Chapter V (3)

=17‒22. The purpose of the ark.=――Gunkel thinks that verse ¹⁷ commences a second communication to Noah; and that in the source from which Priestly-Code drew, the construction of the ark was recorded before its purpose was revealed (as in the parallel account of Yahwist: see on 7¹). That, of course, is possible; but that Priestly-Code slurred over the proof of Noah’s faith because he had no interest in _personal_ religion can hardly be supposed. There is really nothing to suggest that ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ are not the continuation of ¹³⁻¹⁶.――=17.= _Behold I am about to bring the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל: see above on 7⁷ (Yahwist), and in the Note below.――=18.= _I will establish my covenant, etc._] anticipating 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Delitzsch and Gunkel distinguish the two covenants, taking that here referred to as a special pledge to Noah of safety in the coming judgement; but that is contrary to the usage of Priestly-Code, to whom the בְּרִית is always a solemn and permanent embodiment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision (Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 197 f.). The entering of the ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled by Noah _under_ the covenant, but the condition which makes the establishment of the promised covenant possible (Holzinger).――_Thou and thy sons, etc._] The enumeration is never omitted by Priestly-Code except in 8¹; compare 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸: contrast Yahwist in 7¹.――=19 f.= One pair of each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean kinds belongs on the theory of Priestly-Code to a later dispensation――=20.= The classification (which is repeated with slight variations in 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹ 9² ᶠᐧ ¹⁰) here omits wild beasts (חַיָּה): _v.i._ on verse ¹⁹.――יָבֹאוּ does not necessarily imply that the animals came of themselves (Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.), any more than תָּבִיא (verse ¹⁹) necessarily means that Noah had to catch them.――=21.= _all food which is_ (or _may be_) _eaten_] according to the prescriptions of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=22.= _so did he_] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare especially Exodus 40¹⁶ (also Exodus 7⁶ 12²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ 39³²ᐧ ⁴² ᶠᐧ, Numbers 1⁵⁴, and often).

* * * * *

=17.= ואני הנני] compare Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi.
226.――המבול מַיִם (compare 7⁶)] The מים is certainly superfluous
grammatically, but על־הארץ is necessary to the completeness
of the sentence. LXX omits מים in 7⁶, and inserts it in
9¹¹ᵇ (Priestly-Code). Whether it be an explanatory gloss of
the unfamiliar מבול (so most), or a peculiar case of nominal
apposition (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in
Hebrew_ § 188), it is difficult to decide: on the idea that it
is meant to distinguish the water-flood from the light-flood,
see above, page 154. The pointing מִיָּם (Michaelis al.) is
objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, Priestly-Code
never speaks of the Flood as coming ‘from the sea.’ Yahwist’s
phrase is מי המבול: 7⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; compare 9¹¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code).――לְשֶׂחֵת]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, לשחית; but elision
of ה in Hiphil is unusual: some Samaritan MSS have לחשחית
(Ball).――יִגְוַע] ‘expire,’――peculiar to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch.
(compare 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49³³,――12 total in all); elsewhere
only in poetry (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
341).――=19.= הָחַי] (on anomalous pointing of article, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 35 _f_ (1)). _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ reads החיה as in 8¹⁷; and so LXX, which takes
the word in the limited sense of wild animals, reading [καὶ ἀπὸ
πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν] καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων
τῶν θηρίων] (see 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹).――שׁנים] LXX, Peshiṭtå שנים שנים as
in 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁵. So also verse ²⁰.――=20.= מכל־רמש] Inserted וְ with _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; the וְ is necessary to the sense.――LXX has כל
before each class, but Massoretic Text rightly confines it to
the heterogeneous רמש (Holzinger). For רמש האדמה, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have אשר רמש על הא׳.――=21.= לאכלה]
see on 1²⁹.――=22.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.

* * * * *

=VII. 6, 11, 13‒17a. Commencement of the Flood.=――These verses (omitting ¹⁶ᵇ [Yahwist]) appear to form an uninterrupted section of the Priestly narrative, following immediately on 6²².――=6.= Date of the Flood by the year of Noah’s life. The number 600 is a Babylonian _ner_; it has been thought that the statement rests ultimately on a Babylonian tradition.――=11.= This remarkably precise date introduces a sort of diary of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see below, page 167 f. Verse ⁶, though consistent with ¹¹, is certainly rendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that we have here to do with a fusion of authorities within the Priestly tradition (page 168).――_the fountains of the Great Deep_] (תְּהוֹם רַבָּה: see on 1²). Outbursts of subterranean water are a frequent accompaniment of seismic disturbances in the alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31‒33); and a knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the feature here expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas, however, it is conceived as an eruption of the subterranean ocean on which the earth was believed to rest (see page 17). At the same time _the windows of heaven were opened_] allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean to mingle with the lower. The Flood is thus a partial undoing of the work of creation; although we cannot be certain that the Hebrew writer looked on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose cosmological conception with the simple representation of Yahwist, who sees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive rain.

Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and
structure of ¹¹ᵇ: note the phrase תהום רבה (Amos 7⁴, Isaiah 51¹⁰,
Psalms 36⁷), and the _parallelismus membrorum_. He considers the
words a fragment of an older version of the legend which (like
the Babylonian) was written in poetry. A similar fragment is
found in 8².

* * * * *

=6.= On the syntax of the time-relation, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 164 _a_.――מַיִם] see 6¹⁷.――=11.= בשנת――שנה] ‘in the year of 600
years’; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _o_.――For ‘17th day’
LXX has ‘27th’; see page 167 below.――אֲרֻבֹּת השמים] 8², Malachi 3¹⁰,
= א׳ בשמים, 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹ = מִמָּרוֹם, Isaiah 24¹⁸. Apart from these
phrases the word א׳ is rare, and denotes a latticed opening,
Hosea 13³, Isaiah 60⁸, Ecclesiastes 12³. Here it can only
mean ‘sluices’; the καταράκται of LXX “unites the senses of
waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices” (Delitzsch).

* * * * *

=13.= _On that very day_] continuing verse ¹¹. The idea that all the animals entered the ark on one day (Yahwist allows a week) has been instanced as an example of Priestly-Code’s love of the marvellous (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=14‒16.= See on 6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=17a.= _the Flood came upon the earth_] as a result of the upheaval, verse ¹¹.――The words _forty days_ are a gloss based on 7⁴ᐧ ¹² (_v.i._); the Redactor treating Yahwist’s forty days as an episode in the longer chronology: see on verse ¹² (Yahwist).

* * * * *

=13.= בעצם היום הזה] 17²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 12¹⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ᐧ ⁵¹, Leviticus
23¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁸, Joshua 5¹¹ (all
Priestly-Code); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_
346.――שְׁלשֶׁת] irregular gender: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 97 _c_.――אִתָּם]
Better as LXX, Peshiṭtå אִתּוֹ (8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸).――=14.= הַחַיָּה] distinguishing
wild beasts from domestic (compare verse ²¹); see on 6¹⁹.――כל צפור
וגו׳] LXX omitted. Compare Ezekiel 17²³ 39⁴.――=17a.= ארבעים יום] Budde
(264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of the
gloss ([ארבע]מים) represent the genuine מַיִם of Priestly-Code (6¹⁷
7⁶). LXX adds וארבעים לילה. The half-verse cannot be assigned to
Yahwist, because it would be a mere repetition of verse ¹².

* * * * *

=18‒21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.=――While Yahwist confines himself to what is essential――the extinction of life――and leaves the universality of the Flood to be inferred, Priestly-Code not only asserts its universality, but so to speak proves it, by giving the exact height of the waters above the highest mountains.――=18, 19.= _prevailed_] גָּבַר, literally ‘be strong’ (LXX ἐπεκράτει, Aquila ἐνεδυναμώθη). The Flood is conceived as a contest between the water and the dry land.――=20.= _fifteen cubits_] is just half the depth of the ark. The statement is commonly explained in the light of 8⁴: when the Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its depth, and therefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was just over one of the highest mountains; so that on the very slightest abatement of the water it grounded! The explanation is plausible enough (on the assumption that 8⁴ belongs to Priestly-Code); but it is quite as likely that the choice of the number is purely arbitrary.――=24.= _150 days_] the period of ‘prevalence’ of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (verse ¹¹): see page 168.

* * * * *

=19.= וַיְכֻסּוּ] LXX וַיְכַסּוּ, with מַיִם as subject (better). So verse
²⁰.――=20.= גָּבְרוּ] LXX גָּבְהוּ (ὑψώθη), is preferable to Massoretic Text
(compare Psalms 103¹¹).――הֶהָרִים] LXX (and Peshiṭtå) add τὰ ὑψηλά as
in ¹⁹.――=21.= וכל האדם] here distinguished from כל־בשר.

