Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

here. In fact this name occurs also in N.xiii. 33, where it is used of the Giants whom the spies found existing in Canaan; and there also they are set forth with the article as well-known, and actually with an additional statement, 'the Giants, out of the Giants,' which can only refer to the passage before us: so that both passages seem to point to each other. The clause 'they were on the earth' can therefore only signify that the Giants named in N.xiii were already at that time on the earth or in the land, i.e. Canaan-the latter being a notice like that about the Canaanites in xii.6, xiii.7. Hence it is only an antiquarian notice or note, such as we often find elsewhere, which betrays itself at once by its abruptness and the loose time-formula 'in those days,' as an awkwardly-inserted later interpolation, which only claims a place here through the additional clause, 'and also after the sons of God had gone in to the daughters of man, and (these) had borne to them,' [or ‘and they had begotten to themselves,' since the verb here is masculine in form; see, however, G.xx.17, xxxi.43]. But this clause also betrays itself as artificially inserted, by its awkwardness and want of any suitable meaning. For, according to this, the Nephilim did not spring only, but merely also, from these marriages, so that they existed already, and were only in this way increased in number. Thus their first origin remains unexplained: rather, if only a portion of them was derived from this union of divine and human beings, and another portion was still older, the whole notice becomes useless and unmeaning. Probably, this is only a consequence of the awkward mode of expression . . . . . In the last clause, 'these are the mighty-men which were of old, the men of renown,' these Giants may, perhaps, be distinguished by the addition of old,' as antediluvian from the postdiluvian, as Nimrod, x.8. But, in any case, the clause cannot in this form be genuine, that is, it cannot have originated from the same source as the preceding matter, and can only be a later gloss, which the Compiler, or a yet later writer, has inserted in the Jehovistic text.

.....

16. We agree with HUPFELD in regarding v.4 as a later insertion in the original J. narrative-the clause, after the sons of Elohim, &c.,' having been merely adopted from v.1,2, and the writer wishing to throw in an antiquarian' notice. this notice appears to be twofold,-(i) that the Nephilim existed in those early times (and here the writer has not considered the consequences of the Deluge); (ii) that, from the offspring of the intercourse here described, sprung-not the Nephilim, but the mighty-men of old,' i. e. Nimrod and others; the writer having here also, apparently, lost sight for the moment of the consequences of the Deluge, which was not so fully before his mind, inasmuch as he himself had not described it.

17. But who was this interpolator? It may have been, as

HUPFELD suggests, the Compiler or some other yet later writer. But we have seen that the hand of the Deuteronomist himself can be distinctly traced through a large portion of the Book of Joshua, and we shall see, as we proceed, similar traces of his hand in the Book of Genesis.

It seems, therefore, not at all improbable that, as suggested in (III.566), the Deuteronomist may have revised the Tetrateuch, as it came into his hands, before writing the Book of Deuteronomy itself:

The writer, who could conceive the grand idea of adding the whole Book of Deuteronomy to the existing roll of the Tetrateuch, would be almost certain, we may well believe, to have first revised the work of the older writers which had come into his hands, and to have inserted passages, here and there, if he saw any reason for so doing, in the original document. The wonder, we repeat, would be, if he did not do this.

According to this view, the Deuteronomist was merely the Editor of the First Four Books of the Pentateuch; whereas BOEHMER recognises a Compiler, who lived in the age of Josiah, but whom he does not identify at all with the Deuteronomist. We are agreed, then, as to the age in which this latest writer of Genesis lived, though not as to the exact character and extent of his work, nor as to his relation to the Deuteronomist. These are points which can only be settled by time, and after close and careful investigation, and a free discussion of the questions raised by such enquiries. But it is quite immaterial to the main issue, whether this latest writer in Genesis was an Editor or a Compiler, whether he was or was not the same as the Deuteronomist.

