Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/160



luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezk. 31$8f. 16. 18$); but in Ezk. 28$13$ it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine being. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Gn. 2 f.; but the imagery of Ezk. 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive Semitic (and is common to all the leading dialects), it may originate in the sacred grove (Hima) "where water and verdure are united, where the fruits of the sacred trees are taboo, and the wild animals are 'anīs, i.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened away" (We. Prol.$6$ 303$2$; cf. Heid. 141; Barton, SO$1$, 96). In early times such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or supernatural beings (RS$2$, 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth, and the facts pointed out on p. 93 f. below, it is plain that the conception has been enriched by material from different quarters, and had passed through a mythological phase before it came into the hands of the biblical writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the religious literature (see ATLO$2$, 195 ff.).

9. all sorts of trees food] The primitive vegetation is conceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit man was to subsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of the curse pronounced on the ground (3$17f.$).—and the tree of life (was) in the midst] On Bu.'s strictures on the form of the sentence, v.i. The intricate question of the two trees must be reserved for separate discussion (pp. 52 f., 94); for the present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree

stood here by all Vns. except G (V in principio, etc.).—9. ] G-K. § 127 b.—] The use of art. with inf. const. is very rare (Dav. § 19), but is explained by the frequent use of as abstr. noun. Otherwise the construction is regular, being acc., not gen. of obj.—Budde (Urg. 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound obj. by the secondary pred. , and thinks the original text must have been primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge (p. 52; so Ba. Ho. Gu. al.). In view of the instances examined by Dri. in Hebraica, ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead to the excision of the second member rather than of the first (Kuen. ThT, 1884, 136; v. Doorninck, ib., 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, ib. 494 ff.). A more important point is the absence of before the def. obj. The writer's use of this part, is very discriminating; and its omission suggests that $9b$ is really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in analysis of sources, we might put $9b$ (in whole or in part) after $8a$, and assign it to that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly spoke of a tree of life (3$22$).
 * thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the