of the covenant is that the earth shall never be devastated by a Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted by this assurance is a difficult question, on which see page 173 below.—12‒17. The sign of the covenant. “In times when contracts were not reduced to writing, it was customary, on the occasion of solemn vows, promises, and other ‘covenant’ transactions, to appoint a sign, that the parties might at the proper time be reminded of the covenant, and a breach of its observance be averted. Examples in common life: Genesis 21³⁰, compare 38^{17 f.}” (Gunkel).¹ Here the sign is a natural phenomenon—the rainbow; and the question is naturally asked whether the rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch). That is the most obvious assumption, though not perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and reflection of light on which the rainbow depends actually existed before the time of Noah is a matter of which the writer may very well have been ignorant.—For the rest, the image hardly appears here in its original form. The brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark background of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man as a token of peace and good-will from the god who has placed it there; but of this thought the passage contains no trace: the bow is set in the cloud by God to remind Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as if Priestly-Code, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive conception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his abstract theory of the covenant with its accompanying sign. On the mythological origin of the symbol, see below.—14‒16. Explanation of the sign.—^14b continues ^14a: and (when) the bow appears in the cloud; the apodosis commencing with ¹⁵ (against Delitzsch).—The bow seems conceived as lodged once for all in the cloud (so Abraham Ibn Ezra), to appear at the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of God.—16. an everlasting covenant] so 17^{7. 13. 19}, Exodus 31¹⁶, Leviticus 24⁸, Numbers 18¹⁹ 25¹³ (all Priestly-Code).

¹ Hence both of Priestly-Code’s covenants are confirmed by a sign: the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by the rainbow.

The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his contest with the demons; among the Arabs “Kuzah shoots arrows from his bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds” (Wellhausen Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 311); by Homer it was personified as Ἶρις, the radiant messenger of the Olympians (Iliad ii. 786, iii. 121; compare Ovid Metamorphoses i. 270 f.), but also regarded as a portent of war and storm (xi. 27 f., xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is the bridge between heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation is perhaps found in the Babylonian Creation-myth, where Marduk’s bow, which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a constellation. (See Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 248; Dillmann 155 f.; Gunkel 138 f.; Driver 99).—These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of the symbolism of this passage. It springs from the imagery of the thunderstorm; the lightnings are Yahwe’s arrows; when the storm is over, His bow (compare Habakkuk 3^9‒11, Psalms 7^{13 f.}) is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign that His anger is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of which there are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has yet been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient, adaptation. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in Old Testament (Ezekiel 1²⁸ הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם: but see Sirach 43^{11 f.} 50⁷), and it is pointed out (by Wellhausen, al.) that elsewhere קֶשֶׁת always denotes the bow as a weapon, never an arc of a circle.

With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question theologically is whether it includes the regulations of verses ^1‒6, or is confined to the unconditional promise that there shall no more be a flood. For the latter view there is undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 3 f.). Verses ^1‒7 and ^8‒17 are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of different origin (page 169); and while the first says nothing of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipulations. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact independent of human action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning of the author that the promise stands sure whether the precepts of ^1‒7 be observed or not. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Priestly-Code, to whom the ברית means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of verse ¹¹. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ברית marks a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom it is established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of including the ordinances of ^1‒7 in the terms of the covenant (so Isaiah 24^{5 f.}). Kraetzschmar (Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the idea of verses ^8‒17 is borrowed by Priestly-Code from Yahwist, and represents the notion of the covenant characteristic of that document. It is much simpler to recognise the existence of different tendencies within the priestly school; and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding verses ^1‒7 as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by Priestly-Code. If that be the case, it is probable that these verses were inserted by the priestly author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic ברית those elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding on mankind.—On the conception of the ברית in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, see chapters 15 and 17.

10. מכל] ‘as many as’; see on 6².—לכל חית הארץ] LXX omitted.—לְכל] perhaps = ‘in short’: compare 23¹⁰, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 e. The sense of ח׳ ה׳ = ‘animals’ in general, immediately after the same expression in the sense of ‘wild animals,’ makes the phrase suspicious (Holzinger).—11. מבול] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch המבול; LXX adds מַיִם.—לשחת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch להשחית; so verse ¹⁵.—12. אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + (with Peshiṭtå) אל־נח.—13. נתתי] hardly historic perfect (‘I have set’), but either perfect of instant action (‘I do set’), or perfect of certainty (‘I will set’); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 i, m, n.—14. בענני ענן] literally ‘when I cloud with cloud’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 52 d and 117 r.—הקשת] LXX, Vulgate קשתי; so LXX in verse ¹⁶.—15. חיה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå החיה אשר אתכם (compare verse ¹²).—16. לִזְכֹּר Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos לְזֵכֶר.—בין אלהים] LXX ביני.