* * * * *

=VIII. 1, 2a, 3b‒5, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.=――The judgement being complete, God remembers the survivors in mercy. The Flood has no sooner reached its maximum than it begins to abate (³ᵇ), and the successive stages of the subsidence are chronicled with the precision of a calendar.――=1.= _remembered_] in mercy, as 19²⁹ 30²² etc. The inclusion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a touch of nature in Priestly-Code which should not be overlooked.――=1b.= The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest of the cause of the Deluge (²ᵃ). It is said in defence of the present order that the sending of the wind and the stopping of the elemental waters are regarded as simultaneous (Dillmann); but that does not quite meet the difficulty. See, further, page 155 above.――=3b.= _at the end of the 150 days_] (7²⁴). See the footnote.――=4.= The resting of the ark.――_on (one of) the mountains of ’Ărārāṭ_] which are probably named as the highest known to the Hebrews at the time of writing; just as one form of the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek, Parnassus. Araraṭ (Assyrian _Urarṭu_) is the North-east part of Armenia; compare 2 Kings 19³⁷ = Isaiah 37³⁸, Jeremiah 51²⁷. The name _Mount_ Araraṭ, traditionally applied to the highest peak (Massis, Agridagh: _c._ 17, 000 feet) of the Armenian mountains, rests on a misunderstanding of this passage.

The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully
discussed by Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² ii. 1 ff.:
compare Tuch 133‒136; Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des
Alte Testament_ 145 ff.――The district called Araraṭ or Urarṭu
is properly that named in Armenian _Ayrarat_, and is probably
identical with the country of the Alarodians of Herodotus iii.
94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying North-east of
Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on
the right (South-west) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.¹
Another tradition, represented by Berossus (page 177 below) and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ Peshiṭtå קַרְדּוּ², locates the mountain in Kurdistan,
viz. at Ǧebel Ǧûdî, which is a striking mountain South-west of
Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain.
This view is adopted in the Koran (Surah xi. 46), and has
become traditional among the Moslems.――The ‘mountain of Niṣir’
of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably
in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next
tributary to the South, the Adhem (Radânu) (Streck, _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, xv. 272). Tiele and Kosters, however
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 289), identify it with Elburz, the
sacred mountain of the Iranians (South of the Caspian Sea); and
find a trace of this name in the μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Ἀρμενίαν
Βάρις λεγόμενον indicated as the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus
Damascenus (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 95).――What
the original Hebrew tradition was, it is impossible to say. The
writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the
Babylonian, Araraṭ being here a corruption of _Hara haraiti_
(the ancient Iranian name of Elburz), which was afterwards
confused with the land of Urarṭu. Nöldeke and Holzinger think
it probable that Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ and Peshiṭtå preserve the oldest
name (Ḳardu), and that Araraṭ is a correction made when it was
discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher
than those of Kurdistan.

¹ “Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes
fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui
usque illuc extenditur.” Jerome on Isaiah 37³⁸.

² Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has both קרדוניא and ארמניא, as has Berossus.

* * * * *

=1.= The addition of LXX καὶ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ παντῶν
τῶν ἑρπετῶν is here very much in place.――וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ] The √ is rare
and late: Numbers 17²⁰ (Priestly-Code), Jeremiah 5²⁶, Esther 2¹
7¹⁰.――=3b.= מקצה חמשים] Read מקץ החמשים (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel).
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ מקץ ח׳.――=4.= For 17th
LXX has 27th (7¹¹).

* * * * *

=5.= _the tops of the mountains_] _i.e._ (as usually explained) the other (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation would be that the statement is made absolutely, from the viewpoint of an imaginary spectator; in which case it is irreconcilable with verse ⁴ (compare Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 16 f.).――=13a, 14.= On New Year’s day the earth’s surface was uncovered, though still moist; but not till the 27th of the 2nd month was it _dry_ (_arefacta_: compare Jeremiah 50³⁸).

* * * * *

=5.= היו הלוך וחסור] ‘went on decreasing’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §
113 _u_); less idiomatic than ³ᵃ (Yahwist).――_Tenth_] LXX
_eleventh_.――=13a.= After שנה LXX adds לחיי נח (7¹¹).

* * * * *

=15‒19. Exit from the ark: blessing on the animals.=――=17b.= A renewal of the benediction of 1²², which had been forfeited by the excesses before the Flood. The corresponding blessing on man is reserved for 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=19.= The animals leave the ark _according to their families_,――an example of Priestly-Code’s love of order.

The _Chronology of the Flood_ presents a number of intricate
though unimportant problems.――The Dates, according to Massoretic
Text and LXX,¹ are as follows:

1. Commencement of Flood, 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day
(LXX 27th)

2. Climax (resting of ark), 600th year, 7th month, 17th day
(LXX 27th)

3. Mountain tops visible, 600th year, 10th (LXX 11th) month,
1st day

4. Waters dried up 601st year, 1st month, 1st day

5. Earth dry 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day

¹ _Jubilees_ v. 23‒32 (compare vi. 25 f.) adds several dates,
but otherwise agrees with Massoretic Text, except that it
makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives no date for the
resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on the
17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd
month.

