VI. 5–8. The occasion of the Flood:—Yahwe’s experience of the deep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human nature. It is unnecessary to suppose that a description of the deterioration of the race has been omitted, or displaced by 61–4 (Holzinger). The ground of the pessimistic estimate of human nature so forcibly expressed in verse ⁵ is rather the whole course of man’s development as hitherto related, which is the working out of the sinful knowledge acquired by the Fall. The fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech, the marriages with the angels, are incidents which, if not all before the mind of the writer of the Flood-story, at least reveal the gloomy view of the early history which characterises the Yahwistic tradition.—5. the whole bent (literally ‘formation’) of the thoughts of his heart] It is difficult to say whether יֵצֶר is more properly the ‘form’ impressed on the mind (the disposition or character), or ‘that which is formed’ by the mind (imagination and purpose—Sinnen und Trachten): compare 8²¹, Deuteronomy 31²¹, Isaiah 26³ (Psalms 103¹⁴?), 1 Chronicles 28⁹ 29¹⁸; v.i.—6. The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) and vexation (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) because He had created man is unusually strong. Although in the sense of mere change of purpose, the former is often ascribed to God (Exodus 32¹⁴, Jeremiah 187. 8 263. 13, Joel 2¹³, Jonah 3¹⁰ etc.), the cases are few where divine regret for accomplished action is expressed (1 Samuel 15¹¹). The whole representation was felt to be inadequate (Numbers 23¹⁹, 1 Samuel 15¹¹); yet it continued to be used as inseparable from the religious view of history as the personal agency of Yahwe.—7. God’s resolve to blot out (מָחָה) the race: not as yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.—8. But Noah had found favour, etc.] doubtless on account of his piety; but see on 7¹. The Yahwistic narrative must have contained some previous notice of Noah, probably at the end of a genealogy.
5. יהוה LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (so verse ⁸).—וכל־יצר וגו׳] LXX loosely: καὶ πᾶς τις διανοεῖται (יֹצֵר?) ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρά; Vulgate cuncta cogitatio. Another Greek rendering (ὁ Ἑβρ., see Field, ad loc.) is φυσικὸν τοῦ ἀνθ.; but in 8²¹ the same translator has τὸ πλάσμα τῆς καρ. ἀνθ. On the later Jewish theologoumenon of the יצר הרע (the evil impulse in man, also called יצר simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish commentaries (Rashi on 8²¹) is found here; see Taylor, Sayings of Jewish Fathers², 37, 148 ff.; Frank C. Porter, Biblical and Semitic Studies; critical and historical essays by the members of the Semitic and Biblical faculty of Yale University (1901), 93 ff.—כל־היום] ‘continually’; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b.—6. יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός (so verse ⁷).—ויתעצב] Genesis 34⁷; compare Isaiah 63¹⁰ (Piel). Rashi softens the anthropomorphism by making the impending destruction of the creatures the immediate object of the divine grief.—7. אמחה] compare 74. 23. In the full sense of ‘exterminate’ (as distinct from ‘obliterate’ [name, memory, etc.]) the verb is peculiar to Yahwist’s account of the Flood; contrast Numbers 5²³ 34¹¹ (Priestly-Code).—The verse is strongly interpolated. The clauses אשר בראתי and מאדם ... השמים are in the style of Priestly-Code (compare 6²⁰ 714. 21 817. 19 9² etc.); and the latter is, besides, an illogical specification of האדם. They are redactional glosses, the original text being אמחה את־האדם מעל פני האדמה כי נחמתי כי עשיתים (Budde 249 ff.; Dillmann 125).—8. מצא חן בעיני] characteristic of, though not absolutely confined to, Yahwist: 19¹⁹ 32⁶ 338. 15 34¹¹ 39⁴ 47²⁵ etc. (Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 97 f.).
