luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezk.
318f. 16. 18); but in Ezk. 2813 it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine
being. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Gn. 2 f.;
but the imagery of Ezk. 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of
which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive
Semitic (and (
Hebrew characters) is common to all the leading dialects), it may originate in
the sacred grove (Hima) "where water and verdure are united, where
the fruits of the sacred trees are taboo, and the wild animals are 'anīs,
i.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened
away" (We. Prol.6 3032; cf. Heid. 141; Barton, SO1, 96). In early times
such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or supernatural
beings (RS2, 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth,
and the facts pointed out on p. 93 f. below, it is plain that the conception
has been enriched by material from different quarters, and had passed
through a mythological phase before it came into the hands of the
biblical writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and
mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the religious
literature (see ATLO2, 195 ff.).
9. all sorts of trees . . . food] The primitive vegetation
is conceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit
man was to subsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of
the curse pronounced on the ground (317f.).—and the tree of life (was) in the midst] On Bu.'s strictures on the form of the
sentence, v.i. The intricate question of the two trees must
be reserved for separate discussion (pp. 52 f., 94); for the
present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree
stood here by all Vns. except G (V in principio, etc.).—9. (Hebrew characters)] G-K.
§ 127 b.—(Hebrew characters)] The use of art. with inf. const. is very rare (Dav. § 19), but
is explained by the frequent use of (Hebrew characters) as abstr. noun. Otherwise the
construction is regular, (Hebrew characters) being acc., not gen. of obj.—Budde
(Urg. 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound obj. by the
secondary pred. (Hebrew characters), and thinks the original text must have been
(Hebrew characters); thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the
primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge
(p. 52; so Ba. Ho. Gu. al.). In view of the instances examined by Dri.
in Hebraica, ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be
sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead to the
excision of the second member rather than of the first (Kuen. ThT, 1884,
136; v. Doorninck, ib., 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, ib. 494 ff.). A more important
point is the absence of (Hebrew characters) before the def. obj. The writer's use
of this part, is very discriminating; and its omission suggests that 9b is
really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in
analysis of sources, we might put 9b (in whole or in part) after 8a, and
assign it to that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly
spoke of a tree of life (322).