The chief points are these: (a) In LXX the duration of the Flood
is exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and
(2) amount to 150 days (7²⁴ 8³), the basis of reckoning is
presumably the Egyptian _solar_ year (12 months of 30 days + 5
intercalated days). The 2 months’ interval between (3) and (4)
also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days of 8⁶⁻¹² (Yahwist).
In Massoretic Text the total duration is 12 months + 10 days;
hence the reckoning appears to be by _lunar_ months of _c._ 29½
days, making up a solar year of 364 days.¹――(b) The Massoretic
scheme, however, produces a discrepancy with the 150 days; for
5 lunar months fall short of that period by two or three days.
Either the original reckoning was by solar months (as in LXX),
or (what is more probable) the 150 days belong to an older
computation independent of the Calendar.² It has been surmised
that this points to a 10 months’ duration of the Flood (150
days’ increase + 150 days’ subsidence); and (Ewald, Dillmann)
that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days’ interval
between (2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the
period of subsidence.――(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar
no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The only date
that bears its significance on its face is the disappearance of
the waters on the 1st day of the year; and even this is confused
by the trivial and irrelevant distinction between the drying up
of the waters and the drying of the earth. Why the Flood began
and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or 27th day, remains,
in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.³ (d) The question
whether the months are counted from the old Hebrew New Year
in the autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian)
calendar, from the spring, has been discussed from the earliest
times, and generally decided in favour of the former view
(_Jubilees_, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 80,
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, and most).⁴ The arguments on one side
or the other have little weight. If the second autumn month
(Marchešwan) is a suitable time for the commencement of the
Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season in Palestine
and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuitable
for its close. Priestly-Code elsewhere follows the Babylonian
calendar, and there is no reason to suppose he departs from
his usual procedure here (so Tuch, Gunkel, al.).――(e) The only
issue of real interest is how much of the chronology is to
be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there be two
discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the
reckoning of Priestly-Code, and the Calendar a later adjustment
(Dillmann); or, again, the 150 days might be traditional, and
the Calendar the work of Priestly-Code himself (Gunkel). On
the former (the more probable) assumption the further question
arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The evidence is not
decisive; but the divergences of LXX from Massoretic Text seem
to prove that the chronology was still in process of development
after the formation of the Canon.――See Dahse, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is
shewn that a group of Greek MSS agree closely with _Jubilees_,
and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning
was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the
2nd month.

¹ So _Jubilees_ vi. 32. Compare Charles’s Notes, pages 54 f.
and 56 f.

² That it is a later redactional addition (Holzinger) is much
less likely.

³ King (_The Journal of Theological Studies_, v. 204 f.) points
out the probability that in the triennial cycle of Synagogue
readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story fell to be
read _about_ the 17th Iyyar. This might conceivably have
suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it
would bring down the latter to a somewhat late period), or
a modification of an original 27th (LXX), which, however,
would itself require explanation.

⁴ See Delitzsch 175 f., 183, 184; Dillmann 129 f.

* * * * *

=15.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――=17.= _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְכל־החיה; so verse ¹⁹.――הוצא]
Why Qrê substitutes in this solitary instance הַיְצֵא is not clear:
see König i. page 641.――וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ] LXX וּפְרוּ וּרְבוּ (Improved), omitting
the previous ושרצו בארץ. This is perhaps the better text: see on
9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Vulgate reads the whole as Improved.――=19.= כל־הרמש――רמש]
LXX (better) וכל־הבהמה וכל־העוף וכל הרֶפֶשׂ הרֹמֵשׂ.――למשפחתיהם] (Jeremiah 15³);
the plural of מין (Priestly-Code’s word in chapter 1) is not in
use (Holzinger).

* * * * *

=IX. 1‒7. The new world-order.=――The religious significance of the Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the following sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal age of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The original harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter were prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the Flood (see on 6¹¹ ᶠᐧ). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in which the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only two restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the degenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the ‘life’ of an animal, and (2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast.

The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of
the passage when they formulated the idea of the ‘Noachic
commandments,’ binding on men generally, and therefore required
of the ‘proselytes of the gate’; though they increased their
number. See Schürer, iii. 128 f.

Verses ¹⁻⁷, both in substance and expression (compare לכם יהיה לאכלה,
נתתי לכם את־כל, and especially ירק עשב), form a pendant to 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ We
have seen (page 35) that these verses are supplementary to the
cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in
relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be
an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel
(as verses ⁸⁻¹⁶ have) in Yahwist or the Babylonian narrative
(Gunkel). But that neither this nor 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ is a secondary addition
to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is
moulded as obviously on 1²²ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ as on 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. To treat 9⁴⁻⁶
as a later insertion (Holzinger) is arbitrary. On the contrary,
the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of
Priestly-Code to the ancient traditions.

