Chapter X (3)

(3) חֲצַרְמָוֶת (Ἁσαρμωθ)] The modern province of _Ḥaḍramaut_, on
the South coast, East of Yemen. The name appears in Sabæan
inscriptions of 5th and 6th centuries A.D., and is slightly
disguised in the Χατραμωτῖται of Strabo (XVI. iv. 2), the
_Chatramotitæ_ of Pliny, vi. 154 (_Atramitæ_, vi. 155, xii. 52?).

(4) יֶרַח (Ἰαραδ)] uncertain. The attempts at identification
proceed on the appellative sense of the word (= ‘moon’), but are
devoid of plausibility (see Dillmann).

(5) הֲדוֹרָם (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדורם, LXX
Ὁδορρα)] likewise unknown. A place called _Dauram_ close to
Ṣan‛a has been suggested: the name is found in Sabæan (Glaser,
426, 435).

(6) אוּזָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ איזל, LXX
Αἰζηλ)] mentioned by Ezekiel (27¹⁹: read מֵאוּזָל) as a place whence
iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to be the
same as _’Azāl_, which Arabic tradition declares to be the
old name of Ṣan’a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427,
434, etc.) disputes the tradition, and locates ’Ûzāl in the
neighbourhood of Medina.¹

¹ In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is
worthy of attention that the account of Asshurbanipal’s
expedition against the Nabatæans (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three
places, _Ḥurarina_, _Yarki_, and _Azalla_, which could not,
of course, be as far South as Yemen, but might be as far as
the region of Medina. In spite of the phonetic differences,
the resemblance to Hadoram, Yeraḥ, and ’Ûzāl is noteworthy.
See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff.

(7) דִּקְלָה (Δεκλα)] Probably the Arabic and Aramaic word (_daḳal_,
דקלא, (‡ Syriac word)) for ‘date-palm,’ and therefore the name of
some noted palm-bearing oasis ofArabia. Glaser (_Mittheilungen
der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1897, 438) and Hommel
(_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen ar abistisch-semitologischen
Inhalts_, 282 f.) identify it with the Φοινικων of Procopius,
and the modern _Ǧōf es-Sirhān_, 30° North latitude (as far North
as the head of the Red Sea).

(8) עוֹבָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and
1 Chronicles 1²² עֵיבָל, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ Γαιβαλ)] supposed to be the
word _‛Abil_, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser,
427). The name is omitted by many MSS of LXX, also by LXXᴮ in
1 Chronicles 1²² (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,
10), where some Hebrew MSS and Peshiṭtå have עובל.

(9) אֲבִימָאֵל (Ἀβιμεηλ)] apparently a tribal name (= ‘father is God’),
of genuine Sabæan formation (compare אבמעתֿתר, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 18), not
hitherto identified.

(10) שְׁבָא] see on verse ⁷ (page 203). The general connexion
suggests that the Sabæans are already established in Yemen;
although, if ’Ûzāl be as far North as Medina, the inference
is perhaps not quite certain.

(11) אוֹפִר (Οὐφειρ)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing
country (Isaiah 13¹², Psalms 45¹⁰, Job 22²⁴ 28¹⁶, 1 Chronicles
29⁴ [Sirach 7¹⁸]), visited by the ships of Solomon and Hiram,
which brought home not only gold and silver and precious stones,
but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks (1 Kings 9²⁸
10¹¹ᐧ ²²; compare 22⁴⁹). Whether this familiarity with the name
implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be
questioned; but it can hardly be doubted that the author of
the Yahwistic Table believed it to be in Arabia; and although
no name at all resembling Ophir has as yet been discovered in
Arabia, that remains the most probable view (see Glaser,
_Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_, ii. 357‒83).
Of other identifications the most important are: _Abhira_ in
India, East of the mouths of the Indus (Lassen); (2) the Sofala
coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which remains of extensive
gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe in 1871: the
ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native African
origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th century A.D. (see
D. Randall-Maciver, _Mediæval Rhodesia_ [1906]); (3) _Apir_
(originally _Hapir_), an old name for the ruling race in Elam,
and for the coast of the Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Hommel
_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,
236⁴; Hüsing, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 367 ff.;
Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
l. 246). If we could suppose the name transferred to the
opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would
satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree
in particular with Glaser’s localisation. For a discussion of
the various theories, see the excellent summary by Cheyne in
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3513 ff.; Price, _A Dictionary of
the Bible_, iii. 626 ff.; and Driver _The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_² XXVI. f., 131.

(12) חֲוִילָה] see page 202.

(13) יוֹבָב (Ἰωβαβ)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare
the Sabæan name _Yuhaibab_.

The limits (probably from North to South) of the Yoḳṭanite
territory are specified in verse ³⁰; but a satisfactory
explanation is impossible owing to the uncertainty of the
three names mentioned in it (Dillmann).――מֵשָׁא (Μασσηε) has been
supposed to be _Mesene_ ((‡ Syriac word), _Maisān_), within the
Delta of the Euphrates-Tigris (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 823;
Tuch); but the antiquity of this name is not established.
Dillmann, following LXX, reads מַשָּׂא (see on 25¹⁴) in North Arabia.
This as northern limit would just include Diḳlah, if Glaser’s
identification, given above, be correct.――סְפָרָה (Σωφηρα) is
generally acknowledged to be _Ẓafār_ in the South of Arabia.
There were two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen,
North of Aden; the other (now pronounced _’Iṣfār_ or _’Isfār_)
on the coast of Mahra, near Mirbāt. The latter was the capital
of the Himyarite kings (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 968;
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 437; _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is a matter of little
consequence.――הַר הַקֶּדֶם] It is difficult to say whether this is
an apposition to מוֹשָׁבָם (Tuch al.), or a definition of ספר, or is
a continuation of the line beyond ספר. On the first view the
‘mountain’ might be the highlands of central Arabia (_Neǧd_);
the second is recommended by the fact that the _eastern_ Ẓafār
lies at the foot of a high mountain, well adapted to serve as
a landmark. The third view is not assisted by rendering בֹּאֲכָה ‘in
the direction of’ (see on verse ¹⁹); for in any case Ẓafār must
have been the terminus in a southern direction. The commonly
received opinion is that הר הקדם is the name of the Frankincense
Mountain between Ḥaḍramaut and Mahra (see Dillmann).

