A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis

IV. 25, 26.
Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy.

The verses are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy (see above, page 99), of which another fragment has fortunately been preserved in 5²⁹ (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of Priestly-Code, it may be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten generations. That that of Yahwist was not a dry list of names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has survived. The preservation of 4^25 f. is no doubt due to the important notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (^26b), the redactor having judged it more expedient in this instance to retain Yahwist’s statement intact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in Yahwist would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the Yahwist document into its component strata might have run a different course.

25. And Adam knew, etc.] see on verse ¹. That יָדַע denotes properly the initiation of the conjugal relation (Budde) is very doubtful: see 38²⁶, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹.—And she called] see again on verse ¹.—God has appointed me seed] (the remainder of the verse is probably an interpolation). Compare 3¹⁵. Eve’s use of אלהים is not ‘surprising’ (Dillmann); it only proves that the section is not from the same source as verse ¹. On the other hand, it harmonises with the fact that in 3^1 ff. אלהים is used in dialogue. It is at least a plausible inference that both passages come from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name יהוה up to 4²⁶ (see page 100).

The verse in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a knowledge of the Cain and Abel narrative of 4^1–16; but it is doubtful if the allusions to the two older brothers can be accepted as original (see Budde 154–159). Some of Budde’s arguments are strained; but it is important to observe that the word עוד is wanting in LXX, and that the addition of אחר תחת הבל destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of substitution being quite foreign to the connotation of the verb שׁית. The following clause כי הרגו קין reads awkwardly in the mouth of Eve (who would naturally have said אשר ה׳ ק׳), and is entirely superfluous on the part of the narrator. The excision of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of Cain in verse ¹: שת לי אלהים זרע, ‘God has appointed me seed’ (i.e. posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3¹⁵, where both the significant words שׁית and זרע occur. But this explanation really implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense Cain has ceased to be the ‘seed’ of Eve.—As a Hebrew word (with equivalents in Phœnician, Arabic, Syrian, Jewish-Aramaic: compare Nöldeke Mandäische Grammatik page 98) שֵׁת would mean ‘foundation’ (not Setzling, still less Ersatz); but its real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel’s attempt (Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament, page 26 ff.) to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus (below, page 137) involves too many doubtful equations, and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In Numbers 24¹⁷ שֵׁת appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text is doubtful (Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3¹⁵, and does not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel.

25. אָדָם] here for the first time unambiguously a proper name. There is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the generic to the individual sense is made by Priestly-Code only in 5^1–3, and is just as likely to have been made by Yahwist.—LXX reads Εὕαν in place of עוֹד; Peshiṭtå has both words.—Before ותלד LXX, Peshiṭtå insert ‎וַתַּהַר.—ותקרא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ויקרא.—כִּי] LXX λέγουσα; so Vulgate and even Targum^Onkelos.

26. On the name אֱנוֹשׁ (= Man, and therefore in all probability the first member of an older genealogy), see below.—Then men began to call, etc.] Better (with LXX, etc., v.i.): He was the first to call on the name of Yahwe (compare 9²⁰ 10⁸), i.e. he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe; compare 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ 26²⁵ (all Yahwist). What historic reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed when it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on the part of a religious community (Delitzsch); and the idea that it is connected with a growing sense of the distinction between the human and the divine (Ewald, Delitzsch, al.) is a baseless fancy. It means that ’Enôš was the first to invoke the Deity under this name; and it is interesting chiefly as a reflexion, emanating from the school of Yahwist, on the origin of the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception is more ingenuous than that of Elohist (Exodus 3^13–15) or Priestly-Code (6³), who base the name on express revelation, and connect it with the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.

The expression קרא בשם י׳ (literally ‘call by [means of] the name of Yahwe’) denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation (or rather evocation) of the Deity by the solemn utterance of His name. It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a real bond exists between the person and his name, such that the pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on the former.¹ The best illustration is 1 Kings 18^24 ff., where the test proposed by Elijah is which name—Baal or Yahwe—will evoke a manifestation of divine energy.—The cosmopolitan diffusion of the name יהוה, from the Babylonian or Egyptian pantheon, though often asserted,² and in itself not incredible, has not been proved. The association with the name of Enoš might be explained by the supposition that the old genealogy of which Enoš was the first link had been preserved in some ancient centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh?).

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

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

In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1¹–2^4a) and the Flood (6^9 ff.) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic Text) at 1656 years. The names are traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three with 4^25 f., and of numbers 4–9 with 4^17 ff.. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite genealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code, in order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs. But that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to three or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the continuation of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found to correspond closely with those of chapter 5.—The chronology, on the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention of which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later chronologist (see page 136 below).—What is thoroughly characteristic of Priestly-Code is the framework in which the details are set. It consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his first-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement that he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.¹ The stiff precision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formulæ, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school of writers.