=1.= An almost verbal repetition of 1²⁸. The wives of Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the Old Testament (so verse ⁸). It is perhaps also significant that here (in contrast to 1²²) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant――verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=2.= Man’s ‘dominion’ over the animals is re-established, but now in the form of _fear_ and _dread_ (compare Deuteronomy 11²⁵) towards him on their part.――_into your hand they are given_] conveying the power of life and death (Leviticus 26²⁵, Deuteronomy 19¹² etc.).――=3.= The central injunction: removal of the prohibition of animal food.――_moving thing that is alive_] an unusually vague definition of animal life.――Observe Priestly-Code’s resolute ignoring of the distinction between clean and unclean animals.――=4.= The first restriction. Abstention from eating blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained, is a fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Leviticus 7²⁷ 17¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 33²⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). The theory on which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 17¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴, Deuteronomy 12²³): the blood is the life, and the life is sacred, and must be restored to God before the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic views of the blood are primitive and widespread; and amongst some races formed a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.¹ All the same it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for the ancient Hebrew horror of eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14³² ᶠᶠᐧ²).――=5, 6.= The second restriction: sanctity of human life. ‘Life’ is expressed alternately by דָּם and נֶפֶשׁ.――On לנפשתיכם, _v.i._――_I will require_] exact an account of, or equivalent for (42²², Ezekiel 33⁶, Psalms 9¹³ etc.). That God is the avenger of blood is to Yahwist (chapter 4) a truth of nature; to Priestly-Code it rests on a positive enactment.――_from the hand of every beast_] see Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――=6a= is remarkable for its assonances and the perfect symmetry of the two members: שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם | בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ. It is possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become proverbial (Gunkel). The ♦Targum (_v.i._) read into the text the idea of judicial procedure; others (Tuch, al.) suppose the law of blood-revenge to be contemplated. In reality the manner of execution is left quite indefinite.――=6b.= The reason for the higher value set on the life of man. On the _image of God_ see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ.――=7.= The section closes, as it began, with the note of benediction.

¹ See _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 234 f.;
Frazer, _The Golden Bough_², i. 133 f., 352 f.; Kennedy,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1544.

² It has been thought that the offence warned against is the
barbarous African custom of eating portions of animals still
alive (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, Delitzsch, al.); but that is a
mistake.

♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed

* * * * *

=1.= LXX adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1²⁸.――=2.=
בכל――ובכל] LXX, Peshiṭtå ובכל (_bis_). The בְּ cannot be that of
specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶ etc.), since no comprehensive
category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing
the sense of על (LXX), and not altogether natural to render
‘along with’ (Dillmann).――נִתָּנוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ LXX נְתַתִּיו:――=3.= נתתי לכם את־כל] seems a slavish repetition
from 1²⁹. We should at least expect the article, which _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (הכל) supplies.――=4.=
דמו is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to בנפשו; but
LXX renders ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς, and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase),
Symmachus (οὗ σὺν ψυχῇ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) as a relative clause.――=5.=
ואך is suspicious after the preceding אך. _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (ואת־דמכם) omits.――לנפשתיכם] usually taken as
circumscription of genitive, emphasising the suffix: ‘_your_
blood, your own’――in contrast with the animals. It is better to
render ‘according to your persons,’ _i.e._ individually;――“dem
eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive Fassung des ל doch
am besten” (Delitzsch).――מיד איש אחיו] ‘from the hand of one man
that of another.’ The full expression would be מיד איש את־נפש אחיו
(Olshausen); but all languages use breviloquence in the
expression of reciprocity. The construction is hardly more
difficult than in 15¹⁰ 42²⁵ᐧ ³⁵; and an exact parallel occurs
in Zechariah 7¹⁰. See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 _c_; Budde 283 ff.
The ואחיו of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå,
Vulgate makes nonsense; LXX omits the previous ומיד האדם. It would
be better to move the Athnach so as to commence a new clause
with מיד איש.――=6.= באדם] Vulgate omitted; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בסהדין ממימר דיניא:
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ is still more explicit.――=7.= ורבו בה] Vulgate _et
implete eam_ (as verse ¹). Read ורדו בה after 1²⁸ (Nestle in Ball).