* * * * *

=26.= Some MSS have חצר־מות, as if = ‘court of death.’

* * * * *

XI. 1‒9.
_The Tower of Babel_
(Yahwist).

A mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of the primitive unity of mankind into separate communities, distinguished and isolated by differences of language. The story reflects at the same time the impression made on Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of Babylonian civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an undivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the existing disunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on the presumptuous impiety which inspired these early manifestations of human genius and enterprise.

Gunkel has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct
but kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (compare יהוה,
♦verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹), and have been blended with remarkable skill.
One has crystallised round the name ‘Babel,’ and its leading
motive is the “confusion” of tongues; the other around the
memory of some ruined tower, which tradition connected with
the “dispersion” of the race. Gunkel’s division will be best
exhibited by the following continuous translations:

♦ removed duplicate “9”

A. The Babel-Recension: (¹) _And B. The Tower-Recension: ... (²)
it was, when all the earth had _And when they broke up from
one speech and one vocabulary,_ the East, they found a plain in
(³ᵃ) _that they said to one the land of Shin‛ar, and settled
another, Come! Let us make there._ [And they said, Let us
bricks and burn them thoroughly._ build] (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _a tower, with
(⁴ᵃ{α, γ}) _And they said, Come! its top reaching to heaven, lest
Let us build us a city, and make we disperse over the face of
ourselves a name._ (⁶ᵃ{α}) _And the whole earth._ (³ᵇ) _And they
Yahwe said, Behold it is one had brick for stone and asphalt
people, and all of one language._ for mortar._ (⁵) _And Yahwe came
(⁷) _Come! Let us go down and down to see the tower which the
confound there their language, sons of men had built._ [And
so that they may not understand He said ...] (⁶ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _and this
one another’s speech,_ (⁸ᵇ) _and is but the beginning of their
that they may cease to build the enterprise; and now nothing
city._ (⁹ᵃ) _Therefore is its will be impracticable to them
name called ‘Babel’ (Confusion), which they purpose to do._ (8a)
for there Yahwe confused the _So Yahwe scattered them over
speech of the whole earth._ the face of the whole earth._
[?Therefore the name of the tower
was called ‘Pîẓ’ (Dispersion),
for] (⁹ᵇ) _from thence Yahwe
dispersed them over the face of
the whole earth._

It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the
soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies
itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort
themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt
the awkward duplicate (⁸ᵃ ∥ ⁹ᵇ) with which B closes. Gunkel’s
bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological
play on the name of the tower (פִּיץ or פּוּץ) certainly removes
the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the
tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.¹ Against
this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the
absence of demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even
in B; the facts that only a single phrase (אָת־הָעִיר וְ in verse ⁵)
requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one
transposition (³ᵇ); and the facility with which nearly all the
numerous doublets (³ᵃ ∥ ³ᵇ; ⁴ᵃ{γ} ∥ ⁴ᵇ; וַיֵּרֶד (⁵) ∥ נֵֽרְדָה (⁷); ⁶ᵃ{α},
{β} ∥ ⁶ᵃ{γ}ᵇ; ⁹ᵃ ∥ ⁸ᵃ ⁺ ⁹ᵇ) can be definitely assigned to the
one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the
difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in ⁵ and ⁷,
from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been
deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style,
and some general differences of conception between the two
strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may
be reserved for the notes.

¹ In _Jubilees_ x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from
the city, is “Overthrow” (καταστροφή).

The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the
Ethnographic Table of chapter 10, and is indeed fundamentally
irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived
as the result of the natural increase and partition of the
family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant
(compare ללשנתם, etc., in Priestly-Code, 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹). Here, on
the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition
of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either
a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow
genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to
assign the passage to that section of Yahwist (if there be one)
which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.); although it must be said that
the idea here is little less at variance with the classification
by professions of 4²⁰⁻²² than with chapter 10. The truth is that
the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily
hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in
historical sequence.

1‒4.
The Building of the City and the Tower.

(Compare the translation given above.) =1, 2.= The expression suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and wide over the earth, though forming one great nation (עַם, verse ⁶), united by a common language. In B, on the other hand, it is still a body of nomads, moving all together in search of a habitation (verse ²; compare בְּנֵי הָאָדָה, verse ⁵).――_broke up from the East_] _v.i._――_a plain_] the Euphrates-Tigris valley; where Babylon κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ (Herodotus i. 178).――_the land of Shin‛ar_] see on 10¹⁰.――=3a.= With great naïveté, the (city-) legend describes first the invention of bricks, and then (verse ⁴) as an afterthought the project of building with them. The bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see page 47 above) speaks of a time when “no brick was laid, no brick-mould (_nalbantu_) formed”: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 38 f., 360.――=3b= shows that the legend has taken shape amongst a people familiar with stone-masonry. Compare the construction of the walls of Babylon as described by Herodotus (i. 179).¹ The accuracy of the notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Babylonian houses and temples (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 279)――=4.= _With its top reaching to heaven_] The expression is not hyperbolical (as Deuteronomy 1²⁸), but represents the serious purpose of the builders to raise their work to the height of the dwelling-place of the gods (_Jubilees_ x. 19, etc.).

¹ Compare Josephus _Against Apion_ i. 139, 149; Diodorus.
ii. 9; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxv. 51.

