Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/139

 strongly suggests a composition of sources.—on the seventh day] ⅏GS read sixth day (so also Jubilees, ii. 16, and Jerome, Quæst.), which is accepted as the original text by many comm. (Ilg. Ols. Bu. al.). But sixth is so much the easier reading that one must hesitate to give it the preference. To take the vb. as plup. (Calv. al.) is grammatically impossible. On We.'s explanation, see above, p. 9 f. The only remaining course is to give a purely negative sense to the vb. finish: i.e. 'desisted from,' 'did not continue' (IEz. De. Di. Dri. al.). The last view may be accepted, in spite of the absence of convincing parallels.—and he rested] The idea of is essentially negative: cessation of work, not relaxation (Dri.): see below. Even so, the expression is strongly anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerating P's aversion to such representations. —3. blessed 

'desist' (b) is found only in Ho. 7$17$, Jb. 32$4$ (Qal); Ex. 5$1$, Jos. 22$5$, Ezk. 16$25$ 34$41$ (Hiph.); of which Ho. 7$10$ (a corrupt context) and Ex. 5$4$, alone are possibly pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in all; 9 Qal, 4 Niph., 33 Hiph.) the sense (a) 'come to an end' obtains; and this usage prevails in all stages of the literature from Am. to Dn.; the pre-exilic examples being Gn. 8$5$, Jos. 5$22$ (?) (Qal); Is. 17$12$ (Niph.); Am. 8$3$, Ho. 1$4$ 2$4$, Is. 16$13$ (?) 30$10$, Dt. 326{26}, 2 Ki. 23$11$, Jer. 7$5. 11$ 16$34$ 36$9$ (Hiph.). These statistics seem decisive against Hehn's view (l.c. 93 ff.) that is originally a denom. from. If all the uses are to be traced to a single root-idea, there can be no doubt that (b) is primary. But while a dependence of (a) on (b) is intelligible (cf. the analogous case of ), 'desist' from work, and 'come to an end' are after all very different ideas; and, looking to the immense preponderance of the latter sense (a), especially in the early literature, it is worth considering whether the old Heb. vb. did not mean simply 'come to an end,' and whether the sense 'desist' was not imported into it under the influence of the denominative use (c) of which Ex. 23$29$ 34$12$ might be early examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold (ZATW, 1909, 100 f.), except that he ignores the distinction between 'desist' and 'come to an end,' which seems to me important.]—3. ] The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because could not directly govern the subst. . G has 🇬🇷 🇬🇷.