VII. 1–5. Announcement of the Flood.—The section is an almost exact parallel to 617–22 (Priestly-Code). Verse ¹ presupposes in Yahwist a description of the building of the ark, which the redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of Priestly-Code. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah the purpose it is to serve: verse ⁴ is obviously the first intimation that has been given of the approaching deluge. The building of the ark in implicit obedience to the divine command is thus a great test and proof of Noah’s faith; compare Hebrews 11⁷.—1. Thou and all thy house] Yahwist’s brevity is here far more expressive than the formal enumerations of Priestly-Code (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 816. 18). The principle involved is the religious solidarity of the family; its members are saved for the righteousness of its head (compare 19¹²).—thee have I seen (to be) righteous (צַדִּיק, see on 6⁹)] Budde and others take this to be a judgement based on Noah’s obedience in building the ark; but that is hardly correct. The verb is not מצא but ראה, which has precisely the same force as the וירא of 6⁵. Compare also 6⁸.—2. clean (טְהוֹר) means, practically, fit for sacrifice and human food; the technical antithesis is טָמֵא, which, however, is here avoided, whether purposely (Delitzsch 174) or not it is impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once supposed (see Tuch), a proof of Yahwist’s interest in Levitical matters, but, on the contrary, of the naïveté of his religious conceptions. He regards it as rooted in the nature of things, and cannot imagine a time when it was not observed. His view is nearer the historical truth than the theory of Priestly-Code, who traces the distinction to the positive enactments of the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), and consequently ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 43 f. 8²⁰ 12⁷ etc.—שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה] by sevens (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 q); i.e. ‘7 (individuals) of each kind’ (Delitzsch, Stade, al.), rather than ‘7 pairs’ (Bereshith Rabba, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),—in spite of the following איש ואשתו. It is a plausible conjecture (Rashi, Delitzsch, Strack) that the odd individual was a male destined for sacrifice (8²⁰).—3a presents an impure text (v.i.), and must either be removed as a gloss (Kuenen, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) or supplemented with LXX (Ball, Bennett).—3b. to keep seed alive, etc.] reads better as the continuation of ² than of 3a.—4. With great rhetorical effect, the reason for all these preparations—the coming of the Flood—is reserved to the end. Yahwist knows no other physical cause of the Deluge than the 40 days’ rain (compare verse ¹²).—5. Compare 6²² (Priestly-Code).
1. יהוה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå אלהים; LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.—צדיק] predicate accusative; Davidson § 76.—2. For שנים, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read שנים שנים,—probably correctly.—איש ואשתו (bis)] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch זכר ונקבה, assimilating Yahwist to Priestly-Code.—3a. The distinction to be expected between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly by The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and Peshiṭtå, which insert הטהור after השמים; and fully by LXX, which goes further and adds the words καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν τῶν μὴ καθαρῶν δύο δύο ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. Ball accepts this, thinking the omission in Massoretic Text due to homoioteleuton. But the phrase זכר ונקבה shows that 3a has been manipulated; and it is on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional. Birds may be included in the הבהמה of verse ²; though Budde’s parallels (Exodus 813 f. 99. 22. 25, Jeremiah 32⁴³ 3310. 12 36²⁹, Psalms 36⁷) are not quite convincing.—3b. לְחַיּוֹת] Priestly-Code uses Hiphil (619 f.).—זֶרַע] as Jeremiah 31²⁷.—4. לימים] On לְ as denoting the close of a term (compare verse ¹⁰), see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. 6b.—הַיְקוּם] a rare word (only 7²³, Deuteronomy 11⁶), meaning ‘that which subsists’ (√ קום). LXX ἀνάστεμα (other examples in Field, ἐξανάστασιν), Vulgate substantia, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word). On the form see Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen 181; König ii. 146; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 85 d.
7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.—Entrance into the ark and description of the Flood.—Yahwist’s narrative has here been taken to pieces by the Redactor, who has fitted the fragments into a new connexion supplied by the combined accounts of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The operation has been performed with such care and skill that it is still possible to restore the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive narrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The sequence of events is as follows: At the end of the seven days, the Flood comes (verse ¹⁰); Noah enters the ark (⁷) and Yahwe shuts him in (16b). Forty days’ rain ensues (¹²), and the waters rise and float the ark (17b). All life on the earth’s surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in the ark survive (22 f.).