The most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary was its
_zikkurat_,――a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces,
from the centre of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine
at the top (Herodotus i. 181 f.: see Jastrow _The Religion of
Babylonia and Assyria_, 615‒22). These structures appear to
have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the
7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators
between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a
meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded
as the entrance to heaven (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 616 f.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 52 f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more
than mere hyperbole when it is said of these _zikkurats_ that
the top was made to reach heaven (see page 228 f. below); and,
on the other hand, the resemblance between the language of the
inscriptions and that of Genesis is too striking to be dismissed
as accidental. That the tower of Genesis 11 is a Babylonian
_zikkurat_ is obvious on every ground; and we may readily
suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of
is preserved in the legend; although to the purer faith of the
Hebrews it savoured only of human pride and presumption.――The
idea of storming heaven and making war on the gods, which
is suggested by some late forms of the legend (compare Homer
_Odyssey_ xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt foreign to the passage.

* * * * *

1. וַיְהִי is not verbal predicate to כל־הארץ, but merely introduces
the circumstantial sentence, as in 15¹⁷ 42³⁵ etc. (Davidson §
141 and _R._¹). Such a sentence is usually followed by וְהִנֵּה, but
see 1 Kings 13²⁰. It may certainly be doubted if it could be
followed by another ויהי with infinitive clause (verse ²); and
this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gunkel’s analysis.――If
there be any distinction between שָׂפָה and דְּבָרִים, the former may
refer to the pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary
(Dillmann), or (Gunkel) ש׳ to language as a whole, and ד׳ to its
individual elements.――דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים] ‘a single set of vocables’; LXX
φωνὴ μία (+ πᾶσιν = לְכֻלָּם, as verse ⁶). Elsewhere (27⁴⁴ 29²⁰ [with
יָמִים]) אחדים means ‘single’ in the sense of ‘few’; in Ezekiel 37¹⁷
the text is uncertain (see Cornill).――On the juxtaposition of
subject and predicate in the nominal sentence, see Davidson
§ 29 (_e_).――=2.= בְּנָסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם] rendered as above by LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Nearly all moderns prefer ‘as they
wandered in the east’ or ‘eastward’; justifying the translation
by 13¹¹, which is the only place where מקדם means ‘eastward’
with a verb of motion. That מק׳ _never_ means ‘from the east’
is at least a hazardous assertion in view of Isaiah 2⁶ 9¹¹. נסע
(compare Assyrian _nisû_, ‘remove,’ ‘depart,’ etc.) is a nomadic
term, meaning ‘pluck up [tent-pegs]’ (Isaiah 33²⁰); hence ‘break
up the camp’ or ‘start on a journey’ (Genesis 33¹² 35⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹
37¹⁷ etc.); and, with the _possible_ exception of Jeremiah 31²³
(but _not_ Genesis 12⁹), there is no case where this primary
idea is lost sight of. Being essentially a verb of departure,
it is more naturally followed by a determination of the
starting-point than of the direction or the goal (but see 33¹⁷);
and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption that the
cradle of the race was further East than Babylonia (see 2⁸; and
compare Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_
246, and _n._ 43).――בִּקְעָה] (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic
_baḳ‛at_) in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Deuteronomy
34³, Zechariah 12¹¹, Isaiah 40⁴, etc.). The derivation from √
בקע, ‘split,’ is questioned by Barth (_Etymologische Studien
zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 2), but
is probable nevertheless.――=3.= הָבָה] imperative of √ יהב, used
interjectionally (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _o_), as in verses
⁴ᐧ ⁷ 38¹⁶, Exodus 1¹⁰ (all Yahwist), is given by Gunkel as a
stylistic mark of the recension A (Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ?). Contrast
the verbal use 29²¹ 30¹ (both Elohist), 47¹⁵, and plural (הָבוּ)
47¹⁶, Deuteronomy 1¹³ 32³, Joshua 18⁴. On the whole, the two
uses are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively; see
Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 98 f.――נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים] Exodus
5⁷ᐧ ¹⁴. So in Assyrian _labânu libittu_ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 48, etc.), although _libittu_ is used only
of the _un_burned, sun-dried brick. See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvi. 181;
Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
ii. 70.――לִשְׂרֵפָה] dative of product (Dillmann); שׂ׳ = ‘burnt
mass’ (compare Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 51²⁵).――חֵמָר (14¹⁰,
Exodus 2³)] the native Hebrew name for bitumen (see on
6¹⁴).――חֹמֶר] (note the play on words) is strictly ‘clay,’ used
in Palestine as mortar.――=4.= וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם] בְּ of contact, as in נָגַע בְּ
(Delitzsch).――וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה――שֵׁם] ‘acquire lasting renown’; compare 2
Samuel 8¹³, Jeremiah 32²⁰, Nehemiah 9¹⁰. The suggestion that שֵׁם
here has the sense of ‘monument,’ though defended by Delitzsch,
Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 375²), al. (compare
Siegfried-Stade _s.v._), has no sufficient justification in
usage. In Isaiah 55¹³ 56⁵ (compare 2 Samuel 18¹⁸), as well
as the amended text of 2 Samuel 8¹³ (see Driver _Notes on the
Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 217 f.), the ordinary sense
suffices.――נָפוּץ] the word, accusative to Gunkel, is distinctive
of the recension B: compare verses ⁸ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇ.

* * * * *

=4b.= _Lest we disperse_] The tower was to be at once a symbol of the unity of the race, and a centre and rallying-point, visible all over the earth (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The idea is missed by LXX, Vulgate and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which render ‘_ere_ we be dispersed.’

5‒9.
Yahwe’s Interposition.

The turning-point in the development of the story occurs at verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶, where the descent of Yahwe is _twice_ mentioned, in a way which shows some discontinuity of narration.――On heaven as the dwelling-place of Yahwe, compare 28¹² ᶠᐧ, Exodus 19¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 34⁵ 24¹⁰, 1 Kings 22¹⁹, 2 Kings 2¹¹; and with verse ⁵ compare 18²¹, Exodus 3⁸.

