Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/248

 where we learn that they were conceived as beings of gigantic stature, whose descendants survived till the days of Moses and Joshua. The circumstantial form of the sentence here (cf. 12$1-9$ 13$6$) is misleading, for the writer cannot have meant that the existed in those days apart from the alliances with the angels, and that the result of the latter were the (Lenormant, al.). The idea undoubtedly is that this race arose at that time in consequence of the union of the divine 'spirit' with human 'flesh.'—and also after-

allusion to a 'fall' ([root] ) of angels from heaven (T$7$, Jer. Ra.), or to a 'fall' of the world through their action (Ber. R. Ra.). A connexion with, 'abortive birth' (from , 'fall dead'), is not improbable (Schwally, ZATW, xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Co. in Ezk. 32$J$ not only yields a striking resemblance to this v., but supports the idea that the (like the ) were associated with the notion of Sheol.—] cannot mean 'after' (as conj.), which would require a perf. to follow, but only 'afterwards, when.' On any view, ; and are frequent. tenses.—] (as euphemism) is characteristic of JE (esp. J) in Hex. (Bu. 39, Anm.). Cf. Rob. Sm. KM$27$, 198 ff.—] lit. 'mighty ones' (Aq. ; V potentes; GΣS T$2$ do not distinguish from ). The word is thoroughly naturalised in Heb. speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But pass. like Ezk. 32$O$ show that it had another aspect, akin to Ar. ǧabbār (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Ar. and Syr. equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion (Lane, Lex. i. 375 a; P. Sm. Th. 646).—] cf. , Ezk. 26$12ff.$, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down to Sheol.—The whole v. has the appearance of a series of antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred from it is that there was some traditional association of the Nephîlîm with the incident recorded in v.$20$. At the same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the v. reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks from the direct statement that the Nephîlîm were the offspring of the marriages of vv.$1f$, and tantalises the curiosity of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that they existed 'afterwards' as well.—Bu., who omits v.$1. 2$, restores the original connexion with v.$3$ as follows: []   []. Some such excellent sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished to avoid.