The rearrangement here adopted (10. 7. 16b. 12. 17b. 22. 23) is due mainly to the acute criticism of Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 258 ff.), who has probably added the last refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation. Some points (e.g. the transposition of verses ⁷ and ¹⁰) are, of course, more or less doubtful; others (e.g. 16b) are seen to be necessary as soon as the components of Yahwist have been isolated. The most difficult thing is to clear the text of the glosses which inevitably accompanied the work of redaction; but this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of certainty and agreement amongst recent commentaries. The most extensive interpolations are part of verse ⁷, the whole of verses ⁸ and ⁹, and part of ²³. For details see the footnote.
7. וּבָנָיו—אִתּוֹ] The enumeration is in the manner of Priestly-Code (obsolete also אִתּוֹ); the words either replace וכל־ביתו (as verse ¹), or are a pure insertion;—in either case redactional.—מי המבול] so 7¹⁰ (Yahwist), 9¹¹ (Priestly-Code) (contrast הַמּ׳ מַיִם, 6¹⁷ 7⁶).—מַבּוּל] LXX κατακλυσμός; Vulgate diluvium; Peshiṭtå and TargumOnkelos טופנא (TargumJonathan טובענא). The word has usually been derived from יבל, ‘streaming’ (see Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti, Dillmann); but is more probably a foreign word without Hebrew etymology (see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 732). Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies? 156) proposed the derivation from Assyrian nabâlu, ‘destroy,’ which is accepted by König (ii. 153), Ball (page 53), and others. The Babylonian technical equivalent is abûbu, which denotes both a ‘light-flood’ and a ‘water-flood’: the double sense has been thought to explain Priestly-Code’s addition of מַיִם to the word (see on 6¹⁷). A transformation of the one name into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 495¹, 546²). In Psalms 29¹⁰ מבול appears to be used in a general sense without a historic reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm, ad loc.).—8, 9 present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and unclean points to Yahwist; but all other features (אלהים [though a reading יהוה seems attested by The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Vulgate, TargumJonathan, and MSS of LXX]; זכר ונקבה; the undiscriminated שנים שנים; the categorical enumeration [to which LXX adds the birds at the beginning of verse ⁸]) to Priestly-Code. In Priestly-Code the verses are not wanted, because they are a duplicate of 13–16: they must therefore be assigned to an interpolator (Budde al.).
10. At the end of the 7 days (compare verse ⁴)] The interval (we may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and provisioning the ark.—the waters of the Flood] הַמַּבּוּל, a technical name for the Deluge, common to both sources (v.i.).—7. Noah enters the ark on account of the ... Flood: hence verse ⁷ presupposes verse ¹⁰. The same order of events is found in Priestly-Code (11. 13) and in the Babylonian legend: “when the lords of the darkness send at evening a (grimy?) rain, enter into the ship and close thy door” (1. 88 f.).—16b (which must in any case follow immediately on verse ⁷) contains a fine anthropomorphism, which (in spite of the Babylonian parallel just cited) it is a pity to spoil by deleting יהוה and making Noah the implicit subject (Klostermann Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, i. 717).—12. forty days and forty nights] This determination, which in Yahwist expresses the entire duration of the Flood, seems to have been treated by Redactor as merely a stage in the increase of the waters (compare 8⁶). It obviously breaks the connexion of Priestly-Code. The Babylonian deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).—17b. Parallel to ¹⁸ (Priestly-Code).—22, 23. A singularly effective description of the effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived as universal.
10. On the construction of the sentence, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 a, and on verse ⁶ below.—12. גֶּשֶׁם] (√ ǧasuma = ‘be massive’) commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezra 10⁹, Canticles 2¹¹): see George Adam Smith Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 64.—16b. יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + τὴν κιβωτόν.—17b. Since ¹⁸ belongs to Priestly-Code (ויגברו, מאד), its duplicate 17b must be from Yahwist, where it forms a natural continuation of ¹². 17a, on the other hand (in spite of the 40 days), must be assigned to Priestly-Code (see page 164).—22. נשמת רוח חיים] is an unexampled combination, arising from confusion of a phrase of Yahwist (נשמת חיים, 2⁷) with one of Priestly-Code (רוח חיים, 6¹⁷ 7¹⁵). The verse being from Yahwist (compare חָרָבָה instead of יַבָּשָׁה; מתו instead of ויגוע, ²¹), רוח is naturally the word to be deleted.—23a as a whole is Yahwist (מחה, יקום, על־פני האדמה); but the clause מאדם ... השמים seems again (compare 6⁷) to be redactional, and the three words following must disappear with it. 23b might be assigned with almost equal propriety to Yahwist or to Priestly-Code.—וַיִּמַֿח] (apocopated imperfect Qal) is a better attested Massoretic reading than וַיִּמַּח (Niphal). It is easier, however, to change the pointing (to Niphal) than to supply יהוה as subject, and the sense is at least as good.—Gunkel’s rearrangement (23aα. 22. 23b) is a distinct improvement: of the two homologous sentences, that without וְ naturally stands second.