On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of
Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 274 ff.)
seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension
has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most
characteristic incidents. In verse ⁵ the name Yahwe has been
substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to
inspect the latest human enterprise; verse ⁶ is his report
to the heavenly council on his return; and verse ⁷ the plan
of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main
objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost
necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such
as no Hebrew writer is likely to have bestowed on a document
so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Babylonian
original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the
elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the
course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of
the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.――On Gunkel’s
theory the difficulty disappears.

=6.= _This is but the beginning, etc._] The reference is not merely to the completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be undertaken in the future.――=9.= _Babel_] LXX rightly Σύγχυσις; _v.i._

* * * * *

=6.=――הֵן עַם אֶחָד וגו׳] incomplete interjectional sentence
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 147 _b_).――זֶה הַֽחִלָּם לַֽעֲשׂוֹת] literally
‘this is their beginning to act.’ On the pointing הַֽח׳, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _w_.――לֹא יִבָּצֵר――יָֽזְמוּ] imitated in Job
42².――בצר] literally ‘be inaccessible’ (compare Isaiah 22¹⁰,
Jeremiah 51⁵³); hence ‘impracticable.’――יָֽזְמוּ] contrast for יָזֹמּוּ
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _dd_).――=7.= נרדה וגו׳] LXX retains the
plural in spite of the alleged reading in _Mechilta_ ארדה אבלה
(see page 14 above).――נָֽבְלָה] (see last note): from √ בלל =
‘mix’ (not ‘divide,’ as Peshiṭtå [(‡ Syriac word)]).――אֲשֶׁר לֹא]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 165 _b_.――שׁמע] = ‘understand’: 42²³,
Deuteronomy 28⁴⁹, Isaiah 33¹⁹, Jeremiah 5¹⁵ etc.――=8.= It is
perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to
point וְיֶחְדְּלוּ (jussive of purpose: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _f_),
continuing the direct address of ⁷ᵇ.――העיר] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ prefers את, and (with LXX) adds
ואת־המגדל.――=9.= קָרָא] ‘_one_ called’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144
_d_).――בָּבֶל] ‘mxture’ or ‘confusion.’ The name is obviously
treated as a contraction from בַּֽלְבֵּל, a form not found in Hebrew,
but occurring in Aramaic (compare Peshiṭtå verse ⁹, and
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ verse ⁷) and Arabic. On the Babylonian etymology
of the name, see 10¹⁰.――=9b.=――יהוה] LXX + ὁ θεός.

* * * * *

_Origin and Diffusion of the Legends._

1. The double legend is a product of naïve reflexion on such
facts of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of
a common language, and its consequent inability to bend its
united energies to the accomplishment of some enduring memorial
of human greatness. The contrast between this condition of
things and the ideal unity of the race at its origin haunted
the mind with a sense of fate and discomfiture, and prompted
the questions, When, and where, and for what reason, was this
doom imposed on men? The answer naturally assumed the legendary
form, the concrete features of the representation being supplied
by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements of
civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one
hand the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages,
its cosmopolitan population, and its proud boast of antiquity,
suggested the idea that here was the very fountainhead of the
confusion of tongues; and this idea, wrapped up in a popular
etymology of the name of the city, formed the nucleus of the
first of the two legends contained in the passage. On the other
hand, the spectacle of some ruined or unfinished Temple-tower
(_zikkurat_), built by a vast expenditure of human toil,
and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (page 226),
appealed to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work,
obviously intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point
for the whole human race. In each case mankind had measured
its strength against the decree of the gods above; and the gods
had taken their revenge by reducing mankind to the condition of
impotent disunion in which it now is.

It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the
official religion of Babylonia. They originated rather in the
unsophisticated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated
into the country, and formed their own notions about the wonders
they beheld there: the etymology of the name Babel (= _Balbēl_)
suggests an Aramæan origin (Cheyne, Gunkel). The stories
travelled from land to land, till they reached Israel, where,
divested of their cruder polytheistic elements, they became the
vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly of human pride, and
the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men.

It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the
numerous Babylonian _zikkurats_ gave rise to the legend of
the Dispersion. The most famous of these edifices were those
of E-sagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon,¹ and of E-zida,
the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the opposite bank of the
river (see Tiele, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 179‒190).
The former bore the (Sumerian) name _E-temen-an-ki_ (= ‘house
of the foundations of heaven and earth’). It was restored
by Nabo-polassar, who says that before him it had become
“dilapidated and ruined,” and that he was commanded by Marduk to
“lay its foundations firm in the breast of the underworld, and
_make its top equal to heaven_” (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
iii. 2. 5). The latter expression recurs in an inscription
of Nebuchadnezzar (_Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, iii. 548) with reference to the same
_zikkurat_, and is thought by Gunkel (² 86) to have been
characteristic of E-temen-an-ki; but that is doubtful, since
similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser I. of the towers
of the temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to
fall gradually into disrepair for 641 years before his time
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 43). The _zikkurat_ of
E-zida was called _E-ur-imin-an-ki_ (‘house of the seven stages
(?) of heaven and earth’); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us,
in an inscription found at its four corners, that it had been
built by a former king, and raised to a height of 42 cubits;
its top, however, had not been set up, and it had fallen into
disrepair (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 53, 55). The
temple of Borsippa is entombed in _Birs Nimrûd_――a huge ruined
mound still rising 153 feet above the plain (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 13, 30
f.)――which local (and Jewish) tradition identifies with the
tower of Genesis 11. This view has been accepted by many modern
scholars (see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 412), by others it is
rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was
not _in_ but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are
separated, there is nothing to connect the tower specially with
the _city_ of Babylon; and it would seem to be mainly a question
which of the two was the more imposing ruin at the time when the
legend originated. It is possible that neither was meant. At Uru
(Ur of the Chaldees) there was a smaller _zikkurat_ (about 70
feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating from the time of Ur-bau
(_circa_ 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabuna’id tells
us he rebuilt on the old foundation “with asphalt and bricks”
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 95; _Explorations in
Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 173 ff.). The notice is
interesting, because, according to one tradition, which is no
doubt ancient, though it cannot be proved to be Yahwistic, this
city was the starting-point of the Hebrew migration (see below,
page 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of the Hebrews
came from Ur, it may very well have been the _zikkurat_ of that
place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the
Dispersion.