* * * * *

=8‒17. The Covenant and its Sign.=――In Priestly-Code as in Yahwist (8²⁰⁻²²) the story of the Flood closes with an assurance that the world shall never again be visited by such a catastrophe; and in both the promise is absolute, not contingent on the behaviour of the creatures. In Priestly-Code it takes the form of a covenant between God and all flesh,――the first of two covenants by which (according to this writer) the relations of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the content and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the concluding note, page 173 f.――=9.= _establish my covenant_] in fulfilment of 6¹⁸. Priestly-Code’s formula for the inauguration of the covenant is always הֵקִים בְּרִית or נָתַן בּ׳ (17², Numbers 25¹²) instead of the more ancient and technical כָּרַת בּ׳.――=11.= The essence of the covenant is that the earth shall never be devastated by a Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted by this assurance is a difficult question, on which see page 173 below.――=12‒17.= The sign of the covenant. “In times when contracts were not reduced to writing, it was customary, on the occasion of solemn vows, promises, and other ‘covenant’ transactions, to appoint a sign, that the parties might at the proper time be reminded of the covenant, and a breach of its observance be averted. Examples in common life: Genesis 21³⁰, compare 38¹⁷ ᶠᐧ” (Gunkel).¹ Here the sign is a natural phenomenon――the rainbow; and the question is naturally asked whether the rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch). That is the most obvious assumption, though not perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and reflection of light on which the rainbow depends actually existed before the time of Noah is a matter of which the writer may very well have been ignorant.――For the rest, the image hardly appears here in its original form. The brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark background of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man as a token of peace and good-will from the god who has placed it there; but of this thought the passage contains no trace: the bow is set in the cloud by God to remind Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as if Priestly-Code, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive conception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his abstract theory of the covenant with its accompanying sign. On the mythological origin of the symbol, see below.――=14‒16.= Explanation of the sign.――¹⁴ᵇ continues ¹⁴ᵃ: _and (when) the bow appears in the cloud_; the apodosis commencing with ¹⁵ (against Delitzsch).――The bow seems conceived as lodged once for all in the cloud (so Abraham Ibn Ezra), to appear at the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of God.――=16.= _an everlasting covenant_] so 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹, Exodus 31¹⁶, Leviticus 24⁸, Numbers 18¹⁹ 25¹³ (all Priestly-Code).

¹ Hence both of Priestly-Code’s covenants are confirmed by a
sign: the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by
the rainbow.

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” (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 311); by Homer it was
personified as Ἶρις, the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(_Iliad_ ii. 786, iii. 121; compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ 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 Babylonian Creation-myth, where Marduk’s bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a
constellation. (See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 248; Dillmann 155 f.; Gunkel 138 f.; Driver
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 (compare Habakkuk 3⁹⁻¹¹, Psalms 7¹³ ᶠᐧ)
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 Old
Testament (Ezekiel 1²⁸ הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם: but see Sirach
43¹¹ ᶠᐧ 50⁷), and it is pointed out (by Wellhausen, al.) that
elsewhere קֶשֶׁת 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
verses 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, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 3 f.). Verses ¹⁻⁷
and ⁸⁻¹⁷ are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of
different origin (page 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 Priestly-Code, to whom the ברית means so much,
should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of
verse ¹¹. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ברית 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 Isaiah 24⁵ ᶠᐧ). Kraetzschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten
Testament_ 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition
that the idea of verses ⁸⁻¹⁷ is borrowed by Priestly-Code from
Yahwist, 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; and we
have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding
verses ¹⁻⁷ as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed
by Priestly-Code. If that be the case, it is probable that
these verses were inserted by the priestly author with the
intention of bringing under the Noachic ברית those elementary
religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding
on mankind.――On the conception of the ברית in Yahwist and
Priestly-Code, see chapters 15 and 17.

* * * * *

=10.= מכל] ‘as many as’; see on 6².――לכל חית הארץ] LXX omitted.――לְכל]
perhaps = ‘in short’: compare 23¹⁰, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §
143 _e_. The sense of ח׳ ה׳ = ‘animals’ in general, immediately
after the same expression in the sense of ‘wild animals,’ makes
the phrase suspicious (Holzinger).――=11.= מבול] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ המבול; LXX adds מַיִם.――לשחת] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ להשחית; so verse ¹⁵.――=12.=
אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + (with Peshiṭtå) אל־נח.――=13.= נתתי] hardly
historic perfect (‘I have set’), but either perfect of instant
action (‘I do set’), or perfect of certainty (‘I will set’); see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_, _m_, _n_.――=14.= בענני ענן] literally
‘when I cloud with cloud’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 52 _d_ and
117 _r_.――הקשת] LXX, Vulgate קשתי; so LXX in verse ¹⁶.――=15.=
חיה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå החיה
אשר אתכם (compare verse ¹²).――=16.= לִזְכֹּר Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
לְזֵכֶר.――בין אלהים] LXX ביני.