VIII. (1b?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6–12, 13b. Subsidence of the waters.—The rain from heaven having ceased, the Flood gradually abates. [The ark settles on some high mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts and unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a dove to ascertain the condition of the earth.
The continuity of Yahwist’s narrative has again been disturbed by the redaction. Verse 6a, which in its present position has no point of attachment in Yahwist, probably stood originally before 2b, where it refers to the 40 days’ duration of the Flood (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 5). It was removed by Redactor so as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of the mountain-tops and the drying of the ground.—There are two small points in which a modification of the generally accepted division of sources might be suggested. (1) 1b (the wind causing the abatement of the waters) is, on account of אלהים, assigned to Priestly-Code. But the order 1b. 2a is unnatural, and transpositions in Priestly-Code do not seem to have been admitted. The idea is more in accord with Yahwist’s conception of the Flood than with Priestly-Code’s; and but for the name אלהים the half-verse might very well be assigned to Yahwist, and inserted between 2b and 3a. (2) Verse ⁴ is also almost universally regarded as Priestly-Code’s (see Budde 269 f.). But this leaves a lacuna in Yahwist between 3a and 6b, where a notice of the landing of the ark must have stood: on the other hand, 5b makes it extremely doubtful if Priestly-Code thought of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only objection to assigning ⁴ to Yahwist is the chronology: if we may suppose the chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a later hand (see page 168), there is a great deal to be said for the view of Hupfeld and Reuss that the remainder of the verse belongs to Yahwist.¹—The opening passage would then read as follows:
3a. הלוך ושוב] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 u. LXX has misunderstood the idiom both here and in verse ⁷.
6a. At the end of 40 days, 2b. the rain from heaven was restrained; 1b. and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters abated. 3a. And the waters went on decreasing from off the earth, 4. and the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.—On the landing-place of the ark, see page 166 below.
6b–12. The episode of the sending out of the birds appears in many forms of the Deluge-tradition; notably in the Babylonian. It is here related as an illustration of Noah’s wisdom (Gunkel). Tuch quotes from Pliny, vi. 83 (on the Indians): “siderum in navigando nulla observatio; septentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emittentes sæpius, meatumque earum terram petentium comitantur.”—7. He sent out a raven] The purpose of the action is not stated till verse ⁸; partly for this reason, partly because the threefold experiment with the dove is complete and more natural, the genuineness of the verse has been questioned (Wellhausen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). Dahse, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxviii. 5 f., calls attention to the fact that in LXXᴹ the verse is marked with the obelus. The Babylonian account has three experiments, but with different birds (dove, swallow, raven).—8. And he sent out a dove] perhaps immediately; see LXX below. But if verse ⁷ be a later insertion, we must supply and he waited 7 days (see verse ¹⁰).—9. The description of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and beauty of imagination.—10. Seven other days] implying a similar statement before either verse ⁷ or verse ⁸.—11. a freshly plucked olive leaf] The olive does not grow at great altitudes, and was said to flourish even under water (Tuch). But it is probable that some forgotten mythological significance attaches to the symbol in the Flood-legend (see Gunkel page 60). Compare the classical notices of the olive branch as an emblem of peace: Virgil, Aeneid, viii. 116 (Paciferaeque manu ramum prætendit olivæ); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. 16.—12. The third time the dove returns no more; and then at last—13b. Noah ventures to remove the covering of the ark, and sees that the earth is dry.