28, 29. The death of Noah.

The form of these verses is exactly that of the genealogy, chapter 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of the תולדת נח (6⁹). How much was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of Priestly-Code’s narrative of the Flood (so that תולדת is practically equivalent to ‘biography’), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6¹⁰? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6^{9. 10} 7⁶ 9^{28. 29} formed a section of the original book of תולדת, and that into this skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the priestly writers (see the notes on 2^4a). The relation of the assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that of the תולדת of Terah (11^{27 ff.}) to the תולדת of Shem (11^10‒26). In each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5³² 6¹⁰); and, finally, the second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices. It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham belongs to the תולדת of Terah; that is the accepted view, and the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on page 40 f. Fortunately the question is of no great importance.

29. ויהי, Hebrew MSS (London Polyglott) and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויהיו.

The Deluge Tradition.

1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories, and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly historical character of the latter.¹ On the question of the universality of the Deluge² they have, of course, no immediate bearing, though they frequently assert it; for it could never be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The utmost that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge coextensive with the primitive seat of mankind; and that the memory of the cataclysm was carried with them by the various branches of the race in their dispersion. But even that position, which is still maintained by some competent writers, is attended by difficulties which are almost insuperable. The scientific evidence for the antiquity of man all over the world shows that such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken place many thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah; and that the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time among savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible. The most reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here be followed out in detail) is that the great majority of the legends preserve the recollection of local catastrophes, such as inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods accompanied by cyclones, etc., of which many historical examples are on record; while in a considerable number of cases these local legends have been combined with features due either to the diffusion of Babylonian culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through Christian missionaries.³ In this note we shall confine our attention to the group of legends most closely affiliated to the Babylonian tradition.

¹ Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet, 1891), who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories (of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine, and twenty-six as influenced by the Babylonian) points out, e.g., that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous and remarkable instances come from the American continent (page 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be considered as closed: Naville (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1904, 251‒257, 287‒294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian tradition in a text of the Book of the Dead, containing the following words: “And further I (the god Tum) am going to deface all I have done; this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an inundation, as it was at the beginning” (l.c. page 289).

² On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of such a hypothesis, see Driver 99 f.

³ See Andree, l.c. 143 ff.; Suess, The Face of the Earth, i. 18‒72 passim Compare the discussion by Woods in A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 17 ff.; and Driver The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 101 ff.—Lenormant, who once maintained the independence of the legends as witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed himself with more reserve, and conceded the possibility that the Mexican and Polynesian myths might be distant echoes of a central legend, emanating ultimately from Babylonia (Les Origines de l’histoire² i. 471 f., 488 ff.).

2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is contained in the eleventh Tablet of the Gilgameš Epic.¹ Gilgameš has arrived at the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his ancestor Utnapištim how he had been received into the society of the gods. The answer is the long and exceedingly graphic description of the Flood which occupies the bulk of the Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at Šurippak on the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send the Flood (abûbu) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at the council, resolved to save his favourite Utnapištim; and contrived without overt breach of confidence to convey to him a warning of the impending danger, commanding him to build a ship (elippu) of definite dimensions for the saving of his life. The ‘superlatively clever one’ (Atra-ḥasis, a name of Utnapištim) understood the message and promised to obey; and was furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens for his extraordinary proceedings. The account of the building of the ship (line 48 ff.) is even more obscure than Genesis 6^14‒16: it is enough to say that it was divided into compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen. The lading of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and dependants of Utnapištim (including artizans), with domestic and wild animals, are then described (line 81 ff.); and last of all, in the evening, on the appearance of a sign predicted by Šamaš the sun-god, Utnapištim himself enters the ship, shuts his door, and hands over the command to the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff.). On the following morning the storm (magnificently described in lines 97 ff.) broke; and it raged for six days and nights, till all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to the heaven of Anu and “cowered in terror like a dog.”

¹ Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of Asshurbanipal’s library; published 1873‒4; and often translated since. See Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament², 55 ff.; Jensen Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, 368 ff.; Zimmern in Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 423 ff.; Jensen Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed below); Ball Light from the East, 35 ff.; Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 228 ff.; and the abridgments in Jastrow The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria¹, 493 ff.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 545 ff.; Texte und Bilder, i. 50 ff.

“When the seventh day came, the hurricane, the Flood, the battle-storm was stilled,

Which had fought like a (host?) of men.

The sea became calm, the tempest was still, the Flood ceased.

When I saw the day, no voice was heard,

And the whole of mankind was turned to clay.

When the daylight came, I prayed,

I opened a window and the light fell on my face,

I knelt, I sat, and wept,

On my nostrils my tears ran down.

I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea;

After twelve double-hours an island stood out.

At Nisir² the ship had arrived.

The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship....” (line 130‒142).

² See page 166.

This brings us to the incident of the birds (146‒155):

“When the seventh day³ came

I brought out a dove and let it go.

The dove went forth and came back:

Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.

I brought forth a swallow and let it go.

The swallow went forth and came back:

Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.

I brought forth a raven and let it go.

The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters,

It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again.”

³ From the landing.

On this Utnapištim released all the animals; and, leaving the ship, offered a sacrifice:

“The gods smelt the savour,

The gods smelt the goodly savour

The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer” (160 ff.).

The deities then begin to quarrel, Ištar and Ea reproaching Bel for his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately, and Bel accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of Utnapištim. Finally, Bel is appeased; and entering the ship blesses the hero and his wife:

“‘Formerly Utnapištim was a man;

But now shall Utnapištim and his wife be like to us the gods:

Utnapištim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the streams.’

Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the streams they made me dwell” (202 ff.).⁴

⁴ Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend, in which the hero is regularly named Atra-ḥasis, have also been deciphered. One of them, being dated in the reign of Ammizaduga (circa 1980 B.C.), is important as proving that this recension had been reduced to writing at so early a time; but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 288‒291). The other is a mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea’s instructions to Atra-ḥasis regarding the building and entering of the ark, and the latter’s promise to comply (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 256‒259). See Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 551 f.—The extracts from Berossus preserved by Eusebius present the Babylonian story in a form substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgameš Tablets, though with some important variations in detail. See Eusebius Chronicon i. (edited by Schoene, columns 19‒24, 32‒34: compare Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum ii. 501 ff.).

3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient Babylonian legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat more obvious in the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly; but there is enough in the common substratum of the two accounts to show that the Hebrew tradition as a whole was derived from Babylonia. Thus both Yahwist and Priestly-Code agree with the Babylonian story in the general conception of the Flood as a divine visitation, its universality (so far as the human race is concerned), the warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and the final pacification of the deity who had caused the Deluge. Yahwist agrees with Babylonia in the following particulars: the entry of the hero into the ark after the premonitory rain; the shutting of the door; the prominence of the number 7; the episode of the birds; the sacrifice; and the effect of its ‘savour’ on the gods. Priestly-Code has also its peculiar correspondences (though some of these may have been in Yahwist originally): e.g. the precise instructions for building the ark; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Babylonian touch); the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the survivors.¹ By the side of this close and marked parallelism, the material differences on which Nickel (page 185) lays stress—viz. as to (a) the chronology, (b) the landing-place of the ark, (c) the details of the sending out of the birds, (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Babylonian), and (e) the name of the hero—sink into insignificance. They are, indeed, sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between the Hebrew writers and the Gilgameš Tablets; but they do not weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of the Israelites. And since we have seen (page 177) that the Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible to suppose that the Hebrew oral tradition had preserved an independent recollection of the historical occurrence which may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge tradition.—The differences between the two narratives are on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional traces of a poetic original (8²² in Yahwist, 7^11b 8^2a in Priestly-Code), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and pathos of which only a few touches appear in Yahwist, and none at all in Priestly-Code. The difference here is not wholly due to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical writers: it is characteristic of the Hebrew popular tale that it shuns the ‘fine frenzy’ of the poet, and finds its appropriate vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In this we have an additional indication that the story was not drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from the lips of the common people; although in Priestly-Code it has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory of history peculiar to that document (page lx f.). The most important divergences are naturally those which spring from the religion of the Old Testament—its ethical spirit, and its monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear recognition in the hands of the Hebrew writers: the Flood is a divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea. The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious, divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one almighty and righteous God,—a Being capable of anger and pity, and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams of tradition. Thus in the Babylonian version the fact that the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in Yahwist it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gunkel page 66). Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is true, at all events, that the Babylonian parallel serves as a “measure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel, which was powerful enough to purify and transform in such a manner the most uncongenial and repugnant features” of the pagan myth (ib.); and, further, that “the Flood-story of Genesis retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of the world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this pædagogic and ethical purpose” (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², page 252).

¹ See more fully Driver, page 106.

4. Of other ancient legends in which some traces of the Chaldean influence may be suspected, only a very brief account can here be given. The Indian story, to which there is a single allusion in the Vedas, is first fully recorded in the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 8. 1‒10.¹ It relates how Manu, the first man, found one day in the water with which he performed his morning ablution a small fish, which begged him to take care of it till it should attain its full growth, and then put it in the sea. Manu did so, and in gratitude for its deliverance the fish warned him of the year in which the Flood would come, promising, if he would build a ship, to return at the appointed time and save him. When the Flood came the fish appeared with it; Manu attached the cable of his ship to the fish’s horn, and was thus towed to the mountain of the north, where he landed, and whence he gradually descended as the waters fell. In a year’s time a woman came to him, announcing herself as his daughter, produced from the offerings he had cast into the water; and from this pair the human race sprang. In a later form of the tradition (Mahābhārata, iii. 187. 2 ff.),² the Babylonian affinities are somewhat more obvious; but even in the oldest version they are not altogether negligible, especially when we remember that the fish (which in the Mahābhārata is an incarnation of Brahma) was the symbol of the god Ea.³—The Greeks had several Flood-legends, of which the most widely diffused was that of Deukalion, best known from the account of Apollodorus (i. 7. 2 ff.).⁴ Zeus, resolved to destroy the brazen race, sends a heavy rain, which floods the greater part of Greece, and drowns all men except a few who escape to the mountain tops. But Deukalion, on the advice of his father Prometheus, had prepared a chest, loaded it with provisions, and taken refuge in it with his wife Pyrrha. After 9 days and nights they land on Parnassus; Deukalion sacrifices to Zeus and prays for a new race of men: these are produced from stones which he and his wife, at the command of the god, throw over their shoulders. The incident of the ark seems here incongruous, since other human beings were saved without it. It is perhaps an indication of the amalgamation of a foreign element with local Deluge traditions.—A Syrian tradition, with some surprising resemblances to Priestly-Code in Genesis, has been preserved by the Pseudo-Lucian (De dea Syra, 12, 13). The wickedness of men had become so great that they had to be destroyed. The fountains of the earth and the flood-gates of heaven were opened simultaneously; the whole world was submerged, and all men perished. Only the pious Deukalion-Sisuthros⁵ was saved with his family in a great chest, into which as he entered all sorts of animals crowded. When the water had disappeared, Deukalion opened the ark, erected altars, and founded the sanctuary of Derketo at Hierapolis. The hole in the earth which swallowed up the Flood was shown under the temple, and was seen by the writer, who thought it not quite big enough for the purpose. In Usener’s opinion we have here the Chaldean legend localised at a Syrian sanctuary, there being nothing Greek about it except the name Deukalion.—A Phrygian localisation of the Semitic tradition is attested by the epithet κιβωτός applied to the Phrygian Apameia (Kelainai) from the time of Augustus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, etc.); and still more remarkably by bronze coins of that city dating from the reign of Septimius Severus. On these an open chest is represented, bearing the inscription ΝΩΕ, in which are seen the figures of the hero and his wife; a dove is perched on the lid of the ark, and another is flying with a twig in its claws. To the left the same two human figures are seen standing in the attitude of prayer.⁶ The late date of these coins makes the hypothesis of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence extremely probable.—The existence of a Phœnician tradition is inferred by Usener (248 ff.) from the discovery in Etruria and Sardinia of bronze models of ships with various kinds of animals standing in them: one of them is said to date from the 7th century B.C. There is no extant written record of the Phœnician legend: on Gruppe’s reconstruction from the statements of Greek mythographers see above, page 141.

¹ Translated by Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, xii. 216 ff. See Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, iii.), 25 ff.

² Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii. 552 ff. See Usener, 29 ff.

³ Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence of the Indian and Semitic legends.

⁴ The earliest allusion is Pindar, Olympian 9. 41 ff. Compare Ovid, Metamorphoses i. 244‒415; Pausanias i. 40. 1, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar modification) appears only in Plutarch De sollertia animalium 13.—Usener, 31 ff., 244 ff.

⁵ Text Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σκύθεα, which Buttmann (Mythologus, i. 192) ingeniously emended to Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σισυθέα—a modification of the Σίσιθρος of Abydenus.

⁶ See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients¹, 131, ²235.

