---

VI. 1–4.
The Origin of the Nĕphîlîm.

This obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates how in the infancy of the human race marriage alliances were believed to have been formed by supernatural beings with mortal women (verses ^1. 2); and how from these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods (verse ⁴), who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is implied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings, intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (verse ³).

The fragment belongs to the class of ætiological myths. The belief in Nĕphîlîm is proved only by Numbers 13³³ (Elohist?); but it is there seen to have been associated with a more widely attested tradition of a race of giants surviving into historic times, especially among the aboriginal populations of Canaan (Deuteronomy 1²⁸ 2^10. 11. 21 9², Joshua 15¹⁴, Amos 2⁹ etc.). The question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, and the passage before us supplied the answer. But while the ætiological motive may explain the retention of the fragment in Genesis, it is not to be supposed that the myth originated solely in this reflexion. Its pagan colouring is too pronounced to permit of its being dissociated from two notions prevalent in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin literature: viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were men of gigantic stature;¹ and (2) that marriages of the gods with mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.² Similar ideas were current among other peoples. The Ḳoran has frequent references to the peoples of ‛sons of Godal races noted for their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were attributed the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation of rock-dwellings, and who were believed to have been destroyed by a divine judgment.³ The legend appears also in the Phœnician traditions of Sanchuniathon, where it is followed by an obscure allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse which appears to have some remote connexion with Genesis 6².⁴

That the source is Yahwist is not disputed.¹ Dillmann, indeed, following Schrader (Einleitung in das Alte Testament 276), thinks it an extract from Elohist which had passed through the hands of Yahwist; but borrowing by the original Yahwist from the other source is impossible, and the only positive trace of Elohist would be the word נפילים, which in Numbers 13³³ is by some critics assigned to Elohist. That argument would at most prove overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.—The precise position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions cannot be determined. The introductory clause “when mankind began to multiply,” etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4^17–24 or 4^25 f. (against Holzinger), though certainly not that of Priestly-Code in chapter 5. The idea that it is a parallel to the story of the Fall in chapter 3 (Schrader, Dillmann, Wellhausen, Schultz) has little plausibility, though it would be equally rash to affirm that it presupposes such an account.—The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than was needful to account for the origin of the giants.

There remains the question whether the passage was from the first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall see to be improbable) that the 120 years of verse ³ refer to an impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded. The critical probability, therefore, is that 6^1–4 belongs to a stratum of Yahwist which knows nothing of a flood (page 2 ff.). The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however (Philologus, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, ix. 134 ff.), claims to have recovered from Greek sources a Phœnician legend of intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some striking affinities with Genesis 6^1–4, and which leads up to an account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe’s combinations I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of the hypothetical Phœnician legend. Even, therefore, if his speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce the sequence of events given in Genesis. That this is not inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins the biblical name ΝΩ appears as that of the hero of the Deluge (see page 180 below).

1, 2. The sense of these verses is perfectly clear. The sons of God (בני האלהים) are everywhere in Old Testament members (but probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some freedom) angels (v.i.).

“The angels are not called ‘sons of God’ as if they had actually derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor in a less exact way, because though created they have received a nature similar to God’s, being spirits; nor yet as if on account of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name Elohim or sons (i.e. members of the race) of the Elohim is a name given directly to angels in contrast with men ... the name is given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently, they are Elohim in an inferior sense” (Davidson, Job, Cambridge Bible, page 6).

---

1. וַיְהִי כִּי] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch; 26⁸ 27¹ 43²¹ 44²⁴, Exodus 1²¹ 13¹⁵, Joshua 17¹³. See Budde 6. The apodosis commences with verse ².—הֵחֵל] see Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 97.—על־פני האדמה] see Oxford Hexateuch i. 187.—2. בני [ה]אלהים] Job 1⁶ 2¹ 38⁷, [Daniel 3²⁵]; compare ב׳ אלים, Psalms 29¹ 89⁷. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings denoted is evident,—‘belonging to the category of the gods.’ On this Semitic use of בן, see William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 17; The Prophets of Israel² 85, 389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by LXX (οἱ ἄγγελοι [also υἱοὶ] τοῦ θεοῦ), Theodotion, Jubilees v. 1, Enoch vi. 2 ff. (Jude ⁶, 2 Peter 2⁴), Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 73; Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns. [Peshiṭtå transliterates (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) as in Job 1⁶ 2¹.] (2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another, according to which the ‘sons of the gods’ are members of aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank: Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} (בני רברביא), Symmachus (τῶν δυναστευόντων), Bereshith Rabba, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra [Aquila (υἱοὶ τῶν θεῶν) is explained by Jeremias as ‘deos intelligens sanctos sive angelos’]. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles’s valuable Note, Book of Jubilees 33 ff.) has been to take the phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line of Seth: Julius Africanus, most Fathers, Luther, Calvin, al.: still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations it is decisive that בנות האדם cannot have a narrower reference in verse ² than in verse ¹; and that consequently בני ה׳ cannot denote a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, Les Origines de l’histoire² 291 ff.; the Commentary of Delitzsch (146 ff.), Dillmann (119 f.), or Driver (82 f.). On the eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenormant 304 ff.—ויקחו ... נשים] = ‘marry’: 4¹⁹ 11²⁹ 25¹ 36² etc.—מכּל אשר] ‘consisting of all whom,’—the rare מן of explication; Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. 3b (e); compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 w²: Genesis 7²² 9¹⁰.

