Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/231

 attempts to save the historicity of the record by supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or (b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the word denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see Di. 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no such interpretation. It is true that "the study of science precludes the possibility of such figures being literally correct"; but "the comparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a people" (Ryle, quoted by Dri. p. 75).

The author of P knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no explanation of the 'violence' and 'corruption' with which the earth is filled when the narrative is resumed (6$12$). It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak of wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it unnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds us how little dogmatic importance was attached to the story of the Fall in OT times. The Priestly writers may have been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of Gen. 3; they may also have thought that the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently accounted for by the known tendencies of human nature.

Budde (Urgesch. 93-103) has endeavoured to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory of degeneration, according to which the first five generations were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [= 'descent'], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated by P in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that the Samaritan chronology (which Bu. takes to be the original: see below, p. 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered, Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood. Budde supports his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into the world.)