Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/218

 those existing in the writer's own day; hence the passage does not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of development by a cataclysm like the Flood. That the representation involves a series of anachronisms, and is not historical, requires no proof (see Dri. Gen. 68).—On the relation of the section to other parts of the ch., see p. 98 above: on some further critical questions, see the concluding Note (p. 122 ff.).

17. Enoch and the building of the first city.—The question where Cain got his wife is duly answered in Jub. iv. 1, 9: she was his sister, and her name was 'Âwân. For other traditions, see Marmorstein, 'Die Namen der Schwestern Kains u. Abels,' etc., ZATW, xxv. 141 ff.—and he became a city-builder] So the clause is rightly rendered by De. Bu. Ho. Gu. al. (cf. 21$20b$, Ju. 16$21$, 2 Ki. 15$5$). The idea that he happened to be engaged in the building of a city when his son was born would probably have been expressed otherwise, and is itself a little unnatural.

That is the subj. of only appears from the phrase  towards the end. Bu. (120 ff.) conjectures that the original text was, making Enoch himself the builder of the city called after him (so Ho.). The emendation is plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of two steps in civilisation—agriculture and city-building; and it satisfies a natural expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should hear what he became, not what his father became after his birth,—especially when the subj. of the immediately preceding vbs. is Cain's wife. But the difficulty of accounting for the present text is a serious objection, the motive suggested by Bu. (123) being far-fetched and improbable.—The incongruity between this notice and vv.$11-16$ has already been mentioned (p. 100). Lenormant's examples of the mythical connexion of city-building with fratricide (Origines$2$, i. 141 ff.) are not to the point; the difficulty is not that the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes of outlaws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling of Rome (Fort. Rev. 1899, Apr., 650-4). But the anomaly is wholly due to composition of sources: the Cain of the genealogy was neither a nomad nor a fratricide. It has been proposed (Ho. Gu.) to remove $17b$ as an addition to the genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would put

17. On, see on v.$1$.—The vb. appears from Ar. ḥanaka to be a denom. from ḥanak (Heb. ), and means to rub the palate of a new-born child with chewed dates: hence trop. 'to initiate' (Lane, s.v.; We. Heid. 173). In Heb. it means to 'dedicate' or 'inaugurate' a house, etc. (Dt. 20$5$, 1 Ki. 8$63$: cf., Nu. 7$11$, Neh. 12$27$ etc.); and also to 'teach' (Pr. 22$6$). See, further, on 5$18$.