---

In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps called אלהים simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility of the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable interpretations mentioned in the note below.—2. These superhuman beings, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of men (i.e. mortal women) took to themselves as wives (strictly implying permanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) whomsoever they chose. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels; and consists partly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly in high-handed disregard of the rights of God’s lower creatures.—It is to be noted, in contrast with analogous heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively masculine.

3. A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a limit on the term of man’s life.—My spirit shall not [... in?] man for ever; [...?] he is flesh, and his days shall be 120 years.

A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote), and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes. The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,—and that opens up a wide field of speculation;¹—and possibly also an account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the general sense of the verse, assuming the text to be fairly complete, and a real connexion to exist with verses ^1. 2.—(i.) Everything turns on the meaning of the word רוּחַ, of which four interpretations have been given: (1) That רוּחִי is the Spirit of Yahwe as an ethical principle, striving against and ‘judging’ the prevalent corruption of men (as in Isaiah 63¹⁰); so Symmachus, Targum^Jonathan, Luther, al. There is nothing to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the verb ידון associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned. (2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who understands רוּחִי subjectively of the divine feeling (Gemüt) excited by human sin² (similarly Rashi). (3) The commonest view in modern times (see Dillmann) has been that רוּחַ is the divine principle of life implanted in man at creation, the tenor of the decree being that this shall not ‘abide’³ in man eternally or indefinitely, but only in such measure as to admit a maximum life of 120 years. There are two difficulties in this interpretation: (a) It has no connexion with what precedes, for everything the verse contains would be quite as intelligible apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to them.⁴ (b) The following words הוא בשׂר have no meaning: as a reason for the withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve a hysteron proteron; and as an independent statement they are (on the supposition) not true, man as actually constituted being both flesh and spirit (2⁷). (4) The most probable sense is that given by Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 305 ff.), viz. that רוח is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in contrast to בָּשָׂר, which is the element proper to human nature (compare Isaiah 31³): so Holzinger, Gunkel. The idea will then be that the mingling of the divine and human substances brought about by illicit sexual unions has introduced a disorder into the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to ‘abide’ permanently, but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.—(ii.) We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its natural sense of the duration of individual life (v.i.), be consistent with the conclusion just reached. Wellhausen himself thinks that it is not: the fusion of the divine and human elements would be propagated in the race, and could not be checked by a shortening of the lives of individuals. The context requires an announcement of the annihilation of the race, and the last clause of the verse must be a mistaken gloss on the first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a strong reason either for revising Wellhausen’s acceptation of ^3a, or for understanding ^3b as an announcement of the Flood. But a shortening of the term of life, though not a logical corollary from the sin of the angels, might nevertheless be a judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinction of the giants within a measurable time; and indirectly impose a limit on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings.⁵ In view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be unwise to press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a strain on the interpretation of either.

---

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

---

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

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

---

4. הַנְּפִלִים] LXX οἱ γίγαντες; Aquila οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες; Symmachus οἱ βίαιοι; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targum^Onkelos גבריא. The etymology is uncertain (see Dillmann 123). There is no allusion to a ‘fall’ (√ נָפַל) of angels from heaven (Targum^Jonathan, Jerome¹, Rashi), or to a ‘fall’ of the world through their action (Bereshith Rabba, Rashi). A connexion with נֵפֶל, ‘abortive birth’ (from נָפַל, ‘fall dead’), is not improbable (Schwally, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Cornill (נְפִילִים מֵעוֹלָם) in Ezekiel 32²⁷ not only yields a striking resemblance to this verse, but supports the idea that the נ׳ (like the רְפָאִים) were associated with the notion of Sheol.—אחרי כן אשר] cannot mean ‘after’ (as conjunction), which would require a perfect to follow, but only ‘afterwards, when.’ On any view, יָבֹאוּ; and וְיָלְדוּ are frequentative tenses.—בוא אל] (as euphemism) is characteristic of Jehovist (especially Yahwist) in Hexateuch (Budde 39, Anm.). Compare William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 198 ff.—חַגִּבּוֹרִים] literally ‘mighty ones’ (Aquila δυνατοί; Vulgate potentes; LXX, Symmachus, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos do not distinguish from נפילים). The word is thoroughly naturalised in Hebrew speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But passages like Ezekiel 32^12 ff. show that it had another aspect, akin to Arabic ǧabbār (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Arabic and Syrian equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion (Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon i. 375 a; Robert Payne Smith Thesaurus Syriacus 646).—אשר מעולם] compare עַם עוֹלָם, Ezekiel 26²⁰, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down to Sheol.—The whole verse has the appearance of a series of antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred from it is that there was some traditional association of the Nephîlîm with the incident recorded in verse ^1 f. At the same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the verse reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks from the direct statement that the Nephîlîm were the offspring of the marriages of verses ^1. 2, and tantalises the curiosity of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that they existed ‘afterwards’ as well.—Budde, who omits verse ³, restores the original connexion with verse ^1 f. as follows: [והיה כאשר] יבאו בני האלהים ... [וכן] היו הנפלים בארץ בימים ההם. Some such excellent sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished to avoid.