¹ On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, _The
Expositor_, 1909, ii. page 91 ff.

2. In regard to its _religious content_, the narrative occupies
the same standpoint as 3²⁰ᐧ ²² and 6¹⁻³. Its central idea is
the effort of the restless, scheming, soaring human mind to
transcend its divinely appointed limitations: it “emphasises
Yahwe’s supremacy over the world; it teaches how the
self-exaltation of man is checked by God; and it shows how the
distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language,
are elements in His providential plan for the development and
progress of humanity” (Driver). The pagan notion of the envy of
the gods,――their fear lest human greatness should subvert the
order of the world,――no doubt emerges in a more pronounced form
than in any other passage. Yet the essential conception is not
mere paganism, but finds an obvious point of contact in one
aspect of the prophetic theology: see Isaiah 2¹²⁻¹⁷. To say that
the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for
us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the
Old Testament thought of God, as well as to evince a lack of
sympathy with one of the profoundest instincts of early religion.
Crude in form as the legend is, it embodies a truth of permanent
validity――the futility and emptiness of human effort divorced
from the acknowledgment and service of God: hæc perpetua mundi
dementia est, neglecto cœlo immortalitatem quærere in terra, ubi
nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calvin).

3. _Parallels._――No Babylonian version of the story has been
discovered; and for the reason given above (page 226) it is
extremely unlikely that anything resembling the biblical form
of it will ever be found there.¹ In Greek mythology there are
dim traces of a legend ascribing the diversities of language
to an act of the gods, whether as a punishment on the creatures
for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo, _De Confusione
Linguarum_), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable
of Hyginus.² But while these myths are no doubt independent of
Jewish influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative
is too slight to suggest a common origin. It is only in the
literature of the Hellenistic period that we find real parallels
to the story of the Tower of Babel; and these agree so closely
with the biblical account that it is extremely doubtful if they
embody any separate tradition.³ The difference to which most
importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phraseology
(‘the gods’) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,
Abydenus); but the polytheism is only in the language, and is
probably nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising
of the scriptural narrative. Other differences――such as the
identification of the tower-builders with the race of giants
(the Nephîlîm of 6⁴?), and the destruction of the tower by a
storm――are easily explicable as accretions to the legend of
Genesis.⁴ The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid of
Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,⁵ has a special
interest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the
Mexican pyramids and the Babylonian _zikkurats_. If this fact
could be accepted as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then
no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and
its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume
a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not
quite certain.

¹ The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, _The
Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 163 ff. (compare _The Higher
Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 153 f.), and
supposed to contain obscure allusions to the building of a
tower in Babylon, its overthrow by a god during the night,
and a confusion of speech, has since been shown to contain
nothing of the sort: see King, _Creation Tablets_, i. 219 f.;
Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
286.

² “Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est
... id est nationes distribuit, tum discordia inter mortales
esse cœpit, _quod Jovi placitum non est_.”

³ Compare Sibylline Oracles iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, _Apokryphen
und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments_, 187); Alexander
Polyhistor (Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. 23 [edited by Schoene]);
Abydenus (_ib._ i. 33); Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_
i. 118; Eupolemos (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17);
and _Book of Jubilees_ x. 18‒27. The lines of the Sibyl (iii.
99 f.) may be quoted as a typical example of this class of
legends:

ὁμόφωνοι δ’ ἦσαν ἅπαντες
καὶ βούλοντ’ ἀναβῆναι εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα.
αὐτίκα δ’ ἀθάνατος μεγάλην ἐπέθηκεν ἀνάγκην
πνεύμασιν· αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ’ ἄνεμοι μέγαν ὕψοθι πύργον
ῥίψαν, καὶ θνητοῖσιν ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοις ἔριν ὦρσαν·
τοὔνεκά τοι Βαβυλῶνα βροτοὶ πόλει οὔνομ’ ἔθεντο.

⁴ So Gunkel² 88 f. On the other side, compare Gruppe,
_Griechische Culte und Mythen_, i. 677 ff.; Stade
_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 277 f.;
Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
383 ff.

⁵ _Vues des Cordilleres_ (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff.

XI. 10‒26.
_The Genealogy of Shem_
(Priestly-Code).

Another section of the _Tôlĕdôth_, spanning the interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of Priestly-Code’s genealogies next to chapter 5; with which it agrees in form, except that in Massoretic Text the framework is lightened by omitting the total duration of each patriarch’s life. In _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ this is consistently supplied; while LXX merely adds to Massoretic Text the statement καὶ ἀπέθανεν. The number of generations in Massoretic Text is 9, but in LXX 10, corresponding with chapter 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to North-west Mesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race.

In LXX the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān
between Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 10²⁴). That this is a secondary
alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in
1 Chronicles 1¹⁸ᐧ ²⁴ LXX; (b) Ḳênān already occurs in the former
genealogy (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those
of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name
(Budde 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tuch, Delitzsch); but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence
between the lists of chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ An indication of
the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the
repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once as the father, and again
as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, _Die chronologischen Systeme
im Alten Testament und bei Josephus_, 7 ff.). It is not
improbable that here, as in chapter 5 (corresponding with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ),
Priestly-Code has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy,
of which a fragment may have been preserved in verses ²⁸⁻³⁰.
Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 9, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names
left of Priestly-Code’s list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on
10²¹ᐧ ²⁴) and the first Nāḥôr are omitted (Abraham counting as
the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy
lying behind chapter 5 was 7-membered; and Yahwist’s parallel to
11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ could not in any case be the continuation of 4¹⁶⁻²².

