Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/228

 the narrator. The excision of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of Cain in v.$1$:, 'God has appointed me seed' (i.e. posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3$15$, where both the significant words and  occur. But this explanation really implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense Cain has ceased to be the 'seed' of Eve.—As a Heb. word (with equivalents in Phœn. Arab. Syr. Jew.-Aram.: cf. Nö. Mand. Gr. p. 98) would mean 'foundation' (not Setzling, still less Ersatz); but its real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel's attempt (AOD, p. 26 ff.) to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus (below, p. 137) involves too many doubtful equations, and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In Nu. 24$17$ appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text is doubtful (Meyer, INS, 219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3$15$, and does not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel.

26. On the name ( = Man, and therefore in all probability the first member of an older genealogy), see below.—Then men began to call, etc.] Better (with (G, etc., v.i.): He was the first to call on the name of Yahwe (cf. 9$20$ 10$8$), i.e. he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe; cf. 12$8$ 13$4$ 21$33$ 26$25$ (all J). What historic reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed when

even T$O$—26. ] (G-K. § 135$h$) G om.—] like, properly a coll.: Enôš is a personification of mankind. The word is rare and mostly poetic in Heb. (esp. Jb. Ps.); but is common in other Sem. dialects (Ar. Aram. Nab. Palm. Sab. Ass.). Nestle's opinion (MM, 6 f.), that it is in Heb. an artificial formation from, and that the genealogy is consequently late, has no sort of probability; the only 'artificiality' in Heb. is the occasional individual use. There is a presumption, however, that the genealogy originated among a people to whom or its equivalent was the ordinary name for mankind (Aramæan or Arabian).—] so Aq. Σ.; [E] ; G (from [root] ) implies either or ; so V (iste coepit) and Jub. iv. 12; S has. The true text is that read by G, etc.; and if the alteration of MT was intentional (which is possible), we may safely restore after 10$8$. The Jewish exegesis takes in the sense was profaned,' and finds in the v. a notice of the introduction of idolatry (Jer. Qu., T$OJ$, Ra. al.),—although the construction is absolutely ungrammatical (IEz.).—After G adds carelessly.