The Flood according to Priestly-Code.
VI. 9–12. Noah’s piety; The corruption of the earth.—9. This is the genealogy of Noah] The formula is usually taken as the heading of the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the Flood; but see on 928 f..—Noah is characterised as righteous (צַדִּיק) and faultless (תָּמִים): on the construction v.i. There is perhaps a correspondence between these two epithets and the description of the state of the world which follows; צדיק being opposed to the ‘violence,’ and תמים to the ‘corruption’ of verse 11 f.. צדיק, a forensic term, denotes one whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; תמים is sacerdotal in its associations (Exodus 12⁵, Leviticus 1³ etc.), meaning ‘free from defect,’ integer (compare 17¹).—in his generations (v.i.)] i.e. alone among his contemporaries (compare 7¹). That Noah’s righteousness was only relative to the standard of his age is not implied.¹—walked with God] see on 5²². The expression receives a fuller significance from the Babylonian legend, where Ut-napištim, like the Biblical Enoch, is translated to the society of the gods (page 177 below).—11 f. וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה] is the intentional antithesis to the וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד of 1³¹ (Delitzsch).—All flesh had corrupted its way] had violated the divinely-appointed order of creation. The result is violence (חָמָס, LXX ἀδικία)—ruthless outrage perpetrated by the strong on the weak. A “nature red in tooth and claw with ravin” is the picture which rises before the mind of the writer; although, as has been already remarked (page 129), the narrative of Priestly-Code contains no explanation of the change which had thus passed over the face of the world.
The fundamental idea of verse 11 f. is the disappearance of the Golden Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world established by the decree of 129 f.. The lower animals contribute their share to the general ‘corruption’ by transgressing the regulation of 1³⁰, and commencing to prey upon each other and to attack man (see 9⁵): so Rashi. To restrict כל־בשר to mankind (TargumOnkelos, Tuch, Strack, Driver, Bennett al.) is therefore unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes ‘all living beings,’ and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in Priestly-Code’s account of the Flood (Driver ad loc.). In 6¹⁹ 715. 16 8¹⁷ it means animals apart from man; but that in the same connexion it should also mean mankind apart from animals is not to be expected, and could only be allowed on clear evidence.—The difference of standpoint between Priestly-Code and Yahwist (6⁵) on this matter is characteristic.
9. צדיק תמים] (so Job 12⁴). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is hardly safe to remedy it on the authority of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (ותמים) and Vulgate, against LXX. To remove צדיק as a gloss from Yahwist (7¹) (Ball) is too bold. Perhaps the sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one nominal and the other verbal: ‘Noah was a righteous man; perfect was he,’ etc.—The forensic sense of צדיק given above may not be the original: see S. A. Cook, The Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 632¹, who adduces some evidence that it meant what was ‘due’ among a definite social group, and between it and its gods.—בְּדֹרֹתָיו] LXX ἐν τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ. The feminine plural is highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 341); but apparently always as a real plural (series of generations): contrast the solitary use of singular in Priestly-Code, Exodus 1⁶. Here, accordingly, it seems fair to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of Noah (Tuch, Wellhausen, Holzinger, al.), but of the successive generations covered by his lifetime. The resemblance to צדיק בדור הזה (7¹) is adduced by Wellhausen (Prolegomena zur Geschichte 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 23. 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).
