following history. He does it merely to introduce his own geographical knowledge about the land of Nod (India?) and the city of Enoch (Khănoch Chanoge?),* and at all events his notions about the early progress of civilisation and the arts in the eastern parts of Asia, in the land of Nod on the east of Eden,' iv.16. He makes the connection required by introducing part of the Sethite genealogy in iv.25,26. (3) He must have known the Sethite genealogy, and we suppose that it lay before him in the E. document: but why must he have given it,-unless, indeed, we set out with the preconceived notion that he wrote an original, independent document? (4) It seems unnecessary to explain why two names are named, and two only, of the Sethite list. He did not, of course, wish to quote the whole of them, and he had something to say about each of these two. (5) It would seem strange, if the Jehovist had really given originally, as HUPFELD supposes, all the names of the Sethite, as well as the Cainite, genealogy, that he left nothing for the Compiler to retain in connection with any of the other Sethite names, except only Noah-whereas he gives us so many details with reference to the names in the Cainite list, iv. 17,19,20,21,22,23,24. (6) We suppose v.29 to be merely a note of the Jehovist upon the E. datum to which it refers. 8. We have gone more fully into the above question, because of its great importance to the theory maintained by HUPFELD, viz. that the Jehovist did not merely supplement the matter which already lay before him, but wrote an original independent narrative, which was afterwards combined with the Elohistic and other documents into one whole by the hand of a later Compiler. Though in Part IV we suspended the expression of any deliberate judgment on this point, the evidence which now lies before us, in the results of our examination of the whole Book of Genesis, has compelled us to a contrary conclusion. 9. BOEHMER, p.126, &c. assigns the whole chapter to a later Compiler of the time of Josiah: but the evidence above pro = *Nod lay eastward of Eden: and if the compiler (as often happens in Arabic with foreign names) was deceived in imagining that there was a Semitic article in Hind, (Heb. and Arab. for India, for which Hoddu Hondu, stands in Esth.i.1,) as if it had been 7, we should in that case, of course, with J. D. MICHAELIS, have here an expression for India in the widest meaning of the word... We are reminded also by the name of Cain's city, Khanoch, of the very ancient commercial city of Chanoge, Arab. Khanug, in northern India, celebrated in the early epics of the Hindoos, and called by the ancients Canogyza, of which the narrator might have heard.' Von BOHLEN, Heywood's Edition, p.90. duced seems to be decisive against this supposition. He believes, however, as we do, that the writer has merely adopted the Sethite names in v.25,26 from the E. genealogy in v, and writes as follows, p.138,139: If the Compiler had put one after the other the two genealogies in iv and v, without any further explanation, it would then have been left to the reader to make of it what he could and would; and many, perhaps, would have hit upon the idea that, besides Cain and Abel, Adam must have had also a younger son, Seth, from whom was derived that line of the Sethites, the details of which followed those of the other so much the more fitly, inasmuch as they led on to the sons of Noah. The Compiler thought it good to give full expression to this view, which was also his own. And therefore he adds at the end of chap. iv, And Adam knew again his wife, and she bare a son, and she called his name Seth, for Elohim hath set to me another seed in place of Abel for Cain slew him,' v.25. This etymology with this reference is probably an invention of the Compiler. In this way the Sethite race in v is contrasted with the Cainite race in iv, a quite unhistorical fancy, which serves the purpose of severing the holy line as far as possible from the heathen. From the genealogy thus introduced by him the Compiler takes here still one member more, in order to fasten a remark upon it. He might certainly have introduced this more fittingly after v.6, just as in that chapter a religious notice stands in the case of Enoch. But he has just written down here at once what came to his pen, 'And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name Enos: then was it begun to call on the name of Jehovah,' v.26, i.e. in plain words, then began the worship of