=10.= אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד] see on 10²². He is here obviously the oldest son
of Shem; which does not _necessarily_ involve a contradiction
with chapter 10, the arrangement there being dictated by
geographical considerations. Hommel (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222¹), maintaining his
theory that Arpakšad = Ur-Kasdîm, comes to the absurd conclusion
that in the original list it was not the name of Shem’s son,
but of his birthplace: ‘Shem _from_ Arpakshad’!――שְׁנָתַיִם אַהַר הַמַּבּוּל] The
discrepancy between this statement and the chronology of 5³² 7¹¹
9²⁸ ᶠᐧ is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arithmetical
calculations (Rashi al.), or by the assumption that in the other
passages round numbers are used (Tuch, Delitzsch). The clause
is evidently a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose
of making the birth of Arpakšad, rather than the Flood, the
commencement of a new era. It fits in admirably with the scheme
of the Book of Jubilees, which gives an integral number of
year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpakšad, and
from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see page 234
below).――=12.= שֶׁלַח (Σαλα)] probably the same word which forms a
component of מְתוּשֶׁלַח (5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), and therefore originally a divine
name. This need not exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the
name of a deity being frequently transferred to his worshippers
or their territory. A place _Ṣalaḥ_ or _Salaḥ_ in Mesopotamia
is instanced by Knobel (Dillmann). Others regard it as a
descriptive name = ‘offshoot’ or ‘dismissal’; but very
improbably.――=14.= עֵבֶר] see on 10²¹.――=16.= פֶּלֶג] 10²⁵. Hommel
(_l.c._) combines the two names and takes the compound as a
notice of Shelaḥ’s birthplace: ‘Shelaḥ _from_ Eber-peleg’ =
Eber-hannāhār, the region West of the lower Euphrates (see
pages 218, 220 above).――=18.= רְעוּ (Ῥαγαυ)] unknown; certainly
not (‡ Syriac word) (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from
רְעוּאֵל (36⁴, Exodus 2¹⁸ etc.: so Hommel); and Mez considers it a
divine name. An Aramæan tribe _Ru’ua_ is frequently mentioned in
Assyrian inscriptions as dwellers on the banks of the Euphrates
and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Delitzsch _Wo lag das
Paradies?_ 238 ff.).――=20.= שְׂרוּג (Σερουχ)] a well-known city and
district about half-way between Carchemish and Ḥarran, mentioned
by Syrian and Arabic writers under the name _Saruǧ_. The name
(_Saruǧi_) also occurs several times in the census of the
district round Ḥarran (7th century B.C.), published by Johns
under the title of _An Assyrian Domesday Book_: see pages 29,
30, 43, 48, 68.――=22.= נָחוֹר (Ναχωρ)] is in Yahwist the brother of
Abraham (22²⁰; compare Joshua 24²); in Priestly-Code he is both
the grandfather and the brother (11²⁶). The name must have been
that of an important Aramæan tribe settled in or around Ḥarran
(27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴). Johns compares the place-name _Til-Naḥiri_ in
the neighbourhood of Saruǧi; also the personal names _Naḥirî_
and _Naḥarâu_ found in Assyrian Deeds (_l.c._ 71; _Assyrian
Deeds_, iii. 127; compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 477 f.). As a divine name Ναχαρ is mentioned along
with other Aramæan deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage
(_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 477); and Jensen
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 300) has called attention
to the theophorous name (‡ Syriac phrase) in the ‘Doctrine of
Addai,’ as possibly a corruption of (‡ Syriac phrase).――=24.=
תֶּרַח (Θαῤῥα)] is instanced by William Robertson Smith¹ as a totem
clan-name; (‡ Syriac word) (?) being the Syrian and _turâḥû_ the
Assyrian word for ‘wild goat.’ Similarly Delitzsch (_Prolegomena
eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten
Testament_ 80), who also refers tentatively to _Til-ša-turâḥi_,
the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran.
Knobel compares a place _Tharrana_, South of Edessa (Dillmann);
Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 70; _Hittiter und
Armenier_, 150 ff. [especially 154]) is inclined to identify
Teraḥ with the Hittite and North Syrian god (or goddess)
_Tarḫu_, Ταρκο, etc. (compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 484).――=26.= Peshiṭtå reads 75 instead of 70.

¹ _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_¹, 220 (afterwards
abandoned). Compare Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167 f.: “sicher
unmöglich.”

_The Chronology._――The following Table shows the variations
of the three chief recensions (Massoretic Text, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, and LXX), together with the
chronology of the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts
company with the Samaritan, and follows a system peculiar to
itself (see page 134 ff. above):

MT. │ Sam. │ LXX. │ Jub.
1st │ 1st │ 1st │ 1st
Son After │ Son After Total │ Son After │ Son
─── ───── │ ─── ───── ───── │ ─── ───── │ ───
1. Shem 100 500 │ 100 500 600 │ 100 500 │ 102?
2. Arpakšad 35 403 │ 135 303 438 │ 135 430 │ 66?
Καιναν │ 130 │ 330 57 │
3. Shelaḥ 30 403 │ 130 303 433 │ 130 330 │ 71
4. Eber 34 430 │ 134 270 404 │ 134 370 │ 64
5. Peleg 30 209 │ 130 109 239 │ 130 │
│ [L.│ 134] 209 │ 61
6. Reu 32 207 │ 132 107 239 │ 132 207 │ 59
7. Serug 30 200 │ 130 100 230 │ 130 200 │ 57
8. Nāḥôr 29 119 │ 79 69 148 │ 79 129 │
│ │ [L. 125] │ 62
9. Teraḥ 70 135 │ 70 75 145 │ 70 135 │ 70
─── ───── │──── ───── ───── │──── ───── │ ───
390 │1040 │1170 │ 669
From Flood │ [L. 1174] │
(or birth │ │ │
of Arp.) │ │ │
to b. of │ │ │
Abr. 290 │ 940 │1070 │ 567

