the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of God.—16. an everlasting covenant] so 177. 13. 19, Ex. 3116, Lv. 248, Nu. 1819 2513 (all P).
The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To
the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his contest
with the demons; among the Arabs "Kuzah shoots arrows from his
bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds" (We. Prol.6 311); by Homer
it was personified as (
Greek characters), the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(Il. ii. 786, iii. 121; cf. Ov. Met. i. 270 f.), but also regarded as a portent
of war and storm (xi. 27 f., xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is
the bridge between heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation
is perhaps found in the Bab. Creation-myth, where Marduk's bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a constellation.
(See Je. ATLO2, 248; Di. 155 f.; Gu. 138 f.; Dri. 99).—These
examples go far to prove a mythological origin of the symbolism
of this passage. It springs from the imagery of the thunderstorm;
the lightnings are Yahwe's arrows; when the storm is over, His bow
(cf. Hab. 39-11, Ps. 713f.) is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign
that His anger is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of
which there are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has
yet been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient, adaptation.
The rainbow is only once again mentioned in OT (Ezk. 128 (Hebrew characters):
but see Sir. 4311f. 507), and it is pointed out (by
We. al.) that elsewhere (Hebrew characters) always denotes the bow as a weapon, never
an arc of a circle.
With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question
theologically is whether it includes the regulations of vv.1-6, or is confined
to the unconditional promise that there shall no more be a flood.
For the latter view there is undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton,
ZATW, xii. 3 f.). Vv.1-7 and 8-17 are certainly distinct addresses, and
possibly of different origin (p. 169); and while the first says nothing
of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipulations.
Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact independent of human
action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning of the author that the
promise stands sure whether the precepts of 1-7 be observed or not.
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that P, to whom the (Hebrew characters)
means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative
assurance of v.11. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the (Hebrew characters)
marks a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and
is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom it is
established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of including the
ordinances of 1-7 in the terms of the covenant (so Is. 245f.). Kraetzschmar
(Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the
idea of vv.8-17 is borrowed by P from J, and represents the notion of
the covenant characteristic of that document. It is much simpler to
recognise the existence of different tendencies within the priestly school;
16. (Hebrew characters) STO (Hebrew characters).—(Hebrew characters)] G (Hebrew characters)
