Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/271



agree closely with Jub., and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the 2nd month.

'''IX. 1-7. The new world-order.'''—The religious significance of the Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the following sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal age of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The original harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter were prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the Flood (see on 6$11f.$). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in which the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only two restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the degenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the 'life' of an animal, and (2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast.

The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of the passage when they formulated the idea of the 'Noachic commandments,' binding on men generally, and therefore required of the 'proselytes of the gate'; though they increased their number. See Schürer, iii. 128f.

Vv.$1-7$, both in substance and expression (cf., and esp. ), form a pendant to 1$29f.$ We have seen (p. 35) that these vv. are supplementary to the cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel (as vv.$8-16$ have) in J or the Bab. narrative (Gu.). But that neither this nor 1$29f.$ is a secondary addition to P is clear from the phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on 1$22. 27f.$ as on 1$29f.$. To treat 9$4-6$ as a later insertion (Ho.) is arbitrary. On the contrary, the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of P to the ancient traditions.

1. An almost verbal repetition of 1$28$. The wives of Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the OT (so v.$8$). It is perhaps also significant that here (in contrast to 1$22$) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant—*

1. G adds at end, as 1$28$.—2. —] GS (bis). The cannot be that of specification (7$21$ 8$17$ 9$10. 16$ etc.), since no comprehensive category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing the sense of (G), and not altogether natural to render