---

VI. 5–IX. 29.
Noah and the Flood.

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

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

The minutiæ of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given above represents the results of Budde (to whom the finishing touches are due: Die biblische Urgeschichte 248 ff.) Gunkel and Holzinger. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he assigns 7¹⁷ wholly to Yahwist, and 7^23b to Priestly-Code; and Wellhausen, except with regard to 7¹⁷ (Yahwist) 8^3. 13, which are both assigned entirely to Priestly-Code. The divergences of Kuenen and Cornill are almost equally slight; and indeed the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches of Hupfeld, Nöldeke, and Schrader.—This remarkable consensus of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines of evidence: (1) Linguistic. The key to the whole process is, of course, the distinction between the divine names יהוה (6^{5. 6. 7. 8} 7^1. 5. 16b 8^20. 21) and אלהים (6^{9. 11. 12. 13. 22} 7^16a 8^1. 15 9^{1. 6. 8. 12. 16. 17}). Besides this, a number of characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus Yahwist’s איש ואשתו (7²) answers to Priestly-Code’s זכר ונקבה¹ (6¹⁹ 7^(9). 16); מחה (6⁷ 7^4. 23) to שִׁחֵת and השחית (6^13. 17 9^11. 15); מות (7²²) to גָוַע¹ (6¹⁷ 7²¹); כל־היקום (7^4. 23) to כל־בשר¹ (6^12. 13. 17 7²¹ and often); קל (8^8. 11) and שוּב (7^3a) to חסר (8⁵); חרב (8^13b) to יבש (8¹⁴) [but see on 8^13b]; נשמת חיים (8²²) to רוח חיים (6¹⁷); לְחַיּוֹת (7³) to לְהַֽחֲיוֹת (6^19. 20); כל־ביתך (7¹) to the specific enumerations of 6¹⁸ 7^(7). 13 8^16. 18. (Compare the list in Holzinger Genesis erklärt page 68).—(2) Diversity of representation. In Yahwist clean and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7², compare 8²⁰); in Priestly-Code one pair of every kind without distinction is admitted (6^19 f. 7^15 f.). According to Yahwist, the cause of the Flood is a forty-days’ rain which is to commence seven days after the command to enter the ark (7^4. 10. 12 8^2b. 6)—the latter passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40 days. In Priestly-Code we have (7¹¹ 8^2a) a different conception of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7^{6. 11. 13. 24} 8^{3b. 4. 5. 13a. 14}, a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one year (see page 167 ff.).—(3) Duplicates. The following are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6^5–8 ∥ 6^11–13 (occasion of the Flood); 7^1–5 ∥ 6^17–22 (command to enter the ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7⁷ ∥ 7¹³ (entering of the ark); 7¹⁰ ∥ 7¹¹ (coming of the Flood); 7^17b ∥ 7¹⁸ (increase of the waters: floating of the ark); 7^22 f. ∥ 7²¹ (destruction of terrestrial life); 8^2b. 3a ∥ 8^1 f. (abatement of the Flood); 8^13b ∥ 8^13a. 14 (drying of the earth); 8^20–22 ∥ 9^8 ff. (promise that the Flood shall not recur).—(4) The final confirmation of the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but continuous narratives, which exhibit the distinctive features of the two great sources of the primitive history, Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The Yahwist sections are a graphic popular tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove (see 8⁹) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms are freely introduced into the conception of God (6^6 f. 7^16b 8²¹); and the religious institutions of the author’s time are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.—Still more pronounced are the characteristics of Priestly-Code in the other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign of the rainbow (9^12–17) is retained, its æsthetic beauty has evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and calculated,—the size of the ark, the number of the persons and the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real interest of the writer is in the new departure in God’s dealings with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,—the modification of the original constitution of nature, 9^1–7, and the establishment of the first of the three great covenants, 9^8–17. The connexion of the former passage with Genesis 1 is unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of Noah’s sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and uncleanness amongst animals.²

The success of the critical process is due to the care and skill with which the Redactor (Redactor^{Jahwist/Priestly-Code}) has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of information that could with any plausibility be utilised for his narrative. The sequence of Priestly-Code he appears to have preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions. Of Yahwist he has preserved quite enough to show that it was originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunæ except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6⁸ and 7¹), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8^13b and ²⁰). The middle part of the document, however, has been broken up into minute fragments, and these have been placed in position where they would least disturb the flow of narration. Some slight transpositions have been made, and a number of glosses have been introduced; but how far these last are due to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely admitted, and small discrepancies are disregarded; the only serious discrepancy (that of the chronology) is ingeniously surmounted by making Yahwist’s 40 days count twice, once as a stage of the increase of the Flood (7¹²) and once as a phase of its decrease (8⁶).¹ This compound narrative is not destitute of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying the literature the primary documents are obviously of first importance. We shall therefore treat them separately.