* * * * *

=28, 29. The death of Noah.=

The form of these verses is exactly that of the genealogy,
chapter 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of
the תולדת נח (6⁹). How much was included under that rubric? Does
it cover the whole of Priestly-Code’s narrative of the Flood (so
that תולדת 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 6⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 7⁶ 9²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ formed a
section of the original book of תולדת, and that into this skeleton
the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the
priestly writers (see the notes on 2⁴ᵃ). The relation of the
assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that
of the תולדת of Terah (11²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) to the תולדת of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶). 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 תולדת of Terah; that is the accepted view, and
the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on page 40 f.
Fortunately the question is of no great importance.

* * * * *

=29.= ויהי, Hebrew MSS (London Polyglott) and _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהיו.

* * * * *

_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 On the question of the
universality of the Deluge² they have, of course, no immediate
bearing, though they frequently assert it; for it could never
be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote
part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The
utmost that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge
coextensive with the primitive seat of mankind; and that the
memory of the cataclysm was carried with them by the various
branches of the race in their dispersion. But even that position,
which is still maintained by some competent writers, is attended
by difficulties which are almost insuperable. The scientific
evidence for the antiquity of man all over the world shows that
such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken place many
thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah; and that
the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time
among savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible.
The most reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here
be followed out in detail) is that the great majority of the
legends preserve the recollection of local catastrophes, such as
inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods accompanied by cyclones,
etc., of which many historical examples are on record; while
in a considerable number of cases these local legends have been
combined with features due either to the diffusion of Babylonian
culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through
Christian missionaries.³ In this note we shall confine our
attention to the group of legends most closely affiliated to
the Babylonian tradition.

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 Babylonian) 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
(page 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be
considered as closed: Naville (_Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology_, 1904, 251‒257, 287‒294) claims to
have found fresh proof of an Egyptian tradition in a text
of the Book of the Dead, containing the following words:
“And further I (the god Tum) am going to deface all I have
done; this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an
inundation, as it was at the beginning” (_l.c._ page 289).

² On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of
such a hypothesis, see Driver 99 f.

³ See Andree, _l.c._ 143 ff.; Suess, _The Face of the Earth_,
i. 18‒72 _passim_ Compare the discussion by Woods in _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 17 ff.; and Driver _The Book
of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 101 ff.――Lenormant,
who once maintained the independence of the legends as
witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed
himself with more reserve, and conceded the possibility that
the Mexican and Polynesian myths might be distant echoes of
a central legend, emanating ultimately from Babylonia (_Les
Origines de l’histoire_² i. 471 f., 488 ff.).

2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is
contained in the eleventh Tablet of the Gilgameš Epic.¹ Gilgameš
has arrived at the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his
ancestor Utnapištim how he had been received into the society
of the gods. The answer is the long and exceedingly graphic
description of the Flood which occupies the bulk of the
Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at Šurippak on
the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send
the Flood (_abûbu_) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at
the council, resolved to save his favourite Utnapištim; and
contrived without overt breach of confidence to convey to him
a warning of the impending danger, commanding him to build a
ship (_elippu_) of definite dimensions for the saving of his
life. The ‘superlatively clever one’ (_Atra-ḥasis_, a name of
Utnapištim) understood the message and promised to obey; and was
furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens
for his extraordinary proceedings. The account of the
building of the ship (line 48 ff.) is even more obscure than
Genesis 6¹⁴⁻¹⁶: it is enough to say that it was divided into
compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen. The lading
of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and dependants
of Utnapištim (including artizans), with domestic and wild
animals, are then described (line 81 ff.); and last of all, in
the evening, on the appearance of a sign predicted by Šamaš the
sun-god, Utnapištim himself enters the ship, shuts his door,
and hands over the command to the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff.).
On the following morning the storm (magnificently described in
lines 97 ff.) broke; and it raged for six days and nights, till
all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to the heaven
of Anu and “cowered in terror like a dog.”

¹ Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of
Asshurbanipal’s library; published 1873‒4; and often
translated since. See _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_², 55 ff.; Jensen _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_,
368 ff.; Zimmern in Gunkel’s _Schöpfung und Chaos in
Urzeit und Endzeit_, 423 ff.; Jensen _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed
below); Ball _Light from the East_, 35 ff.; Jeremias _Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 228 ff.;
and the abridgments in Jastrow _The Religion of Babylonia
and Assyria_¹, 493 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 545 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 50 ff.

“When the seventh day came, the hurricane,
the Flood, the battle-storm was stilled,
Which had fought like a (host?) of men.
The sea became calm, the tempest was still,
the Flood ceased.
When I saw the day, no voice was heard,
And the whole of mankind was turned to clay.
When the daylight came, I prayed,
I opened a window and the light fell on my face,
I knelt, I sat, and wept,
On my nostrils my tears ran down.
I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea;
After twelve double-hours an island stood out.
At Nisir² the ship had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship....”
(line 130‒142).