18. We suppose, then, that the verse before us is a notice of the Deuteronomist, corresponding to those remarkable instances of his habit of antiquarian research into the early history of the inhabitants of Canaan, which we find in the Book of Deuteronomy itself:

'The Emim dwelt therein in times past, a people great and many and tall as the

Anakim, which also were accounted Rephaim (E.V. 'giants') as the Anakim: but the Moabites call them Emim,' D.ii. 10,11;

"The Horim also dwelt in Seir aforetime, but the children of Esau inherited them, when they had destroyed them before them, and dwelt in their stead,' D.ii.12;

'That also was accounted a land of Rephaim; Rephaim dwelt in it aforetime; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people great and many and tall as the Anakim but Jehovah destroyed them before them, and they inherited them and dwelt in their stead,' D.ii.20,21;

'And the Avim, which dwelt in villages unto Gaza, the Caphtorim, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead,' D.ii.23.

The following phenomena may also be noticed:

(i) The 'Rephaim' or Giants are mentioned in D.ii.11,20,20, iii.11,13, Jo.xii.4, xiii.12, xvii.15, xviii.16, and G.xv.20, all, probably, Deuteronomistic passages, and only twice besides in the Bible, G.xiv.5, Is.xvii.5;

(ii) the 'sons of Anak' or ‘Anakim' are named in D.i.28, ii.10,11,21, ix.2, Jo.xi. 21,22, xiv. 12,15, xv.13,14, all, probably, Deut. passages, and only besides in the Bible in N.xiii. 22, 28,33, and Ju.i.20;

(iii), mighty-one,' occurs besides in G.x.8,9,9, D.x.17, Jo.i.14, vi.2, viii.3, x.2,7, all Deut. passages, and nowhere else in the Pentateuch (53.vi);

(iv) 'men of name' occurs only besides in N.xvi.2: but the Deuteronomist uses 'name' in the sense of renown, D.xxvi.19.

19. vi.9-22, Elohist, except v.15,16.

(i) v.9, 'these are the generations of Noah,' (2. iii). *(ii) v.9, in his generations ()';

comp. 'after their (your) generations,' xvii.7,9,12.

(iii) v.9, 'Noah walked with ELOHIM,' as in v.22,24.

*(iv) v.10, in, 'beget,' (10.viii).

(v) v.11,12, would hardly have been written by one who had written v.5–8. (vi) v.11,12, &c. ♫♫y, n', 'corrupt' = destroy, vi.11,12,12,13,17, ix. 11,15, used by E throughout the story of the Flood: J uses, 'wipe-out' (13.ix). *(vii) v.12, and Elohim saw the earth, and behold! it was corrupted';

comp. and Elohim saw all that He had made, and behold! it was very good,' i.31.

*(viii) v.12,13, &c., 'all flesh,' vi.12,13,17,19, vii.15,16,21, viii.17, ix.11,15, 16,16,17.

(ix) v.17, 'îș, ‘I,' vi.17, ix.9,12, xvii.1, xxxv.11, xlviii.7, xlix.29, E.vi.2,5,7 ; E uses only once, xxiii.4, whereas it occurs in the other portions of Genesis fifty times, while is found only thirty times.

(x) v.17, 'all flesh in which is a spirit of life';

comp. 'all in which is a living soul,' i.30.

*(xi) v.17, y'expire,' vi. 17, vii.21, xxv. 8, 17, xxxv.29, xlix.33.

*(xii) v.18, establish a covenant,' vi.18, ix.9,11,17, xvii.7,19,21, E.vi.4;

E has also give a covenant,' (40 xxv), but never cut a covenant,' as always elsewhere in Genesis, xv.18, xxi.27,32, xxvi. 28, xxxi.44.

*(xiii) v.18, ‘my (his) covenant,' vi. 18, ix.9,11,12,13,15,16,17, xvii. 2,4,7,9,10, 13,14,19,21, E.ii.24, vi.4,5.