5. There remains the question of the origin of this widespread and evidently very popular conception of a universal Deluge. That it embodies a common primitive tradition of an historic event we have already seen to be improbable. If we suppose the original story to have been elaborated in Babylonia, and to have spread thence to other peoples, it may still be doubtful whether we have to do “with a legend based upon facts” or “with a myth which has assumed the form of a history.” The mythical theory has been most fully worked out by Usener, who finds the germ of the story in the favourite mythological image of “the god in the chest,” representing the voyage of the sun-god across the heavenly ocean: similar explanations were independently propounded by Cheyne (Encyclopædia Biblica, 1063 f.) and Zimmern (ib. 1058 f.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 555). Of a somewhat different order is the astrological theory advocated by Jeremias (249 ff.). The Babylonian astronomers were aware that in the course of ages the spring equinox must traverse the watery (southern) region of the Zodiac: this, on their system, signified a submergence of the whole universe in water; and the Deluge-myth symbolises the safe passage of the vernal sun-god through that part of the ecliptic.—Whatever truth there may be in these theories, it is certain that they do not account for the concrete features of the Chaldean legend; and if (as can hardly be denied) mythical motives are present, it seems just as likely that they were grafted on to a historic tradition as that the history is merely the garb in which a solar or astral myth arrayed itself. The most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable and devastating flood in the Euphrates valley, as to the physical possibility of which, it may suffice to quote the (perhaps too literal) description of an eminent geologist: “In the course of a seismic period of some duration the water of the Persian Gulf was repeatedly driven by earthquake shocks over the plain at the mouth of the Euphrates. Warned by these floods, a prudent man, Ḥasîs-adra, i.e. the god-fearing philosopher, builds a ship for the rescue of his family, and caulks it with pitch, as is still the custom on the Euphrates. The movements of the earth increase; he flees with his family to the ship; the subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured plain; a great diminution in atmospheric pressure, indicated by fearful storm and rain, probably a true cyclone, approaches from the Persian Gulf, and accompanies the most violent manifestations of the seismic force. The sea sweeps in a devastating flood over the plain, raises the rescuing vessel, washes it far inland, and leaves it stranded on one of those Miocene foot-hills which bound the plain of the Tigris on the north and north-east below the confluence of the Little Zab” (Eduard Suess, The Face of the Earth, i. 72). See, however, the criticism of Sollas, The Age of the Earth, 316.

IX. 18‒27. Noah as Vine-grower: His Curse and Blessing (Yahwist).

Noah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as the discoverer of the culture of the vine; and the first victim to immoderate indulgence in its fruit. This leads on to an account of the shameless behaviour of his youngest son, and the modesty and filial feeling of the two elder; in consequence of which Noah pronounces a curse on Canaan and blessings on Shem and Japheth.—The Noah of verses ^20‒27 almost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition from the righteous and blameless patriarch who is the hero of the Flood. The incident, indeed, cannot, without violating all probability, be harmonised with the Flood-narrative at all. In the latter, Noah’s sons are married men who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in Priestly-Code, but the same must be presumed for Yahwist); here, on the contrary, they are represented as minors living in the ‘tent’ with their father; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously conceived as an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Dillmann, Budde, al.). The presumption, therefore, is that verses ^20‒27 belong to a stratum of Yahwist which knew nothing of the Flood; and this conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the structure of the passage.

First of all, we observe that in verse ²⁴ the offender is the youngest son of Noah, and in verse ²⁵ is named Canaan; while Shem and Japheth are referred to as his brothers. True, in verse ²² the misdeed is attributed to ‘Ham the father of Canaan’; but the words חָם אֲבִי have all the appearance of a gloss intended to cover the transition from ^{18 f.} to ^{20 ff.}; and the clause וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנַעַן in ^18b can have no other purpose. Now ^18a is the close of Yahwist’s¹ account of the Flood; and ¹⁹ points forward either to Yahwist’s list of Nations (chapter 10), or to the dispersion of the Tower of Babel. Verses ^20‒27 interrupt this connexion, and must accordingly be assigned to a separate source. That that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown partly by the language (יַהְוֶה, verse ²⁶ [in spite of אֱלֹהִים in verse ²⁷]; and וַיָּחֶל, verse ²⁰); and more especially by the connexion with 5²⁹ (see pages 3, 133 f.). It is clear, therefore, that a redactor (Redactor^Jahwist) has here combined two Yahwistic documents, and sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in ^18b and ²².

¹ Compare נָֽפְצָה with 10¹⁸ 11^{4. 8. 9}; and כָּל־הָאָרֶץ (= the population of the earth) with 11^{1. 9.} (Budde); שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹחַ with 10²⁹ 22²³ 25⁴ (Holzinger).

18, 19. Connecting verses (see above).—Noah’s sons are here for the first time named in Yahwist, in harmony, however, with the repeated notices of Priestly-Code (5³² 6¹⁰ 7¹³). On the names see on chapter 10 (page 195 f.).—20. Noah the husbandman was the first who planted a vineyard]—a fresh advance in human civilisation. The allusion to Noah as the husbandman is perplexing. If the text be right (v.i.), it implies a previous account of him as addicted to (perhaps the inventor of) agriculture, which now in his hands advances to the more refined stage of vine-growing. See the note on page 185.