² See page 166.

This brings us to the incident of the birds (146‒155):

“When the seventh day³ came
I brought out a dove and let it go.
The dove went forth and came back:
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I brought forth a swallow and let it go.
The swallow went forth and came back:
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I brought forth a raven and let it go.
The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters,
It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again.”

³ From the landing.

On this Utnapištim released all the animals; and, leaving the
ship, offered a sacrifice:

“The gods smelt the savour,
The gods smelt the goodly savour
The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer”
(160 ff.).

The deities then begin to quarrel, Ištar and Ea reproaching Bel
for his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately,
and Bel accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of
Utnapištim. Finally, Bel is appeased; and entering the ship
blesses the hero and his wife:

“‘Formerly Utnapištim was a man;
But now shall Utnapištim and his wife be like to us
the gods:
Utnapištim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the
streams.’
Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the
streams they made me dwell” (202 ff.).⁴

⁴ Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend,
in which the hero is regularly named Atra-ḥasis, have also
been deciphered. One of them, being dated in the reign of
Ammizaduga (_circa_ 1980 B.C.), is important as proving that
this recension had been reduced to writing at so early a
time; but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial
to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 288‒291). The other is a
mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea’s instructions
to Atra-ḥasis regarding the building and entering of the
ark, and the latter’s promise to comply (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, 256‒259). See _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 551 f.――The extracts from Berossus
preserved by Eusebius present the Babylonian story in a form
substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgameš Tablets,
though with some important variations in detail. See
Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. (edited by Schoene, columns 19‒24,
32‒34: compare Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii.
501 ff.).

3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient
Babylonian legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat
more obvious in the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly;
but there is enough in the common substratum of the two accounts
to show that the Hebrew tradition as a whole was derived from
Babylonia. Thus both Yahwist and Priestly-Code agree with the
Babylonian story in the general conception of the Flood as a
divine visitation, its universality (so far as the human race is
concerned), the warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and
the final pacification of the deity who had caused the Deluge.
Yahwist agrees with Babylonia in the following particulars: the
entry of the hero into the ark _after_ the premonitory rain;
the shutting of the door; the prominence of the number 7; the
episode of the birds; the sacrifice; and the effect of its
‘savour’ on the gods. Priestly-Code has also its peculiar
correspondences (though some of these may have been in Yahwist
originally): _e.g._ the precise instructions for building the
ark; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Babylonian touch);
the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the
survivors.¹ By the side of this close and marked parallelism,
the material differences on which Nickel (page 185) lays
stress――viz. as to (a) the chronology, (b) the landing-place
of the ark, (c) the _details_ of the sending out of the birds,
(d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Babylonian), and (e) the
name of the hero――sink into insignificance. They are, indeed,
sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between
the Hebrew writers and the Gilgameš Tablets; but they do not
weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known
to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of
the Israelites. And since we have seen (page 177) that the
Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time
usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible
to suppose that the Hebrew oral tradition had preserved an
independent recollection of the historical occurrence which
may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge
tradition.――The _differences_ between the two narratives are
on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis
narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional
traces of a poetic original (8²² in Yahwist, 7¹¹ᵇ 8²ᵃ in
Priestly-Code), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which
appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its
antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the
principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and
pathos of which only a few touches appear in Yahwist, and none
at all in Priestly-Code. The difference here is not wholly due
to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical
writers: it is characteristic of the Hebrew popular tale that it
shuns the ‘fine frenzy’ of the poet, and finds its appropriate
vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In
this we have an additional indication that the story was not
drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from
the lips of the common people; although in Priestly-Code it
has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory
of history peculiar to that document (page lx f.). The most
important divergences are naturally those which spring from
the religion of the Old Testament――its ethical spirit, and its
monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is
but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear
recognition in the hands of the Hebrew writers: the Flood is a
divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved
is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More
pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea.
The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious,
divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer
speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge
in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against
this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one
almighty and righteous God,――a Being capable of anger and pity,
and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings
with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies
the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams
of tradition. Thus in the Babylonian version the fact that
the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of
the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot
explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in Yahwist
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gunkel page 66).
Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is
true, at all events, that the Babylonian parallel serves as a
“measure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel,
which was powerful enough to purify and transform in such a
manner the most uncongenial and repugnant features” of the pagan
myth (_ib._); and, further, that “the Flood-story of Genesis
retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of the
world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this
pædagogic and ethical purpose” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², page 252).

¹ See more fully Driver, page 106.