Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/246

 [ in?] man for ever; [?] he is, and his days shall be 120 years.

A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote), and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes. The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,—and that opens up a wide field of speculation; —and possibly also an account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the general sense of the v., assuming the text to be fairly complete, and a real connexion to exist with vv.$1. 2$.—(i.) Everything turns on the meaning of the word, of which four interpretations have been given: (1) That is the Spirit of Yahwe as an ethical principle, striving against and 'judging' the prevalent corruption of men (as in Is. 63$10$); so ΣT$J$, Luther, al. There is nothing to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the vb. associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned. (2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who understands subjectively of the divine feeling (Gemüt) excited by human sin (similarly Ra.). (3) The commonest view in modern times (see Di.) has been that is the divine principle

word by Aeth. shegā = 'body'; but the proposed rendering, 'inasmuch as their body (or substance) is flesh,' is not grammatically admissible. The correct Mass. reading is (i.e.  +  + ) = inasmuch as he too. The objections to this are (a) that the rel. is never found in Pent., and is very rare in the older literature (Ju. 5$7$ 6$17$ 7$12$ 8$26$), while compounds like do not appear before Eccl. (e.g. 2$16$); and (b) that the has no force, there being nothing which serves as a contrast to. We. observes that must represent a causal particle and possibly nothing more. The old translators, G SVT$O$ seem to have been of the same opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them attempt to reproduce the. The conjectures of Ols. (, Cheyne, and others are all beside the mark.—] The only natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life (so Jos. Tu. Ew. and most since), a man's being a standing expression for his lifetime, reckoning from his birth (see ch. 5. 35$28$, Is. 65$20$ etc.). The older view (T$OJ$, Jer. Ra. IEz. Calv. al.: so De. Klost.), that the clause indicates the interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was naturally suggested by the present position of the passage, and was supported by the consideration that greater ages were subsequently attained by many of the patriarchs. But these statements belong to P, and decide nothing as to the meaning of the words in J.