Amongst other peoples this discovery was frequently attributed to a god (Dionysus among the Greeks, Osiris among the Egyptians), intoxication being regarded as a divine inspiration. The orgiastic character of the religion of the Canaanites makes it probable that the same view prevailed amongst them; and it has even been suggested that the Noah of this passage was originally a Canaanitish wine-god (see Niebuhr, Geschichte des ebräischen Zeitalters, 36 ff.). The native religion of Israel (like that of Mohammed) viewed this form of indulgence with abhorrence; and under strong religious enthusiasm the use of fermented drinks was entirely avoided (the Nazirites, Samson, the Rechabites). This feeling is reflected in the narrative before us, where Noah is represented as experiencing in his own person the full degradation to which his discovery had opened the way. It exhibits the repugnance of a healthy-minded race towards the excesses of a debased civilisation.—Since the vine is said to be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus (see Delitzsch, Dillmann), it has naturally been proposed to connect the story with the landing of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the passage has nothing to do with the Deluge-tradition; and it is more probable that it is an independent legend, originating amidst Palestinian surroundings.

19. נפצה כל־הארץ] ‘the whole (population of the) earth was scattered.’ For the construction compare 10⁵.—נָֽפְצָה] hardly contracted Niphal from √ פצץ [= פוץ] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 dd); but from √ נפץ, whether this be a secondary formation from √ פוץ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 465 f.), or an independent word (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 659). Compare 1 Samuel 13¹¹, Isaiah 11¹² 33³.—20. ויחל וגו׳] compare 4²⁶ 6¹ 10⁸ 11⁶ 44¹² (Yahwist) 41⁵⁴ (Elohist). The rendering ‘Noah commenced as a husbandman’ (Davidson § 83, R. 2) is impossible on account of the article (contrast 1 Samuel 3²): to insert להיות (Ball) does not get rid of the difficulty. The construction with ו construct, instead of infinitive, is very unusual (Ezra 3⁸); hence Cheyne (Encyclopædia Biblica, 3426²), following Kuenen (Theologisch Tijdschrift, xviii. 147), proposes לַֽחֲרשׁ for אִישׁ: ‘Noah was the first to plough the ground.’ That reading would be fatal to any connexion of the section with Genesis 3, unless we suppose a distinction between עבד (manual tillage) and חרשׁ. Strangely enough, Rashi (on 5²⁹) repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah invented the ploughshare; but this is probably a conjecture based on a comparison of 3¹⁷ with 5²⁹.¹

¹ So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication.

21. uncovered himself] the same result of drunkenness in Habakkuk 2¹⁵, Lamentations 4²¹.—22. There is no reason to think (with Holzinger and Gunkel) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than the Schadenfreude implied in the words. Hebrew morality called for the utmost delicacy in such matters, like that evinced by Shem and Japheth in verse ²³—24. בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן cannot mean ‘his younger son’ (LXX, Vulgate) (i.e. as compared with Shem); still less ‘his contemptible son’ (Rashi); or Ham’s youngest (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The conclusion is not to be evaded that the writer follows a peculiar genealogical scheme in which Canaan is the youngest son of Noah.—25‒27. Noah’s curse and blessings must be presumed to have been legible in the destinies of his reputed descendants at the time when the legend took shape (compare 27^{28 f. 39 f.} 49) (on the fulfilment see the concluding note, page 186 f.). The dominant feature is the curse on Canaan, which not only stands first, but is repeated in the blessings on the two brothers.—25. The descendants of Canaan are doomed to perpetual enslavement to the other two branches of the human family.—a servant of servants] means ‘the meanest slave’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 i).—to his brethren] not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear from the following verses) to Shem and Japheth.—26. Blessed be Yahwe the God of Shem] The idea thus expressed is not satisfactory. To ‘bless’ Yahwe means no more than to praise Him; and an ascription of praise to Yahwe is only in an oblique sense a blessing on Shem, inasmuch as it assumes a religious primacy of the Shemites in having Yahwe for their God. Budde (294 f.) proposed to omit אֱלֹהֵי and read בְּרוּךְ יַהְוֶה שֵׁם: Blessed of Yahwe be Shem (compare 24³¹ 26²⁹ [both Yahwist]). Dillmann’s objection, that this does not express wherein the blessing consists, applies with quite as much force to the received text. Perhaps a better emendation is that of Graetz בָּרֵךְ י׳ אָֽהֳלֵי שֵׁ (יְבָרֵךְ would be still more acceptable): [May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem; see the next verse.—27. May God expand (יַפְתְּ) Yepheth: a play on the name (יֶפֶת). The use of the generic אלהים implies that the proper name יהוה was the peculiar property of the Shemites.—and may he dwell] or that he may dwell. The subject can hardly be God (Jubilees, Targum^Onkelos, Bereshith Rabba, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Nöldeke, al.), which would convey no blessing to Japheth; the wish refers most naturally to Japheth, though it is impossible to decide whether the expression ‘dwell in the tents of’ denotes friendly intercourse (so most) or forcible dispossession (Gunkel). For the latter sense compare Psalms 78⁵⁵, 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰.—A Messianic reference to the ingathering of the Gentiles into the Jewish or Christian fold (Targum^Jonathan, Fathers, Delitzsch, al.) is foreign to the thought of the passage: see further below.

