Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/243



cannot be determined. The introductory clause "when mankind began to multiply," etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4$17-24$ or 4$25f.$ (against Ho.), though certainly not that of P in ch. 5. The idea that it is a parallel to the story of the Fall in ch. 3 (Schr. Di. We. Schultz) has little plausibility, though it would be equally rash to affirm that it presupposes such an account.—The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than was needful to account for the origin of the giants.

There remains the question whether the passage was from the first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall see to be improbable) that the 120 years of v.$3$ refer to an impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded. The critical probability, therefore, is that 6$1-4$ belongs to a stratum of J which knows nothing of a flood (p. 2 ff.). The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however (Philologus, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; ZATW, ix. 134 ff.), claims to have recovered from Greek sources a Phœnician legend of intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some striking affinities with Gn. 6$1-4$, and which leads up to an account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe's combinations I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of the hypothetical Phœnician legend. Even, therefore, if his speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce the sequence of events given in Gn. That this is not inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins the biblical name appears as that of the hero of the Deluge (see p. 180 below).

1, 2. The sense of these vv. is perfectly clear. The sons of God are everywhere in OT members (but probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some freedom) angels (v.i.).

1. ] peculiar to J in Hex.; 26$8$ 27$1$ 43$21$ 44$24$, Ex. 1$21$ 13$15$, Jos. 17$13$. See Bu. 6. The apodosis commences with v.$2$.—] see