A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis

XI. 1–9.
The Tower of Babel
(Yahwist).

A mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of the primitive unity of mankind into separate communities, distinguished and isolated by differences of language. The story reflects at the same time the impression made on Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of Babylonian civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an undivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the existing disunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on the presumptuous impiety which inspired these early manifestations of human genius and enterprise.

Gunkel has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct but kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (compare יהוה, ♦verses ^{5. 6. 8. 9.}), and have been blended with remarkable skill. One has crystallised round the name ‘Babel,’ and its leading motive is the “confusion” of tongues; the other around the memory of some ruined tower, which tradition connected with the “dispersion” of the race. Gunkel’s division will be best exhibited by the following continuous translations:

It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt the awkward duplicate (^8a ∥ ^9b) with which B closes. Gunkel’s bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological play on the name of the tower (פִּיץ or פּוּץ) certainly removes the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.¹ Against this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the absence of demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even in B; the facts that only a single phrase (אָת־הָעִיר וְ in verse ⁵) requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one transposition (^3b); and the facility with which nearly all the numerous doublets (^3a ∥ ^3b; ^4aγ ∥ ^4b; וַיֵּרֶד (⁵) ∥ נֵֽרְדָה (⁷); ^6aα, β ∥ ^6aγb; ^9a ∥ ^8a + 9b) can be definitely assigned to the one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in ⁵ and ⁷, from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style, and some general differences of conception between the two strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may be reserved for the notes.

The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the Ethnographic Table of chapter 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived as the result of the natural increase and partition of the family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant (compare ללשנתם, etc., in Priestly-Code, 10^5. 20. 31). Here, on the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to assign the passage to that section of Yahwist (if there be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.); although it must be said that the idea here is little less at variance with the classification by professions of 4^20–22 than with chapter 10. The truth is that the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in historical sequence.

1–4.
The Building of the City and the Tower.

(Compare the translation given above.) 1, 2. The expression suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and wide over the earth, though forming one great nation (עַם, verse ⁶), united by a common language. In B, on the other hand, it is still a body of nomads, moving all together in search of a habitation (verse ²; compare בְּנֵי הָאָדָה, verse ⁵).—broke up from the East] v.i.—a plain] the Euphrates-Tigris valley; where Babylon κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ (Herodotus i. 178).—the land of Shin‛ar] see on 10¹⁰.—3a. With great naïveté, the (city-) legend describes first the invention of bricks, and then (verse ⁴) as an afterthought the project of building with them. The bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see page 47 above) speaks of a time when “no brick was laid, no brick-mould (nalbantu) formed”: see Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vi. 1, 38 f., 360.—3b shows that the legend has taken shape amongst a people familiar with stone-masonry. Compare the construction of the walls of Babylon as described by Herodotus (i. 179).¹ The accuracy of the notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Babylonian houses and temples (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 279)—4. With its top reaching to heaven] The expression is not hyperbolical (as Deuteronomy 1²⁸), but represents the serious purpose of the builders to raise their work to the height of the dwelling-place of the gods (Jubilees x. 19, etc.).

The most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary was its zikkurat,—a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces, from the centre of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine at the top (Herodotus i. 181 f.: see Jastrow The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 615–22). These structures appear to have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the 7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded as the entrance to heaven (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 616 f.; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 52 f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more than mere hyperbole when it is said of these zikkurats that the top was made to reach heaven (see page 228 f. below); and, on the other hand, the resemblance between the language of the inscriptions and that of Genesis is too striking to be dismissed as accidental. That the tower of Genesis 11 is a Babylonian zikkurat is obvious on every ground; and we may readily suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of is preserved in the legend; although to the purer faith of the Hebrews it savoured only of human pride and presumption.—The idea of storming heaven and making war on the gods, which is suggested by some late forms of the legend (compare Homer Odyssey xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt foreign to the passage.