13. בָּא לְפָנַי] not (as Esther 9¹¹) ‘has come to my knowledge,’ but ‘has entered into my purpose.’ This is better than (with Dillmann) to take קֵץ בָּא absolutely (as Amos 8²), and לפני as ‘according to my purpose.’—מִפְּנֵיהֶם] through them; Exodus 8²⁰ 9¹¹, Judges 6⁶ etc.—[מַשְׁחִיתָם] את־הארץ LXX καὶ τὴν γῆν; Vulgate cum terra; so Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan. As Olshausen says, we should expect מֵעַל ה׳ (מֵאֵת [Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error probably lies deeper. Ball emends מַשְׁחִית אֹתָם וִאֵת־ה׳; Budde מַשְׁחִיחָם כי [הם] מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה׳; Gunkel וְהִנָּם מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה. Eerdmans (Alttestamentliche Studien, i. 29) finds a proof of original polytheism. He reads הִנֶנּוּ מַשְׁחִיתִם וגו׳: “we [the gods] are about to destroy the earth.”—14. תֵּבָה] LXX, Peshiṭtå κιβωτὸς; ♦Targum תיבותא. The word is the Egyptian ṭeb(t) = ‘chest,’ ‘sarcophagus’ (θίβις, θίβη, in LXX of Exodus 23. 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, TargumOnkelos), Arabic ḳufr, Aramaic כופרא Assyrian kupru (used in the Babylonian Flood-story). The native Hebrew word for ‘bitumen’ is חֵמָר (11³ 14¹⁰, Exodus 2³).—15. אֹתָהּ] LXX אָת־הַתֵּבָה.—16. צֹהַר] LXX ἐπισυνάγων (reading צֹבֵר?); all other versions express the idea of light (Aquila μεσημβρινόν, Symmachus διαφανές, Vulgate fenestram, Peshiṭtå , ‘windows,’ TargumOnkelos ניהור). They connected it (as Aquila shows) with צָֽהֳרַיִם, ‘noon day’; but if צהרים means properly ‘summit’ (see Gesenius-Buhl; Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.), there seems nothing in Hebrew to connect the root with the idea of light. The meaning ‘back’ is supported by Arabic ẓahr.—ואל־אמה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מלמעלה] The suffix may refer either to the צהר (whose gender is unknown: compare König Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache page 163) or to the תֵּבָה: the latter is certainly most natural after כִּלָּה. The prevalent explanation—that the cubit indicates either the breadth of the light-opening, or its distance below the roof (see Dillmann)—is mere guess-work. Budde (following Wellhausen) removes the first three words to the end of the verse, rendering: “and according to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)”: Dillmann objects that this would require הָאמה. Ball reads וְאֶל־אָרְכָּהּ תְכַסֶּנָּה מל׳, “and for its (the ark’s) whole length thou shalt cover it above”; Gunkel: ואל־א׳ תְּגֻלֶּנָה, “and on a pivot (see Isaiah 6⁴) thou shalt make it (the roof) revolve,”—a doubtful suggestion.
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 99 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 7¹³ 816. 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 714. 21 8¹⁹ 92 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 129 f..—22. so did he] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare especially Exodus 40¹⁶ (also Exodus 7⁶ 1228. 50 3932. 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 911b (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: 77. 10; compare 911a (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 7²¹ 258. 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 714. 21 8¹⁹).—שׁנים] LXX, Peshiṭtå שנים שנים as in 79. 15. So also verse ²⁰.—20. מכל־רמש] Inserted וְ with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, TargumOnkelos; 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 72. 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 619 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 74. 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] 1723. 26, Exodus 1217. 41. 51, Leviticus 2314. 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 (816. 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 TargumOnkelos 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 TargumOnkelos 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. 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 91 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
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 86–12 (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, TargumJonathan, 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.
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 91 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 611 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 129 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 129 f. is a secondary addition to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on 122. 27 f. as on 129 f.. To treat 94–6 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 1710. 14); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 3325 f. etc.). The theory on which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 1711. 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 1432 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 2128 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 126 f..—7. The section closes, as it began, with the note of benediction.
1. LXX adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1²⁸.—2. בכל—ובכל] LXX, Peshiṭtå ובכל (bis). The בְּ cannot be that of specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 910. 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 4225. 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; TargumOnkelos בסהדין ממימר דיניא: TargumJonathan 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 (820–22) 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 3817 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 177. 13. 19, Exodus 31¹⁶, Leviticus 24⁸, Numbers 18¹⁹ 25¹³ (all Priestly-Code).
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 39–11, Psalms 713 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 4311 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 245 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, TargumOnkelos 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 69. 10 7⁶ 928. 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 24a). The relation of the assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that of the תולדת of Terah (1127 ff.) to the תולדת of Shem (1110–26). 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.