The question of the origin and significance of this remarkable narrative has to be approached from two distinct points of view.—I. In one aspect it is a culture-myth, of which the central motive is the discovery of wine. Here, however, it is necessary to distinguish between the original idea of the story and its significance in the connexion of the Yahwistic document. Read in its own light, as an independent fragment of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from nomadic to agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and vine-grower, is a tent-dweller (verse ²¹); and this mode of life is continued by his oldest and favoured son Shem (²⁷). Further, the identification of husbandry and vine culture points to a situation in which the simpler forms of agriculture had been supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Such a situation existed in Palestine when it was occupied by the Hebrews. The sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs by conquest to the Canaanitish civilisation escaped the protracted evolution of vine-growing from primitive tillage, and stepped into the possession of the farm and the vineyard at once. From this point of view the story of Noah’s drunkenness expresses the healthy recoil of primitive Semitic morality from the licentious habits engendered by a civilisation of which a salient feature was the enjoyment and abuse of wine. Canaan is the prototype of the population which had succumbed to these enervating influences, and is doomed by its vices to enslavement at the hands of hardier and more virtuous races.—In the setting in which it is placed by the Yahwist the incident acquires a profounder and more tragic significance. The key to this secondary interpretation is the prophecy of Lamech in 5²⁹, which brings it into close connexion with the account of the Fall in chapter 3 (page 133). Noah’s discovery is there represented as an advance or refinement on the tillage of the ground to which man was sentenced in consequence of his first transgression. And the oracle of Lamech appears to show that the invention of wine is conceived as a relief from the curse. How far it is looked on as a divinely approved mode of alleviating the monotony of toil is hard to decide. The moderate use of wine is certainly not condemned in the Old Testament: on the other hand, it is impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is exhibited, and the subsequent behaviour of his youngest son, are meant to convey an emphatic warning against the moral dangers attending this new step in human development, and the degeneration to which it may lead.