7. הערב] on the article see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 r; but compare Smith’s note, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 126.—LXX here supplies τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ κεκόπακεν τὸ ὕδωρ, as in verse ⁸.—ויצא יצוא ושוב] LXX καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑπέστρεψεν; so Vulgate, Peshiṭtå (accepted by Ball): see on 3a.—8. מֵאִתּוֹ] LXX ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ (= אַֽחֲרָיו); assuming that both birds were sent forth on the same day.—10. וַיָּחֶל] compare וַיִּיָּחֶל, verse ¹² (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has ויחל both times). Both forms are incorrect: read in each case וַיְיַחֵל (Budde, Dillmann, al.).—13b. מִכְסֵה] possibly described in Yahwist’s account of the building of the ark. Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle (Priestly-Code); but compare מְכַסֶּה, Ezekiel 27⁷.—חרבו] LXX ins. τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπό.
20–22. Noah’s sacrifice.—Yahwist’s account of the leaving of the ark has been suppressed. Noah’s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not of thanksgiving but (as verse ²¹ shows) of propitiation: its effect is to move the Deity to gracious thoughts towards the new humanity. The resemblance to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and instructive (see page 177): the incident appears also in the Greek and Indian legends.—20. an altar] Literally ‘slaughtering-place.’ The sacrificial institution is carried back by Yahwist to the remotest antiquity (see on 43 f. 72 f.), but this is the first mention of the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see page 105 above.—עֹלֹת] holocausts,—that form of sacrifice which was wholly consumed on the altar, and which was naturally resorted to on occasions of peculiar solemnity (e.g. 2 Samuel 24²⁵).—21. smelled the soothing odour] רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (κνίση, nidor)¹ becomes a technical term of the Levitical ritual, and is never mentioned elsewhere except in Priestly-Code and Ezekiel. This, Gunkel points out, is the only place where Yahwe is actually described as smelling the sacrifice; but compare 1 Samuel 26¹⁹. It is probably a refinement of the crude eudæmonism of the Babylonian story (see page 177 below); and it is doubtful how far it elucidates primitive Hebrew ideas of the effect of sacrifice. That “the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely the occasion of this gracious purpose” (Knobel), may be sound theology, but it hardly expresses the idea of the passage.—21b is a monologue (אֶל־לִבּוֹ).—כִּי יֵצֶר וגו׳ (see on 6⁵) may be understood either as epexegetical of בַּֽעֲבוּר הָאָדָם (a reason why Yahwe might be moved to curse the ground, though he will not [Holzinger]), or as the ground of the promise not to visit the earth with a flood any more. The latter is by far the more probable. The emphasis is on מִנְּעֻרָיו, from his youth; the innate sinfulness of man constitutes an appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured by an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests all progress toward better things (compare Isaiah 54⁹).—22. The pledge of Yahwe’s patience with humanity is the regularity of the course of nature, in which good and bad men are treated alike (Matthew 5⁴⁵). A division of the year into six seasons (Rashi), or even into two halves (Delitzsch), is not intended; the order of nature is simply indicated by a series of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be interrupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance closes Yahwist’s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior resolve of Yahwe; whereas in Priestly-Code it assumes the form of a ‘covenant’ (9¹¹),—a striking instance of the development of religious ideas in the direction of legalism: compare Jeremiah 3135 f. 3320 f. 25 f..
20. ליהוה] LXX τῷ θεῷ.—21. יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (bis).—ריח הניחח] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word)—conflate?—לְקַלֵּל] a different verb from that used in 3¹⁷ 4¹¹ 5²⁹ (ארר). Holzinger points out that Piel of קלל is never used with God as subject (compare Genesis 12³); and for this and other reasons regards 21a as an unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the prophecy of 5²⁹. But 21a can only refer to the Flood, while the curse of 5²⁹ belongs to the past: moreover, an interpolator would have been careful to use the same verb. The sense given to קִלֵּל is fully justified by the usage of Pual (Psalms 37²², Job 24¹⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰).—בעבור] LXX διὰ τὰ ἔργα, as 3¹⁷.—כי יצר וגו׳] LXX ὅτι ἔγκειται ἡ διάνοια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιμελῶς κτλ. See on 6⁵.—22. עֹד] LXX omitted; Ball, עַד—.ישבתו] ‘come to an end’: see on 2².