Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/232

 1, 2.—Introduction: consisting of a superscription ($1a$), followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam ($1b. 2$).—1a. This is the book of the generations of Adam] See the crit. note below; and on the meaning of, see on 2$4a$.—1b. When God created Man (or Adam) he made him in the likeness of God] a statement introduced in view of the transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (v.$3$). On this and the following clauses see, further, 1$26ff.$.—2. And called their name Adam] v.i.

The vv. show signs of editorial manipulation. In $1a$ is presumably a proper name (as in $3ff.$), in $2$ it is certainly generic (note the pl. suff.), while in $1b$ it is impossible to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms borrowed almost literally from 1$26ff.$, where is generic. Since the only new statement is and he called their name Adam, we may suppose the writer's aim to have been to explain how, from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes the proper name in v.$3$. An original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Ho. observes that the heading reads like the title of a book, suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical work used by P as the skeleton of his history; and the fuller formula, as compared with the usual, at least justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Di.'s opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of J's Sethite genealogy with that of P, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using as a designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.

3-5. Adam.—begat [a son] in his likeness, etc.] (see on 1$26$): implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image (v.$1$) from Adam to all his posterity.—6-20. The sections on Seth, Enoš, Ḳenan, Mahalalel, and Yered rigidly

1. For G has 1$o$, 2$o$ ; V conversely 1$o$ Adam, 2$o$ hominem.—2. ] G$L$ .—3. ] ins. as obj. (Ols. al.). confined to P in Pent.; J, and older writers generally, using both for 'beget' and 'bear.'—] G .—avoiding (see the note on 1$26$).—4. ] G$L$ ins. , as in v.$5$. S reads (but see Ball's note) as in vv.$7. 10$ etc. But vv.$3-5$ contain several deviations from the regular formula: note in v.$5$, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.