Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/276

This page needs to be proofread.

and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding vv.^1-7 as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by P. If that be the case, it is probable that these vv. were inserted by the priestly author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic (Hebrew characters) those elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding on mankind.—On the conception of the (Hebrew characters) in J and P, see chs. 15 and 17.

28, 29. The death of Noah.

The form of these vv. is exactly that of the genealogy, ch. 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of the (Hebrew characters) (6⁹). How much was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P's narrative of the Flood (so that (Hebrew characters) is practically equivalent to 'biography'), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6¹⁰? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6^{9. 10} 7⁶ 9^{28. 29} formed a section of the original book of (Hebrew characters), and that into this skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the priestly writers (see the notes on 2^4a). The relation of the assumed genealogy to that of ch. 5 would be precisely that of the (Hebrew characters) of Terah (11^27ff.) to the (Hebrew characters) of Shem (11^10-26). In each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5³² 6¹⁰); and, finally, the second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices. It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham belongs to the (Hebrew characters) of Terah; that is the accepted view, and the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on p. 40 f. Fortunately the question is of no great importance.

The Deluge Tradition.

1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories, and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly historical character of the latter.^[1]

29. (Hebrew characters), Heb. MSS (London Polyglott) and [E] (Hebrew characters).*

↑ Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet, 1891), who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories (of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine, and twenty-six as influenced by the Bab.) points out, e.g., that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous and remarkable instances come from the American continent (p. 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be considered as closed: Naville (PSBA, 1904, 251-257, 287-294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian

[p276-1] Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet, 1891), who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories (of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine, and twenty-six as influenced by the Bab.) points out, e.g., that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous and remarkable instances come from the American continent (p. 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be considered as closed: Naville (PSBA, 1904, 251-257, 287-294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian

[1]