1. וַיְהִי is not verbal predicate to כל־הארץ, but merely introduces the circumstantial sentence, as in 15¹⁷ 42³⁵ etc. (Davidson § 141 and R.¹). Such a sentence is usually followed by וְהִנֵּה, but see 1 Kings 13²⁰. It may certainly be doubted if it could be followed by another ויהי with infinitive clause (verse ²); and this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gunkel’s analysis.—If there be any distinction between שָׂפָה and דְּבָרִים, the former may refer to the pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary (Dillmann), or (Gunkel) ש׳ to language as a whole, and ד׳ to its individual elements.—דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים] ‘a single set of vocables’; LXX φωνὴ μία (+ πᾶσιν = לְכֻלָּם, as verse ⁶). Elsewhere (27⁴⁴ 29²⁰ [with יָמִים]) אחדים means ‘single’ in the sense of ‘few’; in Ezekiel 37¹⁷ the text is uncertain (see Cornill).—On the juxtaposition of subject and predicate in the nominal sentence, see Davidson § 29 (e).—2. בְּנָסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם] rendered as above by LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Jonathan. Nearly all moderns prefer ‘as they wandered in the east’ or ‘eastward’; justifying the translation by 13¹¹, which is the only place where מקדם means ‘eastward’ with a verb of motion. That מק׳ never means ‘from the east’ is at least a hazardous assertion in view of Isaiah 2⁶ 9¹¹. נסע (compare Assyrian nisû, ‘remove,’ ‘depart,’ etc.) is a nomadic term, meaning ‘pluck up [tent-pegs]’ (Isaiah 33²⁰); hence ‘break up the camp’ or ‘start on a journey’ (Genesis 33¹² 35^5. 16. 21 37¹⁷ etc.); and, with the possible exception of Jeremiah 31²³ (but not Genesis 12⁹), there is no case where this primary idea is lost sight of. Being essentially a verb of departure, it is more naturally followed by a determination of the starting-point than of the direction or the goal (but see 33¹⁷); and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption that the cradle of the race was further East than Babylonia (see 2⁸; and compare Stade Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen 246, and n. 43).—בִּקְעָה] (Syrian , Arabic baḳ‛at) in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Deuteronomy 34³, Zechariah 12¹¹, Isaiah 40⁴, etc.). The derivation from √ בקע, ‘split,’ is questioned by Barth (Etymologische Studien zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon, 2), but is probable nevertheless.—3. הָבָה] imperative of √ יהב, used interjectionally (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 o), as in verses ^4. 7. 38¹⁶, Exodus 1¹⁰ (all Yahwist), is given by Gunkel as a stylistic mark of the recension A (Jehovist^Elohist?). Contrast the verbal use 29²¹ 30¹ (both Elohist), 47¹⁵, and plural (הָבוּ) 47¹⁶, Deuteronomy 1¹³ 32³, Joshua 18⁴. On the whole, the two uses are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively; see Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 98 f.—נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים] Exodus 5^7. 14. So in Assyrian labânu libittu (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 48, etc.), although libittu is used only of the unburned, sun-dried brick. See Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxvi. 181; Hoffmann, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, ii. 70.—לִשְׂרֵפָה] dative of product (Dillmann); שׂ׳ = ‘burnt mass’ (compare Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 51²⁵).—חֵמָר (14¹⁰, Exodus 2³)] the native Hebrew name for bitumen (see on 6¹⁴).—חֹמֶר] (note the play on words) is strictly ‘clay,’ used in Palestine as mortar.—4. וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם] בְּ of contact, as in נָגַע בְּ (Delitzsch).—וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה—שֵׁם] ‘acquire lasting renown’; compare 2 Samuel 8¹³, Jeremiah 32²⁰, Nehemiah 9¹⁰. The suggestion that שֵׁם here has the sense of ‘monument,’ though defended by Delitzsch, Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 375²), al. (compare Siegfried-Stade s.v.), has no sufficient justification in usage. In Isaiah 55¹³ 56⁵ (compare 2 Samuel 18¹⁸), as well as the amended text of 2 Samuel 8¹³ (see Driver Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel 217 f.), the ordinary sense suffices.—נָפוּץ] the word, accusative to Gunkel, is distinctive of the recension B: compare verses ^8a. 9b.

4b. Lest we disperse] The tower was to be at once a symbol of the unity of the race, and a centre and rallying-point, visible all over the earth (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The idea is missed by LXX, Vulgate and Targum^Jonathan, which render ‘ere we be dispersed.’

5–9.
Yahwe’s Interposition.