The three versions plainly rest on a common basis, and it is
not easy to decide in favour of the priority of any one of them.
On the application to this period of the general chronological
theories described on page 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much.
Klostermann maintains his scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis
of LXX, (a) by allowing a year for the Flood; (b) by adopting
the reading of Peshiṭtå, 75 instead of 70, in the case of Teraḥ;
and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for 79 as the
age of Naḥor at the birth of Teraḥ. This makes from the Flood
to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2 × 12 × 49. By an equally
arbitrary combination of data of Massoretic Text and LXX a
similar period of 1176 years is then made out from the birth
of Abraham to the Dedication of the Temple.――The seemingly
eccentric scheme of _Jubilees_ shows clear indications of a
reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpakšad is said
(vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may
conclude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the 102nd year of
Shem. This gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation
to the birth of Arpakšad, followed by another of 81 (567 ÷ 7) to
the birth of Abraham. We observe further that the earlier period
embraces 11 generations with an average of exactly 17 year-weeks,
and the later 9 generations with an average of exactly 9: _i.e._,
as nearly as possible one-half: the author accordingly must
have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age of
paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly
been.

[It is possible that the key to the various systems has been
discovered by A. Bosse, whose paper¹ became known to me only
while these sheets were passing through the press. His main
results are as follows: (1) In Massoretic Text he finds two
distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons by generations
of 40 years, its _termini_ being the birth of Shem and the end
of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Teraḥ is excluded entirely,
and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arpakšad
are ignored. This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of
Abraham 320 (8 × 40) years; thence to birth of Jacob 160
(4 × 40); to Exodus 560 (14 × 40); to _founding_ of Temple
480 (12 × 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000 (50 × 40).
This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bochartus
concedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200
(30 × 40) years from the birth of Abraham to the founding of the
Temple, may be of earlier origin.――(b) The other scheme, with
which we are more immediately concerned, operates with a Great
Month of 260 years (260 = the number of weeks in a five-years’
_lustrum_). Its period is a Great Year from the Creation to the
_dedication_ of the Temple, and its reckoning includes Teraḥ in
the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpakšad. This
gives 1556 years to birth of Shem + 390 (birth of Abraham) + 75
(migration of Abraham) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus)
+ 480 (founding of Temple) + 20 (_dedication_ of temple) = 3166.
Now 3166 = 12 × 260 + 46. The odd 46 years are thus accounted
for: the chronologist was accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning
by months of 30 days, and a solar year of 365¼ days, requiring
the interposition of 5¼ days each year; and the 46 years are
the equivalent of these 5¼ days in the system here followed.
(For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5¼ days = (5¼ × 260) / 30 =
(21 × 26) / (4 × 3) = (7 × 13) / 2 = 45½ [say 46] _years_.) The
first third of this Great Year ends with the birth of Noah 1056
= 4 × 260 + 16 (⅓ of 46). The second third _nearly_ coincides
with the birth of Jacob; but here there is a discrepancy of
5 years, which Bochartus accounts for by the assumption that
the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the
case of Jacob been allowed to remain in the text.――(2) LXX
reckons with a Great Month of 355 years (the number of days
in the _lunar_ year), and a Great Year of 12 × 355 = 4260
years from the Creation to the _founding_ of the Temple, made
up as follows: 2142 + 1173² + 75 + 215 + 215 + 440³ = 4260.
Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.――(3) _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ returns to the earlier Hebrew
reckoning by generations, its _terminus ad quem_ being the
measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the _Samaritan
Chronicle_ published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after
the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215
+ 215 + 42 (desert wandering)⁴ + 13 (measurement of Gerizim)
= 2807 = 70 × 40 + 7.⁵――(4) The Book of _Jubilees_ counts by
Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest
of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to
Canaan) = 2450 = 50 × 49.]

¹ _Die chronologischen Systeme im Alten Testament und
bei Josephus_ (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2).

² Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and
the birth of Arpakšad.

³ See 1 Kings.6¹ (LXX).

⁴ After Joshua 5⁶ (LXX).

⁵ The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see page 136). One
cannot help surmising that the final 13 was _originally_
intended to get rid of it, though the textual data do not
enable us now to bring out a round number.

XI. 27‒32.
_The Genealogy of Teraḥ_
(Priestly-Code and Yahwist).

The verses are of mixed authorship; and form, both in Priestly-Code and Yahwist, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In Priestly-Code (²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²), genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration of the Teraḥites from Ur-Kasdîm to Ḥarran, to which 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ may be the immediate sequel. The insertion from Yahwist (²⁸⁻³⁰) finds an equally suitable continuation in 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is very probably the conclusion of Yahwist’s lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of Yahwist is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the tradition which makes Ur-Kasdîm the home of the ancestors of the Hebrews (see concluding note, page 239).

On the _analysis_, compare especially Budde _Die biblische
Urgeschichte_ 414 ff.――Verses ²⁷ and ³² belong quite obviously
to Priestly-Code; and ³¹, from its diffuse style and close
resemblance to Priestly-Code’s regular manner in recording
the patriarchal migrations (12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶: see Hupfeld _Die
Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 19 f.),
may be confidently assigned to the same source. ²⁸ᵃ presents
nothing distinctive of either document; but in ²⁸ᵇ ארץ מולדת is
peculiar to Jehovist (see the footnote on the verse). ²⁹ is
Yahwist because presupposed in 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; and its continuation
(³⁰) brings as an additional criterion the word עֲקָרָה (compare
25²¹ 29³¹), which is never used by Priestly-Code.――The extract
from Yahwist is supplementary to Priestly-Code, and it might
be argued that at least ²⁸ᵃ was necessary in the latter source
to explain why Loṭ and not Haran went with Teraḥ. Budde points
out in answer (page 420) that with still greater urgency we
desiderate an explanation of the fact that Nāḥôr was left behind:
if the one fact is left unexplained, so _a fortiori_ might the
other.