II. In the narrative, however, the cultural motive is crossed by an ethnographic problem, which is still more difficult to unravel. Who are the peoples represented by the names Shem, Japheth, and Canaan? Three points may be regarded as settled: that Shem is that family to which the Hebrews reckoned themselves; that Canaan stands for the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine; and that the servitude of Canaan to Shem at least includes the subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this everything is uncertain. The older view, which explains Shem and Japheth in terms of the Table of Nations (chapter 10),—i.e. as corresponding roughly to what we call the Semitic and Aryan races,—has always had difficulty in discovering a historic situation combining Japhetic dominion over the Canaanites with a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.¹ To understand the latter of an ideal brotherhood or religious bond between the two races brings us no nearer a solution, unless we take the passage as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity; and even then it fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Dillmann, who explains the figure as expressing the more kindly feeling of the Hebrew towards these races, as compared with the Canaanites).—A number of critics, starting from the assumption that the oracles reflect the circumstances and aspirations of the age when the Yahwistic document originated, take Shem as simply a name for Israel, and identify Japheth either with the Philistines (Wellhausen, Meyer) or the Phœnicians (Budde, Stade, Holzinger). But that the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of the Philistines at their own expense is incredible; and as for the Phœnicians, though their colonial expansion might have been viewed with complacency in Israel, there is no proof that an occupation of Israelitish territory on their part either took place, or would have been approved by the national sentiment under the monarchy. The alienation of a portion of Galilee to the Tyrians (1 Kings 9^11‒13) (Budde) is an event little likely to have been idealised in Hebrew legend. The difficulties of this theory are so great that Bertholet has proposed to recast the narrative with the omission of Japheth, leaving Shem and Canaan as types of the racial antipathy between the Hebrews and Canaanites: the figure of Japheth, and the blessing on him, he supposes to have been introduced after the time of Alexander the Great, as an expression of the friendly feeling of the Jews for their Hellenic conquerors.²—Gunkel’s explanation, which is put forward with all reserve, breaks ground in an opposite direction. Canaan, he suggests, may here represent the great wave of Semitic migration which (according to some recent theories) had swept over the whole of Western Asia (circa 2250 B.C.), leaving its traces in Babylonia, in Phœnicia, perhaps even in Asia Minor,³ and of which the later Canaanites of Palestine were the sediment. Shem is the Hebræo-Aramaic family, which appears on the stage of history after 1500 B.C., and no doubt took possession of territory previously occupied by Canaanites. It is here represented as still in the nomadic condition. Japheth stands for the Hittites, who in that age were moving down from the north, and establishing their power partly at the cost of both Canaanites and Arameans. This theory hardly explains the peculiar contempt and hatred expressed towards Canaan; and it is a somewhat serious objection to it that in 10¹⁵ (which Gunkel assigns to the same source as 9^{20 ff.}) Heth is the son of Canaan. A better defined background would be the struggle for the mastery of Syria in the 14th century B.C.⁴ If, as many Assyriologists think probable, the Ḥabiri of the Tel-Amarna Letters be the עִבְרִים of the Old Testament,—i.e. the original Hebrew stock to which Israel belonged,—it would be natural to find in Shem the representative of these invaders; for in 10²¹ (Yahwist) Shem is described as ‘the father of all the sons of Eber.’ Japheth would then be one or other of the peoples who, in concert with the Ḥabiri, were then seeking a foothold in the country, possibly the Suti or the Amurri, less probably (for the reason mentioned above) the Hittites.—These surmises must be taken for what they are worth. Further light on that remote period of history may yet clear up the circumstances in which the story of Noah and his sons originated; but unless the names Shem and Japheth should be actually discovered in some historic connexion, the happiest conjectures can never effect a solution of the problem.

¹ As regards the former, the expulsion of Phœnician colonists from the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks (Dillmann) could never have been described as enslavement (see Meyer Geschichte des Alterthums¹, i. 311 f.); and the capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage, etc. (Delitzsch), are events certainly beyond the horizon of the writer,—unless, indeed, we adopt Bertholet’s suggestion (see above), that verse ²⁷ is very late. For the latter, Dillmann hints at an absorption of Japhetic peoples in the Semitic world-empires; but that would rather be a dwelling of Shem in the tents of Japheth.

² See Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments 14 f.; Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 325 ff.; Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 109; Meyer Geschichte des Alterthums¹, i. p. 214; Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden, 76 f. Meyer’s later theory (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 220 f.), that Japheth (= Egyptian Kefti?) stands for the whole body of northern invaders in the 12th century, to whom the Philistines belonged, does not diminish the improbability that such a prophecy should have originated under the monarchy.

³ See Meyer Geschichte des Alterthums¹, i. page 212 ff.; Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, i. 37, 130, 134; Peiser, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. page viii.

⁴ Already suggested by Bennett (page 158), who, however, is inclined to identify the Ḥabiri with Japheth.

22. ויַּגֵּד] LXX prefered καὶ ἐξελθών.—23. הַשֵּׁמְלָה] On the article, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 r. That it was the שׂ׳ which Canaan had previously taken away, and that this notice was deliberately omitted by Yahwist (Gunkel), is certainly not to be inferred. The שׂ׳ is the upper garment, which was also used for sleeping in (Exodus 22²⁶ etc.).—24. וַיִּיקֶץ] on the irregular seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 70 n.—26. לָמוֹ may stand either for לָהֶם (collective) or לוֹ: see Note 3 in Gesenius-Kautzsch § 103 f. The latter is the more natural here. Olshausen (Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin., June 1870, 382) proposed to omit ^26b, substituting ^27aβ (וישכן—שם), and retain ^27b with reflexive of plural suffix to אֶחָיו. LXX has αὐτοῦ in ^26b and αὐτῶν in ^27b.—27. יַפְתְּ] LXX πλατύναι, Vulgate dilatet, etc. The √ פתה in the sense ‘be spacious’ is extremely rare in Hebrew (Proverbs 20¹⁹ [?24²⁸]), and the accepted rendering not beyond challenge. Nöldeke (Bibel-Lexicon, iii. 191) denies the geographical sense, and explains the word from the frequent Semitic figure of spaciousness for prosperity. This would almost require us to take the subject of the following clause to be God (v.s.).