Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/275

 the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of God.—16. an everlasting covenant] so 17$7. 13. 19$, Ex. 31$16$, Lv. 24$8$, Nu. 18$19$ 25$13$ (all P).

The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his contest with the demons; among the Arabs "Kuzah shoots arrows from his bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds" (We. Prol.$6$ 311); by Homer it was personified as, the radiant messenger of the Olympians (Il. ii. 786, iii. 121; cf. Ov. Met. i. 270 f.), but also regarded as a portent of war and storm (xi. 27 f., xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is the bridge between heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation is perhaps found in the Bab. Creation-myth, where Marduk's bow, which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a constellation. (See Je. ATLO$2$, 248; Di. 155 f.; Gu. 138 f.; Dri. 99).—These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of the symbolism of this passage. It springs from the imagery of the thunderstorm; the lightnings are Yahwe's arrows; when the storm is over, His bow (cf. Hab. 3$9-11$, Ps. 7$13f.$) is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign that His anger is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of which there are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has yet been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient, adaptation. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in OT (Ezk. 1$28$ : but see Sir. 43$11f.$ 50$7$), and it is pointed out (by We. al.) that elsewhere always denotes the bow as a weapon, never an arc of a circle.

With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question theologically is whether it includes the regulations of vv.$1-6$, or is confined to the unconditional promise that there shall no more be a flood. For the latter view there is undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton, ZATW, xii. 3 f.). Vv.$1-7$ and $8-17$ are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of different origin (p. 169); and while the first says nothing of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipulations. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact independent of human action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning of the author that the promise stands sure whether the precepts of $1-7$ be observed or not. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that P, to whom the means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of v.$11$. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the marks a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom it is established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of including the ordinances of $1-7$ in the terms of the covenant (so Is. 24$5f.$). Kraetzschmar (Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the idea of vv.$8-17$ is borrowed by P from J, and represents the notion of the covenant characteristic of that document. It is much simpler to recognise the existence of different tendencies within the priestly school;

16. ST$O$ .—] G