The formula וְאֵלָּה תֹּלְדוֹת does not occur again till 25¹²; and it is
very widely held that in verse ²⁷ it stands as the heading of
the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the life of Abraham.
That is wholly improbable. It is likely enough that a heading
(א׳ ת׳ אברהם) has been somewhere omitted (so Wellhausen, Budde,
Holzinger, al.); but the truth is that from this point onwards
no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the
formula. The hypothesis that an originally independent book of
Tôledôth has been broken up and dislocated by the redaction,
is as plausible a solution as any that can be thought of. See,
further, on 25¹⁹.

=27.= On the name _Abram_, see on 17⁵; on _Nāḥôr_, verse ²² above.――_Haran begat Loṭ_] A statement to the same effect must have been found in Yahwist (see 12⁴ᵃ). Haran has no significance in the tradition except as expressing the relationship of Lôṭ, Milkah, and Yiṣkah within the Hebraic group.

That הרן is formed from חָרָן (_v.i._) by a softening of the initial
guttural (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 313)
is an improbable conjecture (see Budde 443²). The name occurs
elsewhere only in בֵּית־ה׳ (Numbers 32³⁶: compare בֵּית־הָרָם, Joshua
13²⁷)¹ in the tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that הָרָן
was the name of a deity worshipped among the peoples represented
by Lot (Mez: compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_,
ii. 499).――The name לוֹט is also etymologically obscure (? Arabic
_lāṭ_ = ‘cleave to’). A connexion with the Ḥorite clan לוֹטָן in
Genesis 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹ is probable.

¹ Though Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 499)
contends that both names are corruptions of חורנים.

=28.= The premature death of Haran (which became the nucleus of some fantastic Jewish legends) took place _in the land of his nativity_; _i.e._, according to the present text, _Ur of the Chaldees_, where his grave was shown down to the time of Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 151; Eusebius. _Onomasticon_, 285, 50 ff.).

אוּר כַּשְׂדּים (verse ³¹ 15⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷: LXX χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων) is now
almost universally identified with the ancient South Babylonian
city of _Uru_, whose remains have been discovered in the mounds
of _’el-Muḳayyar_, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 25
miles South-east from Erech and 125 from Babylon (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 172 ff.).
The evidence for this view is very strong. Uru is the only city
of the name known from Assyriology (although the addition of the
genitive כשדים suggests that others were known to the Israelites:
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 125 _h_): it was situated in the properly
Chaldæan territory, was a city of great importance and vast
antiquity, and (like Ḥarran, with which it is here connected)
was a chief centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 129 ff.). The
only circumstance that creates serious misgiving is that the
prevalent tradition of Genesis points to the North-east as the
direction whence the patriarchs migrated to Canaan (see below);
and this has led to attempts to find a northern Ur connected
probably with the Mesopotamian Chaldæans of 22²² (see Kittel,
_Geschichte Der Hebräer_ i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition
identifies it with Edessa (_Urhåi_, _Urfa_). It is generally
recognised, however, that these considerations are insufficient
to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.――כַּשְׂדִּים] = Babylonian
_Kašdu_, Assyrian _Kaldu_ (Χαλδ-αίοι), is the name of a group
of Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramæans,
who are found settled to the South-east of Babylonia, round the
shore of the Persian Gulf. In the 11th century or earlier they
are believed to have penetrated Babylonia, at first as roving,
pastoral nomads (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
22 ff.), but ultimately giving their name to the country, and
founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.――By the ancients כשדים
was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nicolaus of Damascus in
Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 152; Eupolemos in Eusebius
_Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17; Jerome, al.); but amongst the
Jews אוּר came to be regarded as an appellative = ‘fire’ (_in igne
Chaldæorum_, which Jerome accepts, though he rejects the legends
that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of the
later Haggadic fables about the ‘fire’ in which Haran met an
untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by
order of Nimrod (_Jubilees_ xii. 12‒14; Jerome _Quæstiones sive
Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
_Bereshith Rabba_ § 38, Rashi).

* * * * *

=28.= עַל־פְּנֵי] is _coram_ (LXX ἐνώπιον), rather than _ante_
(Vulgate: so Tuch), or ‘in the lifetime of’ (Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word)); compare Numbers 3⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs
and Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._ אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ――.פָּנִים so 24⁷ (Yahwist), 31¹³
(Elohist); compare Jeremiah 22¹⁰ 46¹⁶, Ezekiel 23¹⁵, Ruth 2¹¹. A
commoner phrase in Pentateuch is אר׳ ומו׳, 12¹ 24⁴ 31³ 32¹⁰, Numbers
10³⁰ (all Yahwist). From the way in which the two expressions
alternate, it is probable that they are equivalent; and since מ׳
alone certainly means ‘kindred’ (43⁷ [Yahwist], compare Esther
2¹⁰ᐧ ²⁰ 8⁶), it is better to render ‘land of one’s parentage’
than ‘land in which one was born’ [Peshiṭtå here and 12¹]
(compare Budde 419²). Priestly-Code has the word, but only in
the sense of ‘progeny’ (48⁶, Leviticus 18⁹ [H]).

* * * * *

=29.= While we are told that Nāḥôr’s wife was his brother’s daughter, it is surprising that nothing is said of the parentage of Sarai. According to Elohist (20¹²), she was Abraham’s half-sister; but this does not entitle us to suppose that words expressing this relationship have been omitted from the text of Yahwist (Ewald). It would seem, however, that tradition represented marriage between near relations as the rule among the Teraḥites (20¹² 24³ ᶠᶠᐧ 29¹⁹).