Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/169

 tests; and, after all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose, viz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.—in the day die] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to be weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became mortal (Jer. al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calv. al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.

18-25. Creation of animals and woman.—The Creator, taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to provide him with a suitable companion. The naïveté of the conception is extraordinary. Not only did man exist before the beasts, but the whole animal creation is the result of an unsuccessful experiment to find a mate for him. Of the revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual intercourse with the beasts (see p. 91), there is not a trace.—18. a helper] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2$5$), not of the original, but of the present familiar conditions of human life.—] (only here) lit. 'as in front of him,' i.e. corresponding to him.—19. The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been created, and are now brought to be named (Calv. al. and recently De. Str.): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Dri. T. § 76, Obs.), and misses the point of the passage.—to see what he would call it] To watch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would recognise in it the associate he needed,—as one watches

18. ] May be cohort. (G-K. § 75$l$); GV render as 1st p. pl. (as 1$26$).—] (usually 'succour') = 'helper' (abstr. pro concr.) is used elsewhere chiefly of God (Dt. 33$7. 26$, Ps. 33$20$ 115$9ff.$ etc.); possible exceptions are Ezk. 12$14$ (if text right), Ho. 13$9$ (if em. with We.): see BDB.—] G (but v.$20$ ); Aq. ; Σ. ; V similis sibi (ejus, v.$20$); S ; T$O$ .—19. [E]G ins. after .—Omission of before  is remarkable in this ch. (see on v.$9$), and is rectified by [E].—] The only construction possible would be to take as ''dat. eth.'', and as direct obj. to ; but that is contrary to the writer's usage, and yields a jejune sense. Even if (with Ra.) we transpose and read 'every living thing which the man called [by a name], that was its name,' the discord of gender would