The turning-point in the development of the story occurs at verses ^5. 6, where the descent of Yahwe is twice mentioned, in a way which shows some discontinuity of narration.—On heaven as the dwelling-place of Yahwe, compare 28^12 f., Exodus 19^11. 20 34⁵ 24¹⁰, 1 Kings 22¹⁹, 2 Kings 2¹¹; and with verse ⁵ compare 18²¹, Exodus 3⁸.

On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of Stade (Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen 274 ff.) seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most characteristic incidents. In verse ⁵ the name Yahwe has been substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to inspect the latest human enterprise; verse ⁶ is his report to the heavenly council on his return; and verse ⁷ the plan of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such as no Hebrew writer is likely to have bestowed on a document so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Babylonian original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.—On Gunkel’s theory the difficulty disappears.

6. This is but the beginning, etc.] The reference is not merely to the completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be undertaken in the future.—9. Babel] LXX rightly Σύγχυσις; v.i.

6.—הֵן עַם אֶחָד וגו׳] incomplete interjectional sentence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 147 b).—זֶה הַֽחִלָּם לַֽעֲשׂוֹת] literally ‘this is their beginning to act.’ On the pointing הַֽח׳, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 w.—לֹא יִבָּצֵר—יָֽזְמוּ] imitated in Job 42².—בצר] literally ‘be inaccessible’ (compare Isaiah 22¹⁰, Jeremiah 51⁵³); hence ‘impracticable.’—יָֽזְמוּ] contrast for יָזֹמּוּ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 dd).—7. נרדה וגו׳] LXX retains the plural in spite of the alleged reading in Mechilta ארדה אבלה (see page 14 above).—נָֽבְלָה] (see last note): from √ בלל = ‘mix’ (not ‘divide,’ as Peshiṭtå []).—אֲשֶׁר לֹא] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 165 b.—שׁמע] = ‘understand’: 42²³, Deuteronomy 28⁴⁹, Isaiah 33¹⁹, Jeremiah 5¹⁵ etc.—8. It is perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to point וְיֶחְדְּלוּ (jussive of purpose: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 f), continuing the direct address of ^7b.—העיר] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch prefers את, and (with LXX) adds ואת־המגדל.—9. קָרָא] ‘one called’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 d).—בָּבֶל] ‘mxture’ or ‘confusion.’ The name is obviously treated as a contraction from בַּֽלְבֵּל, a form not found in Hebrew, but occurring in Aramaic (compare Peshiṭtå verse ⁹, and Targum^Onkelos verse ⁷) and Arabic. On the Babylonian etymology of the name, see 10¹⁰.—9b.—יהוה] LXX + ὁ θεός.

Origin and Diffusion of the Legends.

1. The double legend is a product of naïve reflexion on such facts of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of a common language, and its consequent inability to bend its united energies to the accomplishment of some enduring memorial of human greatness. The contrast between this condition of things and the ideal unity of the race at its origin haunted the mind with a sense of fate and discomfiture, and prompted the questions, When, and where, and for what reason, was this doom imposed on men? The answer naturally assumed the legendary form, the concrete features of the representation being supplied by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements of civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one hand the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages, its cosmopolitan population, and its proud boast of antiquity, suggested the idea that here was the very fountainhead of the confusion of tongues; and this idea, wrapped up in a popular etymology of the name of the city, formed the nucleus of the first of the two legends contained in the passage. On the other hand, the spectacle of some ruined or unfinished Temple-tower (zikkurat), built by a vast expenditure of human toil, and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (page 226), appealed to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work, obviously intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point for the whole human race. In each case mankind had measured its strength against the decree of the gods above; and the gods had taken their revenge by reducing mankind to the condition of impotent disunion in which it now is.

It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the official religion of Babylonia. They originated rather in the unsophisticated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated into the country, and formed their own notions about the wonders they beheld there: the etymology of the name Babel (= Balbēl) suggests an Aramæan origin (Cheyne, Gunkel). The stories travelled from land to land, till they reached Israel, where, divested of their cruder polytheistic elements, they became the vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly of human pride, and the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men.

It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the numerous Babylonian zikkurats gave rise to the legend of the Dispersion. The most famous of these edifices were those of E-sagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon,¹ and of E-zida, the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the opposite bank of the river (see Tiele, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, ii. 179–190). The former bore the (Sumerian) name E-temen-an-ki (= ‘house of the foundations of heaven and earth’). It was restored by Nabo-polassar, who says that before him it had become “dilapidated and ruined,” and that he was commanded by Marduk to “lay its foundations firm in the breast of the underworld, and make its top equal to heaven” (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iii. 2. 5). The latter expression recurs in an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar (Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, iii. 548) with reference to the same zikkurat, and is thought by Gunkel (² 86) to have been characteristic of E-temen-an-ki; but that is doubtful, since similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser I. of the towers of the temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to fall gradually into disrepair for 641 years before his time (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, i. 43). The zikkurat of E-zida was called E-ur-imin-an-ki (‘house of the seven stages (?) of heaven and earth’); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us, in an inscription found at its four corners, that it had been built by a former king, and raised to a height of 42 cubits; its top, however, had not been set up, and it had fallen into disrepair (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iii. 2. 53, 55). The temple of Borsippa is entombed in Birs Nimrûd—a huge ruined mound still rising 153 feet above the plain (see Hilprecht Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century, 13, 30 f.)—which local (and Jewish) tradition identifies with the tower of Genesis 11. This view has been accepted by many modern scholars (see Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 412), by others it is rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was not in but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are separated, there is nothing to connect the tower specially with the city of Babylon; and it would seem to be mainly a question which of the two was the more imposing ruin at the time when the legend originated. It is possible that neither was meant. At Uru (Ur of the Chaldees) there was a smaller zikkurat (about 70 feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating from the time of Ur-bau (circa 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabuna’id tells us he rebuilt on the old foundation “with asphalt and bricks” (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iii. 2. 95; Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century, 173 ff.). The notice is interesting, because, according to one tradition, which is no doubt ancient, though it cannot be proved to be Yahwistic, this city was the starting-point of the Hebrew migration (see below, page 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of the Hebrews came from Ur, it may very well have been the zikkurat of that place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the Dispersion.

2. In regard to its religious content, the narrative occupies the same standpoint as 3^20. 22 and 6^1–3. Its central idea is the effort of the restless, scheming, soaring human mind to transcend its divinely appointed limitations: it “emphasises Yahwe’s supremacy over the world; it teaches how the self-exaltation of man is checked by God; and it shows how the distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language, are elements in His providential plan for the development and progress of humanity” (Driver). The pagan notion of the envy of the gods,—their fear lest human greatness should subvert the order of the world,—no doubt emerges in a more pronounced form than in any other passage. Yet the essential conception is not mere paganism, but finds an obvious point of contact in one aspect of the prophetic theology: see Isaiah 2^12–17. To say that the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the Old Testament thought of God, as well as to evince a lack of sympathy with one of the profoundest instincts of early religion. Crude in form as the legend is, it embodies a truth of permanent validity—the futility and emptiness of human effort divorced from the acknowledgment and service of God: hæc perpetua mundi dementia est, neglecto cœlo immortalitatem quærere in terra, ubi nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calvin).

3. Parallels.—No Babylonian version of the story has been discovered; and for the reason given above (page 226) it is extremely unlikely that anything resembling the biblical form of it will ever be found there.¹ In Greek mythology there are dim traces of a legend ascribing the diversities of language to an act of the gods, whether as a punishment on the creatures for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo, De Confusione Linguarum), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable of Hyginus.² But while these myths are no doubt independent of Jewish influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative is too slight to suggest a common origin. It is only in the literature of the Hellenistic period that we find real parallels to the story of the Tower of Babel; and these agree so closely with the biblical account that it is extremely doubtful if they embody any separate tradition.³ The difference to which most importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phraseology (‘the gods’) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor, Abydenus); but the polytheism is only in the language, and is probably nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising of the scriptural narrative. Other differences—such as the identification of the tower-builders with the race of giants (the Nephîlîm of 6⁴?), and the destruction of the tower by a storm—are easily explicable as accretions to the legend of Genesis.⁴ The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid of Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,⁵ has a special interest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the Mexican pyramids and the Babylonian zikkurats. If this fact could be accepted as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not quite certain.

XI. 10–26.
The Genealogy of Shem
(Priestly-Code).

Another section of the Tôlĕdôth, spanning the interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of Priestly-Code’s genealogies next to chapter 5; with which it agrees in form, except that in Massoretic Text the framework is lightened by omitting the total duration of each patriarch’s life. In The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch this is consistently supplied; while LXX merely adds to Massoretic Text the statement καὶ ἀπέθανεν. The number of generations in Massoretic Text is 9, but in LXX 10, corresponding with chapter 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to North-west Mesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race.

In LXX the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān between Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 10²⁴). That this is a secondary alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in 1 Chronicles 1^18. 24 LXX; (b) Ḳênān already occurs in the former genealogy (5^9 ff.); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name (Budde 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tuch, Delitzsch); but neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence between the lists of chapter 5 and 11^10 ff. An indication of the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once as the father, and again as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, Die chronologischen Systeme im Alten Testament und bei Josephus, 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in chapter 5 (corresponding with 4^25 f.), Priestly-Code has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of which a fragment may have been preserved in verses ^28–30. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 9, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of Priestly-Code’s list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on 10^21. 24) and the first Nāḥôr are omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy lying behind chapter 5 was 7-membered; and Yahwist’s parallel to 11^10 ff. could not in any case be the continuation of 4^16–22.

10. אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד] see on 10²². He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem; which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with chapter 10, the arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations. Hommel (Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts, 222¹), maintaining his theory that Arpakšad = Ur-Kasdîm, comes to the absurd conclusion that in the original list it was not the name of Shem’s son, but of his birthplace: ‘Shem from Arpakshad’!—שְׁנָתַיִם אַהַר הַמַּבּוּל] The discrepancy between this statement and the chronology of 5³² 7¹¹ 9^28 f. is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arithmetical calculations (Rashi al.), or by the assumption that in the other passages round numbers are used (Tuch, Delitzsch). The clause is evidently a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose of making the birth of Arpakšad, rather than the Flood, the commencement of a new era. It fits in admirably with the scheme of the Book of Jubilees, which gives an integral number of year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpakšad, and from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see page 234 below).—12. שֶׁלַח (Σαλα)] probably the same word which forms a component of מְתוּשֶׁלַח (5^21 ff.), and therefore originally a divine name. This need not exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the name of a deity being frequently transferred to his worshippers or their territory. A place Ṣalaḥ or Salaḥ in Mesopotamia is instanced by Knobel (Dillmann). Others regard it as a descriptive name = ‘offshoot’ or ‘dismissal’; but very improbably.—14. עֵבֶר] see on 10²¹.—16. פֶּלֶג] 10²⁵. Hommel (l.c.) combines the two names and takes the compound as a notice of Shelaḥ’s birthplace: ‘Shelaḥ from Eber-peleg’ = Eber-hannāhār, the region West of the lower Euphrates (see pages 218, 220 above).—18. רְעוּ (Ῥαγαυ)] unknown; certainly not (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from רְעוּאֵל (36⁴, Exodus 2¹⁸ etc.: so Hommel); and Mez considers it a divine name. An Aramæan tribe Ru’ua is frequently mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as dwellers on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 238 ff.).—20. שְׂרוּג (Σερουχ)] a well-known city and district about half-way between Carchemish and Ḥarran, mentioned by Syrian and Arabic writers under the name Saruǧ. The name (Saruǧi) also occurs several times in the census of the district round Ḥarran (7th century B.C.), published by Johns under the title of An Assyrian Domesday Book: see pages 29, 30, 43, 48, 68.—22. נָחוֹר (Ναχωρ)] is in Yahwist the brother of Abraham (22²⁰; compare Joshua 24²); in Priestly-Code he is both the grandfather and the brother (11²⁶). The name must have been that of an important Aramæan tribe settled in or around Ḥarran (27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴). Johns compares the place-name Til-Naḥiri in the neighbourhood of Saruǧi; also the personal names Naḥirî and Naḥarâu found in Assyrian Deeds (l.c. 71; Assyrian Deeds, iii. 127; compare Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 477 f.). As a divine name Ναχαρ is mentioned along with other Aramæan deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 477); and Jensen (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xi. 300) has called attention to the theophorous name in the ‘Doctrine of Addai,’ as possibly a corruption of .—24. תֶּרַח (Θαῤῥα)] is instanced by William Robertson Smith¹ as a totem clan-name;  (?) being the Syrian and turâḥû the Assyrian word for ‘wild goat.’ Similarly Delitzsch (Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament 80), who also refers tentatively to Til-ša-turâḥi, the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran. Knobel compares a place Tharrana, South of Edessa (Dillmann); Jensen (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, vi. 70; Hittiter und Armenier, 150 ff. [especially 154]) is inclined to identify Teraḥ with the Hittite and North Syrian god (or goddess) Tarḫu, Ταρκο, etc. (compare Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 484).—26. Peshiṭtå reads 75 instead of 70.