The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא, דְּמוּת, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה) is seen most clearly in verse ^1b. 2, which, however, may be partly composed of glosses based on 1^26 ff. (see on the verses). Note also תּוֹלְדֹת (^1a), צֶלֶם, דְּמוּת (³), הוֹלִיד (throughout), הִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים (^22. 24, compare 6⁹); the syntax of the numerals (which, though not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 134 i; Davidson § 37, R. 3); the naming of the child by the father (³).—The one verse which stands out in marked contrast to its environment is ²⁹, which is shown by the occurrence of the name יהוה and the allusion to 3¹⁷ to be an extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4^25. 26.

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

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

1, 2.
Introduction.

Consisting of a superscription (^1a), followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam (^1b. 2).—1a. This is the book of the generations of Adam] See the critical note below; and on the meaning of תּוֹלְדֹת, see on 2^4a.—1b. When God created Man (or Adam) he made him in the likeness of God] a statement introduced in view of the transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse ³). On this and the following clauses see, further, 1^26 ff..—2. And called their name Adam] v.i.

The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In ^1a אָדָם is presumably a proper name (as in ^3 ff.), in ² it is certainly generic (note the plural suffix), while in ^1b it is impossible to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms borrowed almost literally from 1^26 ff., where אדם is generic. Since the only new statement is and he called their name Adam, we may suppose the writer’s aim to have been to explain how אדם, from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes the proper name in verse ³. An original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the heading זה ספר תולדת אדם reads like the title of a book, suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and the fuller formula, as compared with the usual אלה תולדת, at least justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Dillmann’s opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy with that of Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using אדם as a designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.

1. For אדם LXX has 1º ἀνθρώπων, 2º Ἀδάμ; Vulgate conversely 1º Adam, 2º hominem.—2. שְׁמָם] LXX^Lucian שְׁמוֹ.

3–5.
Adam.

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

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

6–20.
Seth to Jered.

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

6–8. Šēth: compare 4²⁵. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant Les Origines de l’histoire² 217–220, and Charles, Book of Jubilees, 33 ff.—9–11. ’Ĕnôš: see on 4²⁶.—12–14. Ḳênān is obviously a fuller form of Ḳáyin in the parallel genealogy of 4^17 ff.; and possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or ‘artificer’ (compare Syrian : see on 4¹). Whether the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no means of judging. It is important to note that קינן or קנן is the name of a Sabæan deity, occurring several times in inscriptions: see Mordtmann, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 127 f., 152.—15–17. Mahălal’ēl (= ‘Praise of God’) is a compound with the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מַֽהֲלָל (Proverbs 27²¹). But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have done here: Μαλελεηλ = מְהַלֶּלְאֵל, i.e. ‘Praising God.’ Proper names compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament (see Driver Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel 14²; Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 201), but are common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that the genealogy must be late (Marginalien und Materialien, 7 f.) is not certain, because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that it is a corruption of Amil-Arûru in the list of Berossus (see Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament, 29). מ׳ is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11⁴.—18–20. Yéred (1 Chronicles 4¹⁸) would signify in Hebrew ‘Descent’; hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to the earth (The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 6²): compare Jubilees iv. 15; Enoch vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde’s interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether עִירָד or יֶרֶד be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both to an original Babylonian ‛I-yarad = ‘descent of fire.’

21–24.
Enoch.

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

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

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

29. An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech on the birth of Noah.—This (זֶה; compare זֹאת in 2²³) shall bring us comfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands [proceeding] from the ground, etc.] The utterance seems to breathe the same melancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise narrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of 4^23 f..

There is an obvious reference backwards to 3¹⁷ (compare עִצְּבוֹן, הָאֲדָמָה—אֵֽרֲרָהּ). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech spoke), but to Noah’s discovery of vine-culture: 9^20 ff. (Budde 306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann’s objection, that a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9¹³, Psalms 104¹⁵.—In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident of 9^20 ff., the verse has considerable critical importance. It furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.—The fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).

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

32. The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is explained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed datum (7^6. 11), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah were saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an excessive lateness either to the birth of Shem, or to the birth of Shem’s first-born.

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

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

1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the remarkable relation discovered by Oppert¹ between the figures of the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of 365¼ days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and to have reduced it by treating each lustrum (5 years) as the equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say. (b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,² who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:³ i.e. 26⅔ generations of 100 years, or ⅔ of a world-cycle of 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been propounded by Bousset (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xx. 136–147). Working on lines marked out by Kuenen (Abhandlungen, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9^38 ff. 10^45 f., Josephus Antiquities of the Jews viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and Assumption of Moses, 1² 10¹², that a chronological computation current in Jewish circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M. 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071; and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years). Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis 11²⁴) it substituted (with LXX and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Exodus 12⁴⁰); and, finally, it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6¹ LXX). For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above.

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

2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Genesis 11¹⁰, we obtain from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of Jubilees (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12⁴⁰ to be the original reading (as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find that The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch counts from the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.¹ The odd 7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360. Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this was his original chronological period; and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat important objection to the originality of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is, however, the disparity between chapter 5 and 11^10 ff. with regard to the ages at the birth of the first-born.

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

See, further, on 11^10 ff. (page 234 f.).

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

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

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