Jehovah, whom men revered as God and to whom they prayed. This datum does not agree with the view of the First Narrator [Elohist], according to whom the name 'Jehovah' was not known before Moses; nor does it accord with this very section, since in iv.1 'Jehovah' occurs as the Divine Name in the mouth of Eve. . . . . Probably, the Compiler made this observation entirely on his own responsibility. He wished to ascribe to the holy line of the Sethites, in opposition to the corrupt line of the Cainites, the institution of the worship of Jehovah the name 'Enos' seemed specially suited for the introduction of this notice it is the human weakness (indicated by , Enosh,) which urges on to prayer to the Strong God. Ans. We agree with the above, except that we certainly, with HUPFELD, ascribe the whole chapter to the Jehovist. There is no necessary inconsistency between v.1 and v.26, though the Jehovist, as we shall see, was not very careful to avoid contradictions. He may have supposed that the name 'Jehovah' was known from the very first, but that the worship of Jehovah did not begin till the days of Enos, or, rather, perhaps, of Seth, about the time when his first son was born. 10. v.1-32, Elohist, except v.29. This section is the continuation of the E. narrative, i. 1-ii.4a, to which it refers distinctly, but not at all to the J. ii.4b-iv.26. passage, *(i) v.1, in the likeness of Elohim made He him': comp. i.27, 'in the image of Elohim created He him.' (ii) v.1,2, 79, 'create,' as in i.1,21,27,27, ii.3,4",—also J(vi.7). *(iii) v.1,3, TM, 'likeness,' as in i.26. *(iv) v.2, 'male and female created He them,' as in i.27. (v) v.2, 'He blessed them,' (1.v). *(vi) v.3, in His likeness, after His image'; comp. in our image, after our likeness,' i.26. (vii) v.3,5, &c., date of Seth's birth, Adam's death, &c.; comp. the dates of births, marriages, deaths, and other important events, noted precisely by E in the history of all the patriarchs before and after the Flood, from Adam to Esau and Jacob, viz. from Adam to Lamech, v.3,5, &c. 28,31, Noah, v.32, vii.6,11, viii. 13*, ix.29, Shem to Terah, xi. 10,11, &c. 26,32, Abraham, xii.4o, xvi.3,16, xvii. 1,17,24, xxi.5, xxv.7, Sarah, xvii.17, xxiii.1, Ishmael, xvii.25, xxv.7, Isaac, xxv.20,26, Xxxv.28, Esau, xxvi.34, Jacob, xlvii.9,28, Joseph, xxxvii.2a. Probably E gave also, in the portions now lost, Jacob's age at his marriage, and at the birth of his first-born, as he has given that of Isaac, xxv.20,26. We find Jehovistic notices in xxix.18,20, xxxi.38,41, from which, with the aid of the E. data. these dates may be determined; but these are very different from the formulæ of E. Also in xli.46, 1.22,26, we have J. notices of the age of Joseph. *(viii) v.3,4, &c. q'hin, ‘beget,' v.3,4, &c., twenty-eight times, vi.10, xi.10,11, &c., twenty-nine times, xvii.20, xxv.19, xlviii.6;—also E2(xl.20); J has always (5.xxvi). *(ix) v.3,6, &c. nx?, ‘hundred,' v.3,6,18,25,28, vii.24, viii.3o, xi.10,25, xxi.5, xxv.7,17, xxxv.28, xlvii.9,28; E has also Я, xvii.17, xxiii.1; J has only 2, (13.v). 11. v.29, Jehovistic. This verse is plainly Jehovistic, as appears not only from its containing the name 'Jehovah,' but also from its referring distinctly to the J. section, ii.4b-iv.26. (i) 'and he called his name Noah (i), saying, This shall comfort (D) us;' derivation of the name Noah' as in (5.iii); comp. also (3.iv). NB. The true derivation of this name is from 'rest.' *(ii) D, 'comfort,' v.29, vi.6,7, xxiv.67, xxvii.42, xxxvii.35,35, xxxviii.12, 1.21. *(iii) about our work and about the pain of our hands,' comp. the 'work' and 'pain' imposed on Adam in iii. 17-19. *(iv) jiny, ‘pain,' as in iii.16,16,17(4.xvii),—nowhere else in the Bible. *(v) 'the ground which Jehovah cursed'; comp. 'cursed is the ground,' iii.17. *(vi) the 'curse,' (4.xiv). N.B. The original conclusion of v.28 was, no doubt, 'and begat Noah,' as in v.6,9,12,15,18,21,25. The Jehovist (or the Compiler) has substituted 'a son' for 'Noah,' in order to introduce the explanation of the name. It may be noted that E writes in v.3, ' and begat [not 'begat a son'] in his likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.' This also suggests that he did not write what now stands in v.28,29, and begat a son, and called his name Noah.' 12. BoEHMER, p.140, gives v.29 to the Compiler, and writes:— This addition can have been made for no other object but to prepare the way for a later insertion of the Compiler, viz., that about the introduction of the cultivation of the vine by Noah, ix.20.