The Chronology.—The following Table shows the variations of the three chief recensions (Massoretic Text, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, and LXX), together with the chronology of the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts company with the Samaritan, and follows a system peculiar to itself (see page 134 ff. above):

The three versions plainly rest on a common basis, and it is not easy to decide in favour of the priority of any one of them. On the application to this period of the general chronological theories described on page 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much. Klostermann maintains his scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis of LXX, (a) by allowing a year for the Flood; (b) by adopting the reading of Peshiṭtå, 75 instead of 70, in the case of Teraḥ; and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for 79 as the age of Naḥor at the birth of Teraḥ. This makes from the Flood to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2 × 12 × 49. By an equally arbitrary combination of data of Massoretic Text and LXX a similar period of 1176 years is then made out from the birth of Abraham to the Dedication of the Temple.—The seemingly eccentric scheme of Jubilees shows clear indications of a reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpakšad is said (vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may conclude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the 102nd year of Shem. This gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpakšad, followed by another of 81 (567 ÷ 7) to the birth of Abraham. We observe further that the earlier period embraces 11 generations with an average of exactly 17 year-weeks, and the later 9 generations with an average of exactly 9: i.e., as nearly as possible one-half: the author accordingly must have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age of paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly been.

[It is possible that the key to the various systems has been discovered by A. Bosse, whose paper¹ became known to me only while these sheets were passing through the press. His main results are as follows: (1) In Massoretic Text he finds two distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons by generations of 40 years, its termini being the birth of Shem and the end of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Teraḥ is excluded entirely, and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arpakšad are ignored. This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of Abraham 320 (8 × 40) years; thence to birth of Jacob 160 (4 × 40); to Exodus 560 (14 × 40); to founding of Temple 480 (12 × 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000 (50 × 40). This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bochartus concedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200 (30 × 40) years from the birth of Abraham to the founding of the Temple, may be of earlier origin.—(b) The other scheme, with which we are more immediately concerned, operates with a Great Month of 260 years (260 = the number of weeks in a five-years’ lustrum). Its period is a Great Year from the Creation to the dedication of the Temple, and its reckoning includes Teraḥ in the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpakšad. This gives 1556 years to birth of Shem + 390 (birth of Abraham) + 75 (migration of Abraham) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus) + 480 (founding of Temple) + 20 (dedication of temple) = 3166. Now 3166 = 12 × 260 + 46. The odd 46 years are thus accounted for: the chronologist was accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning by months of 30 days, and a solar year of 365¼ days, requiring the interposition of 5¼ days each year; and the 46 years are the equivalent of these 5¼ days in the system here followed. (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5¼ days = 5¼ × 260
30 = 21 × 26
4 × 3 = 7 × 13
2 = 45½ [say 46] years.) The first third of this Great Year ends with the birth of Noah 1056 = 4 × 260 + 16 (⅓ of 46). The second third nearly coincides with the birth of Jacob; but here there is a discrepancy of 5 years, which Bochartus accounts for by the assumption that the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the case of Jacob been allowed to remain in the text.—(2) LXX reckons with a Great Month of 355 years (the number of days in the lunar year), and a Great Year of 12 × 355 = 4260 years from the Creation to the founding of the Temple, made up as follows: 2142 + 1173² + 75 + 215 + 215 + 440³ = 4260. Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.—(3) The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch returns to the earlier Hebrew reckoning by generations, its terminus ad quem being the measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the Samaritan Chronicle published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215 + 215 + 42 (desert wandering)⁴ + 13 (measurement of Gerizim) = 2807 = 70 × 40 + 7.⁵—(4) The Book of Jubilees counts by Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to Canaan) = 2450 = 50 × 49.]