*(xiv) v.18, 'with (N) thee,' 'with them,' &c. used as a kind of expletive, vi.18,19, vii.7,13, viii. 16,17,17,18, ix.8,10,10, xi.31, xvii.27, xxi.2, xxviii.4, xlvi.6,7,7. *(xv) v.18, thou and thy sons and thy wife and thy sons' wives with thee,' viii.16; comp. Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him,' vii.7; 'Noah, and Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons, and Noah's wife, and his sons' three wives with them,' vii.13;

'Jacob and all his seed with him, his sons and his sons' sons with him, his daughters and his sons' daughters and all his seed,' xlvi.6,7. J has thou and thy sons and thy sons' sons,' xlv.10; but he nowhere uses the characteristic with him' of the Elohist.

*(xvi) v.19, 'every thing living out of all flesh';

comp. 'every living-thing. out of all flesh,' viii.17;

...

'every living soul among all flesh,' ix. 15,16.

(xvii) v.19, 'male and female,' as in i.27, v.2: also J (vii.3).

*(xviii) v.20,20,20, 'after his kind,' (1.i).

*(xix) v.20, 'all creeping-things of the ground,' (1.vi).

*(xx) v.21, 2, 'food,' (1.viii).

20. vi.15,16, Jehovist.

Both HUPFELD and BOEHMER give this whole section, v.9 -22, to E. But in (IV.47) I have given my reasons for assigning these verses to the Jehovist, as follows:

:

These verses appear to be Jehovistic, since E seems to have completed his directions for the making of the Ark in v.14, 'Make it of cypress-wood, make it in cells, pitch it within and without with pitch,'-after which begins a fresh set of instructions, 'And this is how thou shalt make it, &c.' These last words might be understood to mean, 'This is how thou shalt settle the dimensions of the Ark.' But after this follow the directions for a 'light' and a 'door,' which are thus separated from the other (Elohistic) detail in v.14, 'make it in cells.' Also the preciseness of these instructions in v.15,16, corresponds much more with the style of J than with that of E.

To the above conclusion, I feel obliged still to adhere. There is no part of E, as far as we shall here be able to examine it,-up to E.vi.7,-which corresponds in any respect with the precise directions here given for the length, breadth, and height of the Ark: whereas in E.xxv, &c. we have a series

of very copious directions of the very same kind, which must, it would seem, have come from the same author as G.vi.15,16. 21. Prof. HUPFELD, indeed, writes to me :

The fact of vi.15,16 being Elohistic is supported by the analogy of E.xxv, &c. But this assumes that E.xxv, &c. is certainly Elohistic, which appears to me at present exceedingly doubtful. And, indeed, when we consider the extreme brevity of the E notices in the first nineteen chapters of Exodus,--as shown by Prof. HUPFELD'S own list, agreeing substantially with our own, quoted in chap.ii -it must seem strange that this writer should have suddenly launched out into such very full descriptions of the Tabernacle, and its appurtenances. But this must seem still more surprising and improbable, when it is observed that throughout the whole Book of Genesis he makes not the least allusion to any formal priests, altars, or sacrifices.

For the present, therefore, at all events-and until the whole Book of Exodus has been submitted to a close critical examination, such as HUPFELD and BоEHMER have applied to the Book of Genesis, we must rather suppose that E.xxv, &c., and therefore also G.vi.15,16, do not belong to the Elohist. This view seems to be confirmed to some extent by the arguments above alleged, as well as by the circumstance that the only notice of the door' and the window,' which are introduced in v.16, occurs in vii.16, viii.6, both Jehovistic passages; and possibly the obscure direction in v.16, 'in a cubit shalt thou finish it upward,' may refer to the covering of the Ark,' which J again makes Noah remove in viii.13. It may be noted also that, 'place,' which is used in vi.16, occurs nowhere in E, (unless it be in this passage,) but forty-six times in the rest of Genesis. See also (32.vii) below.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »