Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/184

 their allegiance to their Creator. And that is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the OT.—The conjecture of Gu., that originally the 'seed of the woman' and the 'seed of the serpent' may have been mythological personages (cf. ATLO$2$, 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.

16. The doom of the woman: consisting in the hardships incident to her sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth, and the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed the ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to be accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.—I will multiply, etc.] More strictly, 'I will cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy' (see Dav. § 3, R. (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is meant.—For, G read some word meaning 'groaning' (v.i.); but to prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gu.) makes a too general statement. It is better (with Ho.) to assume a hendiadys: 'the pain of thy conception' (as in the explanatory clause which follows).—in pain children] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in OT for the extremity of human anguish (Is. 21$3$ 13$8$, Mic. 4$9$, Ps. 48$6$, and oft.: Ex. 1$19$ cannot be cited to the contrary).—to thy

16. ] Read, with [E]GS.—] So 16$10$ 22$17$. On the irreg. form of inf. abs., see G-K. § 75 ff.—] (3$17$) 5$29$† [J]). G (=  ?).—] ([root] ): [E]  (Ru. 4$13$, Ho. 9$11$). Ols. (MBA, 1870, 380) conj., to avoid the harsh use of . G probably = ; ('sorrow') has also been suggested (Gu.); and  (Di. Ho. al.). The other Vns. follow MT.—] [E] ; G likewise repeats .—] Probably connected with Ar. šauḳ, 'ardent desire' (Rahlfs " und ," p. 71); cf., Is. 29$8$, Ps. 107$9$. Aq. , Σ. . Although it recurs only 4$7$ and Ca. 7$11$, it is found in NH and should not be suspected. G and S point to the reading , preferred by many, and defended by Nestle (MM, 6) as a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the basis of G's text of 2 Sa. 17$3$. His parallel between the return of the woman to her source (the man) and the return of the man to his source (the ground, v.$19$) is perhaps fanciful.