Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/219



city-building before cattle-rearing; but the Phœnician tradition is full of such anachronisms, and shows how little they influenced the reasoning of ancient genealogists.—The name occurs (besides 5$18ff.$, 1 Ch. 1$3$) as that of a Midianite tribe in 25$4$ (1 Ch. 1$33$), and of a Reubenite clan in 46$9$ (Ex. 6$14$, Nu. 26$5$, 1 Ch. 5$3$). It is also said that is a Sabæan tribal name (G-B.$12$ s.v.), which has some importance in view of the fact that (5$9ff.$) is the name of a Sabæan deity. As the name of a city, the word would suggest to the Heb. mind the thought of 'initiation' (v.i.). The city cannot be identified. The older conjectures are given by Di. (p. 99); Sayce (ZKF, ii. 404; Hib. Lect. 185) and Cheyne (EB, 624; but see now TBI, 106) connect it with Unuk, the ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.

18. The next four generations are a blank so far as any advance in civilisation is concerned. The only question of general interest is the relation of the names to those of ch. 5.

On the first three names, see esp. Lagarde, Orientalia, ii. 33-38; Bu. Urg. 123-9.—] G (= ), S  (the latter supported by Philo), corresponds to  in 5$15ff.$. The initial guttural, and the want of a Heb. etymology, would seem to indicate as the older form which has been Hebraized in ; but the conclusion is not certain. If the root be connected with Ar. `arada (which is doubtful in view of G's ), the idea might be either 'fugitive' (Di. al.), or 'strength, hardness, courage' (Bu.). Sayce (ZKF, ii. 404) suggests an identification with the Chaldean city Eridu; Ho. with in the Negeb (Ju. 1$16$ etc.).—The next two names are probably (but not certainly: see Gray, HPN, 164 f.) compounds with. The first is given by MT in two forms, and []. The variants of G are reducible to three types, , , ( =, 5$13ff.$). Lag. considers the last original, though the first is the best attested. Adopting this form, we may (with Bu.) point the Heb. or = 'God makes me live': so virtually Philo, and Jer. ex vita Deus (cited by Lag.). Both Mass. forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: 'destroyed (or smitten) of God' (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Dri. Sam. 14).— is now commonly explained by Ass. mutu-ša-ili, 'Man of God,' though the relative ša presents a difficulty (Gray, l.c.). The true G reading is ( =, 5$2$);  occurs as a correction in some MSS—] again inexplicable from Heb. or even Arabic. Sayce (Hib. Lect. 186) and Hommel connect it with Lamga, a Babylonian name of the moon-god, naturalised in S. Arabia.

18. On acc. with pass, see G-K. § 116 a, b.— in the sense of 'beget' is a sure mark of the style of J (see Ho. Einl. 99).—] archaic*