(1) Wine is represented as 'comfort' for the painful toil upon the earth after the curse had passed upon it.(2) To the mourner is given the 'cup of comforts,' Jer.xvi.7 in Pro.xxxi.6,7, says Lemuel, 'Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that are bitter of soul: let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.' That even the earth, though under the curse, still brought forth such a product as the vine, might serve as comfort' to the human race. • On account of this reference to a matter, which is only communicated by the Compiler, we cannot assent to HUPFELD's view, that this etymology, as well as iv.25,26, belongs to a Sethite genealogy of the Jehovist, which has been only partially retained by the Compiler. (3) Ans. (1) We also assign ix.20 to the same writer as v.29, but give both to J. (2) If v.29 was really meant to prepare for ix.20, there surely would have been something said in the latter passage to indicate such a connection. At present there is not the slightest sign of this; for the account of Noah's drunkenness can hardly be regarded in this light. (5) We also have expressed dissent from HUPFELD's view (7). But the matter is explained very naturally by supposing that the Jehovist, who shows a great partiality for deriving names, is here, in v.29, merely exercising his fancy upon the name of Noah, who fills a prominent place in the subsequent narrative. 13. vi.1-8, Jehovist, except v.4. *(i) v.1, the beginning of a large population,' (5.xxvii). (ii) v.1, 5, 'begin' (5.xxix). *(iii) v.1,7, 'face of the ground' (3.iii). (iv) v.3, and Jehovah said, My spirit shall not for ever preside in man, &c., v.7, and Jehovah said, I will wipe-out man, &c.'; comp. similar speeches ascribed to Jehovah, (3.xii). (v) v.3, п, 'hundred,' vi.3, xxvi.12, xxxiii. 19, 1.22,26. *(vi) v.5, 1, 'formation,' (3.v). *(vii) v.6,7, □ņ, 'comfort,' (11.ii). *(viii) v.6, 'he was pained,' (4.xvii). *(ix) v.7, nņ, 'wipe-out,' vi.7, vii.4,23,23, used by J throughout the story of the Deluge: whereas E uses or ', 'corrupt' destroy (19.vi). *(x) v.7, ‘from off (Syı), the face of the ground,' as in iv.14. *(xi) v.7, 'from man unto beast,' vi.7, vii.23"; comp. 'from young-man and unto old man,' xix.4; 'from small and unto great,' xix.11. *(xii) v.8, 'find favour in the eyes of,' vi.8, xviii.3, xix.19, xxx.27, xxxii. 5, xxxiii. 8,10,15, xxxiv. 11, xxxix.4, xlvii.25,29, 1.4, comp. xxxix.21. (xiii) strong anthropomorphisms (3.xx), Jehovah being spoken of as:— repenting and being grieved at the heart, v.6,7. N.B. In v.5 the E.V. and Vulg. have Elohim: but the Heb., Sam., and all the other ancient Versions and Targums have 'Jehovah,' except that the Sept. has Κύριος ὁ Θεός. Also in v.2, occurs the phrase 'sons of Elohim' angels. But this phrase might have been used by any writer, however thoroughly Jehovistic, since the expression sons of Jehovah' is never employed. So in the Jehovistic frame-work of the Book of Job the expression is twice used, i.6, ii.1, and in each case we have Elohim with the article, as here. In Job xxxviii.7 it is used without the article: in Ps.xxix.1, lxxxix.7, we have, sons of the mighty-ones.' 14. Our view of the above passage agrees with that of HUPFELD, who observes very justly, on the datum in v.3, p.220: The measure of 120 years [here assigned as the future average duration of human life] is not certainly carried out in the following history, where generally a far higher measure of life appears down to the time of the Hebrew patriarchs. It must be remembered, however, that these statements of age are all from the E. document, while with the Jehovist there enters first in the case of Moses a mode of reckoning time with the round numbers of 120, 80, 40 years. BOEHMER, p.141, ascribes v.1-4 to the 'Compiler,' except v.4, the Nephilim were on the earth in those days,' which he assigns to the Jehovist, and compares with the similar notices in xii.6, xiii.7, and regards as the 'kernel' of the whole passage: but he expresses a doubt, p.150, whether v.4a may not also belong to the Compiler. 15. vi.4, Deuteronomistic. On this verse HUPFELD writes as follows, p.221 :— Still more loose and indistinct is the connection of v.4 with the preceding context. It begins abruptly with, 'the Giants (Nephilim) were on the earth in those days'-the Giants, with the article, as if they had been named already, or might be spoken of as well-known, of which alternatives only the last is applicable VOL. III. с |